Sitting of 11 December 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    Young People
    Mr. Alan Simpson: If all young people will have a choice of all options in the new deal programme; what entitlement there is for progress from one option to another; and what is the maximum period that the unemployed will be able to be part of the programme. [18746]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights (Mr. Andrew Smith): All young people will have a choice of options in the new deal, although there will not in every case be a choice of every option. For example, those who are already well qualified may not be eligible for the full-time education and training option. Most participants will stay on one option, but where it clearly meets a young person's needs, people will be able to move to a second option. Although most people are likely to spend less than a year in the programme, the maximum period will be 16 months, and longer if we take account of the follow-through support for those who need it at the end of the option.
    Mr. Simpson: I am grateful for the Minister's answer. Is he aware that one in four young unemployed people in the east midlands are in Nottingham? Many of them have been around the magic roundabout of short-term fraudulent schemes that the previous Government offered them and are deeply cynical about the concept of training. Does he accept that, for some, securing a regular attendance record over six months would be a major achievement; that we ought to be considering repairing the damage done to those whose cynicism about previous employment initiatives may have been well placed; and that we should allow longer-term continuity to bring them sensibly, and with skills, back into an employable work force?
    Mr. Smith: Yes; the new deal will bring new hope and opportunity to my hon. Friend's constituents, as it will to others. The crucial importance of the gateway in the new deal programme is that it provides for young people a period of counselling, advice, assessment and the chance to try out subsequent options before choosing what they will go on to do. They will have a personal adviser who will help them not simply during the gateway period but
    1166
    while they are undertaking work under the option and subsequently when they so need it. Such continuity, the richness of provision and the quality that is available under the new deal will set it clearly apart from schemes that went before, which, as my hon. Friend rightly said, damaged so many young people.
    Mr. Keetch: The Liberal Democrats welcome the new deal, although, as the Government know, we would fund it differently. What will the Minister say to people who will not qualify for the new deal because they take national insurance credits instead of, for example, jobseeker's allowance, or are on invalidity benefit? Is it not true that, for such young people, the new deal is no deal? What will the Government do about them?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We have new deal programmes not only for those in receipt of jobseeker' s allowance but for people who are disabled or have suffered long-term sickness—all from the extra £195 million, which the Chancellor made available from the windfall levy in the Budget.
    Our approach to welfare to work offers opportunities not simply to the young unemployed, but to the long-term unemployed, the sick and disabled and lone parents. It is a world of opportunity better than anything that was on offer under the previous Government, and anything from the hon. Gentleman's party.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Bearing in mind the high unemployment in rural areas and the lack of public transport in many such areas, what special arrangements will the Minister put in place to enable the scheme to work in rural areas?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the particular needs of rural areas. Those are being addressed by partnerships in each area, which match opportunities that will be made available locally to the needs of local participants, in conjunction with local business. We have negotiated at a national level substantial discounts through transport operators such as National Express and Stagecoach. The Rural Development Commission is working with local authorities to see how the new deal can extend transport availability in rural areas.
    Mr. Beggs: We welcome the new deal and the new opportunities that will be afforded to those young people who have hitherto been unemployed. What emphasis will be put on ensuring that young people gain qualifications through the new deal?
    Mr. Smith: That is another aspect which sets the new deal apart from schemes that went before. Quality training is a part of every option of the new deal because it is essential, not merely to rebuild the motivation and self-esteem of so many of the young unemployed, but to provide the means to help them get jobs and stay in jobs. I wish to place on record our thanks for the work of the Northern Ireland task force in developing the new deal there.

    School Standards
    Mr. Coaker: What plans he has to assist schools in areas of deprivation and disadvantage to raise standards. [18747]
    Ms Dari Taylor: What plans he has to raise standards in schools in areas of disadvantage. [18757]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): In our White Paper, we spelled out a series of measures that would raise standards and achieve our literacy and numeracy targets, including the development of the standards fund, which we have now published, and the 200 literacy co-ordinators across the country. Last week, we published the School Standards and Framework Bill, which laid out our plans for education action zones, through which we can target additional help, pilot best practice and draw together the whole community to ensure that every child in every school gets a decent education, wherever they live.
    Mr. Coaker: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that one of the crucial concerns for the education action zones to address will be the fact that schools serving exactly the same sorts of areas of social deprivation—whether urban or rural—achieve vastly differing results, in examinations, truancy and exclusion levels and many other indicators? We need to ensure that all schools in those areas achieve their very best if the comprehensive ideal is to give all our children the start in life that they deserve.
    Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely. We have a bigger gap between success and failure than any other country in the developed world. Spreading best practice, developing quality leadership and headship in schools and ensuring that teachers have the professional development and in-service training necessary to do their jobs are all part of the agenda for transforming education in this country.
    Ms Taylor: I am pleased to welcome the education action zones. We should appreciate knowing when the criteria for the education action zones will be published and what they will be.
    Mr. Blunkett: I shall, within a matter of weeks, publish the detailed criteria for local communities, schools and education authorities to respond positively and in an innovatory fashion to the request to them to consider how they can use the zones to improve education in urban and rural areas. We shall of course spell out the detailed terms of reference. I hope that people will think imaginatively about how to tackle the long-standing under-achievement that has regrettably blighted the lives of some children in some parts of our country.
    Mr. Viggers: Is the Secretary of State aware that this morning I read the brochure "Investing in Young People: A Strategy for the Education and Training of 16 to 18 year-olds" which he sent me? Are not the Government rich in promises but poor in performance? The funding of sixth-form colleges will fall in real terms in each of the next three years because of the productivity and efficiency improvements expected of them.
    Mr. Blunkett: We are reducing by a third the productivity improvements—or cuts, as they were
    1168
    previously known—demanded of the colleges by the budgets set by the previous Government. The £83 million of additional resources, not including the new deal provision, will go a long way to ensure that colleges can develop their potential. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman received, and has read, "Investing in Young People", because it contains an opportunity, in its 10-point plan, to set aside the neglect of 16 and 17-year-olds and to put in the resources and support necessary, including an additional £10 million to expand the modern apprenticeship scheme next year.
    Mrs. Lait: Is the Secretary of State aware that, because of the excellence of the education provided by Bromley council, many parents from surrounding Labour-run boroughs send their children to schools in Bromley? Would he care to give us a time scale suggesting how soon he expects the improvements that he promises in education to take place in the surrounding Labour boroughs, so that the parents of children in Bromley can choose the school that they wish their children to attend?
    Mr. Blunkett: In the spirit of Christmas magnanimity, I congratulate the hon. Lady on her return to the House. I am delighted that she has raised that question, because it offers us support in sorting out the mess that results when children are excluded from their local schools because of the selective process implemented in Bromley, with school knocking out school. Getting admissions policy right, together with lifting standards in all schools for all children, will be a key part in the process of making sense of the nonsense that we inherited.

    After-school Child Care
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: If he will list the number of after-school child care places to be provided in (a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) each of the English regions. [18748]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Alan Howarth): The precise breakdown of places will depend on the volume and quality of bids received by the new opportunities fund.
    Mr. Morgan: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is not the affordability of good quality child care essential to the success of any welfare-to-work programme? Will he confirm that research by the equal opportunities organisation in Wales, Chwarae Teg, shows that so far child care has reached only the children of parents with professional qualifications? So far—if I may refer briefly to last night's events—it has not yet reached the classic low-paid lone parent.
    Mr. Howarth: The research that my hon. Friend mentions is indeed significant, and demonstrates that this country has lagged seriously behind in the provision of child care. The previous Administration did not think that they had a responsibility to develop a national child care strategy. We shall do so.
    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made an additional £300 million available over five years. That will ensure that there is out-of-school child care provision; there are also other child care projects available in every

    1169
    community. We approach that important responsibility with the utmost seriousness. It is a means of ensuring that those who are deprived, in poverty and on the margins of our society have the opportunities that the Government want them to have.

    Special Needs
    Mr. Hinchliffe: What steps he is taking to improve provision for pupils with special needs. [18749]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): On 22 October, we published a Green Paper, "Excellence for all children", setting out our proposals for raising the achievement of children with special educational needs. We are beginning to receive responses to the consultation from a wide range of interests.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: I welcome the initiatives set out in the Green Paper, and other steps that the Government have taken, but may I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the specific difficulties facing children in care who attend mainstream education but also have special educational needs, and whose attendance record is often poor?
    My hon. Friend may be aware that the Health Select Committee is undertaking an inquiry into the circumstances of looked-after children, and one of the issues that have come over to us loud and clear involves the tensions arising for those children as a result of the emphasis on league tables and school performance. Only this week, a child in a midlands city told us that the school that she attended simply did not like children in care. Will the Minister look into the issue as a matter of urgency, and attempt to achieve some balance between school attendance and the needs of children in those circumstances?
    Ms Morris: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the under-performance of children in care. Statutorily, the state is their parent, and they have been badly let down. We want to address that issue through our responsibility not only for those with special educational needs but for looked-after children in general. We need far greater co-ordination between health authorities, social services and the education service, which have a joint collective responsibility to ensure that those children are cared for and receive a good standard of education. At the moment, many of them are being too badly let down.
    I welcome the joint inquiry by the Select Committees on Health and on Education and Employment. As for my hon. Friend's comments on performance tables, it is crucial that information be made available, both for parents and so that schools can improve standards. I take seriously the idea that we should recognise progress and achievement wherever it happens. That is why, next year, we shall pilot value-added performance tables, so that the achievement of every child can be duly recognised.
    Mr. Hawkins: When the Minister is looking at the different problems, will she recognise that a lot of head teachers—some of whom I was talking to recently—who have a proud record of helping special needs and statemented children are concerned about the policy that the Government are encouraging of inclusion in every single school? I was at one school last week where
    1170
    40 per cent. of the entire roll are special needs or statemented. The head teacher feels that unless primary schools such as hers get extra resources, they will not be able to carry through the policy objectives that they wish to encourage. Will she look at the financial consequences of her policy on inclusion?
    Ms Morris: Indeed. That is why, I was delighted to announce last Friday,Official Report, column 583, that the Government had made £11 million available next year for the access initiative. That amount compares with the £4 million made available by the previous Government last year, and is the highest amount in any single year.
    I welcome the progress that some head teachers have made towards inclusion, and we want to encourage more of it. We believe that more children could be educated in mainstream schools. Many parents do not have the choice, as there is not a mainstream school near them that can accept their child. I accept that we must move with care towards inclusion, and we must make sure that schools have the proper support and that teachers have proper training. We do not want inclusion in name only; we want inclusion where children are working and being educated with their peers, and where they are taking a full and active part in school life. That can happen because, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is happening in many schools already.

    National Year of Reading
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: If he will make a statement on his plans to support the National Year of Reading. [18750]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): The aim of the National Year of Reading is to demonstrate to children the excitement, pleasure and enjoyment of reading. In addition, it will encourage adults to learn to read. The Government, along with the private sector, will be supporting those objectives in a variety of ways.
    Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply, and I warmly welcome the National Year of Reading; not least because it will provide an additional impetus for the Government's crusade to raise standards of literacy. As well as encouraging children who can read to develop their skills further, should we not focus attention on those who cannot yet read at all? What plans are there to focus on that specific group as part of the National Year of Reading?
    Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some 8 million adults are unable to read and write properly, and the National Year of Reading must treat them as a priority. We shall need to find new ways of engaging and motivating those adults. We are particularly pleased that popular television programmes such as "EastEnders" and "Brookside" have agreed to promote the National Year of Reading within their scripts. That is a positive way of engaging adults who otherwise would not be part of the National Year of Reading.
    Mr. Don Foster: I welcome the Minister's response and the emphasis that he rightly places on raising literacy standards across the board. Therefore, is it not frankly

    1171
    ludicrous that we are spending three times as much on testing the literacy and numeracy skills of seven-year-olds as we are on books for those seven-year-olds? Is he aware that, even with the additional money that the Government have provided, we shall still be spending twice as much on testing as on books?
    Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for an announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in a few days, which will reveal clearly the priorities of the Government. We believe that testing at seven is appropriate, as it is important to judge relative progress and to make sure that individual children can move on and develop their reading, and their literacy skills in general. On the wider issue of priorities, the hon. Gentleman will be pleased when he hears my right hon. Friend's announcement within 10 days.
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: I welcome the Minister's statement on the National Year of Reading, and I urge him to give particular attention to co-ordinating adult literacy responses with those of children. That is particularly important in areas such as mine where not only the children but the parents in council estates need to be brought up to literacy standards. When we had a consultation exercise on the White Paper recently, that was one of the strongest points that came across. Will he take that into account?
    Mr. Byers: Yes, the Government want a community approach to reading. The previous Government established four family literacy schemes—just four. We shall expand that programme and have nearly 500 family literacy schemes, as we recognise that that is a positive way to involve parents in developing their children's reading skills. It is a clear demonstration of the Government's commitment to getting the basics right and getting parents working with their children to ensure that they have the best possible start to their school life.

    Student Loans
    Mr. Allan: If students whose maintenance grants are to be phased out in 1998–99 will be eligible for the increased student loans that students in 1999 and 2000 are eligible to receive. [18751]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): New students entering higher education in the 1998–99 academic year will be eligible for increased loans in that year to offset the reduction in the level of maintenance grants. In 1999–2000, we propose to abolish maintenance grants. Those students will be eligible for an income-related loan for their maintenance on the same basis as 1999–2000 entrants.
    Mr. Allan: Does the Minister share my fear that those people who are thinking of doing three or four-year undergraduate teacher training courses will be deterred by his proposals for student finance, as they know that the salaries that they will later earn as primary school teachers will be high enough for them to pay back the loan, but do not command the sort of graduate premiums that he uses to justify his proposals?
    Dr. Howells: No, I do not agree. The reforms that we are putting in place see primary school teachers as an
    1172
    essential part of our community. They will be rewarded as such. The reward that they will receive will be to see the education system transformed and, as a result, a higher education system that will be transformed as well.
    Ms Hodge: I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister has had a chance to look at the Select Committee on Education and Employment report that was published yesterday on the funding issues arising out of the Dearing report and the Government's proposals. If he has, does he agree with the Committee's findings that, while we generally accept the thrust of Government policy, there will be a funding gap in the year 1999–2000, before the money starts to flow in? Does he further agree that that gap should not be met by declining standards in higher education, greater student poverty or continuing the cap on student numbers in higher education? Therefore, will he give the House some idea of whether he is considering other measures, such as those suggested in the Select Committee report, as a means of meeting that funding gap?
    Dr. Howells: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State informed the Committee, as part of their comprehensive spending review, the Government will study that gap closely. They believe that the radical measures taken to secure sufficient funding and ensure a good and healthy future for higher education will also enable us to lift the cap on the number of students in higher education and will be sufficient to meet the long-term needs of that sector.
    Mr. Boswell: Does the Minister agree that, contrary to the advice of the Dearing committee, the total abolition of maintenance grants is likely to lead to a real reduction in the numbers offering themselves for higher education. Do not the likely admission figures for next year already show that to be the case?
    Dr. Howells: No, they do not. The figures are slightly down on this time last year—
    Mr. Boswell: Really?
    Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman can sneer, but it is true. What is more, there is evidence that 6 per cent. more students entered this year than the year before, because of the changes that are taking place in education. We think that the take-up by students this year accounts for that small drop in intake.
    Miss Melanie Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the decision to end the means-testing of grants for disabled students in full-time education has been widely welcomed?
    Dr. Howells: It has been widely welcomed, and it shows that the Government, unlike the previous Government, recognise the huge potential among disabled people who have felt that they could not go into higher education because of the means test. That has properly been welcomed throughout the country, and will continue to be so.
    Mr. Dorrell: Ministers are fond of asserting that it is the Government's policy to continue the expansion of higher education that has occurred over the past 18 years.

    1173
    If that is indeed their policy, how can it be reconciled with the repeated reports from universities throughout the country of substantial reductions in applications for courses starting next autumn, compared with the equivalent figures for this time last year? Does the Minister agree that, when the figures from the Universities and Colleges Admission Service are published next week, we shall be able to compare the Government's warm words with hard reality? Does he accept that those figures are the litmus test of whether the Government are converting aspiration into reality?
    Dr. Howells: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that those figures are extremely volatile at the best of times and that, after Monday, more than 25 per cent. of applications will not yet have been received, so the figures will account for only 75 per cent. They will show important trends, but I put it to him that if there is a downward turn, it will be very temporary, because people understand, as the Government do, that getting a degree is the best advantage that people can get if they want a good job. We shall ensure that they get that degree.

    Peer Education Schemes
    Mr. Rowe: What plans he has to develop peer education schemes in schools. [18752]
    Ms Estelle Morris: We set out in "Excellence in schools" our strategy for raising standards in all schools. That includes imaginative approaches, one of which is certainly peer tutoring. It is already the practice in significant numbers of schools, and available research evidence suggests that it is effective.
    Mr. Rowe: Does the Minister recognise that there is considerable excitement about the introduction of the millennium volunteers scheme? Many of us who have been campaigning for such a scheme for many years are anxious that it should not be frittered away or lose its potential. Does she agree that, within the possibilities open to millennium volunteers, the expansion of peer education would be an extremely fruitful course?
    Ms Morris: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's contribution in this sector over many years and welcome his comments. Many young people have a valuable contribution to make in supporting the learning of younger people. I shall certainly take on board his suggestions.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Should not many local education authorities be congratulated on their work in developing mentoring schemes among students in schools, because of the pressures that many children face? Are not they best placed to demonstrate best practice?
    Ms Morris: Yes, and I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend's local authority in Bradford on its work, as well as the authorities in Winchester, Kirklees and Birmingham. There has been much innovation which, as the evidence shows, has raised standards. The key point is that not only the students who are tutored raise their standards: those who do the tutoring benefit as well. Peer tutoring means winning all round.

    Tuition Fees
    Mr. Burnett: How the collection of tuition fees is to be managed and by whom; and what estimate he has made of the cost.[18753]
    Dr. Howells: Under our new funding arrangements, universities and colleges will collect private contributions to tuition fees from full-time undergraduate students, building on the arrangements that they already have in place for collecting fees from part-time, postgraduate and overseas students. The higher education funding plans for 1998–99 assumed that institutions in England would collect £130 million from private contributions to fees. That figure allowed for costs of about 5 per cent. for collection, and for any default.
    Mr. Burnett: Sir Ron Dearing's recommendation that students should contribute towards their tuition fees has one important caveat: that the cash raised should be hypothecated to the higher education budget. Does the Minister agree?
    Dr. Howells: We have already informed universities that the money that they collect will be used in universities to drive up standards, to help with the running of universities. We hope that that will continue. We are interested in lifelong learning. We want universities to be part of a seamless education structure that will allow people to enter university from many directions different from those from which they now enter. That is an important component of all our new schemes.
    Mr. Steinberg: My hon. Friend probably knows that I oppose the introduction of tuition fees. I am wise enough to know that my opposition alone will not stop them coming in, but can he give a guarantee that if they are to be levied they will go solely to higher and further education? If they go into the Exchequer generally, they will be no more than a tax on education.
    Dr. Howells: I can give my hon. Friend that guarantee. He opposes tuition fees, but presumably he does not support the present arrangement, or the ones that led to it, whereby a young person from a family in one of the two lowest socio-economic groups has a two in 10 chance of a university education while someone from a professional or managerial family has a seven or eight in 10 chance. That cannot be right, and that is why we are making the changes.
    Mr. Willetts: The Minister has just made it clear that tuition fees are a tax on higher education to pay for further education, as people had feared. How does he expect to run reliable means tests on students who come from outside Britain, and how much it will cost to do so?
    Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman is known as "two brains", so he will understand that we are members of the European Union and that, as such, we have to abide by European Union law and that that task already has to be carried out. It will be carried out by an agency equipped to do the job. I do not know what mystery there is about that. We will certainly be able do it. The Government will presumably abide by it because it is the letter of the law.

    School Budgets (Extra Money)
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: What steps he is taking to ensure that the extra money allocated by the Government to local authorities is actually allocated to schools' budgets. [18754]
    Mr. Blunkett: I have written to the leaders of all local authorities with responsibility for education to emphasise that the £1,017 million additional funding for next year should be applied directly for the benefit of children in our schools so that the average 5.7 per cent. increase can be applied directly to raising standards.
    Mr. Robertson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. I remind him that there is a difference between schools and education. As he has written to all local authorities, why did the Labour group on Gloucestershire county council vote just two weeks ago not to pass all the money on to schools? It was only because of the Conservative group that the motion to do so was carried.
    Mr. Blunkett: I am always in favour of Conservative authorities following Government policy, and passing on the 5.9 per cent. increase in standard spending assessment allocated to Gloucestershire. I hope that Gloucestershire county council, with the support of all three main political parties, will apply itself to the provision of nursery education, which it has neglected over the years.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: There is no doubt that Labour local education authorities will see that the money goes to education. There are still several large metropolitan authorities where there is a discrepancy in the amount allocated per student for education, particularly in the SIGOMA group—the Special Interest Group of Metropolitan Authorities. Will my right hon. Friend quickly examine that situation with a view to levelling up the imbalance that exists because of the way the formula applies to some education authorities?
    Mr. Blunkett: I and my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions accept that further work is required on ensuring that resources reach those parts of the country and those authorities that are in greatest need. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister announced changes a couple of weeks ago that will start the process of achieving greater equity and fairness across the country, including provision for nursery children on the basis of those funded rather than on the notional numbers in the authority—and, of course, on the actual rather than the notional capital debt that had accrued before 1990. There is still room for improvement, but we are taking those essential steps to ensure that authorities can apply fairly the resources made available to ensure that we have equal standards across Britain.
    Mr. Dorrell: Is it not already clear that there is a yawning chasm between the Secretary of State's rhetoric about a 5.7 per cent. increase in the average standard spending assessment across the country and likely experience of head teachers in terms of the increase in their schools' budgets that they will receive when the councils set their budgets early next year? Is it not
    1176
    the case that the Secretary of State simply cannot deliver on the commitments that he is giving, and that his letter makes that clear?
    Is it not also true that such increase as will be available next year to schools will be paid for by swingeing increases in council tax? Today's edition of the Evening Standard reports that in London the council tax will increase by 11 per cent. on average, and that in Brent and Tower Hamlets it is set to increase by between 16 and 20 per cent. Are Ministers ready for yet another revolt from the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)?
    Mr. Blunkett: I was not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was in favour or against those councils raising the money to protect education and essential services. They will certainly make a choice at local level to apply resources to the Government's and the people's priority, which is to ensure that resources are given to schools to support their aim to raise standards. That is our policy.
    We have made it clear that we shall monitor what local authorities do with that money. For the first time since capping was introduced, we have applied the actual revenue pound for pound to match the SSA provided at local level. That is in complete contrast with what the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends did in the years when they were in government.
    Dr. George Turner: Does my right hon. Friend recognise, however, that Labour councillors face the difficult task—particularly given the changes in SSA and to social services—of having to make cuts in the provision of social services to people in order to deliver improvements in education? As a former education chairman of Norfolk county council, I know that such improvements are important and necessary. Those councillors will need to have a sympathetic hearing from Ministers during the consultation exercise on what in some cases will be dramatic changes in budgeting as a result of changes in the formula. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to ensure that representations from those who face such a difficult task are sympathetically heard?
    Mr. Blunkett: My letter to the leaders of councils said that after 18 years of Conservative Government there would be difficulties in matching all the priorities and demands at local level. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing, who is present in the Chamber, is not only sympathetic but has managed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health—whose cold I appear to have caught—to gain the provision of ring-fenced community care funding for the coming year, for an extra 12 months. That will help greatly to deal with the problem, which I accept exists, of matching demand and ensuring that we protect social services and the most vulnerable while at the same time matching the top priority of investing in standards in education.

    Higher Education (Cornwall)
    Mr. Andrew George: What recent representations he has received on the provision of higher education facilities in Cornwall. [18756]
    Dr. Howells: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a number of representations in recent months either supporting or opposing the university of Exeter's plans to establish a campus in Cornwall.
    Mr. George: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he recognise that there is popular demand for a

    1177
    university campus college in Cornwall, as demonstrated last night by the presentation of a popular petition to the House? The need to provide proper investment in higher education in Cornwall is also demonstrated by the fact that, pro rata, it has the longest waiting list in the country for Open university courses. There are also other reasons to support the request.
    Does the Minister accept that it is no longer acceptable simply to ignore the strategic need to provide proper higher education resources in Cornwall and places like it by simply saying that it is a matter for the Higher Education Funding Council for England? He should also bear in mind the fact that the Secretary of State expressed strong support for the university of Exeter initiative prior to the election.
    Dr. Howells: My right hon. Friend certainly gave that support. I can recall going a year ago to what one might call inland Cornwall and being shocked by the deprivation that I saw down there: it is one of the poorest parts of these islands. We recognise that higher education and its expansion, and further education and its expansion, can have a dynamic effect on economies in that state. We should like to see every effort made to try to raise those funds; we are barred by statute from telling any institution what it can or cannot do with its funding. We have certainly made inquiries of the Higher Education Funding Council to find out how it regards the project. We wish success to every attempt that is made to raise the sort of money required to expand higher education in Cornwall.
    Mrs. Browning: While I welcome what the Minister has said about greater provision for higher education in Cornwall, which will be welcome throughout the west country, does he not realise that it his Government's policy that will penalise areas, particularly Cornwall? He will know, I hope, that average wages in Cornwall are 77.7 per cent. of the average in Great Britain. It is young people from families on lower incomes who will have the greatest difficulty now that the Government have rejected the Dearing recommendations and are about to force those young people, not only to pay tuition fees that will be repaid on a loan, but to pay 100 per cent. of their maintenance grant. It is precisely areas such as Cornwall which will notice first that fewer of their younger people are entering higher education.
    Dr. Howells: It is a pleasure to answer the hon. Lady, and I will tell her why. Labour Members have known for years that people have been working on rice money, starvation money, which is why we are introducing the national minimum wage. It is why we shall ensure that young people in Cornwall will benefit from the new deal and from training; the new deal will be a tremendous investment. We believe that our proposals for the funding of higher education will increase the pitiably low percentage of young people from lower income families who currently enter higher education.

    Young Unemployed
    Mr. Colman: What steps he is taking to involve small and medium enterprises in the new deal for the young unemployed.[18758]
    Mr. Andrew Smith: The involvement of small businesses is critical to the success of the new deal.
    1178
    We are winning their involvement through direct contact at local level, through organisations representing SMEs such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business and chambers of commerce, and through sectoral organisations and trade associations, for example in construction and tourism. There will be advertising and an intensified local marketing effort in the new year, but already 9,000 employers have told us that they are committed to the new deal; my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) will be pleased to know that 70 of them are in Putney.
    Mr. Colman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. An article in yesterday's Financial Times said that companies are flocking to sign up to the welfareto-work scheme. More than 50 of the largest companies in the United Kingdom were mentioned in the article. As the Federation of Small Businesses, which has 100,000 members, supports the welfare-to-work proposals, as my right hon. Friend said, and as most new jobs will be coming through SMEs in the future, will my right hon. Friend ask local employment services and local government offices to give publicity—in the same way as was done in the Financial Times yesterday—through local newspapers and the local media to examples of companies flocking to sign up in our constituencies?
    Mr. Smith: That is a good idea and it is precisely that sort of local marketing—to which I referred—that will be taking place in the new year. We are seeing a growing recognition that the division and corrosion of our communities that are caused by youth unemployment will be solved only through partnership efforts that bring everyone together—local communities, local authorities and local businesses. The level of commitment that we are now seeing shows that they recognise the benefits to business both of getting young people in touch with the world of work and of their being able to enjoy its opportunities and face the responsibilities that go with it. The new deal is good news for businesses as it helps their recruitment effort at a time of growing skill shortages by equipping people and training them to get a job and stay in it.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the Minister is well aware that many of the schemes that have been tried in the past, both here and overseas, have had the problem of substitution—where employers who were going to take someone on anyway take on someone on a subsidy. As it is to be a six-month scheme starting in April, will the Minister take care to ensure that the tourism industry does not simply decide to use the Government's money—the Treasury's money, the people's money—to subsidise people who would normally be taken on for a six-month period, giving them little in the way of training and thus doing away with all the jobs that would normally be taken by students who try to work during the summer so as to be able to afford to go to university?
    Mr. Smith: The truth of the matter is that now is exactly the right time to introduce a programme such as the new deal, because of the level of unfilled vacancies across the country—320,000 at the last count. That is whole point of the new deal: it can equip young people

    1179
    who would otherwise not have the opportunity to apply for and fill those jobs to do so. It is therefore good for the economy as well as for those young people's future.
    Mr. Derek Foster: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the extent to which the big global players have signed up to support the new deal, but he will be aware that in most of our constituencies—certainly in some rural areas or in inner-city areas—it will be crucial to get large numbers of small and medium-sized enterprises. The Minister has given us some good news today, but my impression is that a great deal of work still needs to be done before we can be confident that sufficient numbers will be achieved. Will he ensure that the quality of training in that option is as high as it must be to deliver what young people need and deserve?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. My right hon. Friend is entirely right. I met the head of the Basic Skills Agency this morning precisely to ensure that the monitoring and quality assurance of training under all the new deal options ensures that the training given is of the highest standard. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work that he, too, is doing to encourage small firms to sign up to the new deal and recruit the young unemployed; indeed, such work is an important opportunity and the responsibility of all right hon. and hon. Members. I referred earlier to the importance of partnership in getting the young unemployed back to work; we all have a task to perform in our own communities to help to get businesses on board and open up the opportunities that the young unemployed need.

    Literacy Strategy
    Mrs. Brinton: If he will make a statement on the literacy strategy. [18759]
    Mr. Byers: The national literacy strategy is an ambitious programme for achieving our target of 80 per cent. of 11-year-olds reaching the expected standard for their age in English by 2002.
    Next year, we shall invest £50 million in training for teachers and in providing new books for schools. All local education authority applications for funding have now been received and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be announcing individual allocations before Christmas.
    Mrs. Brinton: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. I speak as a former English teacher. Does my hon. Friend agree that summer literacy schools are one of the most effective ways of bringing literacy—reading and writing—to young people, especially those in disadvantaged communities? Is he prepared to comment on the recent evaluation of pilot projects that were held this summer? Is he aware that in my constituency of Peterborough we held two very successful projects at Bretton Woods community school and John Mansfield school? Those projects will be run again in 1998; will my hon. Friend visit them next summer, meet some of the young people and share with them in their achievement?
    Mr. Byers: Thanks to the east coast main line, during one of my return visits to my constituency on Tyneside next summer I might stop off at Peterborough to visit
    1180
    either of those schools—I know that they did good work this summer. Because of the success of the 50 summer literacy schemes held this year, we are pleased that there will be a tenfold expansion to 500 summer schools to take place next year. That is a positive way of providing new opportunities for young people and ensuring that when they enter secondary education they have the basic skills that they need in being able to read and write effectively.
    Mr. Bercow: Does the Minister agree that in formulating a literacy strategy an emphasis on traditional methods is important and welcome, and that there should therefore be no role whatever for the three left-wing academics who observe in a pamphlet that
    "within the psycho-semiotic framework, the shared reading lesson is viewed as an ideological construct where events are played out"
    and that
    "Children must learn to position themselves in three interlocking contexts"?
    Mr. Byers: Clearly there is a role for summer literacy schools for the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). Many of us on the Labour Benches who entered the House in 1992—I accept that he did not—find it very difficult to take lessons from the Conservatives on reading in our schools when the one programme that they ran to support reading in schools, the reading recovery programme, was scrapped by the previous Government in 1995.

    Young Unemployed
    Mr. Tony D. Wright: What representations he has received from employers in the (a) tourism, (b) leisure and (c) hospitality industries in respect of the new deal for young unemployed people. [18760]
    Mr. Alan Howarth: On 24 November, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights took part in a major conference for the tourism and leisure industry on the new deal, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. He tells me that he was delighted by the range of support and the enthusiasm for the new deal among employers in these important sectors. The Employment Service will now talk to 40 leading companies which participated in this event to discuss their involvement in more detail.
    Mr. Wright: I thank the Minister for his response, but does he agree that, in a constituency such as mine—Great Yarmouth—where work in the tourism industry is seasonal and poorly paid, employers taking part in the new deal must recognise that the most important part of the new deal is the training element for young unemployed people in the constituency and throughout the country?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right to be worried about the interests of his constituents who may be taking part in the new deal, but I believe that the opportunities that can be provided in the tourism sector will be very important and valuable; it is one of the leading growth sectors in employment.

    1181
    The safeguards for young people participating in the new deal are the formal agreements to be struck between the Employment Service and the employer, the guarantee of training, properly funded, setting the young person on the path to qualification, the continuing monitoring by personal advisers and, in the event that something goes really wrong, the new deal hotline, which will enable participants in the new deal to raise questions about whether they are receiving a proper deal, as I believe that they will.

    Voluntary-aided and Denominational Schools
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy on voluntary-aided and denominational schools.[18761]
    Mr. Byers: The Government welcome the part that voluntary schools, including voluntary-aided and denominational schools, play in the education service. Our new school framework will safeguard their ethos and will enable them, and all other schools, to raise standards and improve the quality of the education that they offer.
    Mr. Winterton: Does the Minister accept that voluntary schools and denominational schools have for many decades served as the leaven in the dough to raise educational standards and the standards of pastoral care provided by our education service, and that the resources provided by the Churches in this country to supplement the public purse have been beneficial to every child in every school in the country? Will he assure me that denominational schools are safe in the Labour Government's hands?
    Mr. Byers: I endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments about the valuable role that Church schools play. In the consultation exercise following the publication of the White Paper, "Excellence in schools", we were able to reflect on proposals made by the Church education
    1182
    authorities. As a result of their representations, we now have before the House a Bill which has their support. We believe that, as a result of the amendments that we made in the light of their representations, we now have a far better Bill.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: How many Muslim schools have indicated a desire to enter the voluntary-aided sector? What criteria would they have to meet before such admission?
    Mr. Byers: A number of applications are before Ministers at the moment, including some from promoters from the Muslim sector. As I am the Minister who has to consider those applications, it would be wrong for me to make a statement this afternoon. I can say, however, that they will be judged on the criteria that we apply to all other applications.
    Mr. Dafis: May I press the Minister a little further? As Church of England and Roman Catholic schools are integrated in the public sector, should not similar provision be made for Muslim schools and for other schools with alternative curricula, such as the Rudolf Steiner schools? Would the Minister be willing to meet representatives of the Third Sector Schools Alliance to explore this possibility, and to explain what the obstacles to their entry to the public sector are? Is it not wrong that schools should be obliged to stay in the private or voluntary sector when they would like to be integrated with the public sector?
    Mr. Byers: I understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman. There is no dogmatic opposition to schools entering the maintained sector; all schools will be subject to the same criteria. In particular, they will have to meet the demands and requirements of the national curriculum. One of the difficulties experienced by the types of school mentioned by the hon. Gentleman has been their failure to meet the terms and requirements of the national curriculum.

Freedom of Information
3.30 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): I am today publishing a White Paper on freedom of information. Its full title is "Your Right to Know—the Government's proposals for a Freedom of Information Act".
I am delighted to be able to make this important announcement to the House today. "Your Right to Know" is the latest example of how the Government are delivering the radical agenda for constitutional change set out in our manifesto.
For our agenda to be effective in modernising Britain, it is essential to identify the linkages between each of the Government's reforms. That has been assured by the role of my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor, who chairs the Cabinet Committee on freedom of information. Under his chairmanship, we have also published the White Papers on devolution for Scotland and Wales, and the "Rights Brought Home" White Paper on the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into UK law.
Now this White Paper provides a further essential element in our constitutional agenda. "Your Right to Know" sets out clear and detailed proposals for legislation, which would give every individual a statutory right to know about the information and records that the Government hold. That is a right which will transform the culture of government and make it more open and accountable. It is a huge step towards rebuilding trust between the Government and the people.
These proposals for legislation realise a commitment set out in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech last May. Our White Paper is the outcome of a root-and-branch examination of this complex and difficult policy area. Within seven months, the Government have addressed the sensitive issues involved and arrived at the firm proposals described in the White Paper. On that basis, I believe that few can question our commitment to fundamental constitutional reform.
Our proposals start from the premise that open government is good government. They are accordingly radical, and with your permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to draw the House's attention to the key features of our FOI regime.
The first such feature would be wide coverage. We propose that an FOI Act should apply right across the public sector, covering Government Departments and agencies; local councils; quangos; nationalised industries; the national health service; schools and colleges; courts and tribunals; police authorities; the armed forces; and public service broadcasters. It should also include the privatised utilities and some private sector organisations carrying out duties on behalf of the Government. Instead of the few hundred public bodies subject to the code of practice on access to Government information, tens of thousands of bodies will be covered by the Act.
Secondly, there would be access to documents, not just to information. The right of access would be broadly based, and would apply to official records and information held by the bodies covered by the Act. That goes far beyond the code, which provides a non-statutory entitlement to information, but not to records or documents.
Thirdly, fewer exemptions would be allowed. The system for protecting information would be based on seven specific interests, instead of the 15 exemptions in
1184
the code of practice. Significantly, in most cases, information could be withheld only if its disclosure would cause substantial—I repeat substantial—harm. That is a further important advance on the code, which laid down a simple harm test.
Fourthly, a duty to publish would be introduced. I want the legislation to encourage public authorities to take a positive approach to openness, by requiring them to publish information as a matter of course, whether it has been requested or not. My Department will be developing an action programme to support the move from a culture of secrecy to one of openness.
Fifthly, there would be strong enforcement. An independent information commissioner should oversee the implementation of the legislation. To do that effectively, the Government have agreed to give the commissioner wide-ranging powers, including the power to order disclosure. At present, the parliamentary ombudsman, who supervises the code of practice, can only recommend disclosure.
Finally, we need an integrated system. Access rights to current and historic information would be brought together through the integration of the relevant sections of the Public Records Acts into the freedom of information Act. That would ensure a single legislative approach to the release of both past and present records.
Those points broadly summarise the Government's proposals for a freedom of information Act. It is fitting that this White Paper marks the start of an extensive and open consultation process, which will continue through much of the next year. First, there will be a period of consultation on the White Paper itself. That will give Parliament and the people a clear idea of the freedom of information Bill, which we intend to introduce as soon as a suitable opportunity occurs.
Before I conclude, let me mention two further initiatives connected with "Your Right to Know", the results of which will inform the consultative process even before the draft Bill. Indeed, I expect to publish both of them shortly after the Christmas recess.
The first is a separate consultation exercise on the management of Crown copyright. This is the system which protects the status and the integrity of official Government information. It also underpins the charging regime that exists for certain tradeable information-based services. Crown copyright is clearly relevant to our White Paper proposals, and we have almost completed an examination of its operation. I hope to publish the results of that in a Green Paper very shortly.
The second initiative will be a published paper setting out factual and background material relevant to the production of this White Paper. That fulfils the commitment that I made while the White Paper was being prepared, and is in line with the good practice set out in the White Paper itself, which commits Government to the maximum possible disclosure of factual and background information behind policy decisions.
Openness is fundamental to the political health of a modern state. This White Paper marks a watershed in the relationship between the Government and people of the United Kingdom. At last there is a Government ready to trust the people with a legal right to information.
There are matters, such as national security or personal privacy, where information must be protected. The Government need some protection for their internal

1185
deliberations. I believe that our proposals strike the proper balance between extending people's access to official information and preserving confidentiality where disclosure would be against the public interest. It is a new balance, with the scales now weighted decisively in favour of openness. I believe strongly in these proposals, and I am delighted to commend them to the House now as a basis for public debate in the coming weeks and months.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in supplying me with a copy of the statement earlier today. I also endorse your remarks on Tuesday, Madam Speaker, in thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his full apology for the most unfortunate and deeply deplored leak that occurred on that day. When he responds to my questions, will the Minister inform the House how far his inquiries have progressed?
I have several general and some specific questions for the Minister. Does he agree that, if ever there were a subject where consensus was desirable, this is it? Will he institute talks with representatives of all parties during the lengthy consultative process? He will know that the Conservatives do not share his zeal for constitutional reform. However, we shall be more than willing to participate in a constructive spirit, because we are proud of our achievements in opening up government in a real and tangible way. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman—for whom I have a high personal regard—did not see fit to pay tribute to the Conservative Government's work in instituting the citizens charter, producing league tables in health and education, and making many other important advances in open government.
Does the Minister agree that any freedom of information legislation should be submitted to a Special Standing Committee, so that it can be scrutinised most carefully? Does he accept that government, the parliamentary process and the integrity and impartiality of the civil service are undermined by leaks? Will he ensure that any Bill includes penalties for breaches of confidence and that any such provisions cover special advisers?
Does the Minister further agree that it is important that any Act should be a bulwark against the intrusive state, and that often people are best served by being given information and being allowed to decide for themselves? Will the Minister ensure that any provisions in the Bill apply in equal measure to the proposed regional development agencies, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly? Will he comment about that matter?
The Minister referred to seven specified interests. Will they cover the sensitive issues of foreign trade and commercial confidentiality? Will they cover the work of the Northern Ireland Office? Will the right hon. Gentleman spell out a little more clearly what he means by the word "substantial"? Finally, will he say a little more about the rather nebulous role of the commissioner and how his work will relate to that of the Parliamentary Commissioner?
Dr. Clark: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome to the White Paper. We appreciate his sentiments. I listened to his offer of consultation, and I agree that we would welcome consensus on the issue. There will obviously be many opportunities for the widest consultation regarding both the White Paper and the draft Bill. I shall certainly consider ways in which we may take forward discussions in that respect.
1186
As to the inquiry that I promised to establish in an attempt to discover who was behind the leak, my investigations are progressing. I shall obviously try to find out who was responsible.
The hon. Gentleman asked a specific question about the regional development agencies. Freedom of information would apply to them. The White Paper also refers to the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. It makes it clear that while the Scottish Parliament will be responsible for taking decisions on matters pertaining to it, it is intended that it should have a freedom of information regime.
The substantial harm test is a key part of our policy. It is a liberal approach. I do not think that any freedom of information Act in the world includes substantial harm. It makes it harder to withhold information from the general public: unlike the code, which uses a simple harm test.
As I was drafting the White Paper, at the forefront of my mind was the ordinary citizen: not big business and not even the press, but the individual citizen. I am conscious of the fact that the legislation must be simple and straightforward. I was disappointed in the American system, which allows no appeal other than to the courts. I felt that it was sensible to avoid litigation, and to avoid going to the courts, so I advocated the creation of an independent information commissioner. The main purpose of the Act is more open government, and an information commissioner would be able to check the papers held by public bodies, and would rule on appeals by individuals who have had their applications rejected. He or she would have the mandatory authority to order the disclosure or withholding of information.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Being prepared to make uncomfortable facts known to the general public is a sign of a self-confident Government. Is he aware that the previous Government, at the end of their tenure, had a deliberate policy of concealment of information? They established various subsidiary agencies, which constantly bleated and used commercial reasons to justify hiding facts that should have been in the public domain. Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that his Bill will be framed in such a way as to enable Parliament to know not only what is good and comfortable, but what is uncomfortable and awkward? That is the sign of a mature and sensible Parliament.
Dr. Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for her welcome for the statement. I share her view that openness is good government. On occasion, one must face up to unpalatable facts. The Government have a good record on the disclosure of information, such as the recommendations of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee on BSE. We have been prepared to discuss with the British people the recommendations of our scientific advisers, and we have followed their advice.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends broadly welcome this fulfilment of a commitment made in agreement with my party prior to the election, to introduce a comprehensive, wide-ranging and enforceable freedom

1187
of information Bill? I welcome his openness to suggestions for amending and improving the legislation during the various deliberative stages to come.
I shall make a couple of points that do not, in any way, fundamentally attack the Government's approach. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is some risk that prior agreement between the receiving body and the giving body to treat matters in confidence could lead to an unacceptable exclusion of information? Does he further agree that the harm test for policy advice to Ministers and to the Government, which he describes in the White Paper, is too low and could limit public participation in the discussion of practicable options? Does he accept that there will be some disappointment that the 30-year rule is being retained, although modified, and that that may unnecessarily limit historical research?
Dr. Clark: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words, and I appreciate his general welcome of the White Paper. I shall try to conduct the consultations in an open way, as he wants.
The question of information given to the Government in confidence is a real difficulty; it is impossible to run away from such issues. I hope that we shall raise it, and that it will be raised with us, during the consultation period. As for the harm test and policy advice, I do not apologise for saying that the Government need space to conduct their deliberations, especially in a modern society. Having said that, however, I must add that the Government are very conscious that there is still unnecessary secrecy, even in information coming to Ministers. We have tried to differentiate between specific policy advice given to Ministers—and conveyed between Ministers—and simple factual and background papers given to Ministers. We hope and intend that the background and factual papers will be available, and will not be subject to the exemption.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the 30-year rule. We must bear it in mind that, while after 30 years documents are passed to the Public Record Office, under the new regime the Departments will disclose much more information during those 30 years. For that reason, shortening the period was not such a priority as it had been.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite all the criticism that he has received over the past few months about delay, many Labour Members now realise that his statement has been worth waiting for? The headline should be "Labour recaptures the high ground".
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when he talks of getting a consensus with that lot over there—the Tories—he should be careful? They will procrastinate for as long as possible. They will talk the hind leg off a donkey in the hope that they can delay the legislation for year after year. At the end of the day, the Labour Government must legislate—so do not hang about with that lot, because they will be frightened to death of having to reveal where they have got their money from under freedom of information legislation. When we get that information, we shall find that some of the money came from heroin dealers in Hong Kong.
Dr. Clark: I take it as a high accolade to receive compliments from my hon. Friend.
1188
It is clear that we need to get the legislation right, and we intend to get it right, because we shall probably have only one opportunity to do so. I hope that my statement underlines the Government's commitment to push through—after as much consultation as possible—wide-ranging and radical freedom of information legislation that will change our whole political culture. I hope that we can move from our obsession with secrecy to a modern society based on openness.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Like others, I welcome the statement. If legislation follows, with the breadth and scope that the right hon. Gentleman described, it will emancipate many individuals, as well as the press itself and Her Majesty's loyal Opposition.
May I ask what will happen when an issue falls within, say, the scope of the Official Secrets Act, and could fall within the scope of a damage test? I have in mind, for instance, information given in confidence by a foreign Government. More specifically, what will happen in the Council of Ministers, which is one of the legislative bodies for this country?
Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman has a long and worthy history of trying to bring about freedom of information legislation. I pay tribute to the work that he has done over the years.
There must clearly be an interface between the Official Secrets Act and the freedom of information legislation. We must examine very closely the levels of harm and damage in both, to ensure that they are compatible with each other. On the hon. Gentleman's specific point about the Council of Ministers, the test is one of simple harm under the Official Secrets Act. However, such issues need to be explored. When I say that we need consultation because we have to get the legislation right, I refer to such matters of detail, which we intend to pursue over the next few months.
Dr. Tony Wright (Cannock Chase): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on—on any test—a remarkable and historic statement. We promised a freedom of information Act in five manifestos, we tried through private Members' routes to enact one, and, despite the report of Sir Richard Scott and, a Select Committee report in which a Conservative majority recommended action, the previous Government failed to do anything.
Will all the exempt areas be subject to a test of substantial harm? At the moment, we have the curious convention that new Governments have no access to policy advice—albeit of a background nature—that was available to the previous Administration. That is conspicuous in the case of BSE. Will my right hon. Friend's proposals change that, so that we may see some of the evidence on the policy disasters of the recent past?
Dr. Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. He has taken a particular interest in this area since he has been in Parliament. For all exempted areas, with the exception of policy advice to Ministers, the substantial harm test will be the required test. For policy advice to Ministers, the test will be one of simple harm. My hon. Friend referred to the convention that papers are not made

1189
available to succeeding Governments. Clearly, all such issues will be raised during consultation, and we shall have to wrestle with them.
Sir Raymond Whitney: While I fully endorse the benefits of open decisions that have been openly arrived at, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in any organisation, there is always a need for some degree of confidentiality if it is to function effectively—whether it is a family, a parochial church council, a company or the Government? Does he further agree that those who write thunderous editorials about the need for ever more open government are themselves most jealous in keeping their own secrets? Does he agree that his high-minded attachment to the benefits of open government, which I fully accept as sincere, sits somewhat oddly with the record of how we had to drag out of the Government their dealings in the formula one affair?
Dr. Clark: We take on board the point that Governments need space in which to conduct their deliberations and come to their decisions. In deciding on and framing the White Paper, we specifically make the point that it is important to maintain the collective responsibility of government; that it is vital that we retain the political impartiality of public servants; and that we appreciate the importance of free and frank internal discussions in coming to conclusions as a Government. It is because of that that we have a slightly different exemption on policy advice.
Dr. Brian Iddon: My right hon. Friend has made a bold statement, which I am sure the people of the nation will warmly welcome. There is nothing worse than fighting bureaucracies. However, will he ensure that people who are seeking legitimate information will not be harassed in any way by, for example, being asked awkward questions about why they want the information, and that they will get information without prejudice?
Dr. Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for the question. Clearly, it is not the business of Government to determine why an individual citizen wants a piece of information that is held by the Government. There is no bar, no proposed requirement, no stipulated reason why a person should need the information. It is purely a case of an application, per se.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the right to know extend to the real Government of Britain—the Commission of the European Union—as it is the master now and the Labour Government are the puppets?
Dr. Clark: I am afraid that I do not have responsibility for the European Commission.
Mr. Peter Bradley: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that this historic statement will be as welcome outside the House as it is to Labour Members, although judging by the grinning and grumbling of the Opposition, it is clear that they have problems with accountable and open government and public service? On the question of expedition, will my right hon. Friend set time limits within which organisations must respond to requests for information? Will he also illustrate, for the
1190
benefit of the House, the sins, blunders, omissions and conspiracies of the previous Government, which would not have been visited on the people of this country had freedom of information legislation been in place?
Dr. Clark: In the annexe to the White Paper, we set out the times in which departments in various countries have to respond to queries. The period is usually between 20 and 30 days, and we have specifically included that subject in the consultation. My hon. Friend tempts me when he asks me to talk about the sins of the previous Government. For my sins, I was a Front-Bench spokesman for 10 years, on agriculture and on defence. I certainly believe that, if we had had the sort of legislation that we propose, we would have been able to discover much information about BSE, which might have saved a lot of money. We might also have saved much hurt and harm after Chernobyl, which was the subject of a considerable cover-up. In latter years, as defence spokesman, I tried to explore what was behind Gulf war syndrome and, if I could have had access to the information that I would have been able to get under our legislation, much harm and hurt could have been saved and we might have got to the truth more quickly.
Mr. Peter Viggers: What is all this going to cost and who is going to pay?
Dr. Clark: It is impossible to ascertain the precise cost, for the simple reason that we do not know what the demand will be. However, based on the code, it is clear that the cost will not be prohibitive. It is a cost well worth paying to open up government and sweep away the secrecy.
Ms Tess Kingham (Gloucester): I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the fact that it extends to police authorities. I have been frustrated since being elected that I have not been allowed access to Police Complaints Authority reports, and I know that my predecessor was also frustrated by that. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether PCA reports, especially about investigations of deaths in custody, will be covered by the legislation?
Dr. Clark: The administration of the police is covered in the White Paper. For reasons that we all understand, we distinguish between the operational arm of the police and the administrative arm, but the latter should be covered by the legislation. It is my impression that the information that my hon. Friend requests will be covered, but I shall look into it and write to her.
Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds): Does the Minister believe that the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), had something to do with the disgraceful leak of the contents of the White Paper earlier this week to the BBC? Will he confirm that those conducting the leak inquiry will seek personal interviews with the Minister without Portfolio?
Dr. Clark: I came to the House the day before yesterday and apologised for that leak. I repeat that I knew nothing about it and no one was more annoyed about it than I was. We have set in train measures to look into the leak, and we shall have to await the outcome.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): On the narrow issue of the misleading of Parliament, and after spending 11 days in

1191
the Old Bailey during the trial of Clive Ponting, may I ask whether the issue of the protection of deep throat information, for want of a better phrase, will be addressed?
In particular, will civil servants who know that the House of Commons is being treated by Ministers using an economy with the truth have somebody to go to, rather than being told that they must report it to the Sir Robert Armstrong of the day? It is unreal to expect civil servants to go to their permanent secretary or the Cabinet Secretary and say, "Please, sir, a Minister is lying." Is that problem addressed?
Dr. Clark: As I understand it, a private Member's Bill that deals with certain aspects is shortly to come before the House.
Mr. Dalyell: Does it have Government support?
Dr. Clark: I shall certainly have discussions with the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), to find out whether those points can be covered.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Had the policy just announced been in force in October, would the minutes of the meeting held by the Prime Minister with representatives of formula one at No. 10 Downing street—on 18 October, I believe—have been disclosed as a matter of course?
Dr. Clark: If that involved advice to Ministers, clearly it would be protected from the legislation.
Mr. Derek Foster: Does my right hon. Friend share my view that this is the most important piece of unfinished business since the disgraceful way in which the Conservative party dealt with the Scott report? I congratulate him on the scythe that he has taken to the deep undergrowth of the culture of secrecy in government. He is today lighting a fire that will ultimately cleanse the democratic process and begin to restore the trust between Government and people.
Dr. Clark: I might just disagree with my right hon. Friend, in that the business is not exactly unfinished; until today, it was unstarted business. We have made a start today, and we intend to push it through. We shall push away the cobwebs of secrecy, and have a modern democratic society where the people of Britain will know the secrets that their Governments hold.
Mr. Ian Bruce: We in the House all know that we are entitled to ask questions, and that the questions must have answers. However, it is the quality of the answers that we are worried about. We were all sympathetic to the right hon. Gentleman until he answered my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) and clearly did not intend to reveal the information that he said was available.
The Government can set their own policy without an Act, so will the right hon. Gentleman now tell the House that they will act as if the Act were already in place, rather than waiting years for it to be passed? For instance, I recently gave a list to the Prime Minister's office in a
1192
parliamentary question asking him to say whom he had met—people from among his blind trust contributors—and I got an answer which, although honest, told me absolutely nothing. Would that be covered?
Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced that the electricity companies were extending coal contracts for six months, yet this morning the electricity companies did not know that they were doing that. Would we be able to find out where that information came from?
Dr. Clark: It is a bit rich for Conservative Members to talk about waiting for years for information. While we are waiting for the legislation to be introduced, we are operating under the code of practice introduced by the previous Government.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I can tell my right hon. Friend that when I used to ask the same sort of question of Tory Ministers, all my answers were always blocked. It is clear that the regime will change, and this is a triumph of common sense over the secret state, which has been a burden on the British people for far too long. It will transform the relationship between the individual and the state.
May I ask my right hon. Friend a specific question? He used the word "substantial" to qualify the word "harm". Can we have an absolute assurance that the word "substantial" will find its way into the final legislation, because that word will ensure that no attempt is made to block the provision of information to the wider public?
Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the word "substantial". I believe that its use is unique in freedom of information legislation. It means that it will be more difficult to withhold information. The Government have made it quite clear that that is the key component of the White Paper.
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: We on the Ulster Unionist party Bench give a warm welcome to the Minister's announcement today, and I think that all hon. Members representing Northern Ireland will do the same. We have particularly suffered from quangos, and we look forward to being able to ask questions about those bodies. Will the Anglo-Irish Secretariat be included in the bodies about which we can ask questions?
Dr. Clark: I thank the hon. Gentleman. We have published a consultation paper on quangos, and he and I have had an exchange on the subject. On his specific question, I suspect that the body to which he referred would not be covered by the freedom of information legislation, but I shall try to ascertain the precise position.
Ann Clwyd: I, too, would like to congratulate my right hon. Friend, who has fought a long, hard and personal battle to produce the White Paper. It is good to have it today. Will the intelligence and security services be covered by the White Paper, particularly as MI5 is increasingly carrying out investigations into matters that cannot be described as national security, such as fraud and computer fraud in Whitehall? Will he assure us that those matters will be covered by the legislation?
Dr. Clark: I am afraid that I have to disappoint my hon. Friend. We have made it clear that we believe that

1193
the intelligence services are vital to the security of our nation. However, we have shown that although we are prepared to release information about the intelligence services, we hope that the new culture of openness and a new interaction between the House and the intelligence services can be built on, to create more openness in ways other than through the White Paper and legislation.
Mr. Nigel Evans: I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) got a response to his question, so I will give it another go. Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster state whether the Minister without Portfolio will be questioned about any involvement that he may have had with the leak? When will he be questioned? If the right hon. Gentleman will not answer those questions, this debate will be about not our right to know, but our right not to know.
Madam Speaker: Order. I really do feel that that question does not concern the White Paper. The Minister has gone as far as he can, and came to the House a few days ago very genuinely to tell us what had happened. With great respect to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), his question has nothing to do with the White Paper that the Minister is presenting today.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his groundbreaking statement. I have a specific question about public money going to private individuals for some alleged public benefit. Will individuals who receive public money to allow access to land under the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food agricultural schemes for environmentally sensitive areas, and landowners who receive conditional exemption from inheritance tax for allowing people on to land, but are not required to publicise that access, be covered by the White Paper?
Dr. Clark: As a former president of the northern Ramblers Association, I have a certain sympathy with my hon. Friend's point. Clearly, information held by Government Departments relating to matters such as access to land and moneys being paid by MAFF should be available under the legislation.
Mr. John Bercow: In keeping with the principles of the White Paper and the importance of the proper release of Government information, will the Minister now tell us whether, in future leak inquiries, Ministers as appropriate will be interviewed—yes or no?
Dr. Clark: Leak inquiries are nothing to do with the White Paper. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Let me just—[Interruption.] I can only state the facts, I am afraid. The White Paper concerns the release of information. We all understand that there are set procedures for a leak inquiry. I have set in train measures to look into those reports, and the permanent secretary is conducting those measures.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I congratulate the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the publication of this strong White Paper—the product, perhaps, of a successful marriage of Clark's shoes and Cardinal Wolsey's socks. The new commissioner's power of enforcement is unprecedented in the way in which we
1194
have conducted our business in this country. Therefore, the key is the appointment of what one might call a person with the right, challenging mindset. Will my right hon. Friend tell us how such a commissioner is to be appointed, and can we be sure that we shall not finish up with a cosy establishment figure?
Dr. Clark: In view of the key role that the information commissioner will hold, it is important that we get the right man or woman. The commissioner will be the principal officer, acting under the principal purpose of the Act, which will be to encourage more open and accountable government. It will be his or her job not only to adjudicate on whether information should be disclosed or withheld after an appeal, but to act as a facilitator, to find out whether there are ways in which citizens can find the information if they lose their appeal. Therefore, it is a key role. It is vital to understand that we have gone a long way in this process by insisting, in groundbreaking terms, that the commissioner will have mandatory powers to order withdrawal or disclosure of information.
Mr. Norman Baker: I welcome the statement. Is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster aware that many people, both inside and outside the House, have waited years for such a proposal? Is not it a breath of fresh air, compared with the suffocating secrecy under the previous Government?
To follow on from the point made by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), why are the security services exempt from this proposal? Bearing in mind the fact that the legislation dealing with those services is tightly drawn, would not it be possible for the substantial harm test to be applied to them as well? Inevitably, that would prevent any leakage of materials that were damaging to national security, and I accept that a higher percentage of documents would be held, but it would allow some release of material. Can the Minister comment on the access to information in regard to European Union documents held by the Government in this country, as there is a problem with freedom of information in Europe as well?
Dr. Clark: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, that is a dilemma, but I think that every country excludes—the word is not exempt; it is exclude—the security services from freedom of information legislation. That might not be entirely true, but certainly most countries do. We took the view that if there was only an exemption, it could be challenged. We felt that the security of our nation took precedence in this respect. The House has an Intelligence and Security Committee. There are moves to try to open up the intelligence services, and we shall try to continue with that process.
On the latter point about European legislation, we started to explore that, but we have been wrestling with so many complex issues in the past seven months that we have left it for consideration in the consultative period. We shall have some time between now and producing the draft Bill to sort out many of the matters of detail.
Mr. Llew Smith: The Minister stated that our right to know would extend to public bodies and companies. Will he confirm that British Nuclear Fuels plc is one of the public bodies that will be covered by the

1195
Act? Will he also confirm that the operations of that company have been clouded in secrecy for far too long? It has been hiding behind excuses of commercial confidentiality and national security, to prevent the public from knowing what is happening within it.
Dr. Clark: We have made it clear that we shall include private sector industries that operate on a statutory basis, as well as the privatised utilities and the nationalised industries.
The security exemption will apply to British Nuclear Fuels, as to other organisations, but we are getting much more openness from British Nuclear Fuels these days, and I hope that that will continue. I mentioned Chernobyl earlier; we have moved a long way in the 10 years since that happened, and we now get much more help from British Nuclear Fuels.
Dr. Lynda Clark: I congratulate the Minister on the White Paper and I look forward to the open consultation process, which I hope will form a model for other legislation. I am concerned that information will become of no use to people if they do not receive it quickly. Will there be mandatory time limits in the Bill? Will there be any role for Members of Parliament? Is it intended that constituents should come to us before going to the commissioner?
Dr. Clark: There will be a period within which we would expect Government or other bodies to reply to an application. We have suggested times applied in other countries in the annexe to the White Paper, but that is open to consultation. On the latter point, we considered whether we should follow the ombudsman route and direct inquiries through Members of Parliament, but we felt that that was unnecessary and that it was right and proper that the individual should be able to apply for the information on his or her own behalf, directly to the Department and then directly to the commissioner.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: I add my congratulations to the Minister on his statement, which struck a blow for all who believe in transparent government. What consultations does he intend to hold with local government, to ensure that the present machinery under the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 is transferred smoothly into the provisions of whatever Bill is passed?
Dr. Clark: I have already had meetings with local government leaders, and I have been most encouraged by their enthusiasm to be brought within the legislation. They rather enjoyed being able to say that they were more open than us in any case. That is very positive. I have also had
1196
discussions with national health service representatives, and they, too, have been very positive. We shall continue the discussions, because it is very important that all those public services should be able to work together and to interrelate.
Mr. Derek Wyatt: As a former publisher and director of William Heinemann, which published "Spycatcher", it is music to my ears to hear the legislation outlined today. I have a practical question: given that the Minister's Department has one webcaster, but that there are no others in the civil service, how are we to get information from the civil service? What plans are there to train people and improve internet access, which is a matter of concern at the moment?
Dr. Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words, and I can reassure him. I hope that the White Paper is being put on the internet at this very moment. That has certainly been my approach, and we may well consider how to put the consultation papers on the internet. I believe that the information technology at our disposal will allow us to put many more Government papers on the internet, and to do it extremely quickly.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, following an incident in my constituency in which a lorry carrying munitions caught fire, the previous Government refused to answer questions, on the ground of confidentiality, but that when the identical questions were tabled in the Congress of the United States, the information was given that the lorry was carrying cluster bombs and projectile missiles and was a considerable risk to my constituents?
Does my right hon. Friend further recall that the information from an inquest held in my constituency on a boy who was killed by mustard gas was kept secret in this country, but revealed by the United States navy? Will information about this country that is freely available in other countries be made available here when the legislation is passed?
Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, which I came across in dealing with the aftermath of Chernobyl. One had to go to the United States and Sweden to get the information that appertained to our country. We have made it clear that the Army will be covered in its routine activities by the Act, although obviously operations are a different matter. The case to which my hon. Friend referred should be covered by the legislation that we propose.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Thank you. We now move on to the business statement.

Business of the House
4.24 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the business for next week.
MONDAY 15 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill.
TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the National Minimum Wage Bill.
WEDNESDAY 17 DECEMBER—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House, which will include the usual three-hour pre-recess debate.
Until about 8 pm, there will be a debate on the common fisheries policy on a Government motion. That will be followed by consideration of an allocation of time motion relating to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
THURSDAY 18 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]
FRIDAY 19 DECEMBER—Debate on welfare to work on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 22 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the School Standards and Framework Bill.
The provisional business for the first week back after the Christmas recess is as follows.
MONDAY 12 JANUARY AND TUESDAY 13 JANUARY— Second Reading of the Scotland Bill.
WEDNESDAY 14 JANUARY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.—
Second Reading of the Regional Development Agencies Bill
THURSDAY 15 JANUARY—Consideration in Committee of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
FRIDAY 16 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 14 January there will be a debate on cocoa and chocolate in European Standing Committee A.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 14 January 1998:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community document: 8164/96, Cocoa and Chocolate. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 155-ix (1997–98).]
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement and for giving the House the business for the first week after the recess. She is an enthusiastic and skilful Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, and I hope that she will explain to the House why, in practice, she is not only not modernising the sitting hours of the House but has chosen to ignore the Jopling rules by arranging controversial and potentially lengthy business on three successive Thursdays. It is true that the Government have somewhat incompetently overloaded their legislative programme—hence the need for yet another guillotine motion next week—but there is no reason why they should ride roughshod over the rules that they came into office
1198
vowing to improve. Like me, she has heard the strictures of her Front Benchers on those matters. The House will be interested in her reply.
We were glad that the Government supported our social security policies against the rebellion of many of their Back Benchers last night. We were assured by the Secretary of State for Social Security that the Government will not be deflected from their intention further to reform benefits. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate so that the Secretary of State for Social Security can explain those plans to her Back Benchers? In particular, can the Leader of the House say whether those plans include the taxation of benefits, especially for disabled people?
The Leader of the House heard the reaction of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) to the Government's White Paper on open government, in which there were some things to welcome. Lofty intention is one thing, practice another, as we shall see. It was a pity that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was not quite generous-spirited enough to make it clear that his proposals built on many of the policies that we established. In the light of his remarks on open government, and of those of many of his colleagues, including the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), and the evident enthusiasm that has been expressed by hon. Members of all parties, will the Leader of the House comment on the fact that the Table Office has been instructed by the Government that it must not accept any question about the impact on employment of, or the level of, the national minimum wage?
Will the right hon. Lady explain how that extraordinary denial of information to Members sits alongside the Government's just expressed, but clearly imperfect, commitment to openness? Perhaps she would like to define what her Government mean by openness and to which areas of policy the principle of openness may be applied. Which are the no-go areas? Clearly the national minimum wage is one. Is not the Government's instruction to the Table Office a denial of every principle enunciated by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster just 30 minutes ago? In the interests of open government, I think we should be told. Whatever the right hon. Lady's reply, it is obvious that "Your Right to Know" does not apply to Members in respect of the national minimum wage.
Can the right hon. Lady clarify for the benefit of the House which Department has responsibility for the current crisis in the coal industry? We had thought that it was a matter for the President of the Board of Trade, but we read on page 22 of today's edition of the Financial Times that responsibility now rests with the Paymaster General. If departmental responsibility is to be shifted around in this way should not the principles of open government dictate that the House should be told? Is it a slap in the face for an inactive Department of Trade and Industry, as the Financial Times seems to have been briefed to say? Or is it some form of occupational therapy for the Paymaster General, who has clearly disqualified himself from talking about other people's savings?
When may we have a statement in the House from the right hon. Gentleman, rather than statements through lawyers at friendly press conferences, because we should all like to hear his clarification of the potential conflict between the Government's intention to close tax

1199
loopholes and his own use of them. I am sure that, in the interests of open government, the right hon. Lady will wish to arrange for such a statement without delay.
Mrs. Taylor: I regret very much the attitude taken by the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) in her response, particularly as she has repeated allegations about the Paymaster General which are unworthy of the House and have been thoroughly refuted elsewhere.
Among the right hon. Lady's specific questions about the business for next week, she asked me about the Jopling proposals and the fact that there is serious business set down for some Thursdays this month and that serious business will be taken on some Thursdays in January.
Mr. Eric Forth: Good.
Mrs. Taylor: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes that.
The right hon. Lady seems to be unaware of the exact details of the Jopling agreement. It said that the House will try to rise early and take non-controversial business on the second half of Thursdays that are followed by a non-sitting Friday. None of the business that I have announced to be taken on Thursdays, which she regards as significant or controversial, will be followed by a non-sitting Friday.
In response to the right hon. Lady's comments about benefits reform and the need for a further debate, I do not believe that there is such a need, not least because the debate that Conservative Members chose to have on that matter on the most recent Opposition day fell somewhat flat because they had so little to say on the subject.
As for the coal industry, the DTI remains the lead Department. Of course, other Ministers in other Departments get involved in such issues and, given the right hon. Lady's experience in government, which is not that long ago, I should have thought that she could remember Cabinet Committees and the fact that Ministers assist each other when certain problems arise.
On freedom of information, the right hon. Lady was somewhat more dismissive than her colleague on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who was far more generous in his welcome of the White Paper. She claims that her party started this process, but, if it did so, it did not get very far and stalled on every relevant occasion. The statement that has been given to the House today was a significant breakthrough and was long overdue.
The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk asked about the right to know and claimed that the Table Office was being instructed by the Government on what questions it should be accepting. She should have known the answer to that, not least from her experience in government. The Government cannot give instructions to the Table Office; nor would the Government try to do so.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will there be a statement next week on the outcome of the Kyoto summit on world climate change? Will my right hon. Friend arrange for there to be a full debate early in the
1200
new year, in Government time, on the issue of climate change and the world's environment? Each time there is such a major conference, the House should be able to make a serious assessment of its impact and give some indication of how it wants the Government to behave at the next conference, whenever that may be.
Mrs. Taylor: The agreement reached at Kyoto is certainly historic and will help to counter the problems of climate change. The part played in those negotiations by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister was extremely important and constructive. I expect that my right hon. Friend will be looking to make a statement in the House in the not-too-distant future. I cannot promise my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) the sort of debate that he wants in the near future, but I will bear his request in mind.
Mr. Paul Tyler: The right hon. Lady is rightly protective of the rights and privileges of the House and its Members. Does she agree that any threat to those rights and privileges, in particular any attempt to bully Members and any attempt to exert improper influence over Members of the House—I think that that is the definition that the Joint Committee on Privileges is now examining—should be resisted? The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) reported to the House that he had to change his view on a specific piece of legislation owing to the pressure exerted on him by the standing orders of the Labour party. Can the Leader of the House give us an explicit assurance that members of the Labour party who voted with the Liberal Democrats last night against a Conservative proposal will not be subjected to undue pressure of that sort, with their livelihoods being threatened if they cease to be Members?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: If I had to rely on the hon. Gentleman, I would be dead.
Mr. Tyler: Can the Leader of the House give us an assurance that the new, draconian standing orders of the parliamentary Labour party will not be allowed to interfere with the proper judgment of Members.
Mrs. Taylor: That was a good try, but this is an internal matter for the Labour party. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, I do not think that he needs any help from the Liberal Democrats.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): Will my right hon. Friend consider, perhaps in Government time and in the not-too-distant future, a short debate on a matter of which I have had personal experience: the success of treatment carried out in the national health service? We do not seem to have any intelligence unit to record that treatment, its results and the successes of the service; nor do we seem to have any means of recording best practice so that best practice initiated in one area can be disseminated to other areas. That may be a useful adjunct for us to debate.
Mrs. Taylor: Many Members will be aware that my hon. Friend has had experience of the health service, which was, I am glad to say, extremely successful. He may be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has, as part of the White Paper process,

1201
taken on board some of the points that my hon. Friend has made and has said that he is in favour of a clinical audit and of the establishment of a national institute of clinical excellence. That organisation would be able to do the job that my hon. Friend rightly says is necessary if we are continually to improve the national health service.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray): Can the Leader of the House arrange to have a statement made early next week in connection with the agriculture industry? Is she aware that farmers and consumers alike are confused by the evidence being produced by the various scientific organisations? We are particularly concerned about whether the Government will make any compensation available to our agricultural communities as a result of the appreciation of sterling.
Mrs. Taylor: I cannot guarantee any statement on any particular day, but the hon. Lady will know that Ministers are well aware of the concerns of people involved in agriculture and that there was a full statement last week from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I am hopeful that there may be a statement in the House on BSE issues and the current situation in farming before the recess.
Ms Joan Walley: May I simply reiterate the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)? It is crucial that, as soon as the Deputy Prime Minister gets back and has had a chance to recover from all his negotiations in Kyoto, we have not only a statement, but an opportunity for a full debate. The implications of the agreement are so wide and far reaching that it is crucial that we set out in the House how we are to move the matter forward on the world platform.
Mrs. Taylor: We shall have environment Question Time on Tuesday, but I can well understand why my hon. Friend thinks that we need more time to discuss these issues and to get a full report from my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. The agreement is an important one: for the first time, it sets binding targets for developed countries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions, and it is, therefore, something we should all welcome. The House will want to be informed of the details and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will want to take an opportunity to do that as soon as possible.
Mr. Eric Forth: May we please have an urgent debate on the rights of Members of Parliament, especially when on the premises of the Palace of Westminster? Specifically, could that debate centre on the rights of all Members when voting together in the same Lobby—especially when the Conservatives are supporting the Government for supporting the Conservatives, as happened last night—and on whether, in such cases, all Members will be completely free to approach Ministers, particularly the Prime Minister, without being molested?
Will the right hon. Lady conduct an investigation into the disgraceful incident last night, when one of my colleagues was molested simply as a result of trying to approach the Prime Minister as a fellow Member of Parliament?
Mrs. Taylor: I do not think that there is any need for a debate and, following last night's point of order, I made
1202
inquiries among those who were present on that occasion. Several people made it clear to me that the Conservative Member who was the subject of the point of order approached the Prime Minister and tried to interrupt a conversation that was taking place, in a most boorish and ungallant manner. I do not think that there is any need to discuss matters of that sort.
Ms Debra Shipley: In view of the excellent work carried out by nurses and staff in our emergency services and of the growing concern about their safety among the public and professionals, will my right hon. Friend make time next week for a debate on the safety of our emergency units?
Mrs. Taylor: I know that there have been cases recently of violence in emergency units—they can be tense places, and people can become extremely upset. The Minister of State, Department of Health is looking at giving further protection to people, especially women, who require protection in that situation. I do not think that it is possible to have a full debate next week, although it might be possible to raise such issues during the three-hour debate on Wednesday morning.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: This is the third time in just over six months that the Government are imposing a guillotine motion. Does the right hon. Lady not appreciate that the European Communities (Amendment) Bill gives more powers to the European Parliament, extends the competencies of the European Union, extends qualified majority voting, reinforces citizenship and dwells on economic and monetary union? It is clearly a profound constitutional matter for the House, and to curtail debate by a guillotine, which is the most outrageous expression of Executive power, is wholly inappropriate.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Member, who is extremely well informed, will know that this is by no means the first occasion that a guillotine has been used on a Bill of that sort; it was used not least by his own Government in previous days. It is an important Bill and we have had 19 hours of discussion so far. We have had the same number of days of discussion as we had in 1986 on what became the Single European Act. Most people would agree that that was a major piece of legislation, yet consideration was completed satisfactorily following that guillotine. I notice that, on Second Reading of that Act, nowhere near as many Members voted as did on the Bill that we are now discussing. Although he has strong views, the hon. Gentleman has to realise that virtually no progress has been made on the Bill and it is for better discussion of all parts of the Bill that we are having a guillotine at this stage.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When may we have a debate on procedures in the House? Following the statement by the shadow Leader of the House, I went to the Table Office and tabled a question asking what representations had been received by the Government on the possible link between the minimum wage and job numbers. That question was accepted without demur by the Table Office, but they expressed some bewilderment at the statement made a short while ago in the Chamber. Of course, questions that are hypothetical are not allowed

1203
and they never have been. May we have a debate on procedure, as that would be useful for all Members and a particularly useful educational experience for the shadow Leader of the House?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend clearly knows better than Conservative Members how to exercise his right to know. As I said earlier, there is no possibility of the Government's trying to restrict the questions that are asked, and the Table Office would certainly not tolerate that.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: Following the question asked by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), may I urge that we have a full debate on the agriculture industry and on the beef situation in particular? I would not expect the right hon. Lady to be aware of this, but last night 400 farmers descended on a meat distribution depot in my constituency; they stopped lorries going this way and that, and are planning further disruptions. I am sure that no one wants to see such action, but, on the other hand, many people are very sympathetic to the farmers' case, especially as we have a beef export ban and further bans on meat, but no guarantee whatever of the quality and safety of meat coming from abroad.
Mrs. Taylor: I can well understand why the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the disruptions he mentions. I said earlier that Ministers are aware of and concerned about the situation and that we are hopeful that there can be a statement before the House rises for the Christmas recess.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: May I thank my right hon. Friend for giving the House notice that European Standing Committee A will be considering the draft chocolate directive? She will be aware that the European Commission proposed a good compromise which did not discriminate against British chocolate or continental chocolate, but that the European Parliament proposed some quite extraordinary amendments backing up the commercial interests of some European chocolate manufacturers—those of France, Belgium and Germany—against those of others, including ourselves, the Irish, the Portuguese and those in Scandinavia.
Will my right hon. Friend convey to the Ministers who will appear before European Standing Committee A my strongly held view, as a Member of Parliament representing a constituency with many confectionery workers, that the European Parliament's proposal would be bad for the chocolate industry and bad for jobs, and that Britain should reject it and go for the fair compromise proposed by the Commission, which will provide a level playing field for all brands of chocolate manufactured by all countries in the Community?
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): And all because the lady loves Milk Tray.
Mrs. Taylor: I do not know what is made in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), so my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) had better be careful in what he says.
1204
My hon. Friend the Member for City of York is right to raise concerns relating to a subject about which I know he is well informed. I shall certainly bring the points he has raised to the attention of my hon. Friends who will be in charge of that debate. I take this opportunity to remind the House that all Members can attend such Committees.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the right hon. Lady will make time for a statement by the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning on planning procedures? The City of York council is currently undergoing a massive consultation exercise on a proposed park and ride scheme in the Vale of York. The only people who are not being consulted in that exercise are the residents of Rawcliffe, where the scheme is to be situated. I believe that they deserve a statement on that matter from the Minister responsible for planning, and I hope that the Government will make time for that.
Mrs. Taylor: Obviously, that is a matter for local consideration in the first instance, but I remind the hon. Lady that we have environment questions on Tuesday.
Mr. David Watts (St. Helens, North): Is my right hon. Friend is aware of the damning report produced by the National Audit Office on the performance of Ofwat and, if she is, given the high cost of water in the United Kingdom and the poor performance of water companies, will she make time available in the House to discuss that important issue?
Mrs. Taylor: I agree with my hon. Friend that the issue is important to every person in the country. The Government are undertaking a review of utility regulation and considering ways to strengthen customer protection. We welcome the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, and we have made careful note of his recommendations.
Mr. Paul Burstow: When can we have a debate on the performance of the privatised rail industry and especially the train operating companies, not least Connex South Central, which services my constituency and has recently witnessed a 138 per cent. increase in complaints about its cancellation of services, overcrowded trains and generally inadequate investment in rolling stock? When can we have a debate so that we may discover the Government's plans for our rail industry and how they intend to make a difference to it?
Mrs. Taylor: There are also transport questions on Tuesday, so the hon. Gentleman may be able to raise issues then. I cannot promise a full debate of the type that he requests, but I remind him of the three-hour Adjournment debate on Wednesday.
Helen Jones: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the campaign by The Independent on Sunday to decriminalise cannabis, but I wonder whether she is aware that the National Association of Head Teachers today issued stringent guidance to schools on combating the menace of drugs. In the light of that, does she agree that we should have a more consistent line on that issue, and will she arrange

1205
for an early debate in the House so that those of us who believe that the drugs menace should be fought, not given into, may have an opportunity to debate the matter?
Mrs. Taylor: I very much welcome and accept my hon. Friend's comments. I do not think that we are likely to get an objective assessment from a conference organised by a newspaper which has the explicit aim of decriminalising cannabis. On the other point that she raised, about the report by head teachers, we are aware that we need good education in schools. The Department for Education and Employment will be issuing some targeted guidance in the near future and Keith Hellawell, the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator, is developing plans to audit and do a full assessment of what works best in ensuring that young people do not fall into the drugs trap.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: The Leader of the House will recall that, during the general election campaign, one of Labour's claims was that the election was partly a question of trust. Given the widespread disappointment in the country that the word "trust" has been interpreted as meaning either blind trusts in favour of some Ministers or offshore trusts in favour of others, may we have a debate next week to establish exactly what "trust" now means to new Labour?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman would do well to read the most recent poll of Tory Members.
Mr. John Wilkinson: As it is not only Yorkies that are threatened by the dictates of the European Union but the livelihoods of many of my constituents who work in duty-free shops at Heathrow and on airliners for British carriers, and many Members' constituents who work at airports, or for airlines or shipping companies throughout the country, will the right hon. Lady ensure that the appropriate Minister comes to the House to explain the Government's policy which, until now, has been one of total acquiescence in the job-destroying policy of the European Union?
Mrs. Taylor: Ministers keep the House informed as appropriate. We had a debate on the European Union last Thursday.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley): I shall try to be in order this time, Madam Speaker.
The Leader of the House said that she hoped that, before the recess, we would have a statement on farming. That is a welcome small step, but is there any chance of a larger step in the form of a day's debate on farming issues as soon as possible? As I represent a rural constituency, I want to speak about the crisis in farming, but that is not the only matter that I want to raise. Today, a butcher telephoned me to say that hundreds of his customers—including four doctors—had told him that they still wished to buy beef on the bone, and that they were still doing so in his shop in my constituency. Is it possible to have a debate so that all these issues may be debated properly?
Mrs. Taylor: Many Labour Members have farming interests, including my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He has been very
1206
forthcoming in giving information to the House and the best that I can say at the moment is that we are hopeful that a full statement can be made before the House rises.
Mr. Owen Paterson: During the general election campaign, not one Labour candidate in Shropshire told the electors of Shropshire that, in the event of a Labour Government coming to power, they would impose a local government settlement such as the one that was announced last week. It has brought £9.7 million in cuts and a 17 per cent. increase in council tax. The county is in a state of shock. May we please have a debate next week on that huge betrayal?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman ought to know that the orders are always debated when they are laid before the House. That will be done next year. However, if he is asking us to say why we could not anticipate during the general election campaign a settlement that was made only a short time ago, he should know that, in my opinion, it would have been outrageous for us to be audacious enough to suggest that we could precisely guess such details that far in advance.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: May we have an early debate on the role in the House, and in the general performance of his duties, of the Minister without Portfolio? We are increasingly seeing that his influence on his colleagues—such as his undermining of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—is making it clear that he is the modern Rasputin of politics.
Given the farcical performance at recent Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions—the Minister without Portfolio spins out his answers to the few friends that he has left sitting behind him, so that Opposition Members' questions are never properly answered—and given that the hon. Gentleman declines to answer written questions of the type that I have repeatedly tabled, is it not clear that we need the second most powerful person in the Government to be questioned properly, that we need his role to be properly debated and that we need to have a full debate so that the real Deputy Prime Minister is exposed to public view?
Mrs. Taylor: People see a great deal of the real Deputy Prime Minister, and I hope that he will make a statement on Kyoto when he returns.
Mr. John Bercow: In view of the right hon. Lady's failure properly to answer my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, will she undertake to find time next week for the Paymaster General to make a statement about his intervention in the coal industry, which is likely to result in miners who are thrown out of work losing up to £10,000 each of their redundancy money?
Mrs. Taylor: There is no need for any such statement.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Last night, when the heavies had finished duffing up my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) in the Division Lobby, the Prime Minister made a tough decision not to join his beleaguered colleagues on the Front Bench but instead to go to yet another glitzy soirée at Downing street. Can the right hon. Lady afford us time

1207
to debate the £7.4 million that the Government have spent on entertainment since they came to office? It really is a case of "Hello Tony, Let's go party."
Mrs. Taylor: I have no plans to arrange an invitation to No. 10 for the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Shaun Woodward: Will the Leader of the House find time early next week for the Minister for Public Health to make a statement on the ban on tobacco advertising in sport, given that she appears not just to have failed to follow, but to have deliberately broken, the 1996 Cabinet guidelines?
Mrs. Taylor: There is no evidence whatever that that is so. My hon. Friend has made her position clear, and took clear steps at a very early stage to ensure that she complied with the guidelines. The permanent secretary and the Cabinet Secretary are satisfied that she did.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I thank the Leader of the House for what she said about a statement on Kyoto, and urge her to go further and to impress on Ministers the need for a debate in Government time on climate change. That issue concerns members of all parties—[Interruption.]—although it seems of less concern on the Conservative Benches. During the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Union, perhaps the right hon. Lady will press Ministers to ensure that European Council meetings are promptly reported to, and debated in, the House.
Mrs. Taylor: We have followed the convention of making statements following Council meetings. 1, too, have noticed considerable pressure from Labour and Liberal Democrat Members on the subject of Kyoto, although not one word has been said by Conservative
1208
Members. That may tell us something about their lack of concern for these issues. I have said that I hope for a statement; I will bear in mind the request for a debate.
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): I welcome the fact that the right hon. Lady has said that there may be a statement on BSE next week, but can she find time for a full-blown debate on agriculture, as previously requested? There was a short debate on the rural economy yesterday, but no sooner had the Minister spoken than he resigned. [Interruption.] We should like to know what the Government's position is. Members of all parties have constituents working in the rural economy, and the right hon. Lady must realise that there is a real crisis in farming, in south Leicestershire and elsewhere. There may not be a crisis in Dewsbury, but there certainly is in the rest of the country.
Mrs. Taylor: Many constituencies include farming interests and food interests. All our constituents consume food and need proper reassurance. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends found his question so amusing—I thought it was extremely serious, which is why I announced earlier that I hoped for a statement before the House rose. That is not a guarantee, it is a hope; but it is a sign of how seriously Ministers treat the situation.
Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives): Will the right hon. Lady ensure that the shipping Minister comes to the House before the recess to make a statement on the growing concern for maritime safety? There have been a number of incidents in the fishing industry, and more lives are being lost. I refer particularly to the recent loss of the Margaretha Maria, from Newland in Cornwall, when four fishermen died. Their children will face this Christmas without their fathers—and we still do not even know where the vessel is.
Mrs. Taylor: That is indeed a serious issue. I am sure that Members on both sides would like to express their condolences to the families involved in the tragedy. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to raise the issue before Christmas, but the open debate next Wednesday morning, which we have before each recess, is particularly useful for raising such topics.

Business of the House

  Points of Order
  5.4 pm
  Helen Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) was a member of a Back-Bench cross-party fact-finding visit to Northern Ireland this week, during which we had a number of useful private meetings with parties and organisations. He left the visit early to come back to Prime Minister's questions, because his question to the Prime Minister had been selected.
  Not only did the hon. Gentleman leave the visit early, but when he came back here he raised an issue arising out of one of these private meetings. The assertion that he made was totally—I cannot say untrue, can I?—misleading. I wanted to put the record straight and to ask for your guidance, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. Owen Paterson rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman's point does not relate to this one, which I will deal with first. What Members say in the House is a matter for them. Providing the language that they use is good parliamentary language, I cannot intervene. Sometimes Members ought to be a little more circumspect in what they say after private meetings, however.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it not conventional, when a Member intends to refer to another Member in such terms, that she should give the latter notice of her intention?
  Madam Speaker: Indeed.
  Helen Jackson: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I placed letters on the Board not just to the Member concerned but to the political party that nominated him and to the leader of that party.
  Madam Speaker: I just hope that letters informing Members that they are to be mentioned will be put on the Board in good time, not at the last moment.
  Mr. Paterson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to clear my name. I have been in the House for only six months, but I am accustomed to going up to senior members of my party, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), in the Lobbies, asking them questions and getting friendly answers. Last night was my first opportunity to ask the Prime Minister a question on equal terms in the Lobby—I understand that we are all equal Members of the House.
  You, Madam Speaker, have just heard that local government funding is a burning issue in Shropshire. I have twice written to the Minister for Local Government and Housing, but she has refused to see me. I therefore approached the Prime Minister to ask whether he could bring his influence to bear. I assure you that I approached him in a friendly way. I waited for a chance when he was free, which he was—for a very short time. My story can be corroborated by my hon. Friends the Members for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), for Guildford
  1210
  (Mr. St. Aubyn)—who is in a Treasury Committee meeting—and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). I can assure the Leader of the House that I am not "boorish".
  Madam Speaker: That was barely a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has got his point on the record. I regret the fact that a Minister has not been able to see him. When I was a Back Bencher I would never have approached a Prime Minister—I was always rather intimidated by Prime Ministers. I should like to help the hon. Gentleman, so if he will let me see the exchange of correspondence with the relevant Minister I shall try to be helpful. It is the Minister responsible, not the Prime Minister, who should be available.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

    AGENDA 2000: THE NEW FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9984/97, Agenda 2000, as it relates to the new financial framework for the European Community; and supports the Government in its policy of achieving enlargement of the European Union while maintaining the Own Resources Ceiling of 1.27 per cent.—[Mr. Clelland.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made,

    AGENDA 2000: REFORM OF THE COMMON GRICULTURAL POLICY
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9984/97, Agenda 2000, as it relates to reform of the Common Agricultural Policy; and supports the Government's objective of a market-oriented CAP with less emphasis on production-related agricultural support and more emphasis on targeted environmental and rural objectives.—[Mr. Clelland.]
    Amendment proposed, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and add
    'whilst recognising the need for urgent and radical reform of the CAP, declines to take note of European Document No. 9984/97, Agenda 2000, unless and until the Government gives beef farmers the urgent support they need if there is to be a viable British beef industry in the future.'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
    Question, That the amendment be made, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees):—
    The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 258.

    Division No. 118]

    [5.8 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Burns, Simon

    Arbuthnot, James

    Butterfill, John

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Cash, William

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Baldry, Tony

    (Chipping Barnet)

    Beggs, Roy

    Clappison, James

    Bercow, John

    Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

    Blunt, Crispin

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Boswell, Tim

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Brady, Graham

    Collins, Tim

    Brazier, Julian

    Colvin, Michael

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    1211

    Day, Stephen

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Madel, Sir David

    Duncan, Alan

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Malins, Humfrey

    Evans, Nigel

    Maples, John

    Faber, David

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Fallon, Michael

    Moss, Malcolm

    Forsythe, Clifford

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Norman, Archie

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Ottaway, Richard

    Fraser, Christopher

    Page, Richard

    Gale, Roger

    Paice, James

    Garnier, Edward

    Paterson, Owen

    Gibb, Nick

    Prior, David

    Gill, Christopher

    Randall, John

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

    Robathan, Andrew

    Gray, James

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Green, Damian

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Greenway, John

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Grieve, Dominic

    Ruffley, David

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Hammond, Philip

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Hawkins, Nick

    Shepherd, Richard

    Hayes, John

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Horam, John

    Spring, Richard

    Howard Rt Hon Michael

    Swayne, Desmond

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Syms, Robert

    Hunter, Andrew

    Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Thompson, William

    Johnson Smith,

    Tredinnick, David

    Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Trend, Michael

    Key, Robert

    Trimble, David

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Viggers, Peter

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Walter, Robert

    Lansley, Andrew

    Wardle, Charles

    Leigh, Edward

    Waterson, Nigel

    Letwin, Oliver

    Wells, Bowen

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Lidington, David

    Whittingdale, John

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Wilkinson, John

    Loughton, Tim

    Willetts, David

    Luff, Peter

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    McCartney, Robert (N Down)

    Woodward, Shaun

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    MacKay, Andrew

    Mr. Oliver Heald and

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Mr. James Cran.

    NOES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Borrow, David

    Ainger, Nick

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Allen, Graham

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Ashton, Joe

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Austin, John

    Burden, Richard

    Banks, Tony

    Burgon, Colin

    Barnes, Harry

    Byers, Stephen

    Bayley, Hugh

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Beard, Nigel

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Canavan, Dennis

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Cann, Jamie

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Casale, Roger

    Best, Harold

    Caton, Martin

    Betts, Clive

    Cawsey, Ian

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Boateng, Paul

    Clapham, Michael

    1212

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Clark, Dr Lynda

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretfond)

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hurst, Alan

    Clelland, David

    Hutton, John

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Cohen, Harry

    Ingram, Adam

    Coleman, Iain

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Colman, Tony

    Jamieson, David

    Connarty, Michael

    Jenkins, Brian

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie

    Cooper, Yvette

    (Welwyn Hatheld)

    Corbett, Robin

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Cranston, Ross

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Crausby, David

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Cummings, John

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Dalyell, Tam

    Kemp, Fraser

    Darvill, Keith

    Khabra, Piara S

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Kingham, Ms Tess

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Laxton, Bob

    Dawson, Hilton

    Lepper, David

    Denham, John

    Levitt, Tom

    Dismore, Andrew

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Doran, Frank

    Linton, Martin

    Dowd, Jim

    Livingstone, Ken

    Drew, David

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Lock, David

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Love, Andrew

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    McAllion, John

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Edwards, Huw

    McCabe, Steve

    Efford, Clive

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Ennis, Jeff

    McDonnell, John

    Etherington, Bill

    McIsaac, Shona

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    McNamara, Kevin

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    McNulty, Tony

    Fitzsimons, Lorna

    MacShane, Denis

    Flynn, Paul

    McWalter, Tony

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    McWilliam, John

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Fyfe, Maria

    Marek, Dr John

    Galloway, George

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Gapes, Mike

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Martlew, Eric

    Gerrard, Neil

    Michael, Alun

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Mitchell, Austin

    Godman, Norman A

    Moffatt, Laura

    Godsiff, Roger

    Morley, Elliot

    Goggins, Paul

    Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Mudie, George

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Mullin, Chris

    Grogan, John

    Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

    Gunnell, John

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Norris, Dan

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    O'Brien, Bill (Nonvanton)

    Hanson, David

    Olner, Bill

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Pendry, Tom

    Heppell, John

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Hesford, Stephen

    Pickthall, Colin

    Hill, Keith

    Pike, Peter L

    Hinchliffe, David

    Plaskitt, James

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Pope, Greg

    Home Robertson, John

    Pound, Stephen

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    1213

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Stringer, Graham

    Purchase, Ken

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Radice, Giles

    Rammell, Bill

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Timms, Stephen

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Touhig, Don

    Rooney, Terry

    Trickett, Jon

    Rowlands, Ted

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Ruane, Chris

    Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Salter, Martin

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Sawford, Phil

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Wareing, Robert N

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Watts, David

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    White, Brian

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Singh, Marsha

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Skinner, Dennis

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Winnick, David

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Soley, Clive

    Wood, Mike

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Woolas, Phil

    Spellar, John

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Wyatt, Derek

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Jane Kennedy and

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Janet Anderson

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees), and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9984/97, Agenda 2000, as it relates to reform of the Common Agricultural Policy; and supports the Government's objective of a
    1214
    market-oriented CAP with less emphasis on production-related agricultural support and more emphasis on targeted environmental and rural objectives.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    That the draft Air Quality Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 11th November, be approved.
    ROAD TRAFFIC
    That the draft Road Traffic (Vehicle Emissions) (Fixed Penalty) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 24th November, be approved.

    RATING AND VALUATION
    That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.—[Mr. Clelland.]
    Question agreed to.

  DEREGULATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),
  DEREGULATION

    LICENCE TRANSFERS
    That the draft Deregulation (Licence Transfers) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.—[Mr. Clelland.]
    Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
    New clause 1

      INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS
      —In subsection (4) of section 9 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 the following paragraph shall be inserted—
      "(bbb) an offence under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 including a scheduled offence within the meaning of section I of that Act;".'.—[Mr. Trimble.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5.23 pm
      Mr. David Trimble: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I am glad that we have an opportunity on Report to consider amending the Bill. It gives us a chance to put before the House several issues that we should have preferred to raise in Committee. Unfortunately, as things turned out, we were deprived of that opportunity. None the less, we now have a chance to do just that.
      I appreciate that time is getting on and that hon. Members wish to move on to other matters, so I shall not dwell at great length on the points in the amendments. However, new clause 1 raises a very important issue to which we must pay some attention. I proceed in light of the assumption, which is clearly shared by the Government, that there is a continuing need for emergency law in Northern Ireland. That is clearly the case as the Government are extending the life of the legislation and providing for unified emergency legislation embodying both the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act and the prevention of terrorism Act.
      I believe that the Government's judgment in that respect is correct and that there is a continuing need for emergency legislation. I believe that that need will become much more apparent in future months because I fear that the present lull in terrorism will not be much prolonged. Unfortunately, come the new year, I fear that we shall be dealing with some familiar problems.
      One of the great difficulties that we face in combating terrorism is obtaining evidence for convictions. I should have thought that the Government would be extremely anxious to gather evidence for convictions. After all, in the Bill, the Government are removing from the statute book the power of detention or internment—measures to which Governments faced with terrorism have had recourse because of the absence of evidence and the consequent inability to obtain convictions. Therefore, the Government should be keen to gather evidence that supports convictions.
      There is a source of evidence available that has not been used hitherto: evidence obtained from intercepted telephone communications. That is known in the United States as "wire-tap evidence". Such evidence is not admissible in the United Kingdom. I think that that is a
      1216
      mistake, and the intention of new clause 1 is to make wire-tap evidence admissible in cases that fall within the terms of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act.
      Interestingly, this issue—which we have pursued over a number of years in the House—was considered by Lord Lloyd of Berwick in his inquiry into anti-terrorist legislation. In considering the arguments for and against the admissibility of wire-tap evidence, he made several points. I can do no better than to quote from one paragraph of his report. In dealing with the arguments in favour of an amendment of this nature, Lord Lloyd said:
      `"The first and most obvious argument is that evidence of intercepted material is admissible to prove guilt in each of the countries which I have visited, and in every other country of which I have knowledge. The United Kingdom stands alone in excluding such material. Thus in the United States the use of intercept material in evidence is regarded as essential. In many instances, including high-profile cases involving the New York Mafia, convictions otherwise unobtainable have been secured by the use of intercept material. I put to officers of the FBI the suggestion that they were having second thoughts about the use of intercept material. I could find no support for this suggestion. In France I was told that intercept material has proved very valuable in terrorist cases. Thus, some 80 per cent. of the evidence against those suspected of involvement in the 1995 bombings is derived from intercept. Similarly, in Australia interception is regarded as an 'extremely valuable aid to criminal prosecution' …664 prosecutions for offences ranging from murder to serious fraud were based on intercepted material, nearly 500 of those prosecutions being for drug offences. Convictions were obtained in 87 per cent. of the cases. Often, when presented with the evidence of an intercept, the defendant pleads guilty."
      I highlight the phrase:
      "The United Kingdom stands alone in excluding such material."
      Why on earth does the United Kingdom impose that unique handicap on itself when dealing with serious crime, including offences of this nature? There is no sense in that whatever.
      Indeed, not allowing intercepted telephone communications to be admitted in evidence is highly illogical, given that other intercepted conversations are admissible. If a bug is placed inside a house and a conversation is tape recorded or transmitted by some wireless device to somewhere else and recorded there, that intercepted conversation is admissible in evidence. People can be wired up with recording devices attached to their body, and the conversations that they have with other people are admissible.
      A number of years ago the important offence of directing terrorist organisations was created under the emergency provisions legislation. Only two convictions have been obtained, one of which was as a result of people who were wired up speaking to a suspected leader of a paramilitary organisation, whose admission of involvement was recorded, and that evidence supported a conviction.
      The argument is clear and, on the strength of it, Lord Lloyd was asked to consider permanent legislation in the event of terrorism in Northern Ireland being over. He recommended that such provisions should be introduced. I have not bothered to check, but I think that the previous Government, when they received Lord Lloyd's report, said that they would implement that provision. The legislation should be amended as I have suggested.
      The only argument against such a provision of which I am aware is that, if such evidence were admissible, those involved in terrorism and smuggling would know the

      1217
      extent to which communications were intercepted. But people know that already, and in any case they still have to communicate; they cannot conduct their operations without communication.
      Some people may be concerned about the implications of such a provision, but the new clause would not compel the Government to introduce wire-tap evidence: it would merely give them the power to do so. The intercepts would not have to be disclosed to the defence unless the prosecution thought it desirable to rely on such evidence. To that extent, it would be an enabling provision. It would end a serious anomaly: it is incredible that, alone in the civilised world, the United Kingdom does not make use of wire-tap evidence.
      The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The hon. Gentleman has made some valid and strong points, to which I shall respond. However, in his opening remarks he said that we were dealing with amendments now rather than in Committee, and he referred obliquely to the way in which the Committee procedure had been handled. I want to say for the record that no amendments were tabled in Committee. If they had been tabled, we could have dealt with them in an appropriate way and at an appropriate time. I also remind the House that something like 12 hours were dedicated to the Bill in Committee. That is also worth putting on record.
      Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether a Standing Committee on a non-urgent Bill has ever sat on the first day of its proceedings from 4.30 in the afternoon to 5 o'clock the following morning? Is not that an abuse of our procedures, and also why there was not time for amendments to be dealt with later in the Committee stage, as is usual? Is not that the point that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was making, and is not the Minister ashamed of himself? Would he be good enough to apologise to the House?
      Mr. Ingram: I am not ashamed of myself, and an apology is not necessary. If hon. Members are interested in the history of the Bill, they should add up the amount of time Conservative Members spoke in the debate, and then judge the quality of their contributions against the time taken. If amendments had been tabled, we could have had much more substantial debates. I am not criticising the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), but, as he said that we now have an opportunity to deal with amendments, it is important to point out that no amendments were tabled in Committee. The official Opposition did not table any amendments: they have tabled an amendment this evening. I was directing my comments at them, and if anyone should feel ashamed, it is the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), who failed to carry out his responsibilities and provide proper and adequate opposition. Perhaps we are now getting that opposition.
      Mr. MacKay: I do not want to detain the House unduly, but I asked the Minister a specific question. Can he recall the first sitting of a Standing Committee not starting until—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Member. We are discussing a
      1218
      new clause, which is a specific matter, and we should refer to that, not to the length of the Committee or what happened in Committee.
      Mr. Ingram: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to deal with the helpful comments of the hon. Member for Upper Bann. If new clause 1 were enacted, it would allow evidence from intercepted material acquired under an Interception of Communications Act 1985 warrant to be adduced in court if it related to a scheduled offence within the terms of section 1 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996.
      The hon. Member for Upper Bann raised this matter during the debate on counter-terrorism legislation on 30 October. He will recall that the Home Secretary referred to Lord Lloyd's proposals in respect of section 9 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. In response to the hon. Gentleman, he said:
      "The hon. Gentleman asked about Lord Lloyd's proposals in respect of section 9 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. That is a complicated issue. Lord Lloyd sought to distinguish between interception evidence that arose in respect of a national security investigation—which he said should be adducible in evidence—and other interception evidence, from a customs, police or security service intercept, in respect of the investigation of a serious crime, which he said should not be adducible in court.
      That is one of the most complex of Lord Lloyd's recommendations. Many take the view that it is very difficult to draw the distinction in practice. There is much to be said on both sides of the argument about whether intercept evidence should be adducible in court".—[Official Report, 30 October 1997; Vol. 299, c. 1032–33.]
      He went on to explain his proposals for dealing with this matter.
      The hon. Gentleman gave a neat precis of Lord Lloyd's report. I am sure that he has gone through Lord Lloyd's examination of this matter, and agrees with me that it is extensive and detailed. Lord Lloyd weighed up the issues, and came down on one side. Rather than go through all the arguments, which would detain the House unnecessarily, I recommend that hon. Members read chapter 7 of the report, which will enable them to understand the detail and breadth of the arguments.
      On 30 October, the Home Secretary said that the Government were considering this matter carefully. We understand why the hon. Gentleman has raised this issue: it is important and must be considered with particular care in the context of Northern Ireland. I repeat that the hon. Member has made a strong case for his point of view.
      Mr. Lembit öpik: I accept that the Government are hesitant about changing this part of the Bill at such a late stage, but does the Minister accept that he now has a good opportunity to make a change which, although it may appear to be a housekeeping change, would significantly strengthen the security forces' opportunities to bring terrorists to book in the courts?
      Mr. Ingram: Such matters must be weighed in the balance, and that is what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is doing. I do not think that housekeeping is the right way in which to deal with such important issues, especially in the context of national security and the relative importance of the crimes whose perpetrators we seek to bring to book. That is why my right hon.

      1219
      Friend the Home Secretary said that the matter must be examined comprehensively. He went on to say that it would be premature to proceed as had been proposed in regard to the general issue, and I agree. I think that it would be wrong to introduce a straightforward housekeeping measure, or to act in any other specific way relating to Northern Ireland, given that my right hon. Friend is considering the position in relation to the interception regime as it applies to the United Kingdom as a whole.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the Minister accept that the general view in Northern Ireland is that the measures in the Bill are confidence-building measures aimed at those whose compliance the Government seek, namely the terrorists? Would not the confidence of the ordinary decent citizen be built up if the new clause could serve as another weapon in the armoury of those who are attempting to enforce law and order? Would that not build up the confidence of the vast majority of peaceable citizens in both communities?
      Mr. Ingram: I entirely reject the hon. and learned Gentleman's opening remarks. If we engaged in a discussion about the underlying philosophy and purpose of the Bill, and whether or not it is a confidence-building measure, we would spend considerable time—time that was available to us on Second Reading, which was cut short an hour and a half before it was due to end. I have no intention of going into the details, but I entirely reject the suggestion that the Bill was designed to appease terrorists. Nothing could be further from the truth.
      The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that, given the mood in Northern Ireland, the Bill would somehow build up confidence on the other side of the community. As I have tried to explain, we want to get the legislation right. It is complex legislation. It is right for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to look at it in the context of the United Kingdom, and for us to ensure that it is robust enough to withstand detailed examination.
      I ask the hon. Member for Upper Bann, and others who have spoken, to accept my assurances. We are undertaking an active and comprehensive examination. The last Government did not act, although they may have given an indication that they would; I cannot say whether they did, but it should be possible to verify whether they felt that action was necessary. They did not act because' they, too, thought that the proposals should be examined properly.
      On the basis of my assurances, I ask the hon. Member for Upper Bann to withdraw his new clause. I will ensure that his comments are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who will doubtless take full account of them. As he told the hon. Gentleman on 30 October, it is helpful to obtain the comments of those who have experience and knowledge of such matters.
      Mr. Trimble: I shall try to be brief. I am afraid that I think the Minister made rather a meal of his response, especially in what he said at the beginning about the Committee. He knows that the Ulster Unionists were going to table amendments, and he knows that, in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) clearly stated that he
      1220
      was prolonging the proceedings only to enable amendments to be tabled. Rather than allowing that to happen, the Government unnecessarily prolonged the sitting until everyone was exhausted. That was unfortunate, but we now have an opportunity to consider the substance of these matters, and I think that we should take it.
      5.45 pm
      The Minister said one thing from which I draw sustenance: he advised hon. Members to read the relevant chapter of Lord Lloyd's report. I am confident that, if they do so, they, like me, will be convinced that evidence secured through wire tapping should be made admissible. Lord Lloyd recommended that it should be so only in cases involving national security, and that raises difficulties, to which the Home Secretary referred; but my new clause is much narrower. It deals purely with Northern Ireland terrorism, and does not give rise to the same evidential problems.
      I echo what was said by the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). The Government now have an opportunity to consider the matter seriously, and I ask them to take it. I realise that they have not had long to consider it so far—if it had been raised in Committee, they would have had more time—but they will now be able to consider and consult, because the Bill will go to another place, where amendments can be tabled.
      The Minister can act in regard to wire-tap evidence relating to terrorist offences connected with Northern Ireland before doing so in regard to offences relating to other parts of the United Kingdom. That would give the security forces in Northern Ireland a valuable additional weapon, as well as sending a signal that the Government will take matters seriously if there is a resumption of violence. It is important for that message to be sent now, because the Government have said nothing so far about what they might do in the likely event of a resumption of violence. The fact that their current approach is all carrot and no stick sends the wrong signals to the community in general, and, indeed, to those who are involved in terrorism. I ask the Minister to reflect on that.
      I do not intend to force the matter to a Division, because I am not sure that votes are terribly important in the House now, but it was necessary for the issue to be raised, and it is important for the Minister to consider it. I hope that that will happen.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 3

      CODES OF PRACTICE: COMMENCEMENT ORDERS
      `—(1) Section 60 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (orders and regulations) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (2), after "30" there shall be inserted ", 54".
      (3) In subsection (5), the words "or 54" shall cease to have effect'.—[Mr. Trimble.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Trimble: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in clause 5, page 2, line 38, at end insert—
      (2A) Subject to subsection (2B) a recording or a copy of a recording made under subsection (1)(b) shall not be made available to any person.
      (2B) A judge conducting the trial of a scheduled offence may require the production to him alone of copies of all or any of the interviews made under this section with the accused in connection with the subject matter of the trial.'.
      No. 7, in schedule 1, page 4, line 26, leave out & ", 53A" & and insert & "or 53A' ".
      No. 8, in schedule 2, page 4, line 37, at end insert—
      'In section 60(5), "or 54".'.
      Mr. Trimble: Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are consequential on new clause 3, but amendment No. 5 deals with a separate issue that is quite important.
      I must give credit for new clause 3 to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). In Committee the other week, when we were discussing a code of practice under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, the hon. Gentleman referred to the provisions in that Act enabling codes of practice to be properly consulted on and debated in the House. The Minister—this Minister—approved of the hon. Gentleman's comments; as a result, they are the joint progenitors of the new clause. As the Minister spoke approvingly of the proposal in Committee, I am sure that he will follow through the logic of that approach now.
      Amendment No. 5 is a different matter. I will explain the thinking behind it. Clause 5 makes provision for the audio recording of interviews conducted by the police with terrorist suspects. It is a matter about which we have very grave reservations. Indeed, in previous debates we have advised against such audio recording.
      I know that audio recording is normal practice with regard to other offences. I am also aware that some judges in Northern Ireland have expressed the view that there should be audio recording. From their perspective, such recording diminishes fights when people who have signed statements challenge them on the ground that they were obtained improperly. The trial within a trial on the issue is sometimes difficult for judges to resolve. While audio recordings of interviews might solve that problem, they give rise to other problems and dangers, which in the past have convinced my hon. Friends and me that they should not occur.
      During interviews with terrorist suspects, much intelligence is gathered by the police. A number of things are said on the basis that they are not recorded in the note of the interview. That is a well-known practice, and it is not necessary for me to cite evidence of it; it is accepted by everyone who is familiar with the system. Many such statements are made, and they would of course be recorded if an audio recording were taken. Such a recording would become available to a wide range of people. I do not need to remind hon. Members that when a terrorist suspect is arrested and questioned, the very first thing that his criminal associates do is try to find out details of what happened and what was said during the interrogation. An audio recording would facilitate that.
      There is no point in saying that the recording would not become available. If, in the normal course of events, a recording should be disclosed or come up in discovery,
      1222
      it will become available to the terrorists. They will then be able to check what their members or people associated with them have said in interviews. That is a very dangerous step to take and will have a serious effect by limiting the amount of intelligence that becomes available to the security forces.
      I realise that the Government are determined to proceed with audio recording. Amendment No. 5 therefore tries to limit the damage. It provides that a copy of the recording can be furnished by the police to only one person—the judge conducting the trial—and that it would not be available to anyone else outside the police. That must go into legislation; it cannot be included in a code of practice because codes of practice cannot prevent the recording being discoverable. The amendment would limit the collateral damage which clause 5 will do to the activities of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
      Mr. Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman has raised a point which I had not considered. If the amendment is not accepted, the clause could be a gift to terrorists. All hon. Members are very well aware that Sinn Fein and the IRA are very good at manipulating any loophole—however small—in the law. The amendment should be commended by us all.
      Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. Gentleman. His phrase is quite right; the provisions in clause 5 are a gift to terrorists. The amendment would limit the damage. I acknowledge the arguments in favour of audio recording. We felt on balance in previous years, however, that even though there was an advantage to audio recording the disadvantage that I have mentioned outweighed the advantage. The amendment would prevent the disadvantages that would flow from audio recording.
      Mr. Öpik: Are we to understand that the hon. Gentleman is trying to ensure that audio recordings do not become an additional weapon in the terrorists' armoury and that audio—and, more important, video—recording is used to protect the interests of prisoners as well as accuracy?
      Mr. Trimble: Yes, indeed. Obviously, recordings can also protect the police.
      What provisions do the Government intend to make with regard to the detailed operation of audio recording? I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
      Mr. Ingram: The hon. Member for Upper Bann made some strong and salient points about the new clause and amendment No. 5. I thank him for paying tribute to those who helped frame new clause 3. Given the debate in Committee, it is important that we get the matter right. The earlier proposal did not quite achieve the objective to which I was prepared to subscribe. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) can speak for himself on new clause 3, but since he has not tabled any other amendment I assume that he supports it.
      The hon. Member for Upper Bann did not go into much detail, so it is worth setting it out for the record. New clause 3 and the consequential amendments Nos. 7 and 8 would have the effect that any order made by the Secretary of State bringing into operation or amending a

      1223
      code of practice made under the Act would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Currently, an order made bringing into operation or amending a code of practice under the Act is subject to the negative resolution procedure in the same way as orders pertaining to equivalent codes under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
      Codes of practice are required in connection with the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of persons detained under the PTA, and such codes are already in operation. Codes of practice are also required in connection with silent video recording and audio recording and may be made in connection with the powers of part II of the Act. We hope to be in a position to bring the silent video recording code of practice into operation in January 1998. It would be wrong to debate the details of that at this stage. If the new clause gains the support of the House, we shall clearly have an opportunity to discuss in detail the Government's proposals. The audio recording code has yet to be drawn up. Under the provisions of the amendments, its introduction after the Bill receives Royal Assent would be dealt with by the affirmative resolution procedure, which would allow debate and consideration.
      Orders pertaining to the equivalent PACE codes are subject to negative resolution and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act currently mirrors the PACE provisions in this respect. However, codes of practice governing the application of counter-terrorism provisions are by their nature somewhat different. That is why I responded as I did in Committee and why I support new clause 3. Such codes of practice merit special scrutiny. All of us will gain from such an approach. I am happy to accept the proposals of the hon. Member for Upper Bann concerning new clause 3.
      Amendment No. 5 raises a range of important issues. In effect, the hon. Member is seeking to place a restriction on disclosure of audio tapes. His amendment would have the effect that audio recordings would be made available only to the judge conducting the trial. The Government fully understand the motive behind that. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to remove any inhibitions that might be placed on the interviewee, and any fears that he may have in the knowledge that audio tapes of his interviews may become public.
      Before I respond to amendment No. 5 in detail, I want to reassure the hon. Member for Upper Bann and the House that the audio recording system is being introduced with the full co-operation and support of the Chief Constable of the RUC, who has taken the view that it will not impair the ability of his officers to pursue terrorist crime. The details of the code of practice that will govern the system will be drawn up, in the usual way, in full consultation with the RUC.
      The general matter of electronic recording in the police holding centres has been a subject of much discussion: it is no secret that the question of disclosure of tapes—whether audio or video—has been a major area of contention. Even those favouring the introduction of electronic recording have given thought to whether it would be possible to devise a scheme that would guard against tapes being disclosed, for precisely the reason the hon. Member has outlined.
      1224
      6 pm
      Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, the Independent Commissioner for the Holding Centres, in his annual report published in 1994, put forward proposals for a scheme involving the Lord Chief Justice to direct a judge, not being the trial judge, to view any tape that a detainee or his legal representative had sought disclosure of during the course of the trial. The Crown would then subsequently be invited to argue against any decision on the part of the judge to allow disclosure and in the end could withdraw its reliance on the disputed evidence. In other words, only if the Crown were still to pursue its prosecution, based wholly or in part on the contested evidence, would disclosure be ordered by the High Court judge.
      Whatever the viability of the scheme, however, it would still face two major difficulties. The first is that, given that the possibility of disclosure would remain, the inhibitions on the person being interviewed—to the extent that that is still a problem—would also remain. Secondly, and more importantly, such tapes would represent best evidence in any criminal proceedings, and to devise schemes that circumvented the principle of disclosure of best evidence would surely go to the heart of the fairness and adequacy of those proceedings.
      Similarly, the alternative of confining access to the tapes to the trial judge only was considered carefully in the past. I have looked at the idea again in the light of amendment No. 5 tabled by the hon. Member for Upper Bann. I have to say that it would be highly prejudicial to the process of justice if any judge were to hear recordings of interviews that were not in the end made available to the defence—all the more so if the judge noted any impropriety on the part of the police interviewing officers. It would place the judge in an impossible position, because his function is to administer justice in a way that is impartial to both parties in a case. We have an especially good record in Northern Ireland in achieving that objective against a difficult background.
      The Government have taken the decision to introduce audio recording for several reasons. We believe that it will provide additional protection both for the detainee and for the interviewing officers, it will reduce the scope for the lengthy hearings within trials that have been such a feature of terrorist-related trials in recent years, thus speeding up the process of justice to everyone's benefit, and it will not undermine the ability of the police to investigate serious terrorist crime, which is the Chief Constable's considered view.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: Can the Minister explain why the Chief Constable is now said to be in favour of audio recordings being admitted as evidence—and why he has apparently suggested that that will not prejudice the investigations or hamper the collection of evidence—when that did not appear to be the case on previous occasions when the subject was considered? What has brought about that tremendous metamorphosis in police thinking? [Interruption.]
      Mr. Ingram: The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) says that it was political pressure.
      Mr. Malcolm Moss: Political direction.
      Mr. Ingram: I am sorry—I misheard the hon. Gentleman. If the accusation is being made—from

      1225
      a sedentary position or by implied intervention—that political direction has been given to the Chief Constable, I assure the House that that is not the case. If the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) wishes to know why the Chief Constable has changed his mind, the hon. and learned Gentleman should talk to him. That is what the Government have done as we discussed the changes. I am reporting the view of the Chief Constable to the House. I can assess why he changed his mind only on the basis of the discussions that we had with him.
      Mr. Moss: So he has changed his mind.
      Mr. Ingram: That is not in dispute. The reasons behind his change of mind are based on the facts and circumstances that he has to take into account, but how the Chief Constable reached his decision is a matter for him. The Government believe that there is merit in proceeding as we intend and the Government have to be held to account for that, not the Chief Constable. I suggest that the hon. and learned Member for North Down and others who are concerned should discuss the matter with the Chief Constable. He is amenable to talking to hon. Members and to giving full consideration to any points of view that they express.
      Written records of interviews are already kept, and silent video recording will be introduced shortly—as the hon. Member for Upper Bann said. Audio recording is a natural and sensible progression. My genuine belief is that the best way to protect the process of bringing terrorist criminals to justice is to protect the police from unfounded and malicious allegations, and to enable the courts to satisfy themselves conclusively that admissions to police are properly obtained.
      While I understand the purpose of the hon. Member for Upper Bann in tabling amendment No. 5, I do not believe that a system that sought to prevent audio tapes from being disclosed would be either workable or appropriate. That is why I cannot accept the amendment. We have not rejected it out of hand. Due thought was given to the amendment on the basis of the various examinations of the subject by others. However, on balance, we do not believe that the amendment would advance the cause of natural justice and I ask the hon. Gentleman to seek leave to withdraw it.
      Mr. Seamus Mallon: I wish to make three brief points. The first relates to the codes of practice. I seek an assurance from the Minister that the codes of practice that the Secretary of State is required to produce, however they are decided, will be implemented speedily. Silent video recording has been agreed and adjudicated on, but after some considerable time it has still not been implemented.
      I heard the Minister's explanation for the delay and in some ways I accept it, but I would be more confident in accepting it if I could do so in conjunction with an assurance that the codes of practice for audio recording will not be delayed. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a target date for the implementation of audio recording, based on the codes of practice.
      Secondly, I have listened with great interest to the points that have been made tonight, but one point seems to be missing. The person being questioned in police custody is in abnormal circumstances. He has been
      1226
      arrested abnormally under emergency legislation; he is being held abnormally, by people who have the right to refuse him access to a solicitor; he may be held for an abnormal length of time, in contravention of the European convention on human rights; and he is held in abnormal physical conditions, in holding centres that have been condemned as unfit for that use by all who have reported on them to Parliament. Abnormality surrounds the entire process from the time person is arrested until the time the person appears in court. The abnormality continues because there is then no jury. The abnormality stretches right through the entire process. For that reason, we must be ultra-careful.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: I agree that there are a number of abnormalities, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the most fundamental abnormality is the existence of terrorist organisations that, over a period, have murdered more than 3,000 human beings, destroyed enormous amounts of property and mutilated the persons of literally thousands of people? That is the fundamental assault on society and everything it stands for which has given rise to the abnormalities of which the hon. Gentleman so eloquently speaks.
      Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for making that point, and I do not dispute with him the obscene abnormality of violence and what it has done to everyone living in the north of Ireland. That is incontestable. What is open to question, however, is the capacity of any abnormal system to end that state of affairs.
      In some ways, the question posed by the hon. and learned Gentleman confirms that. The more abnormal the process of law has become, the more abnormalities are sought. We must think about that even when there is peace—I know that that will crop up later in the debate. Please do not despise that peace. For someone who lives where I live, it is very precious. Do not let a wish list damage the prospect of its continuing. Do not let the need or the desire to predict accurately cloud judgment on the issue.
      It is within that context, on the three key issues, that I greatly welcome the changes made. However, I have been and am still critical of the fact that at a time when we are, I hope, moving into lasting peace, the legislation is being extended beyond the year 2000.
      We as a society, whether in Northern Ireland or anywhere else, must never forget the need to protect the rights of individuals. It is true that some of those individuals do not respect other people's rights, but that is no reason why a Government, a Parliament or a system should take up the abnormalities and make a virtue of them.
      I look forward to hearing the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) argue his case from a legal point of view, but as a layman I simply pose one question about the amendment. Can it be just or equitable that the evidence on tape is not available to everyone involved in the process of a person's trial? Can that be right? Can that be legally acceptable?
      We should not make the assumption that if the judge sees the evidence he, in his overpowering wisdom, will make the right decision. Surely a lay person who respects the law and wishes to protect it should demand that if there is evidence available, it should be available as of right to everyone. It should not be withheld.

      1227
      Over the years, one of the greatest criticisms of the application of both the emergency provisions Act and the prevention of terrorism Act has been that legislation designed to protect society was used to trawl for evidence. Ministers admitted as much in the House. When the provisions were first introduced, Sir Leon Brittan confirmed on the Floor of the House that one of the purposes was to trawl for information. That fact was also confirmed by a junior Minister in a famous Standing Committee debate.
      Is there not an element in the debate on the new clause which suggests that what is being protected is not the chance of a valid conviction, or even the right of the individual, but the capacity of those who are doing the questioning to trawl for information rather than pursuing whatever evidence there may be against the person being questioned?
      That goes to the heart of the problems as many of us in the north of Ireland see them. In response to a comment made earlier, I must say that I believe that there is no general view in the north of Ireland, and that we must accept that fact. However, there is one subject on which there is an absolutely general view—the end to the terrible violence that the hon. and learned Member for North Down talked about. And there is the absolute desire for peace.
      There is also a strong view that, whatever tactics may be used by the terrorists and the others who have inflicted the obscenity of terrorism on the rest of us for so long, the legal process must retain its integrity and should never even step towards using the same type of tactics as the terrorists. I am afraid that the implication that the provisions allow trawling for information goes down a road that we should not travel. It does not protect what we should protect, and over 25 years it has not achieved the results that some assume.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Robert McCartney: In connection with the proposed amendment, may I first point out that although I sought from the Minister some indication of the reasons for the Chief Constable's change of heart about audio evidence, that was not necessarily done for the purpose of supporting the amendment.
      There are difficulties about the amendment. The most basic, which has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), is that it is a fundamental principle of our judicial system that evidence that is to be tendered against an accused must be made available to him. If it is made available to the judge alone in certain circumstances, that is a breach of a fundamental principle.
      The Minister would be correct to have reservations about that, and perhaps it is a good basis for not accepting the amendment. My objections, and the reason for my question to the Minister, involved whether audio evidence should be accepted at all. I did not mean that it should be accepted and an attempt made to tailor it to our present difficulties by overriding what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh rightly pointed out is a fundamental and necessary principle of the administration of justice in the United Kingdom.
      May I in turn refer to other matters that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned? I see nothing objectionable if those charged with bringing criminals to justice seek to
      1228
      obtain information in any circumstances, provided that those circumstances are lawful and are not in breach of any of the principles according to which evidence should properly be obtained.
      There should not be any objection in principle to extraordinary or emergency measures being used to deal with extraordinary and emergency cases. The fundamental question is how far a democracy is entitled to take measures of an emergency nature to protect democracy itself.
      That is no new principle. When the state itself was threatened, both Abraham Lincoln and F. D. Roosevelt, who in any democratic society would be respected as great servants of democracy, introduced emergency measures to which in normal circumstances they would have objected. During the war between the states, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, opened US mail without authority and interned people without trial. Similarly, we forget that, in more recent times, the US Government interned 100,000 Japanese citizens—the Nissei—in 10 different camps when the United States was threatened by Japan.
      No one would pretend for a moment that they like these actions or that they should be given any credence—except in particular circumstances where even greater damage would be done to society itself were these emergency measures not in place. During the second world war, people who were thought to be a danger to the security of the state were placed in positions where that danger could be averted.
      All this may lead the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh to suggest that these measures are not necessary, but let us look at what happened today. In 1984, a group attempted to assassinate the entire Cabinet of the United Kingdom. In 1991, the same people attempted to direct rockets to destroy No. 10 Downing street and those within it. In 1997, they are coming through the front door of No. 10 Downing street, without having surrendered a single weapon or handed over a single ounce of Semtex. It is a myth that violence does not work—violence works if Governments do not have a commitment to take the necessary emergency measures to protect the person and property of its citizens.
      Mr. Norman A. Godman: Can I return the hon. and learned Gentleman to the question of persons being interviewed by police officers? Does he agree that there should be no unseemly delay in the access to legal advice for those persons?
      Mr. McCartney: In principle and in appropriate circumstances, everyone should have the quickest access to legal advice. Again, however, we must balance whether or not prompt and vigorous—although not unlawful or not objectionable—interrogation methods are necessary to obtain information that might prevent horrendous crimes from occurring.
      What is not generally appreciated—except by those involved—is that, very often, those who are being interrogated in holding centres are already known to have committed the crimes for which they are being interrogated. Very often in Northern Ireland, witnesses come forward and specifically identify people and give the most positive and clear evidence against them. However, they say to the investigating police that because they live in the area and because they, their children or

      1229
      their relatives may be murdered or mutilated, they will not give evidence. However, they will identify people on the confidential phone or in an interview. The people concerned are then picked up and interrogated. Within the necessary strictures that must be placed on the police, that interrogation or trawling for evidence—l it what you will—erfectly justified.
      Mr. Mallon: The hon. and learned Gentleman has long experience of practising in the courts in the north of Ireland. I have long experience of the other side of the coin in relation to this legislation. Is it ever right under law to arrest people under emergency legislation— ally at six o'clock in the morning— e them to a holding centre, question them and keep them there, when those who are arresting and questioning them know that there is no suspicion attached to them? Are not the persons arrested losing their freedom and human rights in the search for information, perhaps about someone who the police know is guilty, or about an incident? The figures for the EPA and the PTA down the years clearly show that that has been the case. Surely that is wrong, and we should not allow it to happen again. The amendment would do just that.
      Mr. McCartney: Certainly a strong case can be made that only in exceptional circumstances should persons who are not themselves suspected of committing a crime be arrested and subjected to interrogation for the purpose of implicating others. However, there may be circumstances known to the police—would have to be left to their discretion—re such measures may be justified if they would save lives, prevent a horrendous crime or, in other unspecified ways, protect the community. It is very easy to make specific judgments and to ask for a generalised approval of a principle which, in practice, may cost people their lives and cause massive destruction.
      Mr. Trimble: I shall try to respond to the debate briefly. Amendment No. 5 has been touched on, and we can exaggerate the abnormality of the situation with which we are dealing. In tabling the amendment, I recognised, as has the Minister, that we are attempting to balance advantages and disadvantages with regard to a course of action. There are some advantages in the course that the Government are taking, but there are also disadvantages. The amendment tries to steer between them to achieve the best balance.
      The Minister acknowledged that the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland has changed his mind on the matter. Until quite recently, it was not just the view of the Chief Constable, but the settled view of the police force that it was inadvisable to have audio tapes of interviews with terrorist suspects. Although the Chief Constable may have changed his mind, I think that I am right in saying that other senior members of the police force prefer his former opinion to his present one.
      The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) referred to the European convention on human rights. There would be only a mere technical breach of the convention if the amendment were accepted; a technical breach which could have been solved a long time ago. I am glad to see that the Home Secretary has announced that he is to try to solve that problem, and the solution is fairly obvious.
      1230
      I suggest to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh that the situation about which he is concerned will not be aided in any way by the amendment. The amendment is not directed at a person who is brought in for what he called trawling but is not charged with an offence. The amendment would be relevant only to those who are charged with an offence and to the subsequent trial of that offence.
      The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) made the correct point—h which I fully agree—t evidence to be used against someone should be available to them. However, the evidence is the statement that that person has made. The audio recording is relevant to the circumstances in which the statement is made, and may be relevant to the admissibility of the statement. It may not be ideal for the audio tape to be available only to the judge, but this is not unusual.
      Where material has been withheld under public interest immunity certificates, for example, the judge alone looks at it to see whether the certificate should have the effect of taking the material out or whether it should be available. That can be relevant to criminal cases—example, material that the judge alone considers can be crucial to the outcome of the trial, as in the Matrix Churchill case.
      6.30 pm
      The abnormality of the case can be exaggerated. To return to my first point, it is a balancing exercise and the Government are making a mistake in where they are putting the balance. That mistake will become clear in subsequent days. It is a pity that that is happening and I am sorry that the Government are taking that line. None the less, I do not intend to press amendment No. 5 to a vote and I shall seek the leave of the House to withdraw it.
      I am delighted at the Government's acceptance of the new clause and amendments Nos. 7 and 8. I am glad that they are employing such an open approach to this legislation. In this sort of situation, it helps if the Government are prepared to look seriously at the merits of clauses. As the Minister said, new clause 3 would ensure a debate within Parliament on the codes of practice, so that they are under parliamentary control, or are at least given a degree of parliamentary scrutiny. That is right. The fact that we are dealing with emergency legislation, increases the argument for parliamentary scrutiny. If we are doing something outside of the normal course of events, there is all the more reason for the House, which is authorising the departure from the norm, to examine and scrutinise. Hon. Members on the Ulster Unionist Benches have made that point year in and year out.
      Parliamentary scrutiny of emergency legislation is inadequate and this is a small step to strengthen it. I appreciate the fact that the Minister has accepted those amendments. Therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker I beg leave to withdraw amendment No. 5.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have not yet got to amendment No. 5. We are only debating it with new clause 3 at this stage, so the hon. Gentleman does not need to withdraw it.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 1

      DURATION OF THE NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACT 1996
      Mr. Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, leave out lines 7 and 8.
      I shall try to be as rapid as possible. I have already pointed out that legislation of this nature ought to have parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment No. 1 would restore the debate that would otherwise have taken place in 1998 on the continuation of the 1996 Act. The Bill will knock out the annual review of the legislation in 1998, which is a mistake. As long as this legislation remains on the statute book, it ought to be debated in the House at least once a year, as has been the practice. As I said, the legislation has not had much by way of parliamentary scrutiny. I am surprised that new Labor—or indeed, old Labor—is attempting to remove the House's annual debate on the emergency provisions. It is surprising that virtually the first thing that the Labour party did on coming to power was to diminish the parliamentary scrutiny of emergency legislation. That is an astonishing move and I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.
      Mr. Ingram: Hopefully, we can debate this quickly. As I understand it from listening to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the amendment would ensure that, to remain in force, the temporary provisions of the 1996 Act will be required to be continued by order approved by resolution of each House of Parliament before 15 June next year. I was not clear whether that was the hon. Gentleman's intention.
      Mr. Trimble indicated assent.
      Mr. Ingram: The fact that the hon. Gentleman is assenting indicates an understanding of the effect of the amendment. The Government included the subsection that the hon. Gentleman seeks to remove so that if the Bill is enacted before June 1998, we can dispense with the need for the annual renewal debates, so he is right in his assessment of what we are seeking to do. However, renewal debates will take place in 1999 and 2000, if necessary, to continue the temporary provisions in force until their expiry on 24 August 2000.
      As the hon. Member said, the renewal debates are an important safeguard, but since Parliament will have fully debated all the provisions of the Act during the passage of this Bill, parliamentary time could and should be saved by dispensing with the 1998 annual renewal debates if the Bill is enacted in good time. Because we are debating this Bill within the time scale in which the 1998 provisions would have been debated, there is no need for a subsequent debate. The legislation will also be considered in another place and may be referred back to us.
      Under those circumstances, I cannot accept the amendment. We have had a full debate—12 hours in Committee and considerable time on the Floor of the House on Second Reading and this evening—and there may be further debate on the matter. Simply going through the whole exercise again would not be the best
      1232
      use of parliamentary time. While the debate is important, we have had that debate during the passage of this Bill, so I cannot accept the amendment.
      Mr. Trimble: Having listened to the Minister, my astonishment at the Government's position is, if anything, greater than it was before. This is 1997. After tonight, this House will not debate the issue again until June 1999. We are to be deprived of the debate that would have taken place in June 1998, which is nearly six months away.
      Mr. Ingram: The debates do not necessarily take place in June. Usually it is earlier, in May, and they can take place earlier than that. Under the procedures of the House, the provisions have to be renewed by that date. We are giving the issue full consideration. What more would be gained by having another debate in a month or so? Anyway, we do not know when the Bill will be referred back to us from another place.
      Mr. Trimble: That answer is wholly inadequate. The renewal debates take place against the background of a report by someone who looks into the operation of the legislation during the year. During the passage of this Bill, we have not considered the detailed operation of the legislation against the background of such an expert report. It is a different sort of debate.
      Whether the debate is in May or June does not detract from the fact that the Government are ensuring that there will be no debate in 1998 and that it will be another 18 months before the operation of the legislation is given any parliamentary scrutiny. In these debates on the Bill, hon. Members can by inference make points about the operation of the legislation, but the debates are not focused on its operation as renewal debates are. Even in recent years, parliamentary scrutiny of the emergency legislation has been woefully inadequate. In the next 18 months, it will be non-existent.
      I am amazed that that is the position that the Labour party has adopted, but it has done so and time is getting on. I have made my point and I will not press it to delay the House unnecessarily. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 2

      SCHEDULED OFFENCES
      Mr. Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, leave out lines 1 and 2.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in page 2, leave out line 3.
      No. 4, in page 2, leave out line 6.
      Mr. Trimble: The amendments concern the certifying out of scheduled offences. The effect of the legislation is to enable certain offences to be certified out. The point of the amendments is to allow us to ask the Minister to give us the detailed reasons why it is now proposed to certify out offences—making or possessing a petrol bomb; throwing or using a petrol bomb; possessing a firearm

      1233
      with intent to endanger life; use or attempted use of firearms; causing explosions—that are clearly terrorist offences.
      Those offences are not outside the ambit of paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister give any coherent reason why those terrorist offences should not be handled in the same way as other terrorist cases?
      Mr. Ingram: The amendments refer to offences involving intimidation, petrol bombs, firearms and explosives, and the hon. Gentleman objects to such offences being made capable of being certified out of the schedule of terrorist offences. The amendments would not only preserve the status quo in relation to certain offences that the Government seek to make certifiable out, but would remove certifiable-out status from all scheduled offences under the headings of the Protection of the Person and Property Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 and the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. The amendments do not make it clear whether that was the hon. Gentleman's intention, and he did not give us a full explanation, but that is the thrust of the amendments.
      Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are not suggesting that such offences should invariably be treated in the ordinary way. On the contrary, where the Attorney-General judges it appropriate, they will be tried before Diplock courts. Equally, however, the Government are anxious that, in cases where there is no terrorist involvement or connection with the emergency, the flexibility should exist to enable such cases to be certified out.
      Mr. Trimble: Is the Minister seriously suggesting that there are cases involving explosions and firearms in which there is no terrorist involvement?
      Mr. Ingram: I was coming to that. If the hon. Gentleman holds on for a bit, I shall set out my reasoning on the matter.
      The hon. Gentleman seeks to preserve the present arrangements, whereby certain offences are automatically tried by Diplock courts. Let me illustrate by quoting from the appropriate statutes. Section 2 of the Protection of the Person and Property Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 says:
      "any person who makes, or has in his possession, any apparatus, instrument, article or thing which
      (a) contains any inflammable liquid or substance; or
      (b) is constructed or adapted for use in conjunction with any such liquid or substance so as to cause injury or loss of life to any person or damage to any property; under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he is not making it or does not have it in his possession for a lawful object shall, unless he can show that he made it or had it in his possession for a lawful object, be guilty of an offence under this section."
      Let me describe briefly some of the relevant offences under the other headings. Paragraph 17 of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 says:
      "a person who has in his possession any firearm or ammunition with intent by means thereof to endanger life or cause serious injury to property or to enable any other person by means thereof to endanger life or cause serious injury to property, shall be guilty of an offence whether any injury to person or property has been caused or not."
      1234
      Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 says:
      "any person who unlawfully and maliciously causes by any explosive substance an explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property shall, whether any injury to person or property has been actually caused or not, be guilty of felony".
      Those are the three areas that we are examining in relation to the amendments. It is important to put the relevant parts of the legislation on the record.
      6.45 pm
      The hon. Gentleman seeks to ensure that such offences must invariably be tried by Diplock courts, as he calls them terrorist offences. That is not all: he also seeks, for example—I shall not list every offence—to consign automatically to Diplock courts any offence of intimidation and any offence of manufacturing, dealing in, or repairing a firearm or ammunition without being registered.
      Let us assume that there was an unprovoked attack on a member of the public by criminal elements not connected with terrorism; for example, someone spraying an individual with lighter fuel in order to steal his possessions. That would fall within the ambit of the relevant section.
      As another example, suppose that there was a domestic crime involving possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life; or suppose that ordinary criminal elements used explosives to gain entry to a safe; or that in a dispute between neighbours one party felt threatened and intimidated into leaving the premises.
      Those examples would fall within the ambit of the sections that I read out. The hon. Gentleman would classify those acts as terrorist acts, and would deny those who carry them out the right to trial by jury. I hope that he has accepted the thrust of my argument: not every crime that falls within the ambit of those sections could by any classification be determined to be a terrorist act.
      The hon. Gentleman sought an explanation. On the basis of the explanation that I have given, there is no way in which I could accept the amendment, and I ask him to withdraw it.
      Mr. Öpik: It seems to us that the Government's intention is to introduce, as we would all wish, an element of normalisation in the legal system in Northern Ireland. Certifying out is an attempt to make that process a bit more expeditious.
      My party finds no great danger in certifying out because, after all, if we understand it correctly, cases will still be evaluated on an individual, case-by-case basis. The cases that should not be exposed to the many dangers of corruption that a normal trial might engender will still be tried under the Diplock court system.
      We should encourage confidence in the decision makers, and in the idea that certifying out will not harm the process, among those who are keen for the normalisation process to be accelerated. We object to the amendment and support the Government in their attempt to normalise this aspect of the legal system in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: While I can fully appreciate your anxiety to normalise as far as possible the trial of various criminal offences in Northern Ireland, you will be aware that there is at least a feeling among many people in Northern Ireland that the proposals are part of a process of confidence building.

      1235
      Has any research been conducted or statistics produced on the number of occasions when someone who could have been charged as a petrol bomber was in fact engaged in ordinary criminal activity with his butane lighter fuel? Perhaps you could also tell us—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman keeps using the words, "you" and "your". The Chair is not responsible for the matter.
      Mr. McCartney: I am sorry, I accept that entirely.
      Some statistics or evidence about the Government's proposals would help. Clearly, the Government believe that some requirement of justice means that such potentially ordinary criminal cases should be dealt with in a non-Diplock way by juries. Has any research been done? Do statistics show that a significant body of cases of the sort that the Minister described is being dealt with under the Diplock process, when under the proposals they would be dealt with by trial by jury? Or are the Government saying in a blanket way that the bare possibility of such crimes being effected means that it is necessary to make new arrangements?
      Mr. Mallon: It is with some trepidation that I speak on the matter. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), and the Minister, but I am still slightly confused. I am not quite sure whether that reflects on the powers of persuasion of those three gentlemen or on my powers of understanding.
      The hon. and learned Member for North Down asked for statistics. I understand that the vast majority of work in the Attorney-General's office, some 85 per cent., involves certifying out. I commend the Minister for moving gradually towards having all cases dealt with through the normal process of law. I do not think that the proposals go far enough. Other instances could have been included. I do not want to confuse myself or the issue any further by attempting to mention them, but I believe that this is an opportunity for at least some movement. I commend the Minister for having taken it.
      Mr. Trimble: These were probing amendments to try to elicit an explanation. The Minister gave us a theoretical explanation, not a practical one. I endorse the points of the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). I wanted to know from the Minister whether, in the circumstances in Northern Ireland, there were any instances of such offences that could genuinely be described as non-terrorist. My limited knowledge suggests that all such cases are paramilitary or paramilitary related. That is the practical reality as I understand it in Northern Ireland. Of course, one can construct theoretical situations such as the example that the Minister gave about lighter fuel. I wanted a practical explanation, and I am sorry that I did not get one.
      This was a probing amendment to find whether there was a coherent reason behind the proposals; it is clear that there is not. None the less, having found that out, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 3

      DETENTION ORDERS
      Mr. MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 2, leave out lines 9 and 10.
      Those who watch our proceedings from outside will find it bizarre, to say the least, that we are debating rigorous anti-terrorist legislation on the very day that the leaders of Sinn Fein-IRA are invited into 10 Downing street with the Prime Minister. It will be difficult to explain to our constituents why that is happening.
      The amendment would delete the clauses that refer to internment. We believe that it is right and proper that internment should stay on the statute book. Let me explain precisely why. We are not necessarily in favour of internment. The Government Whip has suggested from a sedentary position that it was not necessarily successful last time. He will be pleased to know that I largely concur.
      Mr. Ingram: To avoid unnecessary debate, does the hon. Gentleman consider that the Government should not talk at all to Sinn Fein? Should anyone talk to Sinn Fein to move the peace process forward?
      Mr. MacKay: I suspect that that intervention was not in order, but if you will allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall respond briefly. I have said on the record on several occasions that I am entirely in favour of the political talks under way at Stormont. It is right and proper that after a ceasefire has been in place for a certain time, Sinn Fein-IRA should be in those talks. We have also said that it is decidedly premature for a British Prime Minister to invite Sinn Fein-IRA leaders to Downing street. I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to confirm that yet again.
      Let me explain why we tabled the amendment. We readily acknowledge that internment does not always work and that it was not successful in the early 1970s. However, it is quite conceivable that if the political talks at Stormont succeed, and we all dearly hope that they do, there will be splinter groups in both communities that do not accept their results and will resort to violence. Anyone with even a passing interest in the history of Northern Ireland and Ireland will recognise that that almost inevitably happens. I suggest that the moment when, just possibly, the Government might need to introduce internment is after a political settlement has been reached and the splinter groups resort to violence.
      It is decidedly premature to take internment off the statute brook. I wonder why the Minister is bothering to do it in the Bill, not least when the Government of the Republic of Ireland are retaining internment on the statute book in Ireland, for understandable reasons. We urge the Minister to reconsider the decision. We are not asking him to introduce internment at any particular point.
      Mr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Government of the Irish Republic. The other day in the Dail, the Minister for Justice, when questioned by two deputies—I think one was John Gormley—said, as a direct response to this Bill, that his Department would review the Irish legislation on internment.
      Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman sits on the Government Benches, so he is well aware that a review

      1237
      is totally different from action. The Government have initiated 40-odd reviews, but if they are telling me that they will all lead to action, they are very much mistaken.
      Mr. Ingram: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Labour party in opposition carried out the review, and we are now implementing it in government?
      Mr. MacKay: I have never said to the Minister that this matter is one of the numerous examples of the Labour party saying one thing in opposition to the electorate and another thing when it came to power. I willingly accept that the Minister does not have the same problem of misleading the British public as his colleagues in the Department of Social Security had to face in the House last night. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to commend him, which was obviously why he made that intervention, I am happy to commend him on his consistency, even though I gently suggest to him that he is mistaken.
      7 pm
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: Does my hon. Friend agree that pragmatism in the approach to the problem is the key? Does he agree that what causes anxiety to Conservative Members is the fact that whereas the Government have embarked on a pragmatic policy, even to the point of being willing to speak to Sinn Fein today—even if we have anxieties about that, we can still respect that decision— they are not adopting a pragmatic policy on internment? They seemed to make up their mind about it some time ago, and are not applying their mind to the current realities in Northern Ireland.
      Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be much better to keep internment on the statute book as an available reserve power, because that would display the Government's willingness to negotiate and look for a peaceful settlement and, at the same time, their unwillingness to dispose of any part of the armoury that a lawful, democratic Government should have in resisting terrorism?
      Mr. MacKay: I concur whole-heartedly with my hon. Friend.
      We are not asking the Government to introduce internment at any particular time; we are simply saying that we think that it is in their interests to have the flexibility of retaining internment on the statute book in case they need it at some time in the future. We see no possible advantage in taking it off the statute book, nor any need for it, and we are surprised that the Government are doing so. Many will be suspicious of the Government's motives, and we ask them, even at this late stage, to think again.
      Mr. Mallon: I should like to restate my position, as I did on Second Reading and in Committee.
      I believe that the Minister and the Government have made the right decision in terms of the integrity of the law as it applies in the north of Ireland. It is the right decision in terms of the integrity of their own political position and it is the right decision in terms of the immediate future and the future beyond that.
      We had a brief discussion about the renewal of this legislation and the fact that it may not be debated in 1998. I was torn when I heard that, because my instinct is to
      1238
      take every opportunity to consider the legislation. But one thing I am sure of is that whatever happens in 1999, when we next debate the legislation, things will have got either an awful lot better or terribly worse. That is for sure.
      There are those who believe that the capacity for things to improve is greater than is sometimes recognised. Reference has been made to a visit to 10 Downing street today, and the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) described it as bizarre. Everything to do with what will solve the problem in the north of Ireland will be bizarre. I live a fairly bizarre life, especially for three days of the week in a place called Castle Buildings, with Sinn Fein representatives on one side of me and representatives of the Ulster Democratic party and of the Progressive Unionist party on the other. That is bizarre. It is even more bizarre that that is happening when a man was murdered in Belfast at the weekend, yet not a word, not a question was asked about which organisation might have killed him. No question was raised in the House when the leaders of loyalist paramilitarism did a bizarre thing. Guess what it was? They went to 10 Downing street to meet the Prime Minister.
      Is it not bizarre that in a fundamental debate as important as this, the most bizarre element of all has not been comprehensively dealt with? I believe, and we have nothing else to hold on to except our belief, that when we come to debate the legislation again, things will have changed radically. A new beauty will have been born, not the terrible beauty of Yeats, but a beauty based on pragmatism, reality and political progress. I cannot ever foresee circumstances on the island of Ireland when internment will be used again.
      As I have said before, internment has been used in every decade since the 1920s—in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Some of us are a product of those years, and our experiences on the receiving end go back long before the emergency provisions Act and the prevention of terrorism Act. I make the following prediction confidently, to whatever party is in power: never again will internment be used on the island of Ireland. If it were, it would be a fundamental acceptance almost of defeat, not of victory, and an act of ill faith in the capacity of the people on the island of Ireland to move away from violence and create a new future. It would hold to us one of the monuments of emergency legislation which has failed by the admission of every party in the House. The last thing that we want are monuments to failure rather than signposts to the hope and potential of the future.
      The Government are right for the three reasons that I gave previously. I commend them on their action. I have made my criticisms that they have not gone far enough down that road of faith. I believe, however, that when we debate the legislation again in the House, the evidence will be there that the step that they have taken today is the right one.
      It is in that sense of faith that I commend the Government for taking a step which is more difficult for a British Government or an Irish Government than probably any other step relating to their own legislation. I want to see the Irish Government respond—I make no distinction between bad pieces of legislation—by removing their power of internment immediately from the statute book. They know my view on that as clearly as I have tried to put it here.
      Mr. Tom King: I was sorry to see the amendment, which has been signed by the Conservative Front-Bench team on Northern Ireland, because I recognise that it represents a possible dent in the bipartisan approach which is critical to addressing the problems.
      When I first heard about the possibility that internment might be removed from the statute book—I believe that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland mentioned it at the Labour party conference, or at a fringe meeting there—I was surprised, because I had not heard about any such proposal. I understood its significance, as would anyone familiar with Northern Ireland.
      I consulted my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), the shadow spokesman for Northern Ireland, on what consultation there had been and what notice he had had that this proposal was to be introduced. I discovered from him that there had been none, and I regretted that because it is obviously desirable, as we go forward with this difficult process, to have the closest consultation between the main parties in this country.
      The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), along with his colleagues, has responsibility for carrying forward a process in which some of us have invested a significant part of our life as we have tried to make it succeed. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) knows, as do one or two other hon. Members, some of the pressures and hostility that I had to endure, from not just the loyalist, but the Unionist community, when I stood firmly in support of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
      I saw the recent speech of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to the British-Irish parliamentary body, in which she described the long process that this has been. She took her starting point as the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It was difficult to hold the line at that time; there were enormous pressures. Some will remember the famous speech that the then right hon. Member for South Down, Mr. Enoch Powell, made and the abuse directed at the then Prime Minister, now Lady Thatcher, at the time of the signing of that agreement. I was the personal recipient of some of the more direct views of the people of Northern Ireland on that subject, not least in the city hall in Belfast.
      I mention that only to show that this long journey towards what I profoundly hope will be peace is a journey in which each of us who picks up the baton on behalf of the Government of this country—to carry it forward in the interests of everyone in these islands—has a heavy responsibility to ensure that every effort is made to take as many people as possible with us.
      I have concerns about certain things that happen in Northern Ireland. There is a long-standing convention, which I have always tried to respect. Everyone who has taken on the ultimate responsibility in difficult circumstances—we have just passed the 10th anniversary of the Armistice day outrage at Enniskillen, an all-too-vivid memory which I shall take with me throughout my life—recognises the pressures on the current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the difficult problems faced by the Minister of State who has responsibility for security in the Province. Therefore, the Opposition do not seek to second guess, carp and criticise unnecessarily; it is easier not to do so if there is consultation between the parties, because comments can be made in private.
      1240
      I am concerned about the spirit of consultation and the bipartisan approach, which has never been more important if the process is to go forward as there are some difficult issues ahead. As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has said, it is a time when people will have to take brave decisions. Those decisions will have to be made not just by Governments from behind the security of Downing street and Stormont Castle, but by politicians out in the streets who have much less protection than I and others have enjoyed. They will have to take brave decisions that will undoubtedly upset some people in their community. In recognising the need for those decisions, it will be important that we maintain the closest consultation and carefully consider their impact.
      I talked about taking risks, and I recognise that a number of steps that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have taken have pushed back the frontiers of what was previously considered acceptable. I do not necessarily agree with all their actions, but a number of them contain the necessary elements to achieve a change of attitude, provided that there can be seen to be a genuine willingness on the part of those to whom the concessions and opportunities are given to respond with a positive attitude. That will be the test and challenge facing the Prime Minister, the Minister of State and their colleagues
      I have concerns about the Bill. If my right hon. Friends press the amendment to a vote, I will support them. After one or two of the appalling incidents that I faced in Northern Ireland, different options were always considered and someone always asked why I did not reintroduce internment. I rejected that suggestion because—given the background events and the manner in which internment had been introduced on that earlier occasion—I knew that many saw it as the ideal recruiting sergeant for another expansion of the IRA.
      7.15 pm
      I believe that circumstances might be different now and that some of the problems that previously existed have changed. There are arguments suggesting that the abolition of the measure would make more sense, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell suggested, the abolition of the measure may not contribute to the peace process. Eventually, with great courage and in the teeth of every possible problem, we may reach the position where the vast majority of people realise that, in the interests of peace and on behalf of the people, not just in the Province, although they are of overwhelming importance, but of people throughout these islands, we should reach some sort of agreement. However, I find it impossible to believe that we shall achieve a unanimous result and my great worry is that I fear—and the history of the island of Ireland shows—that there will inevitably be a risk of splinter groups and breakaway groups.
      The final judgment, not just of this Government and this House, but of the Irish Government, the Dail and the overwhelming majority of people throughout the island of Ireland, may be not that internment is a threat to the peace process, but that it is the only way to save it: the only way to sustain the peace that has been so painfully secured may be to have internment. Despite its imperfections and the affront that it is to a normal system of democracy and justice, there may be some people who will not accept any outcome and will be prepared to continue to murder,

      1241
      kill, terrorise and intimidate in all the ways that I know to my cost many people in Northern Ireland have had to suffer.
      I was concerned about what the Government had proposed. The proposal would not actually change anything, as internment is not active at present; a residual power remains which successive Secretaries of State have, on reflection, decided not to abolish. It has been decided, in the course of a number of courageous steps that have been taken, not just by this Government, to retain that power. I slightly sensed that the Minister of State was trying to suggest that the present Government had invented the peace process; if anyone deserves the greatest credit for our current position it is my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) for the way in which he carried forward the process. He did that while keeping the power of internment, recognising that the power might be needed in future.
      I say this with some sorrow, because I realise that others may seek to exploit my words, but others, including the Minister, may profit from them, because his action may be seen as a more courageous step if I stand up to oppose it; in front of a certain audience, that may help him on his way. He may not understand my point, but, in the world of Northern Ireland, if one person disapproves, another approves.
      I profoundly hope that reintroducing internment will never be necessary and I would never have done it myself if I could possibly avoid it, but I would not take the power to do so away from a free democratic society and from the people who might ultimately depend on the Government's being prepared to come to their assistance and provide the necessary security. I would not have abolished the existing but latent residual power.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: I can understand to some degree the feelings of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) about the fact that there was no consultation between the Government and the Opposition on the presentation of the Bill, but surely he, more than anyone else, realises that the Anglo-Irish Agreement, in which he was heavily involved, is the prime example of the way in which people are left feeling aggrieved if they have not been consulted. With the greatest respect, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it does not lie in his mouth to complain about the absence of consultation.
      Mr. Tom King: In a way, I have made exactly the same point. My criticism of the Anglo-Irish Agreement was not based on its substance, but on the lack of consultation. There should have been more consultation and it certainly would have been preferable. Holding the views he does, the hon. and learned Gentleman must accept my remarks about the need for consultation in all things.
      Mr. McCartney: That is true, up to a point, but, when the agreement was passed, I vividly recall the right hon. Gentleman telling us in the Northern Ireland assembly that, when we all got to grips with it and understood it—as if we were people of limited intelligence— we would fully appreciate how peace, stability and reconciliation would be the fruits of that great agreement. However, I have read today's edition of The Daily Telegraph, which carries a year-by-year account of those who have been murdered by Sinn Fein-IRA, and I have to tell the
      1242
      right hon. Gentleman that the passage of time from 1985 and the roll call of the dead at the hands of Sinn Fein-IRA and the equally despicable terrorists who masquerade as loyalists provides no evidence of the peace, stability and reconciliation that foolish pro-Union people fail to recognise in the interstices of the agreement created for them by others.
      If my recollection is correct, when that agreement was being put through the House, the right hon. Gentleman, who was then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, told the House and the world at large that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was for the purpose of strengthening and securing the Union. Mr. Kinnock, then the Leader of the Opposition, told the House that he welcomed the Anglo-Irish Agreement because it was a step, albeit a small step, towards the fulfilment of the Labour party policy of a united Ireland by consent.
      Mr. Tom King: The hon. and learned Gentleman might recall that, at the identical moment, Mr. Charles Haughey, who was then either the Taoiseach or the Leader of the Opposition in Ireland, was berating Dr. Garret Fitzgerald for saying that he had copper fastened partition.
      Mr. McCartney: I take that point, but I would rather confine our debate to events in this House, because this House, then as now, is the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—a position that Mr. Haughey has never at any time occupied, although he had aspirations to do so.
      We should bear in mind the fact that, from their viewpoint, the pro-Union people in Northern Ireland were receiving conflicting messages from those involved in a bipartisan policy. It has been rightly said that when Government and Opposition are in unctuous and pious agreement about the way forward, one thing is absolutely certain: someone somewhere—in this case, the pro-Union people of Northern Ireland—are being treated very badly. That was certainly the impression in 1985, and it is increasingly what the pro-Union people of Northern Ireland feel today. I am pleased that there is some disagreement today about the bipartisan policy, because it give me some hope that an objective assessment is being made in the House of the relative merits of the measure.
      I shall speak briefly about internment. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has done some violence to the historical record on internment, because internment has been an enormously effective weapon in maintaining the integrity of, and democracy in, the Republic of Ireland. On each occasion when internment has been utilised in the Republic of Ireland to put down terrorist activities in the form of private armies, it has worked admirably.
      As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, I, as a common lawyer who is very conscious of the rights of the individual, have an antipathy to internment. I agree entirely with what the right hon. Member for Bridgwater said; internment should be used as the very last option, but there are clearly foreseeable circumstances in which internment may be necessary. It is informative to note that those who have been most closely involved inside the IRA, but who have forsaken it and become its most constructive and successful critics, have all said that their ultimate fear is of internment.
      No one is suggesting that internment should be put into effect, but, while it is retained on the statute book, it can be introduced in certain circumstances—for example,

      1243
      when it is essential to copper fasten a peace—to ensure that an agreement arrived at among democrats is held firmly in place against attack by small splinter groups. We should remember that in a complex and modern society small splinter groups need only to have the means to shut down 10 or 12 electricity sub-stations in the City of London in order to bring down every computer there. We must not underestimate how effective a small group with modern equipment can be and the threat that it can pose. In those circumstances, it may be necessary to hold the measure in reserve.
      We should retain the measure, not as a result of any feeling of oppression, but because of the speed with which it may be introduced. If it ceases to be primary legislation, we can reinstate it only over a period, thereby losing the surprise and speed of execution that may be among the most effective attributes of this ultimate safeguard of democracy. We throw away surprise, and the strength of holding it in reserve—and for what purpose? To build the confidence of terrorists. Can there be any other reason for doing so?
      7.30 pm
      It does not serve for the Minister to say, "We said in opposition that we would introduce this measure if we were the Government." That does not make it better. It provides some consistency, but some people have been known to be consistently wrong. It behoves everyone to think very carefully about the ultimate situation that the right hon. Member for Bridgwater spoke of, and to consider whether the peace that everyone hopes for, and which everyone is striving to secure, may ultimately fail because we are incapable of removing from society the small number of people who will never, in any circumstances, come into the democratic fold.
      Mr. Ken Maginnis: It is appropriate to allude briefly to the situation that pertained today, when three unreconstructed terrorists—Adams, McGuinness and Ferris—were invited into the heart of democracy by the leading politician in the United Kingdom, our Prime Minister. Whether we oppose or support the Labour party, he is our Prime Minister, and representatives of our Government are sitting on the Treasury Bench. Today, they invited those people who were specifically named in a recent "Newsnight" programme as active members of the—
      Mr. Trimble: The "Spotlight" programme.
      Mr. Maginnis: I thank my hon. Friend. They were named in that documentary, shown on "Newsnight", as leading members of the IRA's Army Council. They were invited into Downing street to placate the threat that they still pose, which is still recognised, from the IRA to society throughout the United Kingdom.
      That approach has not worked in the past. In the early to mid 1970s, the Government decided that the one way to placate terrorists was to set up incident centres on the streets of our towns, to finance those incident centres and
      1244
      to supply telex machines to people who were not terribly well-organised. Those people were carrying out acts of terrorism, but they were not organised in the sophisticated way that they are today. As an act of good will, the Government of the day taught them how they must become organised, how they must create a communication structure and how, in effect, they must become more efficient at the terrorism that they were carrying out against society.
      That was done as a reaction to internment, which we all now admit was carried out with a degree of expedition that was unwise because the information was not available. However, the information is available today. We know today who are the godfathers, the people who do not prime or carry or plant a bomb, who do not actually put the gun to the back of the head of community policemen in Lurgan and pull the trigger, but who sanction every wicked act that is carried out in the name of the IRA and in the name of other illegal paramilitary organisations.
      I do not want to embarrass him, but I have some regard for the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). I believe that he, like myself and others, sincerely wants peace throughout society in Northern Ireland. I do not doubt him for a moment, but when I heard him today describing things as abnormal and bizarre, I cast my mind back to the time when he engaged in amateur dramatics, and I thought that he had lost none of his talent. He communicated in very acceptable terms something that is fundamentally flawed—something wrong. He suggested that Governments did not have the right to employ emergency measures in an emergency situation.
      The hon. Member knows better than that. He and other members of the Social Democratic and Labour party sat for more than a year in the Dublin Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, predominantly a nationalist forum, in which the IRA sat facing every other nationalist party in Ireland. Every other nationalist party in Ireland said to the IRA, "You are wrong to pursue a violent course. You must abandon violence. You must recognise that the consent of the people of Northern Ireland is absolutely necessary if we are to have an equitable and peaceful society and if you want to be part of it."
      At the end of a year, in that cosseted environment, the IRA representatives pointed their fingers back at the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and his colleagues and said: "No. Consent is not on our agenda." They were telling us that they still adhered to a strategy of holding an Armalite in one hand and a ballot box in the other. They are prepared to put the Armalite behind them and exploit the ballot box, and they will exploit the ballot box for a considerable time, as long as the Government are prepared to set up incident centres and supply them with telex machines, or to give them concession after concession as they are doing now.
      There has been nothing quite as humiliating, in the entire 27 years of violence, as seeing the three top leaders of the IRA walk through the door of No. 10 Downing street today, entering what, together with this place, represented the heart of democracy. Then they came out and went in for some showboating. There was not a word about the consent of the people being an essential part of democracy;

      1245
      not a word about dismantling the terrorist organisation; not a word about disarmament. There was, however, a suggestion that, if the leader of my party were willing, they would engage in another showboating exercise.
      God knows how these showboating exercises will end. To please Gerry Adams and his cohorts, perhaps we shall all have to dance the conga along Whitehall—
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend and I are good friends, because I am a Conservative and Unionist, and I support the Unionist cause in Northern Ireland. Does my hon. Friend share my view that if Mr. Adams, Mr. McGuinness and Mr. Ferris do not get their way, they will return to violence? Would he therefore agree that internment should remain part of our primary legislation?
      Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman brings me succinctly back to the point I wanted to make. However we try to placate these people, their appetite is insatiable—nothing short of a united Ireland will placate them. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater said that if there were a settlement there would be splinter groups with which we should have to deal. It is much more serious than that. There is not an ounce of sincerity in Provisional Sinn Fein: the Armalite has not been put away. So when the bribes—the Danegeld—that have to be paid to keep these unreconstructed terrorists at the table of democracy run out, they will resort again immediately to violence. Then we shall have to decide how to deal with the godfathers.
      Mr. Mallon: With reference to the "cosseted" situation in which I and others spent more than a year trying to persuade people that the principle of consent in relation to any change of status for the north of Ireland is the only viable democratic approach, I want to assure the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing very cosseted about doing a week's work here and then heading off to spend another two days trying to convince people of the validity of that argument. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point; I, too, know how the prodigal son's brother felt—the more so given some of these antics—but surely every opportunity should be taken to put this case and to test these people out.
      Mr. Maginnis: I have some sympathy with that, but when do we stop testing? When do we decide that the product is fit for human consumption? Nothing has emanated from IRA-Sinn Fein to suggest that they can be seriously incorporated in the democratic process. Today was a humiliating today for British democracy. Surely people still remember Warrington, Enniskillen and Regent's park—the list is endless.
      Some people say that Enniskillen was a mistake, and that it was never intended that civilians should be killed. The town is in the heart of my constituency, and I know better. I remind the House that on that same Sunday, about 25 miles from Enniskillen in a place called Tullyhomman, another church parade involving youth organisations and children aged between 16 and 18 was assembling ready to move off. Right in the heart of their assembly area was a huge bomb, every bit as dreadful as the one that exploded in Enniskillen. But it was discovered and subsequently forgotten, because the discovery prevented 30, 40 or 50 deaths. It would have wiped out an entire generation in the locality. That bomb, now forgotten, was approved by the IRA's hierarchy.
      1246
      7.45 pm
      The right hon. Member for Bridgwater says that although he approves of internment being on the statute book he never saw any justification for using it. I have seen such justification time and again in the past 27 years. Instead of bolstering Sinn Fein-IRA with incident centres and telex machines, we should have been perfecting the gathering and collating of intelligence. By 1985, when our intelligence was perfect, we should have removed the godfathers by detaining them under the internment powers. Had we done so, I do not doubt that others would have filled their shoes. They would have taken the places of the quartermasters and the brigade commanders, but if one keeps removing the finance officers, production managers and sales managers from a business, that business will soon be brought to its knees.
      That is not to say that we should intern hundreds of people, but I am afraid that neither the previous Government nor this one have had the courage to face up to what terrorism really means to the people who have to endure it daily.
      The Government continue to cling to the vain hope that if we give the terrorist what he wants, he will eventually become a democrat. But we democrats who sit in this Chamber do not always get what we want—yet we abide by the collective decisions made here. Certainly, we question those decisions, but we abide by them willingly because we know that that is the best way of maintaining order in society. Adams, McGuinness and Ferris, and people like them, will never acquiesce in that idea. I therefore say that the Government of the time were negligent, in that they failed to use internment when they had the chance to use it at the right time.
      May I comment on the rumour that the Irish Republic will review its situation with regard to internment? Despite all the clamour that there has been for the past 20 years for this jurisdiction to remove internment, the Irish Republic has never volunteered to initiate that process, because it recognises that internment is a legitimate weapon in the hands of a responsible democratic Government, and that internment on the island of Ireland must be implemented south and north if it is to have maximum effect against the terrorism of the IRA.
      The case of loyalist terrorism is slightly different; we can probably contain that within our own jurisdiction, by the use of internment there. With respect to IRA terrorism, the Republic recognised that it should keep that facility as long as we had it in our jurisdiction. Unfortunately, there has not been the courage to sustain it here, so the Republic will no doubt be obliged to follow the flawed example proposed by the Government.
      The word "affront" has been used tonight. The greatest affront that we can give to the electorate throughout the United Kingdom is to bow our knee to those who would use violence in place of the ballot box. Sadly, we are on that slippery slope. On behalf of my party, I support those who have proposed that the power of internment should be retained.
      Mr. Godman: I shall be brief. I want to return to some of the observations made by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and a comment made by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay).
      I took note of what the right hon. Member for Bridgwater said when he warned his colleagues about unnecessary criticisms being fired at Ministers when

      1247
      they—Ministers—are making difficult decisions. However, the right hon. Gentleman was utterly wrong to observe that Labour Ministers claim authorship of or responsibility for the peace process. We have always acknowledged the work of the previous Tory Prime Minister in that regard. If the bipartisan approach is breaking down, it is because of the carping criticism being levelled at our Ministers from the Opposition. The Conservatives take badly to being on the Opposition Benches. One of the consequences is that they cannot support a bipartisan approach.
      I support my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) on the need to ban internment from the whole island of Ireland. In response to what the Minister said about reviews, I hope that the Irish Government do not conduct too many reviews.
      With reference to the rumour concerning the Irish Government's decision to review internment, may I quote from the Official Report for the Dail. Deputy John Gormley, who I think is a member of the Green party, tabled a question to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, asking the Minister
      "if he will take steps to initiate the repeal of the portions of the Offences Against the State Acts, 1939 to 1984, which allow for the introduction of detention without trial in this jurisdiction in view of the intention of the British Government to remove the power to detain persons without trial from the statute book in relation to Northern Ireland."
      Minister O'Donoghue responded:
      "The Government have already welcomed the intention of the British Government to repeal section 36 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, which will remove the provision for detention (internment) in Northern Ireland."
      The Minister went on to say:
      "The Government are equally committed to keeping legislation covering offences against the State under constant review and to amending it in the light of changing circumstances as necessary."
      He finished by saying:
      "Accordingly, it is my intention to bring proposals to Government shortly with a view to initiating a wide-ranging review"—
      I know that the hon. Member for Bracknell has heard that before—
      "of legislation in the areas of offences against the State, including, in particular, the issue of internment."
      I would say to Minister O'Donoghue, whom I have met, that he needs to do more than review the legislation. He needs to follow the radical lead of this Government.
      I said that I would be brief. I support the decision of the Prime Minister to meet those people today. Ministers must make unpalatable decisions. They have to take risks. That is what the Prime Minister has done, and he has my support.
      I detest and abhor the people whose names were put to the House a few minutes ago. They claim to have been associated with an armed struggle against the British Government. That is both obscene and absurd. One cannot conduct a military campaign in a mature parliamentary democracy.
      Having offered that qualification, I believe that the Prime Minister was right to meet those people at No. 10, Downing street. They will claim that it is almost as historic an occasion as that remarkable day in 1921 when Griffith and Collins went along to No. 10, but it is nothing
      1248
      of the kind. Mr. Adams is a brilliant propagandist and he will make that claim, but he knows that this is part of the peace process.
      I say to our Prime Minister, "Well done. You had the guts to do it." I support him all the way.
      Mr. Öpik: These are strange days: Sinn Fein at No. 10, talks between foes, hopes for a settlement from all sides, and above all, a Province in anticipation. How far we have come. The change is this: the suppression of violence is no longer the primary motive. The primary motive is now the promotion of a peaceful and lasting settlement. To that end, internment has never been effective and it never will be.
      Let us remember what internment is. It is the power to have people detained, just by giving their names to the security forces. Those people have no trial and no right of appeal. The Liberal Democrats specifically called for the repeal of internment, and we welcomed the Secretary of State's announcement in September when she said that she would do that.
      When the powers were used, they were almost universally acknowledged to be counter-productive. That is why they were not used in the 1980s—not in 18 years of Conservative rule. Furthermore, even the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) said:
      "I think that everyone, including Conservative Members, would accept that in the 1970s the introduction of this measure was clumsy—ham-fisted, even—and ineffective … It probably had the opposite effect from that which was intended."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 25 November 1997; c. 70.]
      If the situation in Northern Ireland deteriorates greatly and for a long time, there will be ample time to reintroduce such powers. The argument that internment might be needed in the future is not acceptable—we do not keep conscription on the back burner, just in case there is a war. Do the official Opposition argue that we must keep legislation for everything, just in case? I could not support that.
      There can be no excuse for keeping such draconian powers on the statute book. The right to a fair trial is one of the most basic rights. We need to normalise Northern Ireland, as we discussed earlier. That means a move towards more normal legislation. By no stretch of the imagination can internment be regarded as normal.
      As long as the powers remain enshrined in Government legislation, we might use them on the people who would benefit from the propaganda that those powers promote. Such people could use the powers to convince their foreign funders that they needed more money for their cause. Therefore, the powers are almost as counter-productive in terms of promoting the support of terrorist organisations as they are effective in apprehending terrorists.
      This is an important confidence measure not just in terms of the terrorist but in terms of the communities that have often felt oppressed by the mere presence of internment powers. The assertion that losing internment makes us more vulnerable to terrorist activity is simply not acceptable. In addition, those who claim that the Government are weak in abolishing internment ignore the fact that it is a far more laudable option to work to encourage conciliatory behaviour between the communities and to strengthen empathy regarding the basic problem.

      1249
      8 pm
      In conclusion, I fully recognise the contribution made by the former Government in promoting the initial steps that led to the peace process. They made many mistakes along the way, but I do not take away from them the fact that the initial talk of a settlement began with the former Government. It is only fair to acknowledge that point.
      However, I think that it is inappropriate for the Conservatives to try to preserve the existence of internment. I should like to think that tonight's debate is the final echo of that discredited system and will serve to remind us how far we have come from the darkest days of the troubles in the Province when internment was introduced as a panic move by those who did not know what else to do.
      Mr. Ingram: I shall deal with some of the points raised in this very serious and genuine debate. It is worth mentioning that the internment issue was considered at length on Second Reading and that nearly four hours was contributed to it in Committee. Nevertheless, it is an important issue.
      I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King)—who, unfortunately, is not in his place—and to some of his speech. He brought a breadth of personal experience, as a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to the debate. I did not agree with everything he said, and I regret that he is not in his place to hear me correct his assertion that, somehow or other, the Government are claiming credit for the peace process. That is not the case. We have always taken the view that we are placing bricks on foundations that others have laid.
      I am reminded of the famous quote by Abba Eban who said that peace is not an event but a process. Many people have taken forward the Northern Ireland peace process. There have been many stumbles along the way and many steps backwards, but I hope that we are now moving towards a long-lasting peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to everyone who has contributed to that process.
      Clearly, the internment issue provokes very strong views. The reality is that internment involves a decision by Government to deprive individuals of their liberty without trial and without the normal safeguards that the law provides for the protection of the accused. In Committee, these words were spoken:
      "Opposition Members believe that internment is undeniably an infringement of civil liberties. It would be folly to pretend otherwise. It would be equally foolish to deny that when internment was introduced in the 1970s, it was a disaster. It was entirely counterproductive, and it left the IRA stronger. The Committee should not spend much time discussing these issues. It should acknowledge that internment is an infringement of civil liberties and that it failed drastically in the past."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A,, 25 November 1997; c. 77.]
      They were the words of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who unfortunately is no longer in his place—although he was in the Chamber earlier. Those arguments justify everything that the Labour party has said consistently, both in opposition and in government, as to why internment should be removed.
      Internment does not achieve any of the objectives that some hon. Members have offered as justification for it. It does not bring stability within the communities:
      1250
      historically, it has increased community tension. It causes serious damage to respect for the rule of law, strengthens terrorist organisations, creates political prisoners and, ultimately, prolongs the violence. Every major review and examination of internment has found conclusively that internment has no place in a democratic society. The 1975Gardiner report criticised both the theory and the practice of detention under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973.
      In 1980, the detention provisions were allowed to lapse—although they remained on the statute book—under a Conservative Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who said that the lapsing of the powers would be an expression of confidence in the minority community's rejection of terrorism. In 1990, Lord Colville reviewed the matter again, and he considered in detail the difficulties associated with the operation of internment and its repercussions for the nationalist community. He said:
      "perhaps the most sinister by-product was the tendency actually to strengthen terrorist networks through increased hostility and criminal skills among those detained."
      He went on to criticise trenchantly the way in which internment operated. In 1995, the matter was considered again by Mr. John Rowe QC as part of his fundamental review of the EPA. His view was also straightforward: he recommended that the provisions should not be re-enacted.
      Why are we having this debate tonight? I hope that it does not signal a breakdown in the bipartisan approach. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater made some telling points on that subject. I hope that the House will not divide on the amendment—although I know that the official Opposition have organised themselves on that basis. Such an action could be read as a breakdown in the bipartisan approach.
      When the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) moved the amendment on behalf of the Opposition, he did not take account of the debates in Committee when I set forth justifications for the Government's action. I have touched on those reasons only briefly this evening. The hon. Gentleman did not challenge the arguments of those experts who have conducted thoroughgoing reviews of the internment provision. if he had done that and knocked down those arguments, a Division tonight could be justified. We are moving the process forward slowly.
      Mr. Maginnis rose—
      Mr. Ingram: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman spoke for 20 minutes tonight and he set out his arguments in detail in Committee. I am trying to explain why we have taken this decision.
      Not one of the arguments that I advanced in Committee and that were explored on Second Reading has been challenged by the hon. Member for Bracknell. He did not attempt to take on those issues, but he intends to divide the House tonight.
      Mr. Maginnis rose—
      Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is very persistent.
      Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful to the Minister. I have one question for him. He has been part of the process that has made concession after concession to the IRA in the

      1251
      past weeks, culminating in the abandonment of internment tonight. Will he tell us one advance that has been made in respect of the IRA's abandoning terrorism? If he can give us one example, we shall be impressed.
      Mr. Ingram: Both a loyalist ceasefire and a ceasefire on the part of the Provisional IRA are in place. We are moving the process forward. No one believes for one moment that it will be easy. There are many difficulties ahead, but we all have a contribution to make in taking forward the process. Abraham Lincoln was mentioned earlier in the debate. He said, "I may walk slowly, but I never walk back." That is a very apposite quote in the context of Northern Ireland. If we go only forward and not back to the old positions, major progress can be made.
      I shall conclude, because these points have been made in previous discussions of this aspect of the legislation. I ask the spokesman for the official Opposition to consider his position. There are no cheap political points to be made. I understand the strength of feeling, but I ask him to consider the fact that every time previous Governments tried to achieve peace in Northern Ireland, they had the full co-operation of the Labour Opposition. We are now in government. The hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to justify his position, but he did not do so in his brief opening comments, so a Division on this issue is wholly inappropriate.
      Mr. MacKay: Will the Minister tell us whether he voted for all the emergency provisions Acts that we introduced? The answer is no. The Labour Opposition used to vote against them or abstain. Given that he acknowledges that we feel deeply about this issue, it is unreasonable of him to say that by voting against the Government—which we shall do—we are no longer taking a bipartisan approach. That is unreasonable and unfair, and I hope that he withdraws those remarks.
      Mr. Ingram: That is helpful, but the right hon. Member for Bridgwater implied that that was a possibility, and I am responding to the points that he made. If it is not a breakdown of the bipartisan approach, that is good.
      The hon. Gentleman asked me for my past voting record. He should do his own research, because it may surprise him. Labour Members tried to maintain the bipartisan approach. A great debate took place on this issue.
      The Labour party opposed previous emergency provisions Acts primarily because internment remained on the statute book. We have now introduced this measure, and I ask for the amendment not to be put to a vote, so that we can conclude our consideration of the Bill.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 223.

      Division No. 119]

      [8.11 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Baldry, Tony

      Amess, David

      Bercow, John

      Arbuthnot, James

      Blunt, Crispin

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Boswell, Tim

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      1252

      Brady, Graham

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Brazier, Julian

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Luff, Peter

      Burns, Simon

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Butterfill, John

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Cash, William

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      MacKay, Andrew

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Clappison, James

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Madel, Sir David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Maginnis, Ken

      Collins, Tim

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Colvin, Michael

      Malins, Humfrey

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Moss, Malcolm

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Ottaway, Richard

      Duncan, Alan

      Page, Richard

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Paice, James

      Evans, Nigel

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Faber, David

      Paterson, Owen

      Fallon, Michael

      Prior, David

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Robathan, Andrew

      Fraser, Christopher

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Gale, Roger

      Ruffley, David

      Garnier, Edward

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Gibb, Nick

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Gill, Christopher

      Shepherd, Richard

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Soames, Nicholas

      Gray, James

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Green, Damian

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Greenway, John

      Spring, Richard

      Grieve, Dominic

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Syms, Robert

      Hammond, Philip

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Hayes, John

      Thompson, William

      Heald, Oliver

      Trend, Michael

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Trimble, David

      Horam, John

      Viggers, Peter

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Walter, Robert

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Wardle, Charles

      Hunter, Andrew

      Waterson, Nigel

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Wells, Bowen

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Johnson Smith,

      Whittingdale, John

      Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Key, Robert

      Willetts, David

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Woodward, Shaun

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Lansley, Andrew

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Leigh, Edward

      Mr. James Cran and

      Letwin, Oliver

      Mr. Stephen Day.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Betts, Clive

      Ainger, Nick

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Allen, Graham

      Boateng, Paul

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Austin, John

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Baker, Norman

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Banks, Tony

      Burden, Richard

      Barnes, Harry

      Byers, Stephen

      Bayley, Hugh

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Beard, Nigel

      Canavan, Dennis

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Casale, Roger

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Caton, Martin

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Chidgey, David

      Best, Harold

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      1253

      Clapham, Michael

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hurst, Alan

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hutton, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Colman, Tony

      Ingram, Adam

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Jamieson, David

      Corbett, Robin

      Jenkins, Brian

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Cranston, Ross

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Crausby, David

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Darvill, Keith

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Kemp, Fraser

      Denham, John

      Khabra, Piara S

      Dismore, Andrew

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Dobbin, Jim

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Doran, Frank

      Laxton, Bob

      Dowd, Jim

      Lepper, David

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Levitt, Tom

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Linton, Martin

      Edwards, Huw

      Livingstone, Ken

      Efford, Clive

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Etherington, Bill

      Lock, David

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Love, Andrew

      Fisher, Mark

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McCabe, Steve

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Flynn, Paul

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      McDonnell, John

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Fyfe, Maria

      McNamara, Kevin

      Gapes, Mike

      McNulty, Tony

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      MacShane, Denis

      Gerrard, Neil

      McWaltter, Tony

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McWilliam, John

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Mallaber, Judy

      Godman, Norman A

      Mallon, Seamus

      Godsiff, Roger

      Marek, Dr John

      Grant, Bernie

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Michael, Alun

      Grogan, John

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hanson, David

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Heppell, John

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

      Hill, Keith

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      1254

      Norris, Dan

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Olner, Bill

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Öpik, Lembit

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Pendry, Tom

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Stunell, Andrew

      Pickthall, Colin

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pike, Peter L

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Plaskitt, James

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pope, Greg

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Pound, Stephen

      Timms, Stephen

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Touhig, Don

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

      Purchase, Ken

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Radice, Giles

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Rammell, Bill

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Rendel, David

      Watts, David

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Rooker, Jeff

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Rowlands, Ted

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Winnick, David

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Salter, Martin

      Wood, Mike

      Sawford, Phil

      Woolas, Phil

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Worthington, Tony

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Wyatt, Derek

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Janet Anderson and

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Jane Kennedy.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Schedule 1
      CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 7, in page 4, line 26, leave out & ", 53A" & and insert & "or 53A' ".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
    Schedule 2

      REPEALS
      Amendment made: No. 8, in page 4, line 37, at end insert—
      'In section 60(5), "or 54".'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Parliamentary Broadcasting
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
8.24 pm
Mr. David Winnick: On 14 July, I raised on a point of order a matter that the press was reporting at the time. It was being said that the BBC was intending to end the Tuesday-to-Saturday item on Radio 4, "Yesterday in Parliament". On that occasion, my protest was supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Madam Speaker informed the House that she would write to the director-general of the BBC, which she did. I have seen the reply that was sent to her. I have also seen the second letter that she wrote, telling the chairman of the BBC that she was not satisfied—and that Members of Parliament were not satisfied—with the reason given for ending "Yesterday in Parliament".
I, too, took the matter up with those at the BBC, including its chairman. It is clear from the replies that I received, and from the letters sent to Madam Speaker, that a decision has nearly been reached to drop the programme, probably next April. The BBC's favourite line is that apparently some 350,000 listeners switch off when the item is due to start. That is the figure which the chairman quoted in a letter to Madam Speaker, and the BBC has used it a number of times.
It so happened that, two weeks after I raised my point of order and when the summer recess had already begun, I telephoned the BBC to try to establish the figures relating to the non-parliamentary substitute slot. The item in question is broadcast at more or less the same time as "Yesterday in Parliament"—at 8·40 or 8·45 am, ending at 9 am. Having been unable to secure that information in my telephone call, I wrote to the controller of Radio 4, and was told by Mr. Boyle that the same number of people listened to the substitute slot as listened to "Yesterday in Parliament".
It is understandable that Radio 4, and other radio stations, lose many listeners after 8·40 or 8·45 am. The BBC does not need to carry out a survey to realise that people are getting ready to leave for work at that time, or parking their cars and preparing to go into the workplace. In fact, the listening figures decline from 8 am for those reasons.
"Yesterday in Parliament" is broadcast from Tuesday onwards. The figures show that the decline in listening on Mondays—when, obviously, it is not broadcast—is the same as on the other days. In more recent times, there has been, if anything, a slight increase in the listening figures in the period after 8·30 am, including the time when "Yesterday in Parliament" is due to start.
The BBC has come up with a number of excuses to try to justify what it intends to do. The latest excuse is that listeners find "Yesterday in Parliament" too demanding at that time of the morning. When the BBC is asked why more people do not listen to the substitute programme that is broadcast when the House is not sitting—on Mondays, for instance—various facile excuses are given. One, which featured in a letter that I received from the chairman of the BBC, is that potential listeners do not switch on because they think that "Yesterday in Parliament" is being broadcast. It is very difficult to believe that, in the middle of August, people who are quite
1256
well informed are frightened to switch on Radio 4 at around 8·45 am because there is a possibility that "Yesterday in Parliament" is being broadcast. That is a lot of nonsense, and I am sure that the chairman and director-general of the BBC know it. More than 1·2 million people listen to "Yesterday in Parliament".
The BBC agreement says that it should broadcast an account of Parliament. The appropriate clause of the agreement states:
"The BBC shall broadcast an impartial account day by day of the proceedings of Parliament."
That was agreed more than 50 years ago. The BBC argues that dropping "Yesterday in Parliament" would not undermine that agreement, since "Today in Parliament"—which goes out at 11·30 pm—will continue. That is one of the most flimsy excuses that has been put forward by the BBC since I raised the point of order in July.
"Today in Parliament" now goes out only on long wave, which many listeners are unable to get. There has probably been a reduction in listeners since 1994as a result. Incidentally, on Fridays it goes out on both FM and long wave, a matter to which I shall return. "Yesterday in Parliament" has always had more listeners than its sister programme, which is perfectly understandable due to the time that "Today in Parliament" is broadcast. More people listen to the radio early in the morning. I understand that the same staff are responsible for both programmes. I am sure that it would be generally agreed that both programmes are excellent accounts of parliamentary proceedings. My wish is that they should both continue. I believe that that is the strong feeling in the House.
The BBC says that "Today in Parliament"—the evening programme—will be extended on a Friday, which of course is welcome. Instead of a 15-minute slot, the programme will be half an hour long, as it is on other evenings. Although the BBC intend to extend the programme on Fridays, it will go out only on long wave—not on both frequencies as it does now on that day. Even in that aspect, the BBC is not being honest with the House or with listeners who would like to hear what has been going on in both Houses of Parliament.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Arts will wish to respond to the fact that "The Week in Westminster", which has been the subject of an early-day motion, is being moved from Saturday morning to Thursday evening. That will undoubtedly mean far fewer listeners. The BBC says that to keep "The Week in Westminster" on Saturday morning is too demanding—much the same reason that it gave for dropping "Yesterday in Parliament".
Have the people who listen to "The Week in Westminster" protested about its being too demanding and said that they would like it on some other day? Have letters been sent to the chairman and director-general of the BBC saying that it is much too serious a programme for a Saturday morning? No, the BBC is showing contempt—I can put it no other way—for what goes on in the House by seeking to drop "Yesterday in Parliament" and by the way in which it is dealing with the long-established "The Week in Westminster". Those programmes are accurate, impartial and give a good indication of what goes on during the week in both Houses. There is no possible reason for the BBC to proceed as it intends to do.
As I said in my letter to the BBC, it should recognise that the liberty of all of us depends on the maintenance of parliamentary democracy. Such freedom would not last

1257
five minutes if there were no Parliament and the free democratic institutions which arise from the very existence of the two Houses. Those in control of the BBC should certainly take that into account. It should not be the job of the most senior BBC executives to sideline and marginalise the proceedings of Parliament, and then use any excuse, however flimsy, to stop broadcasting what has occurred in the House the previous day.
We all agree that some days are more dramatic than others. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), the duty Whip, would not like a repeat of what occurred in the House yesterday—but it did occur, and should not listeners hear what has been happening? Why should they hear only a studio discussion, an interview with a Front Bencher or, as often happens, a discussion between two lots of journalists?
Before the 1970s, before there were facilities for broadcasting parliamentary proceedings, the BBC was very keen that there should be radio broadcasts, as later it was keen that the House should be televised. It was right, and the House was wrong to be reluctant to do what was necessary to ensure that radio and televisual broadcasting facilities were provided.
The BBC has always had many friends in Parliament. That was highlighted not so long ago when, in the previous Parliament, it seemed that the Foreign Office intended to cut the amount of money given to the World Service. The reaction of hon. Members on both sides of the House showed that we recognise the excellent work that the BBC does in broadcasting to people abroad. One hopes that that will continue.
There is a fear that the BBC will stop having so many friends in the House if it shows such disregard of hon. Members' wishes. The matter is not one of hon. Members' wishes or egos, and whether we appear in the programmes or not. We want a well-informed democracy. I deplore the fact, for instance, that the serious papers no longer report Parliament; the tabloids never did, of course. The broadsheets carry a sketch, but that is about all.
Once The Times decided that it would not carry a daily account of our proceedings, the other broadsheets followed suit. Obviously I do not seek to justify that, but they are commercial organisations and have no obligation to Parliament. The BBC is not a commercial organisation; it is a public service broadcasting organisation. It should recognise that it has a duty to keep people informed about what is happening in this House and in the other place. It is not simply a question of hon. Members' pride being hurt; our case is not made on that. There is a need to continue the broadcasts so that people know what is going on. If anything, coverage should be extended because a well-informed society helps democracy to survive. That is another point which those who control the BBC should not forget
I should like the chairman and director-general of the BBC to come in person to see Madam Speaker, the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House to discuss the reporting of parliamentary proceedings. So far, there has just been correspondence. It is clear from the most recent letter to the BBC chairman that Madam Speaker is not satisfied. She also makes the point that parliamentarians are not satisfied, and she is absolutely right. Let us end the correspondence. Let the chairman, the director-general and the controller of Radio 4 come
1258
and put their case to Madam Speaker, the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House. Let the BBC try to justify what it intends to do.
Rumours are going around that as a concession some parliamentary reporting might be scheduled before 7 am for five or 10 minutes. My hon. Friend the Minister looks puzzled, and well he might, because that would not be a concession: it would show contempt. I accept that my hon. Friend has no powers in the matter, and that is right: the last thing I want is for the Government to tell the BBC what to do, except through the agreement that was drawn up 50 years ago.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will remind the BBC—as Madam Speaker, other hon. Members and I have done—that it has an obligation to report our proceedings and no justification for dropping "Yesterday in Parliament". If my hon. Friend makes those points today—they were also made on 14 July by the deputy shadow Leader of the House—I hope that the BBC will reconsider. "Yesterday in Parliament" should continue, not in some slot hidden away before 7 am but at its present time. That is what I and other hon. Members want, and we have every justification for requesting the BBC to hold to its obligation—not for ourselves, but for the public, who have a right to listen to what has been happening in both Houses of Parliament.
8.41 pm
The Minister for Arts (Mr. Mark Fisher): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on securing this debate. I am well aware of the considerable concern among hon. Members about the broadcast coverage of parliamentary proceedings, and I welcome this opportunity for some of those concerns to be aired.
The obligations placed on the BBC in respect of its broadcasting services are set out in its royal charter and agreement. In relation to its domestic public services, those include broad obligations about the number of television and radio services, objectives and programme content, standards and scheduling. For example, the BBC is required to provide a properly balanced service consisting of a wide range of subject matter which serves the tastes and needs of different audiences. The BBC agreement also contains one specific programming requirement introduced—as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North said—in 1948 and reiterated in 1996, that the corporation
"shall transmit an impartial account day by day, prepared by professional reporters, of the proceedings in both Houses of Parliament".
Within that framework, decisions about programme content and scheduling are wholly a matter for the corporation itself.
That position reflects the independence of the BBC in all editorial and management matters, including the content of its programmes and the times at which they are broadcast. That independence was, for the first time, enshrined in the 1996 agreement, but it is not a new concept. The need for editorial independence, from both political and commercial influences—as recognised by my hon. Friend—has been one of the fundamental principles governing the BBC since its establishment as a public corporation, and a public service broadcaster, in 1927 The Government fully support that principle.

1259
The BBC's independence brings with it obligations, including the need as a public corporation to be—and be seen to be—accountable to licence fee payers, as viewers and listeners; to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as the custodian of its charter and agreement; and to Parliament as the public authority for the moneys paid through the licence fee. To realise that accountability, the BBC must keep in touch with its audiences and be responsive to their concerns.
It is clear from questions raised in the House, from this Adjournment debate, from early-day motion 246 signed by hon. Members from all political parties, and from the active interest taken in the matter by Madam Speaker that Members of Parliament are extremely concerned about the proposed changes that the BBC announced on 30 July.
Those changes include the transfer of "The Week in Westminster" from Saturday morning to Thursday evening; the extension of "The Week in Westminster" and "In Committee" from their present 42 weeks and 18 weeks respectively to a full 52 weeks a year each; and the possible dropping of "Yesterday in Parliament". It is that last proposal, and the rescheduling of "The Week in Westminster", that have caused Madam Speaker most concern.
It may be of interest to the House if I quote from Madam Speaker's exchanges with the BBC chairman, Sir Christopher Bland, which illustrate the arguments well. Madam Speaker wrote to Sir Christopher on 15 July:
"you will note that there is serious concern amongst Members at the report that this programme is to be discontinued. I share this concern. 'Yesterday in Parliament' performs an invaluable function in bringing Parliament closer to the people. That is a proper function for a public service broadcasting organisation to perform and I hope that you can give me an assurance to pass on to the House that `Yesterday in Parliament' will not be affected by the programme changes that I understand are under consideration."
She explained her unhappiness at the transfer of "The Week in Westminster":
"This causes me very great concern. 'The Week in Westminster' is a long established programme with a fine reputation for providing both an insight into the workings of Parliament and an opportunity for backbenchers to be heard. It attracts a regular attendance of over 500,000. If it were to be relegated to Thursday evening, not only would the audience be more than halved, but the whole character of the programme would change since it could no longer provide an overview by a leading political journalist of the week's activities."
Sir Christopher's reply, on 24 July, made three points. First, he saw the BBC's plans as enhancing Radio 4's coverage of Parliament since they would give
"all year round coverage of the work of MPs in 'The Week in Westminster' and 'in Committee', which are currently broadcast only when Parliament is sitting. This move is intended better to reflect the constituency work of Members as well as their duties at Westminster".
That is an interesting proposal, although hardly reflected in the two programmes' titles and not of direct relevance to the BBC's charter obligation for a day-by-day account.
Madam Speaker was unimpressed by that line. She replied:
"It is difficult to see that the transfer of 'The Week in Westminster' and its replacement by 'The Food Programme' could be regarded as anything but a down-grading of Parliamentary Coverage."
1260
Sir Christopher's second point was that
"the BBC's important obligation to report Parliament comprehensively"—
had to be reconciled—
"with its need to remain sympathetic to listeners needs".
He claimed that
"the Radio 4 audience drops by 350,000 when 'Yesterday in Parliament' begins and there is evidence of many listeners re-tuning to other stations at this point".
Madam Speaker, in her reply of 5 November, dismissed that argument as
"spurious. The drop appears to be part of a trend that for obvious reasons manifests itself during the early morning and is just as apparent when Parliament is in recess as when 'Yesterday in Parliament' is broadcast".
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North also made that point.
Sir Christopher appeared to accept Madam Speaker's dismissal of the BBC's claims of loss of audience when, in his reply of 21 November, he conceded that
"all radio networks lose some of their listeners as part of a national trend between 8·30 and 9, but…Radio 4 loses its audience share faster…in the 15 minutes from 8·30–8·45 audience share falls by 1·3 per cent. and falls by a further 0·9 per cent. by 8·45–9·00."
With regard to "The Week in Westminster", Sir Christopher accepted in his letter of 21 November that the audience on Thursday evening
"is likely to be significantly lower than on Saturday morning".
However, he pointed out that a new Thursday evening slot for "The Week in Westminster" would place it in an evening of strong factual programmes, including "The Moral Maze", "Analysis" and "In Business". He did not respond to Madam Speaker's observation that, in a mid-week slot,
"the whole character of the programme would change"—
from being an overview of the past week's activities.
Those, especially the assessment of existing and putative audiences, are complicated matters, but as the BBC's case for change rests on them, they need to be considered in some detail. Mr. Peter Hill, a former BBC parliamentary correspondent, wrote in The House magazine on 20 October that the radio audience
"rose sharply at 6 am to 8 am to a peak of around 4·3 per cent. of the UK population over 15 (around 2 million) and then drops sharply to about 1·5 per cent. (about 730,000) where it stays for most of the morning. So the audience is dropping just as sharply during the "Today" programme at 8·10 and 8·30, and the "Start The Week" type programmes at 9·05 as it is during "Yesterday in Parliament". What is more on Monday morning, when there is usually a book reading in the same slot, the decline in audience is exactly the same. So let's kill the myth that it is somehow politics that makes people turn away or retune".
The BBC's response is interesting. It accepts that the drop is, as Mr. Hill says, the same, but claims that its qualitative research shows that
"the typical listener found the Parliamentary reports far too demanding at that time in the morning".
Madam Speaker's response to the BBC's explanation was that it did
"little to allay my reservations about the changes you have in mind".
Sir Christopher's latest letter to Madam Speaker, dated 11 December, says that he understands her continued

1261
reservations and believes a meeting between them would be "valuable" and
"an important part of the consultative process."
In her letter of 8 December, Madam Speaker welcomes such a meeting so long as it is held before the BBC's decisions are irrevocable.
Madam Speaker is an eminently reasonable person. Why is she, like so many other Members of the House, so exercised about this matter? It is because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North explained in correspondence with Mr. James Boyle, the controller of Radio 4:
"all our liberties depend on the maintenance of Parliamentary democracy",
and that can be achieved only if our debates in both Houses are available to the public on a daily basis as laid down in the BBC's charter.
In recent years, the national press has changed and diminished its coverage of Parliament, but that should not be claimed as a precedent for any downgrading of coverage by the BBC, as newspapers are commercial bodies with no public service obligations, while the BBC is our key public service broadcaster, financed with public money and operating within obligations set out in the charter.
Mr. Winnick: Is it not interesting that when the BBC says that it is observing the agreement it always cites "Today in Parliament" in justification? However
1262
although, as I said, that programme lasts half an hour, it is broadcast only on long wave. Indeed, on Fridays, when it usually goes out on both frequencies, it is to change to long wave only. Is it not disgraceful that people who previously listened will no longer be able to do so, simply because they cannot receive long wave? Does not that demonstrate again the fact that those who control the BBC have no real wish to carry out the agreement in practice, except to the bare minimum?
Mr. Fisher: I think that implicit in Madam Speaker's remarks about the difference between "Yesterday in Parliament" and "Today in Parliament" is her interpretation of the words, "the obligation to report". A report is a retrospective activity, and "Yesterday in Parliament" fulfils that spirit of retrospective reporting in the charter.
I know that the BBC chairman and governors take their charter obligations seriously. I am confident that they are well aware that their role is to ensure that the public interest in our democracy is properly served, and that they will listen carefully to the views expressed by Parliament and by Madam Speaker, not least in the meeting that Sir Christopher has offered her.
Thanks to my hon. Friend's choice of subject for the debate, this has been an interesting and useful exchange. I have welcomed the opportunity to discuss an important matter, and I thank my hon. Friend again for his initiative in securing the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Nine o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Bathing Waters
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many United Kingdom bathing waters pass the(a) mandatory standard and (b) the guideline standard of the European Union Bathing Waters Directive. [19241]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 4 December 1997,Official Report, columns 289–91, to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie).

  Water Supply
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he will take to encourage water companies to ensure that the supply of water for domestic use satisfies the projected housebuilding programmes in Hampshire. [19472]

  Angela Eagle
  Water companies are subject to a statutory duty to develop and maintain efficient and economical systems of water supply within their areas. In respect of residential development, water companies have a duty to provide supplies of water sufficient for domestic purposes. This duty extends to all new premises. Current planning guidance advises local authorities to consult infrastructure providers such as water companies when drawing up their development plans, to ensure that the demands of new development do not exceed the capacities of existing or planned water supply systems.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in establishing an interdepartmental working group on fuel poverty; which individuals and Government departments will be represented on the working group; which non-governmental organisations will be invited to participate in the work of the group; and if he will make a statement. [19701]

  Angela Eagle
  At my request, officials from my Department have set up an informal group to examine the issue of fuel poverty. In particular, the group will look at the impact of current policies and programmes and consider whether existing expenditure could be made more effective. Other Departments represented are Social Security, Health, Trade and Industry and Treasury, together with the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices. The group has met once so far. Non-governmental organisations may be invited in future to contribute to the work of the group as it progresses.

  Leasehold Legislation
  Jacqui Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received about changes to leasehold legislation; and what plans he has in this area. [19514]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have had a number of representations from organisations and individuals. We have a commitment to bring forward a package of reforms to assist leaseholders, and are currently considering the scope and practicability of possible measures. An announcement and public consultation are scheduled for the spring.

  Water Pollution (Nitrates)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made towards implementing European Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources; and if he will make a statement on the establishment of draft action programmes. [19667]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government have implemented all of the Directive's requirements, except the establishment of action programmes. We expect to issue draft action programme regulations for consultation before the end of 1997, with the aim of laying them before Parliament early in 1998.

  The Government are currently finalising the detailed assessment of the monitoring data required by the first review of designations, which forms the next phase of the Directive's implementation. Any changes proposed as a result will be issued for public consultation.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish an analysis of work carried out since revisions to the home energy efficiency scheme showing the numbers of different measures installed, the average cost of individual measures and the average value of a home energy efficiency scheme grant; and if he will make a statement. [19699]

  Angela Eagle
  The latest data available cover the period from 1 July 1997, when the revisions to the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme took effect, until 30 September 1997. Forty thousand and seven grants were paid for work under the revised scheme. Some work carried out during this period will not be included because the claims for payment will have been processed in the following quarter. An additional 52,308 grants were paid during this period in respect of work carried out under the preceding scheme, which contained a more limited range of energy efficiency measures.

  The breakdown of these 40,007 grants, by the main measure installed, was:

  Draught Proofing

  Loft Insulation

  Cavity Wall Insulation

  Heating Control Upgrade

  29,690

  7,331

  3,986

  nil

  631
  Additionally, 34,773 grants were paid for low energy light bulbs, 30,104 for personal advice on energy efficiency and 9,954 for hot water tank insulation in conjunction with one of these main measures.

  The mean value of all grants paid during the same period was £159. By the main measure installed, the mean grant values were as follows:

  Draught Proofing

  Loft Insulation

  Cavity Wall Insulation

  Heating Control Upgrades

  £130

  £236

  £281

  nil

  I am very pleased to announce that this information, updated quarterly, will become publicly available from early 1998. Our managing agent, Eaga Ltd., will place detailed reports about the scheme on the Internet. The address will be www.eaga.co.uk.

  I propose, in the near future, to review this scheme, which is intended to help people on low incomes keep their homes warmer and use less fuel, to find out if it is helping the right people in the most effective way.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what financial resources will be available to fund the cost of energy efficiency work carried out under the Environmental Task Force Programme; and if he will make a statement. [19697]

  Angela Eagle
  The Environment Task Force is one of four options available to the young unemployed under the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds, and will be funded from the windfall levy on the excess profits of the privatised utilities.

  The level of funding available for projects carried out by the Environment Task Force, including energy efficiency work, will vary according to the administration and material costs of the placements, and will be subject to a competitive tender process, managed by the Employment Service.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the carbon savings that will occur each year as a result of the reduction in the level of VAT levied on activities undertaken under the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme; and what estimates he has made of the carbon savings that would have occurred each year, had the same reduction in the level of VAT been levied on all purchases and installations of such energy-saving items as are deemed eligible under the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, but currently undertaken outwith that scheme. [18544]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  Customs' recent report on the scope of a reduced rate of VAT for energy-saving materials concluded that a reduced rate of VAT targeted through HEES and similar grant-funded schemes would help more of the less well-off keep warm. The report also suggests that the environmental benefits of such a limited reduced rate would be small, because the benefit to such households may be taken in warmer houses rather than reduced fuel consumption.
  632
  The Government have said that they will explore with our European partners the scope for a reduced VAT rate on a broader range of Energy Saving Materials because this would have a larger environmental effect.

  Applying a reduced rate of VAT of 5 per cent. to all supplies to domestic consumers of the sort of energy saving measures that are available under the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (including for DIY installation) might result in an initial annual saving of 3,000 tonnes of carbon, accumulating to 40,000 tonnes annually by 2010.

  Sainsbury's (Richmond-upon-Thames)
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when the planning application for the proposed Sainsbury's development at Richmond-upon-Thames was(a) first considered by the Inspector and (b) approved by the Inspector; and if he will give the dates on which Ministers were notified of the Inspector's preliminary and final decisions; [19924]

  (2) if he will list the dates on which the Inspector considering the planning application for the proposed Sainsbury's development at Richmond-upon-Thames contacted his Department; giving the reasons for the contacts and advice given. [19925]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate, Mr. Chris Shepley, to write to the hon. Member.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those public relations companies who were involved in presentations to(a) Ministers, (b) officials and (c) Inspectors in connection with the planning application for the proposed Sainsbury's development at Richmond-upon-Thames. [19922]

  Mr. Caborn
  No representations were made either to Ministers or to officials, as the decision on the appeal was made by a planning inspector. I have asked the Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate, Mr. Chris Shepley, to write to the hon. Member about the representations made to the inspector.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the(a) architects and (b) planning consultants involved in presentations to (i) Ministers, (ii) officials and (iii) Inspectors in connection with the planning application for the proposed Sainsbury's development at Richmond-upon-Thames. [19923]

  Mr. Caborn
  No presentations were made either to Ministers or to officials. I have asked the Planning Inspectorate's Chief Executive, Mr. Chris Shepley, to write to the hon. Member about the representations made to the Inspector who was appointed to decide the appeal.

  Letter from Chris Shepley to Miss Julie Kirkbride, dated 11 December 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about the planning appeal decisions concerning the proposed Sainsbury's development at Richmond-upon-Thames.
  I enclose a copy of the Inspector's decision letter at the back of which you will find a list of all those who gave evidence during the inquiry. In addition, the Inspector also received written

  633
  representations objecting to the proposal from Nathaniel Litchfield and Partners, on behalf of Chelverton Properties, and Roger Tym and Partners, on behalf of Somerfield Stores.
  As you will see from the decision letter, the Inspector started hearing the case in November 1996 but it overran the allotted time. The inquiry therefore had to be adjourned until March 1997. The Inspector issued his decision on 4 July 1997. Occasionally an Inspector may issue what is known as an Advanced Notice of Decision (AND) but these are usually limited to relatively simple cases. No AND was issued in this case and the decision letter of 4 July represents the Inspector's one and only decision on the appeal.
  Inspectors issue thousands of decisions every year and Ministers are not routinely informed about the outcome of them all. Ministers were not notified about the outcome of this case.
  To the best of my knowledge, the Inspector contacted us 3 times about the appeal: in December 1996 to confirm the dates for the re-opening of the inquiry; in April this year he asked us to circulate to the appellant and the local planning authority some late objections to the proposal; and in June, he asked us to write to the parties apologising for the delay in issuing his decision because he was still involved in a local plan inquiry.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representation he has received from hon. Members in connection with the proposed Sainsbury's development at Richmond-upon-Thames. [19921]

  Mr. Caborn
  Ministers received no representations prior to the issue of the Inspector's decision letter.

  South Yorkshire Super Tram
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much his Department has spent to date on its legal action against South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive over the funding of the South Yorkshire Super Tram. [19811]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department has spent £9,792.57 to date in defending the legal action brought against it by South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority and others.

  Vehicle Safety
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many incidents of vehicles failing the vehicle inspectors' roadside test there have been in the last six months. [19690]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 10 December 1997]: I have asked the Chief Executive of the Vehicle Inspectorate, Mr. Ron Oliver, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mr. David Drew, dated 11 December 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of incidents of vehicles failing roadside tests in the last six months.
  The Inspectorate's Vehicle Examiners carry out roadworthiness spot checks at the roadside, at ports, and at other locations where vehicles are parked or at operators' premises. Vehicles are examined to determine their compliance with safety and environmental standards through checks on their mechanical condition and their exhaust emissions.
  Vehicles failing to meet the required standard are issued with a prohibition notice which, depending on the seriousness of the defect, can prevent the vehicle from continuing on its journey until the
  634
  defect has been rectified. In any event a vehicle issued with a prohibition notice must be inspected by Inspectorate staff for clearance of the prohibition once the fault has been rectified.
  Details of vehicles failing to meet required roadworthiness and exhaust emission standards during roadside spot and fleet checks during the period 1 April to 30 September 1997 are as follows:

  Vehicle

  Roadworthiness Checks

  Emission Checks

  Examined

  Prohibited

  Examined

  Prohibited

  Heavy Goods Vehicles (including trailers)

  86,915

  13,267

  6,650

  220

  Passenger Service vehicles

  15,566

  1,906

  4,202

  121

  Light Goods Vehicles

  9,571

  2,345

  7,340

  3,800

  Cars

  787

  374

  45,251

  807

  Taxis and private hire cars

  1,685

  420

  1,979

  382

  Non-testable vehicles1

  1,015

  407

  n/a

  n/a

  Total

  115,539

  18,719

  65,422

  5,330

  n/a = not available.

  1 Includes mobile cranes, diggers and non-HGV trailers.

  In addition to the above checks, the Inspectorate's Traffic Examiners also carry out roadside examinations of vehicles to check for potential traffic offences including overloading, unauthorised use of vehicles, driver licensing, and tachograph misuse.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the total non-domestic grant allocated to each local authority in the current financial year. [20129]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have placed this information in the Library.

  Highways Agency
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire to receive a reply to his letter of 11 September to the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency. [20273]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Highways Agency replied to the right hon. Member's letter on 3 December.

  Planning Decision (Cockermouth)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 30 July 1997,Official Report, column 405, when he expects to announce a decision in relation to supermarket planning matters in Cockermouth. [20262]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I expect to announce a decision shortly.

  Businesses (Rents and Rates)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers exist to reduce(a) business rents and (b) business rates; and if he will make a statement. [19861]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There are no powers to intervene in the setting of business rents.

  I take it that in referring to powers to reduce business rates, the hon. Member refers to powers to vary the rates payable by individual ratepayers or groups of ratepayers

  635
  rather than to the national systems for determining the National Non-Domestic Rate and for giving transitional relief. Local authorities have powers to reduce the bills of certain ratepayers; relief may be granted to charities, non-profit making bodies and ratepayers suffering hardship provided that the relevant criteria are met. Charities have their rates bills reduced by statute provided that certain conditions are met; as do those liable for rates in respect of empty property. From 1 April 1998 relief will also become available to certain village shops.

  Central Line
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will instigate a report into the current signalling problems on the Central Line. [20153]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Managing investment projects is a matter for London Underground Ltd. I am aware of the problems and know that London Underground is making every effort to minimise the disruption to its customers during the current programme of Central Line modernisation works and to bring the project to a successful conclusion.

  Pollution Control Directive
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the implementation of Directive 96/61/EC on integrated pollution prevention and control; and if he will make a statement. [20735]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government issued a consultation paper on 15 July seeking views on implementation of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive. To date 209 responses have been received from a range of industry and regulatory bodies, and from environmental groups and the public. I am today placing a list of those responses in the Libraries of both Houses, and making arrangements for individual responses to be available to those who wish to see them.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Public Library Service
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what consideration he has given to the Audit Commission's recent report on the Public Library Service, "Due for Renewal". [20736]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Government welcome the publication of "Due for Renewal". We recognise the importance of the public library sector, and are committed to its future. However, we also recognise that there are a number of challenges that public libraries are having to face as they approach the Millennium. "Due for Renewal" usefully identifies some of the main issues, and provides valuable advice about service planning and the scope for achieving further efficiency savings. This work complements the Government's requirement for library 636
  authorities in England to produce Annual Library Plans from 1998. I hope that library authorities will respond positively to the report's recommendations in considering their own services.

  Television Licence Fee
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has in respect of the level of next year's television licence fee; what account this level takes of the five year formula announced by the previous government; and if he will make a statement about future licence fee levels. [20737]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  In December 1996, following a report by independent consultants, Braxton Associates, on the BBC's expenditure needs, the previous Government announced a television licence fee formula for the five years from April 1997. Under this formula, licence fee increases for the period as a whole were set just below inflation as measured by the Retail Prices Index (RPI). However, the increases from 1 April 1998 were set at RPI plus 3 per cent., reflecting primarily the additional costs faced by the BBC in launching its new digital services.

  The Government have carefully considered the five year formula and have concluded that it remains appropriate. It allows the BBC to plan its business properly for the period as a whole and is based on an independent assessment of its financial needs. The real-terms increase this year is paying for new digital services for licence fee payers. The 1999–2000 increase under the formula will also be marginally above inflation, at RPI plus 0.5 per cent. However, the formula specifies changes in the licence fee in 2000–01, and 2001–02 at RPI minus 1 per cent. and RPI minus 2.5 per cent. respectively. Application of the RPI figure of 3.6 per cent. for the year to September 1997, plus 3 per cent., to the current unrounded licence fees produces new rounded totals of £97.50 for a colour licence and £32.50 for a black and white licence. The necessary regulations to bring these fees into force will be laid before the House in due course.

  The Government's existing Agreement with the BBC guarantees the licence fee until the end of the five-year period (i.e. until the end of March 2002). The Government intend to conduct well before then a wide-ranging review of the future level of the licence fee.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Sri Lankans have sought political asylum in the United Kingdom during the current year. [19558]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  During the period from 1 January to 31 October 1997, a total of 1,405 applications for asylum, excluding dependants, were lodged in the United Kingdom by Sri Lankan nationals.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis concerning allegations of corruption in the Metropolitan Police; and if he will make a statement. [19696]

  Mr. Michael
  My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet the Commissioner to discuss issues concerning the policing of London. We are extremely concerned that there should be adequate means for dealing with corrupt officers. We look forward to the report from the Home Affairs Committee and intend to consult with interested bodies before deciding on a way forward.

  Sex Shops
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions of unlicensed sex shops under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 have occurred in the last five years; and what proportion was successful. [19562]

  Mr. Michael
  In 1989, there was one prosecution under schedule 3 of the Act. This resulted in a conviction.

  Information collected since then has not identified individual offences committed under this specific Act.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the effectiveness of the significant degree rule for the regulation of shops selling sex articles. [19561]

  Mr. Michael
  We keep the operation of section 2 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, including the "significant degree" rule, under general review. The City of Westminster Act 1996 contains measures to improve the enforcement of the 1982 Act provisions and we will be considering whether experience of its operation suggests the need for more general changes.

  Rustling
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates he has made of the extent of cattle and sheep rustling in(a) Lancashire and (b) England. [19695]

  Mr. Michael
  No estimates are available centrally. Such offences would be recorded under the "Other theft or unauthorised taking" offence classification and not separately identifiable. Prior to the introduction of the Theft Act 1968, offences of "Larceny of horses and cattle" were published annually in the "Criminal Statistics" command paper, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Youth Justice Task Force
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the advice he received from the Youth Justice Task Force. [20296]
  638
  Mr. Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) on 2 December 1997,Official Report, column 102.

  Prisons (Illegal Drugs)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reported cases of the use of illegal drugs in prisons there have been to date in 1997. [19779]

  Ms Quin
  From 1 January 1997 to 31 May 1997 (the latest month for which final figures are available), 9,353 prisoners tested positive in mandatory drug tests for the illegal use of drugs.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Government classified Sierra Leone as a country in upheaval. [18286]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 28 November 1997]: In view of the situation in Sierra Leone, following the overthrow of the democratically elected government by rebel soldiers, we decided to declare that the country had undergone such a fundamental change in circumstances that we would not normally order the return of a person to that country for the time being. The declaration was made on 1 July 1997.

  The situation in Sierra Leone remains uncertain and it is being monitored closely in co-operation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Although the positive developments following the Conakry Accord are encouraging and we are looking forward to further improvements, no-one will be returned to Sierra Leone unless we are satisfied that it is safe to do so.

  The effect of making such a declaration is that a Sierra Leone national who was stranded in the United Kingdom and applied for asylum within three months of the declaration being made also became eligible to make a claim for social security benefits while his application was being considered by the Home Office, providing that claim for benefits was lodged within the three-month timescale.

  All applicants who claim asylum at the port or airport of arrival are eligible to claim social security benefits in a similar way.

  Category A Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women who were classified as category A prisoners were being held in prisons on 1 November. [19780]

  Ms Quin
  On 1 November 1997, 870 men and four women were classified as Category A prisoners.

  Hand Guns (Compensation)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints his Department has received about delays in paying compensation to gun owners who handed in firearms. [19808]

  Mr. Michael
  Around 500 complaints have been received about the timescale for compensation payments, and the need to respond to these complaints, proving a substantial distraction from the main work of the Firearms Compensation Section. The section is endeavouring to process claims as quickly as possible but complaints and other specific inquiries are factors slowing the rate of payments.

  I appreciate that the time taken to settle compensation claims is irritating to those who are opposed to the legislation and that all individuals who have handed in their weapons would like to be paid without delay. However, it was made clear at the outset that the number and difficulty of the claims received would make delays inevitable. All efforts are being made to complete the task as quickly as possible, and this would be achieved much sooner if there were fewer inquiries about the progress of individual claims.

DEFENCE

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the(a) first and (b) last deliveries of Eurofighter are expected; and what is the current yearly schedule. [20072]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The first Eurofighter is scheduled to be delivered to the Royal Air Force in June 2002 and the last in 2014 with the rate of delivery building up to 20 a year by 2005.

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  H

  Under 25 per cent. of cases resolved

  DBS

  598

  19

  68

  59

  9

  6

  1

  14

  Burns Anderson

  922

  46

  100

  79

  21

  17

  2

  15

  Gan

  10,424

  400

  1,831

  274

  1,557

  1,030

  10

  16

  Lincoln National

  12,938

  1,026

  2,284

  735

  1,549

  1,118

  9

  22

  Countrywide

  2,692

  455

  214

  208

  6

  8

  0

  25

  25–50 per cent. of cases resolved

  Windsor Life

  8,325

  1,508

  895

  95

  800

  572

  7

  26

  Financial Options

  295

  72

  11

  7

  4

  3

  1

  28

  Canada Life

  5,454

  196

  1,834

  402

  1,432

  1,126

  21

  32

  Friends Provident

  6,675

  825

  1,927

  325

  1,602

  1,222

  18

  36

  London and Manchester

  7,935

  662

  2,809

  389

  2,420

  1,907

  24

  37

  Royal and Sun Alliance

  15,342

  1,704

  5,406

  736

  4,670

  3,643

  24

  40

  Brittanic

  18,290

  3,414

  4,522

  1,906

  2,616

  1,960

  11

  40

  CIS

  43,285

  2,724

  16,260

  11,294

  4,966

  3,392

  8

  40

  United Assurance

  12,326

  742

  4,894

  1,565

  3,329

  2,843

  23

  42

  Standard Life

  6,672

  449

  2,517

  952

  1,565

  1,405

  21

  42

  Abbey Life

  16,883

  3,836

  3,872

  839

  3,033

  2,436

  14

  42

  Hill Samuel

  5,931

  743

  2,123

  434

  1,689

  1,345

  23

  43

  Sun Life of Canada

  25,937

  6,374

  6,580

  1,188

  5,392

  3,531

  14

  43

  Colonial

  8,048

  1,879

  2,193

  297

  1,929

  1,385

  17

  44

  Allied Dunbar

  18,186

  2,508

  6,446

  2,475

  3,971

  3,088

  17

  44

  Godwins

  1,358

  47

  648

  287

  361

  291

  21

  46

  Albany Life

  2,844

  503

  1,330

  95

  1,235

  721

  25,

  46

TREASURY

  Pensions
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made by pensions firms in providing redress to the victims of mis-selling in the period up to the end of November. [20718]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In a statement to the House on 18 November 1997,Official Report, columns 155–163, I set out the progress that had been made by firms in redressing victims of mis-selling up until the end of October. I have now received an update from the 41 firms whose progress I have been monitoring, and these are set out in the table. For those firms that fail to make sufficient progress, regulatory discipline is a real prospect. For most of these 41 firms, the regulators' deadline of 31 December, by which 90 per cent. of the most urgent cases must be resolved, is fast approaching. It is now up to each firm to make every effort to make rapid progress so that disciplinary action against them is not called for.

  In general most firms have improved their performance over the month. Once again however, the figures show a wide divergence in performance, with some firms making good, if belated progress, and others that still have a disgracefully large task which remains to be tackled.

  Of course many firms other than the 41 listed have cases to review. These, too, must be completed within deadlines set by the regulators. Of these firms, the vast majority are independent financial advisers (IFAs), ranging from large firms, employing hundreds, if not thousands, of people, to small sole traders. Few firms are innocent, and no firm will be let off the hook: the customer who has been disadvantaged by the mis-selling of a small IFA has as much right to speedy redress as the customer of the largest pension provider. All firms must complete their reviews without delay, and to the standards set out by the regulators.
  641

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  H

  NatWest

  14,069

  3,462

  4,125

  834

  3,291

  2,408

  17

  48

  Lloyd's TSB

  48,200

  8,302

  17,190

  5,195

  11,995

  10,480

  22

  50

  50–75 per cent. of cases resolved

  IFA Network

  209

  31

  81

  64

  17

  11

  5

  51

  Guardian

  8,732

  860

  4,321

  733

  3,588

  2,847

  33

  51

  Commercial Union

  7,462

  1,012

  3,514

  693

  2,821

  2,276

  31

  53

  Pearl

  42,505

  2,370

  26,272

  4,833

  21,439

  15,799

  37

  54

  Sedgwick

  11,511

  4,253

  2,405

  951

  1,454

  1,059

  9

  54

  Prudential

  71,358

  16,559

  42,542

  3,294

  39,248

  19,119

  27

  55

  Royal London

  11,432

  959

  6,684

  1,248

  5,436

  4,120

  36

  55

  Midland

  4,787

  339

  2,856

  448

  2,408

  1,923

  40

  57

  Norwich Union

  7,166

  2,061

  2,452

  562

  1,890

  1,589

  22

  59

  Wesleyan

  4,132

  222

  2,488

  732

  1,756

  1,478

  36

  59

  Legal and General

  35,354

  13,504

  11,921

  1,367

  10,554

  7,803

  22

  64

  Berkeley Independent

  86

  47

  8

  8

  1

  1

  1

  65

  Hogg Robinson

  1,922

  734

  730

  248

  482

  329

  17

  68

  M and E Network

  273

  151

  43

  14

  29

  25

  9

  70

  Equitable Life

  11,100

  5,575

  2,745

  1,242

  1,503

  1,207

  11

  72

  Over 75 per cent. of cases resolved

  Barclays

  16,821

  5,973

  7,735

  1,893

  5,842

  4,785

  28

  75

  AXA Equity and Law

  3,855

  684

  2,493

  652

  1,841

  1,576

  41

  76

  A: cases identified as requiring review.

  B: of A, cases where investor was informed that information gained during assessment excluded cases from review.

  C: number of assessments completed.

  D: cases where the investor has been informed that no redress is due.

  E: cases where redress has been offered.

  F: cases where redress has been accepted.

  G: cases where redress has been accepted as a percentage of cases identified for review ((F/A)x100).

  H: cases completed, including exclusions, as a percentage of cases identified for review (((B+D+F)/A)x100).

  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is proposing to increase public service pensions from April 1998. [20719]

  Mr. Darling
  Legislation governing public service pensions requires public service pensions to be increased annually by the same percentage as State earnings related pensions (additional pensions). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced on 2 December 1997,Official Report, column 186 that additional pensions will be increased by 3.6 per cent., in line with the annual increase in the Retail Prices Index up to September 1997. Public service pensions will therefore be increased by 3.6 per cent., from 6 April 1998, except those which have been in payment for less than a year, which will receive a pro rata increase.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his current estimate of the cost of answering a written parliamentary question and an oral parliamentary question. [20721]

  Mrs. Liddell
  As at April 1997, the average cost of answering a written parliamentary question and an oral parliamentary question was £112 and £260 respectively.

  Euro
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many copies of the European Commission information pack, "Infeuro," will be distributed to the United Kingdom; and to which groups. [20259]
  642
  Mrs. Liddell
  "Infeuro" is a newsletter published by the European Commission, which is responsible for its distribution.

  VAT (NHS Trusts)
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what targets have been set by his Department for the recovery of VAT from NHS trusts in each year since 1990. [19998]

  Dawn Primarolo
  None.

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total VAT recovered from NHS trusts in each year since 1990. [19999]

  Dawn Primarolo
  None. NHS trusts regularly receive repayments from Customs and Excise.

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what procedures are in place for consulting the National Health Service on the implementation of new procedures for the payment and recovery of VAT from NHS trusts; and if he will make a statement. [19997]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs and Excise has regular meetings with the VAT Committee of the Healthcare Financial Management Association to discuss issues of mutual concern and future development.

  South-east Asia
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what terms he has attached to money lent or committed to South Korea as part of the IMF rescue package or otherwise. [19914]
  643
  Mrs. Liddell
  IMF financing under Korea's Stand-By Arrangement (SBA) is conditioned on a strong programme of adjustment. This involves a tight macroeconomic framework; a comprehensive strategy to restructure the financial sector; further trade and capital account liberalisation; and improvements in corporate structure and governance. The Presidents of the World Bank and Asian Development Bank have also indicated that they are both ready to provide financial support to Korea, conditioned on strong programmes of reform. It is expected that these programmes will focus on financial sector restructuring and institutional reform.

  Full implementation of these programmes will help restore market confidence and provide Korea with a solid foundation for more sustained growth. Programmes will be reviewed regularly and future disbursements of funds will be linked to successful completion of the reviews.

  In addition, the UK—together with a number of other countries—has agreed to consider the provision of further financial support for Korea. This will be made available only if unanticipated circumstances create the need to supplement resources provided by the international financial institutions, while Korea remains in compliance with IMF arrangements.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the recent United Kingdom contribution to the rescue packages from(a) the IMF, (b) other institutions and (c) directly to (i) South Korea and (ii) other Asian countries. [19912]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Four Asian countries have recently agreed IMF programmes under the IMF's Emergency Financing Mechanism. They are the Philippines (July), Thailand (August), Indonesia (October) and Korea (November). The latter three countries have in addition agreed, or are negotiating, programmes with the World Bank and Asian Development Bank (AsDB). The financing to be provided by international financial institutions (IFIs) is likely to amount to the following:

  $ billion

  International Financial Institution Finance

  Total IFI Financing

  IMF

  World Bank

  AsDB

  Philippines

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Thailand

  4

  1.5

  1.2

  6.7

  Indonesia

  10

  4.5

  3.5

  18

  South Korea

  21

  10

  4

  35

  The UK is a major shareholder in the international financial institutions—the UK quota share at both the IMF and World Bank is approximately five per cent., and at the AsDB is two per cent.—and has strongly supported all these programmes of adjustment and the high levels of IFI financing involved. Programmes will be reviewed regularly and future disbursements of funds will be linked to successful completion of the reviews.

  In the case of Korea, the UK, together with a number of other countries has in addition agreed to consider the provision of further financial support for Korea. This will be made available only if unanticipated circumstances create the need to supplement resources provided by the
  644
  international financial institutions, while Korea remains in compliance with IMF arrangements. The UK is willing to consider a contribution of up to USD1.25 billion.

  In the case of Thailand, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) issued a statement on behalf of the monetary authorities of the G10—including the Bank of England—and several other countries, explaining that they stand ready, if need be, to provide a short-term bridging loan to the Thai authorities. So far the need for such a loan has not arisen.

  Subsidies to Industry
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the overall cost of subsidies to industry in the form of(a) tax allowances, (b) direct grants, (c) tied research and infrastructure programmes, (d) business rate exemptions and (e) export credit guarantee payments for the last year for which figures are available. [19817]

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

  Insurance Premium Tax
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations have been made to Treasury Ministers on the subject of insurance premium tax for the travel industry since the last General Election. [19666]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Treasury Ministers have received a number of representations on this issue, including six Parliamentary Questions excluding this and the other recent questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and about 200 letters from Members of this House.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the inability to value-shift on non-EU holidays sold by tour operators or travel agents. [19662]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have received a number of representations on this issue. Value-shifting by travel agents and tour operators does take place on non-EU holidays but since such holidays are not subject to VAT there has never been any question of a VAT motive or a VAT effect in this area. On grounds of simplicity, efficiency and effectiveness it was nevertheless considered right that insurance sold with all holidays should be made subject to the higher rate of insurance premium tax.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Government's current position and timetable on their review of the differential between the rate of insurance premium tax currently levied for policies sold by tour operators and travel agents and for similar travel insurance policies sold through building societies, BUPA and other retailers. [19660]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have asked officials in Customs and Excise to monitor the effect of the introduction of the higher rate of insurance premium tax. It is too early yet to draw any conclusions from this monitoring process.

  Aviation Fuel Tax
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made on European Union negotiations on taxation on aviation fuel. [19758]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are no Commission proposals before the Council at present to end the current exemption of aviation fuel used in international commercial traffic. The Commission has been asked by the ECOFIN Council, on 9 June 1997, to study the environmental and economic effects in Europe of ending the current exemption of aviation fuel. The study is not likely to be completed before May 1998.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what taxes are levied on aviation fuel in the United Kingdom. [19743]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Aviation turbine fuels for aircraft use are not subject to excise duty. Aviation gasoline is charged at the rate of £0.2255 per litre (£1.025) per gallon). Supplies of both types of fuel for commercial flights within the United Kingdom and for all private flights are liable at the standard rate of Value Added Tax.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue would be raised if aircraft fuel was taxed at the same rate as commercial fuel for road transport assuming no alteration in demand. [19744]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimate requested by the hon. Member on taxing aviation fuel at the same rate as diesel would raise approximately £4 billion, assuming no alteration in demand.

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list each of the overseas trips made by himself and other members of his ministerial team since 2 May, specifying in each case(a) the participating Minister or Ministers, (b) the destination of the trip, (c) the purpose of the trip and (d) the cost of the trip; and if he will make a statement. [15240]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: The available data for the official overseas trips taken by myself and my Ministerial team (along with officials in support) since 2 May are as follows:

  Date

  Destination

  Cost1

  Number in party

  Purpose

  Chancellor

  11–12 May

  Brussels

  £2,324

  7

  ECOFIN

  8–9 June

  Luxembourg

  £2,641

  7

  ECOFIN

  15–17 June

  Holland

  £3,275

  7

  European Council

  20–22 June

  Denver

  £10,967

  5

  G7 Summit

  7 July

  Brussels

  £1,581

  7

  ECOFIN

  9 July

  Luxembourg

  £2,149

  4

  Meeting with Prime Minister Juncker

  12–23 September

  Luxembourg

  2£22,699

  5

  Informal ECOFIN

  Mauritius

  6

  Commonwealth Finance Ministers Meeting

  Bangkok

  5

  ASEM Finance Ministers

  Hong Kong

  5

  Annual Meetings of the World Bank/IMF

  6 October

  Paris

  1—

  5

  Meeting with Finance Minister Strauss-Kahn

  13 October

  Luxembourg

  1—

  7

  ECOFIN

  5 November

  Brussels

  1—

  9

  ECOFIN

  17 November

  Brussels

  1—

  7

  ECOFIN

  646

  Date

  Destination

  Cost1

  Number in party

  Purpose

  1 December

  Brussels

  1—

  5

  ECOFIN

  4–5 December

  New York

  1—

  4

  Speech to the British-American Chamber of Commerce

  Chief Secretary

  None

  Paymaster General

  None

  Financial Secretary

  20 June

  Brussels

  £1,147

  3

  Monti Tax Policy Group

  18 September

  Brussels

  £2,030

  4

  Monti Tax Policy Group

  20 October

  Brussels

  £2,114

  4

  Monti Tax Policy Group

  4 November

  Bonn

  £2,139

  4

  Meeting with State Secretary Hauser

  6 November

  Czech Republic

  £1,819

  3

  To see UK Customs and Excise international assistance programme (anti-drugs activity)

  1 December

  Brussels

  £706

  2

  ECOFIN

  Economic Secretary

  8 June

  Brussels

  £987

  3

  EC Budget Council Members

  24 July

  Brussels

  £1,169

  3

  EC Budget Council

  26–28 September

  Italy

  1—

  1

  Pontignano Conference

  5 November

  Brussels

  1—

  2

  ECOFIN

  7 November

  Stockholm

  1—

  2

  Meeting on European issues

  17 November

  Brussels

  1—

  2

  ECOFIN

  27 November

  Brussels

  1—

  4

  EC Budget Council

  3 December

  Luxembourg

  1—

  4

  Meeting member of the European Court of Auditors

  1 Costs are as billed and may not be complete or available.

  2 Some of the Annual Meeting costs are subject to reimbursement by World Bank/IMF.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Philippines (Bridges)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the development project for a network of bridges in the Philippines and for its applicability in other countries. [20252]

  Clare Short
  We are providing support from the Aid and Trade Provision for the construction of 218 road bridges in less developed and disaster-prone areas. When appraised in 1995, the programme was considered to be of high developmental value. A second proposal is now under appraisal. This involves support for construction or replacement of bridges located on national highways and our support will depend on whether such bridges bring significant benefits to poor people.

  Higher Education Teachers
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the reservations expressed by Her Majesty's Government on the recommendation on the status of higher education personnel, passed by UNESCO General Conference in November. [19745]
  647
  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 5 December 1997, Official Report column 392.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the names of all those people whom he has appointed to public bodies since 1 May, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed, and whether they receive remuneration. [19971]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made or approved the following appointments since 1 May 1997:

  British Council:

  Dr. David Drewry,

  Director General (wef 1/11998)

  Remuneration: £92,480.

  Commonwealth Institute:

  David French,

  Director General

  Remuneration: £60,000.

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy:

  Menzies Cambell CBE, QC, MP,

  Governor

  Remuneration: Nil

  Gary Streeter MP,

  Governor

  Remuneration: Nil

  Mary Calder,

  Governor

  Remuneration: Nil

  Richard Page MP

  Governor

  Remuneration: Nil.

  The names, positions and remuneration of all the public appointments handled by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary are published on an annual basis in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Departmental Report in March. This information will also be available on the world wide Internet once the current update has been completed.

  Iraq
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the type and number of weapons destroyed by the United Nations inspection team in Iraq since the ending of the Gulf war; and what types of nerve gas and related items the inspectors believe to be still held by the Iraqi regime. [19687]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 8 December 1997]: The UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) are able to account for 817 and 819 missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres known to have been acquired by Iraq.
  648
  Forty-eight of these have been destroyed by UNSCOM. In addition, UNSCOM have been responsible for the destruction of 30 warheads, 690 tonnes of chemical weapons, 38,537 filled and empty munitions and more than 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals, as well as the main biological weapons production plant at Al Hakm, and large quantities of growth media. Further details can be found in the latest report by the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM, placed in the Library on 10 November 1997. UNSCOM have not published estimates of quantities of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) which may still be held by Iraq. Iraq has worked on a large number of agents including VX, Sarin, Botulinum toxin, Aflatoxin, and Anthrax. UNSCOM remain seriously concerned that they have not been able fully to account for Iraq's known imports and production of material for chemical and biological weapons, and that Iraq retains the expertise and capability to re-commence its WMD programmes at very short notice.

  Home Office Export Initiative
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) the Association of Chief Police Officers and (b) trade associations representing the policing and security sector concerning the continuation of the work undertaken under the Home Office Export Initiative. [20018]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Officials from this Department and the DTI are in discussion with the trade associations representing the policing and security sector. My noble Friend the Minister for Trade has also received representations from the Association of Police and Public Security Suppliers. I am not aware of any discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the additional cost to his Department of undertaking work previously administered by the Home Office Export Initiative; and from which budget it will be found. [20017]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There will be no additional cost to this Department.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what arrangements the work of the Export Initiative previously administered by the Home Office will be carried out by the overseas trade services section of his Department. [20019]

  Mr. Fatchett
  This Department and the Department of Trade and Industry, under the banner of Overseas Trade Services, will continue to give advice and assistance to all UK companies seeking to trade overseas, including those companies from the security industry. This includes access to help provided under the Export Promoter Initiative and Trade Fair and Overseas Seminar Support Scheme.

  Schengen Agreement
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Presidency of the EU commissioned the report on the circumstances surrounding
  649
  the agreement leading to the final text of Article 4 of the Protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty integrating the Schengen Acquis into the framework of the European Union; when he received it; when he received a letter from the Permanent Representative of the Netherlands on this matter; and if he will publish it. [19951]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 9 December 1997]: The Presidency of the EU did not commission any such report. The Permanent Representative of the Netherlands wrote to the UK Permanent Representative on the matter on 16 July. It would not be appropriate to publish this piece of diplomatic correspondence sent by another government to HMG.

  Child Labour
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking in support of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, with particular reference to through-bonded child labour. [20008]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We strongly support the work of United Nations organisations such as the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the International Labour Organisation (ILO) to promote full implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In 1998 negotiations will begin on a new ILO Convention on child labour. We will help to ensure that the new convention makes a vital contribution to eliminating the most abhorrent forms of child labour, including bonded labour.

  Anti-personnel Mines
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government intend to ratify the treaty banning anti-personnel mines; and what steps he is taking to encourage other countries to ratify the treaty. [20152]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) on 24 November 1997,Official Report, columns 398–99, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on 4 December 1997, Official Report, column 300.

  EU General Affairs Council
  Yvette Cooper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the General Affairs Council held on 8 December in Brussels. [20461]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  At the General Affairs Council in Brussels on 8 December, the seven A points in document 13048/97 were approved, and the European Parliament Resolutions of 17–21 November in document 11493/97 were noted. The text of both documents will be placed in the Libraries of the House as soon as they become available.

  Policy planning unit
  1. The Council requested Coreper and the Political Committee to continue discussion on the design of the Policy Planning Unit.
  650
  OSCE: Copenhagen Ministerial
  2. Denmark reported on prospects for the OSCE Ministerial meeting later this month, in particular the security charter and prospects for OSCE financial reform.

  WT0: Financial services
  3. The Council discussed prospects for reaching agreement on the financial services negotiations by the 12 December deadline.

  Transatlantic relations
  4. There were brief reports on the EU-US and EU-Canada Summits which took place in Washington and Ottawa on 5 and 4 December respectively.

  Illegal immigration from Iraq
  5. The Council discussed measures to counter the recent rise in illegal immigration from northern Iraq, which is presenting problems for a number of EU partners. The Political Committee will assess the situation in northern Iraq. Work on practical steps to stem the flow of illegal immigrants will be taken forward by the K4 Committee on 18 December.

  Luxembourg European Council
  6. The Presidency set out the agenda for the European Council on 12–13 December. There was a brief discussion.

  Enlargement/agenda 2000
  7. This formed the main part of the Council's discussions. Member States broadly endorsed the Presidency's report to the Luxembourg Council. However, differences remained concerning the screening process and the creation of a new 15 plus 11 process. The UK supported by Italy, France and the Netherlands spoke against both proposals. The Swedes and Danes supported screening, Germany continued to favour the 15 plus 11 process. The Presidency concluded that it would submit the report to the European Council on its own authority.

  EU/Mexico: Signature of agreements
  8. In the margins, the EU and Mexico signed two agreements which establish a framework for closer relations into the next century. The Foreign Secretary signed the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement—which covers areas of both Uk and EU competence—on behalf of the UK. The Mexican Foreign and Trade Ministers attended.

  ASEM II
  9. The GAC adopted the following conclusions: the Council discussed preparations for ASEM II to be held in London in April 1998 and invited the appropriate instances to take forward work in advance of the next ASEM Senior Officials Meeting in London in February.

  Any other business: EU/Japan summit
  10. As incoming Presidency, the UK informed Member States of plans for the EU/Japan Summit on 12 January 1998.

  Tibet
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will press the Chinese authorities to allow a parliamentary delegation to visit Tibet during his proposed visit to China in January 1998. [20145]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are deeply concerned about the human rights situation in China, and welcome the possibility of a parliamentary visit to Tibet. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary looks forward to discussing a wide range of issues, including Tibet, during his planned visit to China.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Primary Schools (Class Sizes)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of current average class sizes in primary schools. [18763]

  Mr. Byers
  In January 1997 the average class size for primary schools was 27.5

  Education and Training Targets
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress in achieving the national education and training targets. [18764]

  Mr. Blunkett
  There has been mixed progress towards achieving the current National Targets. It looks possible that we could get close nationally to achieving several of the Targets, but achievement of Foundation Target 2 and Lifetime Target 1 is more problematic.

  Earlier this week we published a consultation document which sets out how we might take forward National Targets over the next few years.

  Student Tuition Fees
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he plans to take in respect of those students who fail to meet their payments on tuition fees; and what provision he has made for this. [18765]

  Dr. Howells
  It will be for universities and colleges to decide what action to take if students fail to make the private contributions to undergraduate tuition fees, just as they have to for part-time, postgraduate and overseas students. The higher education funding plans for 1998–99 assumed that institutions in England would collect £130 million from private contributions to fees. This figure allowed for costs of some 5 per cent. for collection and any default.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the proportion of students who will have their tuition fees waived. [18780]

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his estimate of the proportion of students who will have their tuition fees waived. [19187]

  Dr. Howells
  We have estimated that, under the new arrangements, about 30 per cent. of students, where parental income is taken into account, will make no contribution to the cost of their tuition.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his estimate of changes in numbers of applicants for higher education places in 1998–99 against the previous year. [18766]

  Dr. Howells
  Applicant numbers are at present slightly down compared with last year; but we expect further 652
  applications to be submitted before and indeed beyond the closing date.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of potential students qualifying for admission to higher education he estimates will be unable to attend under the terms of his proposed basis for student support owing to financial pressures. [18776]

  Dr. Howells
  The new funding arrangements are fair and progressive and will target support. I see no reason why they should prevent any student from attending higher education.

  Young Unemployed
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many young people aged between 18 and 24 years, unemployed for over six months, will benefit from the new deal in its first year. [18768]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  It is not possible to provide precise estimates of the total numbers of young people who will require help from the New Deal. In its first year, we will offer help to everyone who becomes eligible for the New Deal, and sufficient places will be available to meet this commitment.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the response of employers in the tourism, leisure and hospitality industries has been to the new deal for young unemployed people. [18770]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply 1 gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright).

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if there will be the opportunity for young people entering the gateway phase of the new deal to gain some work experience without losing benefits entitlement. [18779]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  People claiming the Jobseeker's Allowance are able to benefit from work experience as part of an employment or training programme without losing benefit entitlement. This includes young people on the Gateway phase of the New Deal.

  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how Rotherham and the Dearne will benefit from the Environmental Task Force and voluntary sector options of the New Deal for young unemployed people. [18772]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  In Rotherham, plans are well advanced to offer placements on the Environmental Task Force and voluntary sector option. It is projected that around 480 young unemployed could take up this provision in the period to March 1999. In Dearne, which is not a Pathfinder area, invitations to tender are being issued with a view to offering contracts to run from April 1998. The precise number of places has yet to be decided.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people between
  653
  18 and 24 years old will benefit from the New Deal in the (a) constituency of Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East and (b) Teesside Region in the first year of operation. [19254]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Kevin White to Mr. Ashok Kumar, dated 11 December 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me, in the absence of the Chief Executive, to respond to your question about the number of people aged between 18 and 24 who will benefit from the New Deal in the constituency of Middlesbrough and East Cleveland and also in Teeside region in the first year of operation.
  The planning assumptions, based on the New Deal District plan, indicate that 1,400 clients who have been unemployed for six months or more will be eligible for the New Deal in the Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency. In Teeside, as a whole the number of clients eligible to benefit in the first year is estimated to be 5928.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what is the object of the New Deal policy in respect of increasing(a) employment and (b) employability; [19173]

  (2) by what criteria the success of the New Deal will be measured. [19225]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The aim of the New Deal is to increase the long-term employability of young and long-term unemployed people by offering the opportunity to participate in a job, training or useful work experience. The Government believe that this has an important part to play in developing a more skilled workforce and efficient labour market which will assist sustainable job-generating, economic growth.

  The success of the New Deal in achieving its aims will be evaluated through the analysis of data gained from a range of qualitative and quantitative surveys with New Deal participants, employers and organisations involved in the delivery of the New Deal. We are currently finalising the exact criteria that will form our evaluation strategy.

  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what will be the role of the Territorial Army in the delivery of the New Deal. [19475]

  Dr. Reid
  I have been asked to reply.

  As I said in my written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) on 14 November 1997, Official Report, column 688, my Department is keen to play a full part in the New Deal initiative. The contribution that the Territorial Army and other Reserve organisations might make is under consideration in MOD's assessment of its involvement in the initiative.

  Education-Work Link
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to improve 654
  the range and quality of opportunities for young people to link their education to work. [18771]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has this week launched Investing in Young People, a major new strategy aimed at improving the range and quality of education and training available to all young people aged 16 to 19. The measures which make up this strategy are aimed at giving everyone the chance to gain recognised qualifications which will give them the best possible start in the workplace. They include measures to tackle underachievement among this age group, and bring back into education those who have dropped out.

  "Excellence in schools"
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many responses he has received to the consultation document, "Excellence in schools". [18773]

  Mr. Byers
  We have received around 8,500 responses to the White Paper. Some 3,500 were responses to the full document and the remainder were responses to the summary version.

  School Leavers
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of school leavers leave school with no qualifications. [18774]

  Dr. Howells
  The figure for those who leave education at 16 is not centrally collected. In 1997, 7.7 per cent. of young people completing their compulsory education had no qualifications. The White Paper, "Excellence in schools," outlines measures to reduce this figure.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of the demand-led formula on the financing of further education colleges; and what proposals he has to address the current financial problems of further education colleges. [18775]

  Dr. Howells
  The demand-led element was withdrawn by the previous Government. The additional funding for further education next year, announced by my right hon. Friend on 12 November, provides for the resumption of growth on a financially sound basis. The funding provides for an additional 20,000 full-time equivalent students, with the efficiency squeeze on the sector restricted to the costs arising from inflation.

  Mrs. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what financial resources are being made available to further education colleges in England in advance of the New Deal. [20743]

  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what financial resources are being made available to further education colleges in England in advance of the New Deal. [20878]
  655
  Mr. Blunkett
  I am announcing today that we intend to provide £6.05 million of additional resources for Further Education colleges to be financed from Windfall Tax receipts. This will enable them to provide relevant courses from January to JSA claimants under the New Deal in advance of its implementation in April. The additional money will enable FE colleges to make better use of their capacity to tackle unemployment amongst young people.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the effect on further education college budgets of the proposed changes to EU Social Fund provision. [19139]

  Dr. Howells
  Colleges will have the opportunity in 1998 and 1999 to bid for some £140 million available from Objective 4 of the European Social Fund, to help prepare workers for industrial change.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the surplus or deficit of each further education college ordered by region. [19140]

  Dr. Howells
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Further Education Funding Council to write to the hon. Member concerning this matter.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what proposals he has to address the current funding deficit in respect of further education colleges; [19228]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of ending the demand led formula in respect of funding further education colleges on the financial situation of such colleges; [19229]

  (3) What plans he has to compensate further education colleges for the loss of the demand led element in Janaury; and if he will make a statement. [19135]

  Dr. Howells
  The demand-led element was withdrawn by the previous Government. The additional funding for further education next year, announced by my right hon. Friend on 12 November, provides for the resumption of growth on a financially sound basis. The funding provides for an additional 20,000 full-time equivalent students, with the efficiency squeeze on the sector restricted to the costs arising from inflation.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funds he will make available to assist colleges of further education in the Teesside region for the year 1998–99. [19255]

  Dr. Howells
  On 12 November, my right hon. Friend announced additional funding for the sector next year. The Further Education Funding Council will take decisions, in the light of guidance from my right hon. Friend, on the general principles to be applied to funding for the academic year 1998–99. Allocations of funding to sector colleges within given regions are the responsibility of the Council, which will make them early next year.

  School Standards
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to raise standards in schools in disadvantaged areas. [18778]
  656
  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave ealrier to my hon. Friends, the Members for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) and for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor).

  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how he intends to means test parents and spouses of(a) United Kingdom students and (b) EU students for this payment of tuition fees. [18781]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) on 10 December 1997 Official Report, column 550.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what plans he has to compensate universities for the revenue consequences of a reduction in student numbers caused by the imposition of tuition fees; and if he will make a statement; [19193]

  (2) what action he proposes to take in respect of the increased funding deficit for universities if his Department's advertising campaign fails to attract sufficient higher education students to meet the present targets. [19222]

  Dr. Howells
  We do not expect institutions generally to have difficulty filling their places.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what estimate he has made of the additional money which will be available to higher education directly from the imposition of tuition fees in each year from 1998–99 to 2002–03; [19138]

  (2) if money raised from the imposition of tuition fees will be additional to projected university budgets. [19194]

  Dr. Howells
  The higher education funding plans for 1998–99 assumed that institutions in England would collect £130 million from private contributions to fees, and allowed for an additional £165 million for the sector, including a £36 million package for access.

  Decisions about funding for 1999–2000 and beyond will have to await the outcome of the Government's Expenditure Review. The Government will take account of the income that universities and colleges collect from the student contribution to tuition fees, the needs of the higher education sector and wider public expenditure considerations.

  We have made clear that the savings from the introduction of tuition fees will be used to improve quality, standards and opportunity for all in further and higher education.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the level at which students will be exempt from paying tuition fees will be based on(a) gross, (b) disposable or (c) residual income level. [19156]

  Dr. Howells
  Contributions to tuition fees in 1998–99 will be calculated in the same way as in previous years, that is on the basis of residual income (gross income after certain allowable deductions). These arrangements will be reviewed for the academic year 1999–2000.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if the level of tuition fees charged to
  657
  students entering university in 1998 will remain constant for the remainder of their degree course; [19136]

  (2) on what percentage of average course costs future charges to full-time undergraduates will be based; and what steps he will take to restrict universities in the increases they make to the charges upon which that percentage is based. [19137]

  Dr. Howells
  It is for universities themselves to determine the level of fees that they charge students. Our proposals assume that full-time undergraduates will contribute up to £1,000 towards tuition fees in 1998–99: this represents around 25 per cent. of the average course cost, which was the percentage the Dearing Inquiry recommended for private individual contributions. The Teaching and Higher Education Bill, currently before the other House, contains provisions requiring that the maximum financial support from Government for tuition fees, and hence by implication the maximum contribution from students, parents or spouses towards tuition fees, cannot increase by more than inflation without Parliamentary approval. Further provisions in the Bill gives the Secretary of State a reserve power to control top-up fees, if necessary.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the effect of the announcement of the introduction of tuition fees on applications for university places in 1998. [19191]

  Dr. Howells
  None. It is too early to estimate the number of education applicants for 1998–99. Applicant numbers are at present slightly down compared with last year; but, by this stage last year, fewer than half of the final number of applications had been submitted.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if students studying sandwich courses will be expected to pay tuition fees in their year out in industry. [19186]

  Dr. Howells
  The maximum tuition fees contribution, subject to assessment against family income, will be £500 in a year when a student spends the entire year of a course on a sandwich placement. This contribution is towards the cost incurred by the institution of administrative and pastoral arrangements relating to the placement.

  Where sandwich or other elements form less than a full year away, the £1,000 fee will be payable, subject to the family income assessment.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if students presently studying HNDs and due to finish in summer 1998 who go on to a one year top up degree as part of a profession pathway to degree status, will be expected to pay tuition fees on that year. [19188]

  Dr. Howells
  A student who is already on or begins an HND course in academic year 1997–98, and who goes on to a degree course immediately after completing the HND course, will be treated as an existing student and be eligible for support throughout the degree course under 658
  the 1997–98 arrangements. That means they will pay no tuition fees for the duration of the course.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what action he plans to take in respect of those students who fail to meet their payments on tuition fees and what provision he has made for this; [19183]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the arrangements for the collection of tuition fees; by whom they will be collected; and how much he estimates this will cost; [19184]

  (3) what funds he will make available to assist universities in collecting tuition fees. [19190]

  Dr. Howells
  Universities and colleges already have administrative arrangements in place to collect tuition fees from part-time students, overseas students, self-funding students, and many postgraduates. They will be able to build on these arrangements in collecting private contributions to tuition fees from full-time undergraduate students under the new funding arrangements for higher education and in deciding what action to take if students fail to make the private contributions.

  The higher education funding plans for 1998–99 assumed that institutions in England will collect £130 million from private contributions to fees. This figure allowed for some 5 per cent. for collection and any default.

  Teenage Mothers (Schooling)
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what support is available for teenage mothers who wish to continue their schooling. [18782]

  Dr. Howells
  If a teenage mother cannot attend school, the local education authority has a duty to provide suitable education if she is of compulsory school age, and may so provide if she is older.

  Training
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to ensure that the United Kingdom has a highly skilled work force. [18783]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Much is already being done to address the needs for a skilled work force through the Government's current programme of work. We announced recently our plans to develop a national skills agenda and the setting up of a Skills Task Force and a Skills Unit to identify where skills gaps exist and how they should be best addressed. The New Deal for young unemployed people includes training to a certified standard in each of its options.

  Literacy Standards
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what financial resources he has allocated in respect of his strategy to raise standards in literacy. [18784]
  659
  Mr. Byers
  More than £54 million is available in the new Standards Fund to support activities to raise the standards of literacy in primary schools. This includes £50 million to support the professional development of teachers through the National Literacy Strategy, £4 million for Summer Literacy Schools (with private sponsorship providing a further £1 million), and additional support for Family Literacy, details of which we expect to announce shortly.

  Education Budget
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has had with local authorities regarding the use of the extra money for education announced in the budget for 1998–99. [18785]

  Mr. Byers
  The Department's officials have discussed with representatives of the Churches and Local Government organisations the principles and criteria for the allocation of the first two phases of capital funding under the New Deal for Schools.

  Furthermore, the Secretary of State has written to LEAs, emphasising that a £1,017 million increase in recurrent funding announced by the Chancellor in his Budget has been made available for the people's priority of raising standards in our schools.

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to evaluate the operation of the employment and goods and services section of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [20281]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department has an ongoing, long-term research strategy to evaluate the operation of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). This takes in employers, service providers and individual disabled people. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights, announced the latest phase of this research in a speech to the Association of Disabled Professionals on 6 December. It will review in a systematic and collective way information on cases brought in the Courts and Industrial Tribunals and how they are resolved. The results will be available to the Task Force which I will chair which is to consider how best to secure comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for disabled people.

  Self-employment
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the extent to which the New Deal for young people will help people into self-employment. [18769]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We are designing a comprehensive programme of help for young people who want to start their own business which will come on stream in June 1998. Advice will be available from day one of the Gateway. There will be specific help including advice, support and monitoring by providers with expertise in this area and the opportunity to carry out 660
  test-trading and to undertake relevant, high quality training.

  Part-time Students
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of the £36 million access package for higher education is designed to benefit part-time students; and under what arrangements this will be distributed. [19189]

  Dr. Howells
  The £36 million access package for higher education in 1998–99 includes some £2 million to enable universities and colleges in England to remit fees for part-time students in higher education who have lost their jobs. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) will distribute the funds: further information will be issued in due course.

  The package also doubles the amount available for higher education Access Funds for next academic year. Part-time students will be eligible for assistance from the Funds for the first time. We will be discussing guidelines for the use of the Funds with the HEFCE, who allocate the Funds to institutions, and others shortly. We will inform the House of the decisions reached in the usual way.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to make(a) structural and (b) functional changes to training and enterprise councils. [19179]

  Dr. Howells
  We greatly value the important work TECs are doing at the local level to raise skill levels and foster enterprise. We recognise the benefit to local partnerships of a strong private sector contribution. There are therefore no plans to make fundamental changes to the structure and functions of TECs.

  We do, however, see scope for TECs to improve their performance and a range of work is in hand to raise the performance of all TECs towards the level of the best. For example, the work being done jointly with the TEC National Council to encourage TECs to benchmark themselves against each other and other organisations, and to share good practice effectively.

  Top-up Fees
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his definition of top-up fees in the context of university charges; if he will list the areas which are within the remit of top-up fees; and if he will make a statement. [19141]

  Dr. Howells
  Top-up fees would be fees charged by publicly-funded universities to full-time undergraduate students for tuition or other provision necessary to complete their course which raised the total fees charged above the maximum level of financial support available from the Government to such students for fees.

  Ministerial Announcements
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many ministerial announcements have not been made, in the first instance to the House; and of those how many were(a) speeches to outside

  661
  bodies, (b) press releases, (c) press briefings and (d) made by other means, since 1 May; and if he will make a statement about his Department's policy in respect of making public ministerial announcements. [18895]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 3 December 1997]: The information requested is not readily available. Major announcements are made, in the first instance, to the House. There are cases, for example when the House is not sitting, when announcements are made by other means, including press releases.

  Undergraduates
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of undergraduates failed to complete their degree courses in each of the last three years; and if he will list the reasons given for failure to complete. [19172]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested is not yet available centrally. The latest available figures for drop-out among full-time and sandwich first-degree students are shown in the most recent DfEE Departmental Report (Cm 3610), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Middle Schools
  Jacqui Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research has been carried out by his Department into the performance of middle schools. [19515]

  Mr. Byers
  The Department has not itself undertaken particular research into the performance of middle schools. The OFSTED database covers middle schools and material from it is available on request.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will take steps to collate centrally the number of applications to sell off playing fields by schools by(a) location and (b) local education authority. [19818]

  Mr. Byers
  There is no requirement upon local education authorities to apply for permission before disposing of the assets which they own. Grant-maintained schools do need the prior consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State before they may dispose of their assets. Information on the number of applications received from these schools to dispose of playing fields is already collated centrally.

  English (Key Stage 3)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many complaints he has received about the standard of marking in key stage 3 testing of English. [19809]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department has received 87 letters about this issue.

  Student Loans
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will amend the 662
  Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1997 to ensure that students already on courses who do not meet the settled status requirement but were eligible for a student loan under previous regulations, will remain eligible for a loan for the duration of their current studies. [20742]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today laid the Education (Student Loans) (Amendment) Regulations 1997 before the House. The amendment Regulations introduce a transitional provision to protect students who do not have settled status but who have already demonstrated eligibility for a loan under previous Regulations. Such students will continue to be eligible for a student loan until they finish their present course (or a second course if they continue their studies without a break). The Department will be writing to all Higher Education Institutions before Christmas informing them of this amendment.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if students whose maintenance grants are to be phased out in 1998–99 will be eligible for the increased student loans that those students in years 1999 and 2000 are eligible to receive. [19230]

  Dr. Howells
  New students entering higher education in the 1998–99 academic year will be eligible for increased loans in that year to offset the reduction in the level of maintenance grants. In 1999–2000, we propose to abolish maintenance grants. These students will be eligible for an income-related loan for their maintenance on the same basis as 1999–2000 entrants.

  Further Education Funding
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much extra funding for further education will be raised from the increased contribution from employers to the cost of courses he announced on 12 November; and if these funds were part of the £83 million of funding announced that day. [18601]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend looks to the Further Education Funding Council to establish arrangements to secure in 1998–99 an additional £20 million from employers to the costs of employer-led provision, as part of the £83 million of new funding for further education.

  Student Support Agency
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his policy in respect of the Dearing Report's Recommendation on the establishment of a unified student support agency; and what estimate he has made of the timetable for its implementation. [19174]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government are currently considering the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education's recommendation for a unified student support agency and expect to make an announcement shortly.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many public appointments he has
  663
  made since 1 May; and how many and what percentage of these (a) receive remuneration and (b) are of (i) Afro-Caribbean and (ii) Asian origin. [16779]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made a total of 77 public appointments to executive non-departmental public bodies and advisory bodies since 1 May.

  The number and percentage receiving remuneration are as follows:

  (i) 14 (18.2 per cent.) receive an honorarium;

  (ii) 8 (10.4 per cent.) receive a daily fee for meetings;

  (iii) 50 (64.9 per cent.) receive expenses only;

  (iv) 5 (6.5 per cent.) receive an annual salary.

  With regard to the number and percentage of those appointments which are (i) of Afro-Caribbean origin and (ii) of Asian origin, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 28 November 1997, Official Report, column 669.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases his Department forecast would be brought under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in its first year of operation. [20278]

  Mr. Hoon
  It is forecast that approximately 200 cases are expected per year, for the first three years, following commencement of the Act.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases were brought under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 during its first year of operation; and how many of those cases were won by the appellant. [20279]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 came into force on 2 December 1996. Statistics have been collected only since the beginning of February 1997. The number of cases issued between the beginning of February and the end of October 1997 was 36. Of these 13 cases were for damages only and 23 were for damages and/or an injunction or declaration. The information requested as to the number of cases won by the appellant is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the impact which his recent legal aid proposals will have on disabled people seeking to take legal action under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [20280]
  664
  Mr. Hoon
  We will be consulting widely before any final decisions are made about changes to the scope of civil legal aid. During this process careful consideration will be given to whether there are proceedings for which public funding should continue to be available for money or damages claims. If the hon. Gentleman believes that disabled people seeking to take legal action under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 face particular problems, I would be grateful if he could let me know what they are so that consideration can be given to this during the consultation process.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was(a) the cost of legal aid before cost recovery and retention of contributions, (b) the amount of cost recovered, (c) the amount of contributions retained and (d) the net cost after deduction of costs recovered and contributions retained for (i) contract, (ii) Inheritance Act, (iii) landlord and tenant and (iv) housing and disrepair proceedings in each of the last four years. [19278]

  Mr. Hoon
  Legal aid gross expenditure, costs recovered, and contributions retained in (i) contract (ii) Inheritance Act and (iii) landlord and tenant proceedings for cases closed during the last four financial years are as follows:

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Gross payments

  Contract

  40.2

  44.1

  56.0

  60.3

  Inheritance Act

  2.9

  3.1

  4.2

  4.4

  Landlord and tenant

  20.4

  24.6

  31.7

  33.9

  Gross recovered

  Contract

  9.0

  9.5

  13.0

  14.9

  Inheritance Act

  1.2

  1.4

  1.9

  1.7

  Landlord and tenant

  5.2

  7.9

  11.1

  14.1

  Contributions retained

  Contract

  0.76

  0.83

  1.02

  1.13

  Inheritance Act

  0.07

  0.07

  0.08

  0.15

  Landlord and tenant

  0.19

  0.22

  0.26

  0.33

  Net of costs (after deduction of costs recovered and contributions retained)

  Contract

  28.4

  31.9

  39.8

  41.3

  Inheritance Act

  1.2

  1.1

  1.6

  1.7

  Landlord and tenant

  14.4

  15.9

  19.5

  18.5

  It is not possible to provide information separately in respect of housing and disrepair matte1rs.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was(a) the cost of legal aid before cost recovery and retention of contributions, (b) the amount of cost recovered, (c) the amount of contributions retained and (d) the net cost after deduction of costs recovered and contributions retained for (i) civil litigation and (ii) professional and other negligence, excluding in each case personal injury and medical negligence in each of the last four years. [19277]

  Mr. Hoon
  A breakdown of legal aid expenditure and receipts in respect of civil litigation and professional and other negligence, excluding personal injury and medical negligence, for cases closed in the last four years was as follows:
  665

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Civil litigation (including professional and other negligence)

  Gross Payments

  436.6

  474.9

  566.1

  622.4

  Costs Received

  55.2

  60.6

  71.5

  80.7

  Damages Retained

  45.8

  44.7

  47.3

  59.0

  Contributions Retained

  10.4

  10.9

  12.5

  15.4

  Net Costs

  325.8

  359.1

  435.6

  467.9

  Professional and other negligence

  Gross Payments

  40.2

  48.2

  45.0

  49.2

  Costs Received

  20.9

  24.7

  25.9

  27.9

  Damages Retained

  1.1

  1.0

  1.3

  1.7

  Contributions Retained

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  1.0

  Net Costs

  13.9

  22.1

  17.6

  19.2

  £ million

  Gross payments

  Costs received

  Damages retained

  Contributions retained

  Net costs

  All personal injury litigation

  274.1

  206.7

  4.1

  2.0

  61.8

  Medical negligence

  54.3

  25..8

  0.6

  0.7

  27.2

  Personal injury (excluding medical negligence)

  219.8

  180.9

  3.5

  1.3

  34.6

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was(a) the cost of legal aid for non-matrimonial proceedings, excluding Children Act proceedings, before cost recovery and retention of contributions, (b) the amount of cost recovered, (c) the amount of contributions retained and (d) the net cost after deduction of costs recovered and contributions retained in each of the last four years. [19279]

  Mr. Hoon
  A breakdown of the legal aid expenditure and receipts in respect of non-matrimonial cases, excluding Children Act proceedings, for cases closed in the last four years was as follows:

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Gross payments

  317.0

  375.8

  454.8

  509.7

  Costs recovered

  164.1

  197.2

  245.0

  281.3

  Contributions retained

  3.1

  4.0

  4.6

  5.3

  Net costs (after deduction of costs recovered and contributions retained)

  149.8

  174.6

  205.2

  223.1

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the proportion of damages recovered in all legally aided(a) personal injury and (b) medical negligence cases closed in each of the last three years. [19280]

  Mr. Hoon
  The proportion of damages recovered by the Legal Aid Board in legally aided personal injury and medical negligence cases closed in each of the last three years were as follows:

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Personal injury

  Gross costs

  £151.5 million

  £189.3 million

  £219.8 million

  Damages recovered

  £2.2 million

  £3.0 million

  £3.5 million

  Percentage of damages recovered

  1.5

  1.6

  1.6

  666
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was(a) the cost of legal aid for personal injury litigation before cost recovery and retention of contributions, (b) the amount of cost recovered, (c) the amount of contributions retained and (d) the net cost after deduction of costs recovered and contributions retained for (i) all personal injury litigation, (ii) medical negligence cases and (iii) personal injury cases excluding medical negligence in 1996–97. [19281]

  Mr.Hoon
  A breakdown of legal aid expenditure and receipts in respect of personal injury litigation and medical negligence cases for cases closed in 1996–97, was as follows:

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Medical negligence

  Gross costs

  £38.6 million

  £50.2 million

  £54.3 million

  Damages recovered

  £0.6 million

  £0.7 million

  £0.6 million

  Percentage of damages recovered

  1.6

  1.4

  1.1

  Legal Expenses
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the impact of fixed costs on existing legal expenses insurance premiums; and if he will make a statement. [19339]

  Mr. Hoon
  None. My Department is, however, in close contact with the insurance industry. A fixed costs system would necessarily make the task of matching the risk being insured to the appropriate level of premium easier. The level of premiums must be a matter for each company offering policies.

  Personal Injury Actions
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he will take to ensure that lawyers will not seek to recover from their clients more than the fixed costs in privately funded personal injury actions valued at less than £15,000. [19321]

  Mr. Hoon
  The arrangements that clients make with their lawyers are essentially private contractual arrangements. I would wish to give effect to the proposal made by Lord Woolf, that the fixed recoverable costs should apply between the client and the solicitor unless there was a written business agreement to the contrary.

  Woolf Reforms
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the Information technology needs of the court system
  667
  required by the introduction of the Woolf reforms; and if he will make a statement on the (a) extent of the changes and (b) timetable. [19327]

  Mr. Hoon
  The procedures are currently being developed which will achieve the Civil Justice reforms and work is underway to identify the IT support required. The IT solution will be developed by our private sector partner and we plan for them to be in place for 1 April 1999.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment has been made of the training needs of judges following the introduction of the Woolf reforms; what is the budget for judicial training; and if he will make a statement. [19332]

  Mr. Hoon
  Judicial training is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board (JSB), which is a non-departmental governmental body. The JSB has assessed the training needs of judges in anticipation of the introduction of the Woolf reforms. During 1997 a series of seminars on the principles of the Woolf reforms were delivered to all full-time judges who hear civil matters. More detailed training will be given to all full-time judges who hear civil matters. More detailed training will be given to all full-time and part-time judges who hear civil matters once the new rules have been finalised. The financial allocations for the JSB for 1998–99 have not yet been finalised.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate he has made of the training costs involved in using the new information technology systems required by the introduction of the Woolf reforms. [19326]

  Mr. Hoon
  No detailed estimates have yet been made. The scope of training cannot be established until the IT system to support the reforms has been specified and the systems design has commenced. This will not be until 1998, after final rule changes have been agreed. Once the specification has been agreed, the costs associated with the provision of training can be more accurately predicted.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) special advisers, (b) task force members and (c) review body members his Department employs; what is the total salary and benefits of (a) to (c); and what was the equivalent cost prior to 1 May. [19311]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are currently no special advisers employed in this Department. As announced on 9 December 1997, the Lord Chancellor has decided to appoint Mr. Garry Hart as a Special Adviser. Mr. Hart's appointment will not, however, take effect until 2 March 1998.

  No-one from outside the Department is currently employed in a task force or review body. The total fees and benefits paid to review body members from outside the Department in the year to 1 May 1997 was approximately £37,500. Since 1 May 1997, such expenditure has totalled approximately £24,700. These figures include payments for travel and subsistence. It is not possible to distinguish the cost of ministers' and officials' time spent on task force and review-related work.

  Conditional Fees
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his Department's estimate of the savings the Government will make from the introduction of fixed costs on conditional fees; what research his Department has commissioned on the impact of such costs; and what other recent research his Department has evaluated into legal costs. [19320]

  Mr. Hoon
  It is not clear why it is thought that "fixed costs on conditional fees" should result in savings to the Government. Nor is it clear on what the hon. Member thinks such cost would impact. As to research into legal costs, my Department is currently funding the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies research into the amount of work needed to take a case through the Fast Track.

  Civil Justice and Legal Aid
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department pursuant to his oral statement of 21 November,Official Report, column 534, what additional staff he estimates will be needed to ensure the effective running of the (a) fast track, (b) multi-track and (c) judicial case management procedures. [19451]

  Mr. Hoon
  The policy and procedures which will achieve the civil justice reforms are still the subject of public consultation. Until these are finalised and the degree of IT support is known, it will not be possible to assess what, if any, additional staff will be needed.

CABINET OFFICE

  Advisers
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how many(a) special advisers, (b) task force members and (c) review body members his Department employs; what is the total salary and benefits of (a) to (c); and what was the equivalent cost prior to 1 May. [19309]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I am not a Minister in charge of a Department.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  National Insurance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her estimate of the yield to the Exchequer in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01 arising from the decision not to index fully for inflation the thresholds for employers' national insurance contributions; and if she will make a statement. [19865]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 5 December 1997,Official Report, column 383.

  No estimates are available for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 because no decision has been made about the level of the earnings brackets for employers' secondary Class 1 contributions in those years.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she expects to reply to the letter of 21 November from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam concerning the review of disability benefits. [20282]

  Mr. Denham
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 9 December.

  As published in the 1997–98 Departmental Report, the Department of Social Security is committed to answering all correspondence within 20 days.

  Under-Secretary of State (Women's Issues)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if she will list the dates on which submissions were made to her concerning women by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock); [20146]

  (2) if she will list the days on which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), has been absent from the Department since her appointment; [20147]

  (3) for what reason the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) was not present to answer Oral Questions on 17 November. [20148]

  Ms Ruddock
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 20 November 1997,Official Report, columns 292–94.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in England and Wales are receiving mobility allowance. [18966]

  Mr. Denham
  The administration of Mobility Allowance is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 10 December 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about the number of people in England and Wales who are receiving mobility allowance.
  The information is not available in the form requested. Mobility Allowance was replaced by Disability Living Allowance (DLA) in April 1992. DLA comprises of two components, care and mobility. The number of people in receipt of the mobility component of DLA are shown below.

  England: 1,347,788

  Wales: 143,896

  Figures are subject to change.

  Lone Parent Premium
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons in Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale are in receipt of lone parent premium. [18653]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The administration of Income Support is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.
  670
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 10 December 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many persons in Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale are in receipt of the lone parent premium.
  The information is not available in the format requested. The Benefits Agency (BA) collates statistics by BA District Offices which do not correspond to constituency boundaries or a specific geographical area. The BA's Greater Manchester Lancashire District includes the offices of Burnley, Rossendale, Blackburn and Accrington.
  From April this year, the lone parent premium was replaced by a higher rate of family premium for lone parents.
  The number of people in receipt of Income Support lone parent rate of family premium in the Greater Manchester Lancashire District was 9,758, at 31 August 1997. This figure is the latest available and may be subject to change. This figure does not include those lone parents who are over pensionable age or who are sick who would qualify for a higher rate premium, such as a pensioner or disability premium.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Economic and Social Research Council Grants
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Economic and Social Research Council grants have been awarded to(a) men and (b) women in the last five years. [18762]

  Mr. Battle
  Data disaggregated by gender are readily available only for 1996–97, when the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) introduced an equal opportunities monitoring system. A number of ESRC Research Grants are awarded to groups, rather than individuals, which may be of mixed gender. The Statistics are based on returns of ESRC monitoring forms for Research Grant funding.

  grants awarded: 181

  Returned forms: 138 (76 per cent.) All male: 80

  All female: 309

  Mixed: 26.

  The following data show total awards made for the previous four years.

  Year

  Awards

  1992–93

  203

  1993–94

  217

  1994–95

  178

  1995–96

  225

  The ESRC is committed to continuing monitoring of the gender of award recipients.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will publish her Department's memorandum on handling the problem of coal closures. [18045]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 27 November 1997]: No.

  Export Licences
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many applications for arms export licences to Turkey(a) are currently pending with her Department, (b) have been approved since 1 May, listing type and amount of equipment and the companies involved, and (c) have been refused since 1 May, listing the type and amount of equipment and the companies involved. [14826]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated, and the following results were obtained.

  Between 2 May and 5 November inclusive, decisions were taken on 73 applications for standard or open individual licences to export to Turkey goods controlled under entries in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 (the so-called "Military List"); 71 standard individual export licences were granted, and one application for such a licence refused; and one open individual export licence was issued. At 5 November, 105 applications were awaiting a decision.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade pursuant to her answer of 21 July 1997,Official Report, column 450, what steps she is taking to ensure that equipment which should be classified under a specific Export of Goods (Control) Order category but may be exported as part of a larger export order that would be classified under a different Export of Goods (Control) Order category is recorded. [20033]

  Mrs. Roche
  As from 23 September this year all goods on new export licence applications have been assessed against the current legislation and the appropriate export control categories recorded, both on paper and on the computer databases. The Export Control Organisation is retrospectively carrying this out for all applications on which a decision has been taken since 2 May.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) pursuant to her answer of 15 July 1997,Official Report, column 134, if she will provide details of the four open general export licences referred to in her reply; which goods are allowed for export under these licences; which destinations are covered by these licences; and which United Kingdom exporters have registered to use these licences; [20038]

  (2) pursuant to her answer of 15 July 1997, Official Report, column 132, on open general export licences, what export categories the 21 OGELs cover and for which countries of destination; and if she will list the companies registered for the 14 OGELs which require registration. [20053]

  Mrs. Roche
  Further to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Letwin) on 2 December 1997,Official Report, columns 124–26, copies of all current Open General Export Licences are being placed in the libraries of the House today. The goods and country coverage are specified in each licence.

  The inquiries that would be necessary as regards the release of the identity of the companies registered to use these licences could only be undertaken at disproportionate cost.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr Cotter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Comprehensive Spending Review within her Department will be complete; and when the results will be provided. [19584]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Department's Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) is still in progress. I expect the CSR to be completed next summer.

  Late Payment
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she will publish a summary of the responses to the Green Paper, "Improving the Payment Culture: a Statutory Right to Claim Interest on Late Payment of Commercial Debt"; and if she will make a statement. [20585]

  Mrs. Roche
  I am publishing today a summary of the responses received to the Green Paper "Improving the Payment Culture: a Statutory Right to Claim Interest on Late Payment of Commercial Debt". The paper shows that there is strong support for the Government's proposals on the best way to legislate to give small businesses the right to charge interest on late payment of commercial debt. In time, the new right will be extended to all businesses and the public sector.

  The Department distributed the Green Paper to businesses, business representative organisations, interested individuals and the public sector. More than 450 responses were received. I am very pleased that so many people have taken the time to contribute views. We have listened carefully to what they have had to say; in a technical area, the views of experts have been crucial in framing the proposed legislation.

  The Green Paper listed Government proposals on which responses were requested. I am delighted that the proposals received the very firm endorsement of respondents.

  It is clear that there is real support for a statutory right to claim interest. This bears out all that the Government had heard from small firms themselves. Late payment is a real problem for business. Firms are tired of having to carry the cost of their customers' late payment.

  Copies of the summary will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is her current estimate of kilowatt hours electricity created by wind power in England and Wales; and if she will make a statement; [20301]

  (2) what is her current estimate of kilowatt hours electricity created by hydro-electric power in England and Wales; and if she will make a statement. [20302]

  Mr. Battle
  Generation from wind in the United Kingdom as a whole during 1996 was 486 million kilowatt hours, 0.14 per cent. of the total UK generation of electricity. This represented a 24 per cent. increase on 1995 and over 14 times the generation in 1992. Wind
  673
  farms in England and Wales generated about 75 per cent. of the UK total in 1996, nearly all of which was supported under the non-fossil obligation orders.

  Generation from hydro-electric sources in the United Kingdom as a whole during 1996 was 3,361 million kilowatt hours, 1 per cent. of the total UK generation of electricity. A further 1,556 million kilowatt hours was produced by pumped storage plant, but 2,430 million kilowatt hours was used in pumping. The highest annual level of generation from hydro sources was in 1992 at 5,431 million kilowatt hours, representing 1.7 per cent. of total UK generation in that year. Dry weather has restricted the availability of hydro power in the years since 1992. Hydro plant in England and Wales generated about 6 per cent. of the UK total in 1996. For hydro plant in England and Wales supported under the non-fossil fuel obligations orders, generation was 1 per cent. of the UK total.

  Onshore wind energy and small scale hydro are proposed to be supported under a further non-fossil fuel obligation order, NFFO-5, the policy proposals for which I announced to the House on 25 November 1997, Official Report, columns 507–08.

  Enemy Property
  Mr. Twigg
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which Government Departments are being consulted in preparation of the report on British policy towards enemy property during and after the Second World War. [19654]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  My Department holds regular discussions with many other departments. On this issue, discussions have been mostly with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, although the Cabinet Office, the Home Office, the Treasury and the Territorial Departments have also been consulted.

  Gas-fired Power Stations
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimates have been made of the employment consequences for the gas industry of the moratorium on gas-fired power stations; [19989]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the total investment which has been frozen by the moratorium on assents for gas-fired power stations. [19991]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 9 December 1997]: It is not possible to make such an estimate. Assessing the impact on those associated with gas fired generation must await the outcome of the Review.

  Chambers of Commerce and TECs (Mergers)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many applications she has received for mergers between Chambers of Commerce and training and enterprise councils; and if she will list those she has(a) approved and (b) rejected. [18994]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.
  674
  Between 1995 and April 1997 13 applications to merge from TECs and Chambers of Commerce were received by the former Government, all of which were approved. Since May 1997 one application, for the Norfolk and Waveney area, has been received and is currently under consideration. The approved applications were from:

  Milton Keynes and North Buckinghamshire

  Sussex

  Oldham

  Rotherham

  Shropshire

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  Greater Peterborough

  Northamptonshire

  South Derbyshire

  St. Helens

  Wolverhampton

  Hereford and Worcester

  Wigan.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Crime Clear-up Rates
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the clear-up rates for each police district for(a) 1993, (b) 1994, (c) 1995 and (d) 1996. [19860]

  Mr. Ingram
  The percentage clear-up rates for each police sub-division for the four years from 1993 to 1996 are shown in the table:

  Percentage clearance rates for police sub-divisions in Northern Ireland 1993–1996

  Sub-division

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Musgrave Street

  45.2

  43.5

  45.7

  52.1

  Mountpottinger

  27.5

  29.5

  32.4

  28.5

  Donegall Pass

  27.7

  22.6

  19.9

  22.4

  Dunmurry

  28.4

  25.3

  25.7

  24.7

  Grosvenor Road

  31.0

  29.5

  30.4

  26.3

  Lisburn

  40.7

  35.0

  30.9

  27.0

  Woodbourne

  33.0

  34.3

  27.0

  23.8

  North Queen Street

  32.8

  31.5

  31.7

  30.3

  Antrim Road

  34.9

  32.8

  32.4

  30.4

  Antrim

  35.3

  28.4

  32.1

  28.8

  Newtownabbey

  32.8

  32.6

  35.8

  32.8

  Carrickfergus

  38.7

  37.8

  37.9

  35.1

  Tennent Street

  36.9

  32.5

  34.6

  33.3

  Bangor

  29.6

  29.6

  32.9

  30.8

  Strandtown

  29.7

  30.8

  35.1

  30.3

  Castlereagh

  30.7

  30.7

  33.9

  31.7

  Newtownards

  35.8

  39.1

  39.1

  38.1

  Downpatrick

  41.3

  38.1

  35.9

  34.6

  Newcastle

  28.8

  26.6

  26.7

  27.4

  Armagh

  35.1

  48.1

  43.4

  42.2

  Newry

  42.0

  41.3

  38.3

  31.3

  Portadown

  40.4

  39.4

  40.0

  32.1

  Lurgan

  44.1

  41.1

  38.4

  27.2

  Banbridge

  44.6

  37.2

  39.3

  32.6

  Cookstown

  38.6

  57.8

  38.8

  42.7

  Dungannon

  42.8

  44.7

  43.4

  41.9

  Enniskillen

  40.4

  42.1

  45.6

  39.2

  Lisnaskea

  50.8

  52.4

  46.2

  43.8

  Omagh

  46.8

  51.7

  40.1

  39.4

  Strand Road

  42.6

  46.7

  46.3

  39.2

  Strabane

  45.7

  54.6

  57.7

  47.0

  Waterside

  41.5

  44.1

  42.4

  35.1

  Coleraine

  38.3

  33.7

  37.2

  38.5

  675

  Percentage clearance rates for police sub-divisions in Northern Ireland 1993–1996

  Sub-division

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Limavady

  42.8

  47.0

  46.2

  41.0

  Magherafelt

  42.8

  48.8

  51.4

  43.5

  Ballymena

  32.4

  31.2

  36.1

  42.4

  Ballymoney

  46.7

  45.1

  38.5

  42.1

  Larne

  42.2

  39.5

  40.2

  36.2

  Northern Ireland

  36.4

  35.9

  36.1

  33.7

  Central Community Relations Unit
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list all organisations in receipt of funding from the Central Community Relations Unit in(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96. [19859]

  Mr. Worthington
  The Central Community Relations Unit provided funding totalling £4,642,941.54 in 1994–95 and £5,586,200.09 in 1995–96. Details of the organisations funded in those years, together with the amount of funding they received, are set out in the following tables. These do

  Imports to Northern Ireland

  Country of origin

  year

  Republic of Ireland

  Great Britian

  Netherlands

  Belgium

  France

  Total

  1995

  108,520

  9,974

  5

  8

  1

  118,508

  1996

  101,654

  13,628

  7

  0

  7

  115,296

  1997 (to w/e 22 November)

  99,267

  34,809

  0

  66

  8

  134,150

  There is derogation from the inspection and certification requirements of Council Directive 91/68/EEC in respect of trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. There are therefore no recorded figures for the number of sheep exported to the Republic. The figure shown for imports relates to sheep imported from the Republic for direct slaughter.

SCOTLAND

  Breast Implants
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provision there is in the National Health Service in Scotland for women who suffer from ruptured silicone breast implants, to have them removed. [19286]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Any decision to remove a silicone breast implant is a matter of clinical judgment in the context of the one-to-one relationship between doctor and patient, taking into account the individual circumstances of each patient. The National Health Service in Scotland would provide whatever treatment is judged necessary.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place a copy of the Confirmed Assignation Statement in respect of the Skye Bridge in the Library; and if he will make a statement on the Skye Bridge Company and the collection of tolls. [19920]
  676
  not include payments from the European Social Fund in respect of European Union Measures administered by the Central Community Relations Unit.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the number of live lambs(a) exported from and (b) imported into Northern Ireland, indicating their (i) destination and (ii) origin and the number to and from each country for each of the last two years and the current year to the latest available date. [19325]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information requested is set out in the following tables. The figures include all sheep as the records do not show lambs separately.

  Exports from Northern Ireland

  Year

  Destination

  Great Britain

  Netherlands

  Belgium

  Italy

  Total

  1995

  109,341

  3

  364

  0

  109,708

  1996

  83,425

  3

  25

  12

  83,465

  1997(to w/e 22 November)

  89,405

  0

  5

  0

  89,410

  Mr. Dewar
  As the hon. Member is aware, we have been working with Skye Bridge Ltd. to implement the significant package of toll reductions that I announced on 4 July. I am pleased to advise that the toll reductions will come into force on 1 January 1998. The revised Toll Order will be laid today. We are simultaneously laying Regulations that set the amounts Skye Bridge Ltd. will be able to charge should they have to remove vehicles from the crossing in the event of non-payment of tolls.

  The hon. Member has previously recognised that the situation at Skye Bridge is not of our making. I trust he also appreciates that we have met out commitment to provide a fairer tolling regime for the people of the Highlands within current constraints.

  I shall write shortly to the hon. Member about the Assignation Statement and the other points raised in his recent letter of 27 November. A copy of my reply will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Training
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the suitability of(a) existing training bodies with charitable status, (b) the local enterprise councils and (c) further education colleges (i) singly and (ii) in partnership, to carry out the management function for New Deal; and if he will make a statement. [17332]
  677
  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 24 November 1997]: My department wrote to interested organisations on the delivery of the New Deal on 23 October. I will place a copy of this letter in the Library.

  Medical and Dental Students
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many dental students graduated from Scottish universities in (i) 1995, (ii) 1996 and (iii) 1997. [18705]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer Monday 8 December 1997]: The number of dentistry students (full-time) who graduated from Scottish Higher Education Institutions in 1995 and 1996 is as follows:

  Full-time dentistry graduates from Scottish Higher Education Insitutions

  First Degree

  Postgraduate

  1995

  105

  7

  1996

  117

  6

  Data for 1997 graduates are not yet available.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from the BMA concerning the issue of tuition fees for medical an dental students from parts of the United Kingdom other than Scotland attending degree courses at Scottish universities. [19586]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 8 December 1997]: In July, the Scottish Office invited the British Medical Association to comment on the Dearing and Garrick reports. On 18 September, the Scottish Office received a response from the British Medical Association in Scotland. it made no specific mention of the issue of tuition fees for medical and dental students from other parts of the UK studying in Scotland.

  On 27 October I announced the Government's proposals for assistance to medical and dental students. These are identical in Scotland to those applying elsewhere in the UK. Since then, I have received no representations from the British Medical Association.

  E-mail
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland pursuant to the answer from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster of 10 November 1997,Official Report, column 441, if he will list the e-mail addresses of (a) Ministers, (b) senior officials and (c) chief executives of agencies for which he is responsible. [15874]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 13 November 1997]: E-mail contact addresses for appropriate Departmental officials (at head of division level) and agency chief executives are given in the "Who does What?" section of The Scottish Office's Internet website, the address for which is www.scotland.gov.uk. Ministerial e-mail addresses are not currently published. Procedures to allow the public to send e-mail messages to Scottish Office Ministers are currently under consideration.

  Accounting Officers
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions written directions have been sought by permanent secretaries and other accounting officers in the past five years; in what circumstances; and on what dates. [19218]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 4 December 1997]: None.

WALES

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) special advisers, (b) task force members and (c) review body members his Department employs; what is the total salary and benefits of (a) to (c); and what was the equivalent cost prior to 1 May. [19318]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The Department employs two special advisers, John Adams and Huw Roberts. Their salaries are negotiated individually and this information is confidential.

  Information about all public appointments for which I have responsibility is published in "Appointments by the Secretary of State for Wales". This publication is updated quarterly and is available in the Library of the House.

  A470 Roadworks
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if his Department has completed the necessary orders to advance the A470 Blaenau Ffestiniog to Betws-y-Coed roadworks to completion; [19519]

  (2) what factors underlie the delay in advancing the roadworks on the A470 between Blaenau Ffestiniog and Betws-y-Coed; and if he will make a statement; [19518]

  (3) what recent correspondence there has been between his Department and the National Trust regarding land to be acquired to advance the A470 Blaenau Ffestiniog to Betws-y-Coed roadworks to completion; and if he will make a statement. [19520]

  Mr. Hain
  The roadworks referred to are the A470 Dolwyddelan to Pont yr Afanc scheme which form Stage 2 of the Lledr Valley improvement. This scheme, and all others in the forward trunk road programme (with the exception of the A55 Anglesey dualling proposals) is subject to the review announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 3 July, details of which were included in the consultation document 1 published on 31 July.

  The consultation period ended on 31 October and the responses are being assessed. The review process is at an early stage and it is not possible to say when we will be able to give any indications as to the size and composition of the forward trunk road programme.

  Negotiations with the National Trust are continuing in parallel with the review process. These discussions will not prejudice the outcome of the review and are designed to ensure that valuable time is not lost if the scheme remains in the programme following the review. It would not, of course, be appropriate to reveal details of these negotiations.

  Agenda 21
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress of Agenda 21 in Wales. [19669]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  At the UN "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 an Agenda for the 21st Century setting out how countries can work towards sustainable development was adopted by over 150 nations, including the UK.

  This Government have already shown that they are fully committed to this principle. We have established a new Cabinet Committee on the Environment which will help us to deal with sustainable development issues in a co-ordinated way and which will aim to set clear goals for sustainable development. A new House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee has been established. We will soon publish a consultation paper on proposals for a revised UK sustainable development strategy and the Welsh Office plans to host a national sustainable development conference to explore in a Welsh context the issues raised in the consultation paper.

  Two thirds of the actions in Agenda 21 require the active involvement of local authorities. At the UN Special Session in June my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he wanted all local authorities in the UK to adopt Local Agenda 21 strategies by the year 2000. The Welsh Office is involved in various initiatives to encourage local authorities in Wales to make progress on this front. A guidance document for local authorities will be launched early next year. The Welsh Office is one of a number of organisations arranging a Local Agenda 21 seminar for Chief Executives and Leaders of local authorities and other key bodies in Wales.

  The Government are committed to ensuring that the Welsh Assembly promotes sustainable development. On 8 December my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirmed on Second Reading of the Government of Wales Bill our intention to place a duty on the Assembly to have regard to the principle of sustainability.

  Welsh Timber
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made towards increasing the use of Welsh timber; and if he will make a statement. [19673]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The source of the timber they use is a matter for the commercial judgment of manufacturers. However, grant has been awarded to Coed Cymru through the Rural Wales Objective 5b Programme 1994–99, to employ a marketing organiser to promote the Welsh hardwood sector.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Subsidised Offal Scheme
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the amount by weight of offal disposed of in the BSE subsidised offal scheme in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98, together with the weight of offal disposed during each of the financial years 1991 to 1995–96; [20267]
  680
  (2) if he will list by weight the amount of offal disposed of via the BSE subsidised offal scheme in 1996–97 and 1997–98, and the weight of offal disposed of during the financial years 1991–92 and 1995–96. [20272]

  Mr. Rooker
  Approximately 957,000 tonnes of clean offal (that is excluding Specified Bovine Material and Over Thirty Months Scheme material) was processed under the Rendering Industry Support Scheme 1996 in 1996–97. There is no equivalent figure for clean offal processed under the 1997–98 Scheme since this is based on outputs of meat and bone meal (MBM) and tallow. Some 227,000 tonnes of MBM and tallow has been processed to date under the Rendering Industry Support Scheme 1997.

  Approximately 1.1 million tonnes of clean offals were processed by the rendering industry in 1995–96. We do not have figures for the tonnages processed in 1991–92.

  Beef Products (Removal Charges)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will assess the level of charges being imposed on family butchers and other small businesses for collection and removal of offal and related products. [20268]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government recognise that the meat supply chain, including butchers and other small businesses, has suffered as a result of the BSE crisis. Substantial support has been provided since April 1996 to prevent the disorderly collapse of the chain. This is now being phased out to allow the industry to adjust to the changing economics. However, the Government cannot continue to shield the chain from the post-BSE economics of meat production in the United Kingdom.

  Rendering and Slaughtering Industries
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current state of the rendering and slaughtering industries. [20264]

  Mr. Rooker
  The rendering industry plays a vital part in ensuring that the essential elements of the meat chain continue to function. Support to the rendering industry in 1996–97 allowed them to maintain pre-crisis prices and charges to suppliers of animal waste. The Scheme provides for support to be phased out during 1997–98 to enable the meat chain, including the renderers, gradually to adjust to the changing economics.

  In terms of the slaughterers, it is widely accepted that there is substantial over-capacity in the red meat slaughtering sector, particularly in respect of abattoirs slaughtering cattle and sheep. There is intense competition between slaughterhouses, both for throughput and for customers and profit margins are low. The UK needs a modern financially viable slaughterhouse sector and in this context rationalism is highly desirable. However, we believe it is for the industry itself and not Government to address this issue.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the amount of financial assistance claimed by the rendering industry in the financial years 1996–97 and 1997–98, listing(a) those organisations or companies which claimed the assistance,

  681
  (b) the amounts they received in each of the two years and (c) the identity of the sites, at which the offal was disposed; [20274]

  (2) what payments were made to rendering companies in (a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98 for the rendering of clean animals. [20265]

  Mr. Rooker
  A figure of £97 million was paid to 22 companies under the Rendering Industry Support Scheme 1996 (TRISS 96). Of the £59 million available under the 1997 Scheme, £46 million has been paid to date to 19 companies.

  The companies and the locations of the plants where the clean offals are rendered are:

  Company

  Location

  A. Hughes and Son (Skellingthorpe) Ltd. 1

  Skellingthorpe

  A. and W. Chambers Ltd. 1

  Huddersfield

  Anglo Beef Processors Ltd. 1

  NewryShrewsbury

  Canterbury Mills Ltd.

  Canterbury

  Chetwynd Animal By-Products2

  Cardigan

  Croda Colloids Ltd. 1

  Market Harborough

  Duncrue Food Processors Ltd.

  Belfast

  Dundas Brothers Ltd. 1

  Inverurie

  Dundas Chemical Company (Mosspark) Ltd. 1

  Dumfries

  Fats and Proteins (UK) Ltd. 1

  Lancaster

  Foyle Meats Ltd. 1

  Londonderry

  John Pointon and Sons Ltd. 1

  Cheddleton

  Lisburn Proteins Ltd.

  Lisburn

  Lloyd Maunder Ltd. 1

  Cullompton

  McIntosh Donald Ltd. 1

  Aberdeen

  Mid Ulster Proteins Ltd. 1

  Craigavon

  Omagh Meats Ltd. 1

  Omagh

  P. Waddington and Company Ltd.

  Bradford

  Doncaster

  Exeter

  Nuneaton

  Silvertown

  Prosper de Mulder Ltd. 1

  Widnes

  Peninsular Proteins Ltd.

  Torrington

  Smith Brothers (Hyde) Ltd. 1

  Hyde

  Ulster Farm By-Products Ltd. 1

  Crumlin

  William Forrest and Son (Paisley) Ltd. 1

  Motherwell

  1 Supported under TRISS 96 and TRISS 97.

  2 Receiving support only under TRISS 97.

  The Government do not disclose information about support paid to individual renderers for reasons of commercial confidentiality (exemption 13 in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information).

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food (1) what representations he has received since the end of the consultation exercise on support for the rendering industry; and if he will make a statement; [20270]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of arrangements for the payment of offal subsidies paid out during 1996–97 and 1997–98; and if he will make a statement; [20276]

  (3) if he will review his policy of phasing out support for disposal of mammalian bone meal and tallow; [20271]

  (4) what plans he has to support the rendering industry in 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [20269]

  Mr. Rooker
  The objective of the support to the rendering industry was to avoid the disorderly collapse of the meat chain in the immediate aftermath of the BSE 682
  crisis. This was achieved. A wide range of industry bodies and representatives were involved in drawing up the Schemes, which were always intended to cover only the financial years 1996–97 and 1997–98, and to provide reduced support in the second year to allow the meat chain to adjust to the post BSE economic and regulatory realities.

  Following the election, the Government carefully considered representations made by a wide range of interested industry bodies, from producers to renderers, before confirming the phasing out of support, which began in July. The principal reason for the decision was that the conditions last year which gave rise to the threat of collapse of the meat chain no longer exist. The support has served its purpose and there are no plans to continue the support into 1998–99.

  Cattle Tracing
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what use he will make of electronic tagging in introducing a scheme to ensure traceability of beef cattle. [20150]

  Mr. Rooker
  It will not be a requirement of the computerised Cattle Tracing System for cattle to have electronic eartags. However, the Cattle Tracing System will take account of the fact that increasing numbers of cattle are likely to have them in the future, which the Government view as a welcome development.

  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of button plastic tag secondary eartags in ensuring cattle traceability. [20149]

  Mr. Rooker
  The plastic button eartag is on the current list of UK approved eartags for use in cattle identification. We are looking at all the approved eartags to see which ones conform to new EU legislation effective from 1 January 1998. A list of approved eartags will be made widely available as soon as possible.

  Beef and BSE Compensation
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what levels of subsidy for beef and BSE compensation will be provided to farmers in(a) the current financial year and (b) 1998–99. [20143]

  Mr. Rooker
  Expenditure on beef subsidies and BSE compensation measures is expected to reach over £1.4 billion in the current financial year. Provision for these items in 1998–99 is currently under discussion.

  Lindane
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent assessment he has made of the appropriateness of the clearance for use afforded to lindane. [20144]

  Mr. Rooker
  The agricultural uses of lindane were reviewed by the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides in 1995. The Committee concluded that approvals should continue.
  683
  Lindane is currently the subject of an assessment under the European Community's review programme for agricultural pesticides. The first stage of that process is the production of a summary of scientific data by the rapporteur Member State; in this case Austria.

  Organophosphates
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will convene a group of experts to advise Ministers in different Government departments on the control and use of organophosphate sheep dips. [19798]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 10 December 1997]: Such a group already exists. The independent scientific Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) advises the agriculture and health Ministers of the United Kingdom on all matters relating to the authorisation of veterinary medicinal products, including sheep dips. Copies of the annual reports of the VPC are deposited in the Library of the House.

  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to introduce alternatives to organophosphate sheep dips which(a) do not damage the environment and (b) are safe to use. [19797]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 10 December 1997]: No veterinary medicine is authorised unless it satisfies stringent statutory criteria of safety, quality and efficacy. Safety in this context includes the safety of the operator and the environment.

  A number of non-organophosphorus sheep ectoparasiticides have been authorised, including dips and injectable products. A complete list is published every six months by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and is deposited in the Library of the House.

  Unpasteurised Milk
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to reach a decision on the sale of unpasteurised milk for individual consumption; and what account he has taken of agreements relating to consumer choice in respect of unpasteurised milk. [19686]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 10 December 1997]: The period of public consultation ends on 3 February 1998, after which time we shall take careful stock of all the issues and propose how we wish to proceed as soon as possible thereafter.
  684
  I agree there is an issue of consumer choice, and we shall take this into account along with the other relevant issues.

  Over-30-months Scheme
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at what stage he required changes to the registration procedures for the over-30-months scheme relating to notification of the date of birth of cattle rather than the month of birth; how many cattle have gone into the scheme without a date of birth record; and if he will make a statement. [19841]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 9 December 1997]: Compensation under the over-30-months scheme is payable only on animals over thirty months of age on the date of slaughter. Producers are therefore required to complete a declaration for each animal presented on which they must confirm that the animal is over thirty months of age and declare the date of birth or number of teeth. This requirement was introduced in June 1996.

  If a producer chooses to enter the date of birth, the year and month of birth are often sufficient to confirm that the animal is over thirty months of age. The date becomes an issue only when the month and year of birth entered on the declaration by the producer makes it unclear whether the animal is over thirty months. On these relatively rare occasions, the date of birth is required to establish whether the animal was over thirty months of age on the date of slaughter and therefore eligible for compensation.

  The information requested by the hon. Member about the numbers entering the Scheme without a date of birth record is not known. However, apart from steers, which must be accompanied by a cattle identification document/cattle control document, most animals are likely to have entered the Scheme without a date of birth record.

  Grass-fed Cattle
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's definition of grass-fed animals for the purposes of food labelling; in what circumstances animals fed on silage or concentrates are deemed to be grass-fed; and if he will make a statement. [19844]

  Mr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 9 November 1997]: Under the Beef Labelling Scheme, launched earlier this year, it is for my Department to approve any definition of "grass-fed" submitted by an applicant. However, I would expect any such definition to cover animals reared primarily on grass in the field.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Beef Ban
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in lifting the export ban on British cattle. [19464]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) on 4 December 1997,Official Report, column 475.

  Cattle Head Deboners
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to compensate those companies specialising in cattle head deboning whose business was adversely affected by the introduction of the Specified Bovine Material orders relating to head meat. [19450]

  Mr. Rooker
  I sympathise with the deboners that lost business when tighter restrictions on cattle heads were introduced in March 1996 in line with advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. However, the Government do not compensate for loss of business arising out of measures to protect public health and safety. Deboners are not alone in suffering from the impact of BSE.

HEALTH

  Health Promotion
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress towards achieving the health promotion targets under the GP contract. [18795]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Unrestricted Principals, health promotion and target achievements (October 1996): England

  Number

  Percentage

  Childhood immunisations

  Higher (90 per cent. coverage)

  22,820

  85

  Lower (70 per cent. coverage)

  2,800

  10

  Either

  25,620

  95

  Pre-school booster

  Higher (90 per cent. coverage)

  22,270

  83

  Lower 70 per cent. coverage)

  3,330

  12

  Either

  25,600

  95

  Cervical Cytology

  Higher (80 per cent. coverage)

  24,330

  91

  Lower (50 per cent. coverage)

  2,410

  9

  Either

  26,740

  100

  All numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source

  GMS Census 1 April 1997.

  Medway NHS Trust
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been given to the Medway NHS 686
  Trust from the additional £300 million recently announced. [19171]

  Mr. Milburn
  We are advised by the West Kent Health authority that the Medway National Health Service Trust has been allocated an additional £643,000 in the current year.

  Care Homes (Wiltshire)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answers of 22 July 1997,Official Report, columns 564–67, what was the average cost to Wiltshire County Council of a community care place in a residential home run by (a) the county council and (b) the private sector in each of the last three years. [19132]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 22 July 1997,Official Report, column 566. The routine financial statistics provided by the former Wiltshire County Council wrongly included expenditure on independent sector provision along with that on local authority homes. This means that it is not possible to calculate the unit costs requested, as there is no way of separating the reported gross expenditure by sector. Expenditure data for 1996–97 for the new authorities formed out of the former Wiltshire county are not yet available.

  Ill-health Retirement
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the criteria for determining applications for ill-health retirement in the National Health Service; what changes have been made to these criteria since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [19288]

  Mr. Milburn
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the National Health Service Pensions Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. A. F. Cowan. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from A. F. Cowan to Mr. Chris Breed, dated 11 December 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question, as it falls within my area of responsibility.
  There are statutory regulations governing entitlement to an ill-health pension from the NHS Scheme. They are defined in Regulation E2 of the NHS Pension Scheme Regulations 1995:
  "A member who retires from pensionable employment because of physical or mental infirmity that makes him permanently incapable of efficiently discharging the duties of that employment shall be entitled to a pension under this regulation if he has at least 2 years qualifying service…".
  There are, therefore four main criteria for determining applications:

  (a) that there must be sufficient service to qualify for a pension;

  (b) that the member is retiring;

  (c) that the contract of employment is being terminated on the grounds that they are incapable of efficiently discharging their duties of employment through ill-health;

  (d) that their condition is permanent.

  The judgement about permanence is solely a medical one. In practice this is set against the time between retirement and the normally expected retirement age.

  687
  The statutory regulations have not changed since 1992. They changed before then, in 1988 to reduce the qualifying period for pensions from 5 to 2 years.
  The criteria have not been changed since 1992. The organisation providing independent advice on the issue of permanence had to be changed on 1 April 1997 because of the withdrawal of the service by the previous organisation.

  Nursing and Midwifery
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the costs of reorganisation, restructuring and redundancy following the award of the pre-registration nursing and midwifery education contract in Dorset, Hampshire, Wiltshire and the Isle of Wight. [19336]

  Mr. Milburn
  The National Health Service Executive South and West Regional Office has estimated that the overall savings offered by the new service delivery configuration outweigh the costs of moving to that configuration. The savings will significantly exceed the estimated transition costs over the life of the new contracts and these savings will be redeployed to provide both further eduction services and increased direct patient care.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what scrutiny his Department undertook of the terms of the contract award for pre-registration nursing and midwifery education in Dorset, Hampshire, Wiltshire and the Isle of Wight by the NHS Executive South and West; [19333]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the tender process for the award of the pre-registration nursing and midwifery education contract in Dorset, Hampshire, Wiltshire and the Isle of Wight by the NHS Executive South and West. [19337]

  Mr. Milburn
  Final contract terms for the pre-registration nursing and midwifery education contract in Dorset, Hampshire, Wiltshire and the Isle of Wight are currently under negotiation between the National Health Service Executive South and West Regional Office and the preferred bidders, the Universities of Southampton and Bournemouth.

  The tender process observed all statutory duties, European Council regulations, Departmental and Treasury guidance. Specialist legal advice was obtained at each stage of the process. The tender process was overseen by a project board consisting of the Directors of Nursing, Public Health and Finance of the NHS Executive South and West Regional Office and the Chief Executive of Dorset Health Authority. The NHS Executive South and West Regional Office is a constituent part of the Department of Health.

  Job-related Stress (NHS)
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to reduce job-related stress on staff working within the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [19245]

  Mr. Milburn
  We attach great importance to the health and welfare of staff working in the National Health 688
  Service. This includes recognising the effect of occupational stress, addressing the causes, and supporting staff accordingly. Through the Health at Work in the NHS project, we have piloted an Organisational Stress management tool which has been disseminated throughout the service.

  The NHS Executive is currently developing this work further; is working with the Health and Safety Executive to produce guidance on Stress Management for Employers; and is sponsoring research on the best use of staff Counselling and Employee Assistance Programmes.

  Health and Housing
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent the Departmental Review into Health Inequalities has established a link between cold, damp housing conditions and ill health; what is the estimated cost to the National Health Service of treating cold-related illness; and what remedial measures he plans for the future. [19700]

  Ms Jowell
  The conclusions of the Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health will not be published until the summer of 1998, but research shows that the most significant health risks from poor housing are associated with cold and damp, including respiratory problems and circulatory conditions.

  Reliable estimates on the cost to the National Health Service of treating cold-related illnesses are not available.

  The Government have enacted a range of measures to help pensioners keep warm in winter. Value Added Tax on fuel has been out to 5 per cent. and from April 1998 the gas levy will be reduced to zero. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 25 November a winter fuel payment for all pensioners, divided into a payment of £20 for over five million pensioner households and £50 for the 1.7 million pensioner households on income support. He also announced a cut in VAT to 5 per cent. for the installation of energy efficiency materials carried out under Government-funded grant schemes, allowing an extra 40,000 grants to be paid each year. The Government's new programme of training and jobs for young people will expand the national home energy efficiency scheme.

  Contractors and voluntary organisations will be encouraged to take on young people to insulate the homes of those most in need. In addition, the Capital Receipts Initiative will help local authorities to carry out energy efficiency improvements on homes. The Government's Home Energy Efficiency Scheme has so far helped 2.4 million households by paying grants for energy efficiency improvements. Four hundred thousand homes will benefit from the scheme this year.

  We will shortly be publishing for consultation a Green Paper on the new public health strategy for England.

  Value Added Tax
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the costs of implementing new VAT procedures by NHS trusts. [19996]

  Mr. Milburn
  No estimate of extra costs has been made.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the methodology by which he will calculate the progress made in reducing waiting lists against his target over a five year period. [20023]

  Mr. Milburn
  A Waiting List Action Team has been established, supported by eight regional task forces, to secure progress in this area including, as a first priority, to ensure that no one is waiting for more than 18 months for in patient treatment by 31 March 1998.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the average level of hospital waiting lists in each quarter from 31 March 1992 to 31 March 1997. [20024]

  Mr. Milburn
  Available information can be found in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England" which has been published since 1991. Copies are available in the Library.

  Haemophiliacs
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the Government's policy regarding compensation for haemophiliacs infected with Hepatitis C; [19852]

  (2) when he intends to respond to (a) the Manor House Group and (b) the Haemophilia Society in respect of his recent meeting to discuss compensation for haemophiliacs infected with Hepatitis C. [19853]

  Mr. Dobson
  [holding answer 10 December 1997]: I wrote to the Haemophilia Society on 28 November to assure them that we are giving full and careful consideration to this complex issue. I hope very shortly to be in a position to send them a full reply, which will be copied to the Manor House Group.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what safety measures are in place to ensure that haemophiliacs are not infected with(a) Hepatitis C and (b) HIV as a result of blood transfusions. [19854]

  Mr. Dobson
  [holding answer 10 December 1997]: All reasonable steps are taken to ensure the safety of blood and blood products for all patients. These include the careful questioning of donors to exclude those likely to represent a risk of transmitting infection, and the testing of donations for Hepatitis B and C, HIV 1 and 2 and syphilis. Pools of plasma from which blood products are to be made are tested again. Wherever possible, as with blood products used in the treatment of haemophilia, they also undergo additional manufacturing processes to remove or inactivate viruses. All batches of blood products are separately tested for viral markers of infection by the independent National Institute for Biological Standards and Control.

  These arrangements fully meet the requirements laid down by the relevant European Union regulatory authority, the European Committee on Proprietary Medicinal Products. In addition, the safety of blood and blood products is kept under regular review by the expert
  690
  Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissues for Transplantation, which gives advice to Health Ministers.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those PFI services associated with projects with a capital value in excess of £10 million and the duration of each part of the PFI project. [19866]

  Mr. Milburn
  Four projects, each with a capital value in excess of £10 million, have now reached commercial close and the nature of the services that will be provided by the private sector under each scheme has therefore been decided. The schemes, and the services affected, are:Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust: Estate maintenance; domestic services; catering; laundry; portering; security; non-emergency patient transport.
  Norfolk and Norwich Healthcare NHS Trust: Information Management and Technology (IM and T) systems; grounds and estate maintenance; domestic services; portering; financial services; catering; waste disposal and laundry; car parking; non-emergency patient transport; security; telecommunications; energy and utilities.
  Carlisle Hospitals NHS Trust: Catering; laundry; communications/telephonist; sterile supplies; waste disposal; accommodation; energy; portering and mail; estates; car parking; domestic services; and reception. In addition, the possible provision by the private sector of non-emergency transport (patient transport service) is being reviewed by the trust and its private sector partner.
  South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust: Catering; cleaning; portering; non-emergency transport; laundry and linen; building services maintenance (new build/refurbishment only); private patients' unit.

  The duration of each part of each of these schemes is as follows:
  Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust: Contract period of 63 years (including the construction phase of three years) with breakpoints at year 28 and every five years subsequently after. Services provided by the private sector will be benchmarked every five years.
  Norfolk and Norwich Healthcare NHS Trust: Contract period of 64 years (including the construction phase of four years) with breakpoints at years 34, 44 and 54. Services provided by the private sector will be market tested in year nine and then every five years with the exception of IM and T Services. The initial contract for these will be for seven years, after which the Trust will be free to procure this service as it wishes.
  Carlisle Hospitals NHS Trust: Contract period of 47.5 years, consisting of a construction phase of 2.5 years and an operational phase of 45 years. The Trust has the exclusive right to break the relationship in year 30 of the operational phase. Services provided by the private sector will be market-tested at intervals of five to seven years during the operational phase, depending on the service concerned.
  South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust: Contract period of 63 years (including the construction phase of three years) with break points at year 30 and then every five years. Services provided by the private sector will be market-tested after 10 years and subsequently every seven years.

  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department's value for money calculations assume
  691
  that patient related activity in connection with PFI projects with a capital value over £10 million will remain constant over the life of the project. [19863]

  Mr. Milburn
  No. Value for money (VFM) calculations are based on a number of assumptions including expected levels of patient activity and are carried out for all National Health Service capital projects. These levels are determined by a comprehensive analysis of current activity levels, expected changes in activity levels, patient flows and lengths of stay. Sensitivity analysis around these central assumptions is also undertaken to assess the effect on the VFM calculation of any changes. This includes an analysis of the impact of alternative levels of patient related activity.

  Private Finance Initiative projects are expected to have a flexibility of design to allow for different types of care should future healthcare requirements alter. This flexibility of design is one of the factors looked at during the approval process of a PFI project and helps give hospitals an in-built capability for coping with changes to patient activity.

  Patient Transport Service
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the amount of officer time spent on negotiating Patient Transport Service contracts in the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service(a) in 1996–97 and (b) in the previous five years; [20110]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the cost to the NHS of negotiating the Patient Transport Service contracts in the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service. [20111]

  Mr. Boateng
  None. This is a matter for the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust. I therefore advise my hon. Friend to contact the Chairman of the trust.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many ambulance staff have been recruited from the Patient Transport Service to the Emergency and Paramedic Service over the past five years(a) in the Mersey region and (b) nationally; [20108]

  (2) what proportion of staff currently working in the Patient Transport Service section of the ambulance service are the former emergency and paramedic staff (a) in the Mersey region and (b) nationally. [20109]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not held centrally. For details of Mersey Regional Ambulance National Health Service Trust, I suggest my hon. Friend contacts the Chairman of the trust for further information.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter of 21 July from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam concerning the Commission on Long-term Care. [20277]

  Mr. Boateng
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 30 July 1997.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of post-graduate training in the treatment of myalgic encephalomyelitis. [18755]

  Mr. Boateng
  The medical Royal Colleges and their Faculties are responsible for the content and standard of postgraduate, or specialist, medical training. The treatment of myalgic encephalomyelitis is likely to form part of specialist training programmes in several different medical specialities and also of vocational training for general practice.

  St. Michael's Hospital, Hayle
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the grant of £2.5 million by the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authority to St. Michael's Hospital, Hayle, in 1995 was approved by his Department's Regional Office, and on what terms; and if he will make a statement. [20112]

  Mr. Milburn
  In 1994 Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly Health Authority made a Section 64 grant of £2.5 million to the Congregation of the Daughters of the Cross of Liege in order to ensure the long-term availability of operating capacity in the county.

  This grant did not require the formal approval of the then South and West Regional Health Authority, although officers from the regional health authority discussed the grant with officers of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly Health Authority and were content with it. The health authority's external auditors, the Audit Commission, were also content with the grant.

  Lakeland Healthcare NHS Trust
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors led him to conclude that Councillor Mrs. Mary Styth was better qualified to be Chairman of Lakeland Healthcare NHS Trust Board than Doctor Bryan Lindley; and what representations he received on this subject. [20151]

  Mr. Milburn
  All National Health Service appointments are made on merit, and in accordance with guidance from the Commissioner for Public Appointments and the Government's criteria on the qualities required for chairmen and non-executives. All appointees are advised that there can be no presumption of re-appointment at the end of any term of appointment served. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not received any representations about his decision on the Chairmanship of Lakeland Healthcare NHS Trust.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the names of all those people he has appointed to public bodies since 1 May, indicating the
  693
  positions to which they have been appointed and whether they receive remuneration. [19983]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested by my hon. Friend is collected by the Department but will take a little time to assemble. I will write to him as soon as it is available.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the basis of the calculation to establish the requirement for £300 million additional expenditure on the NHS this winter. [19011]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have been asked to reply.
  694
  A sum of £300 million has been made available for patient care this winter as a result of reordering spending priorities; £270 million was found from cuts in other spending programmes. A reduction in provision for the Ministry of Defence of £168 million related to overspending in 1996–97 and £102 million of provision no longer needed by the public sector nuclear industry as a result of their improved performance. The remaining £30 million will be from efficiency savings within the NHS.

  The money will specifically help hospitals cope with emergency admissions, reduce delays in discharging patients and strengthen primary and community services to reduce the need for people to be admitted to hospital in the first place.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

The Kalahari Bushmen
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the article by Mr. Fred Bridgland in the Sunday Telegraph of 9th November entitled "Ordeal of the Kalahari Bushmen—forced march into oblivion", they are still satisfied that the culture of the Bushmen of the Kalahari is being adequately protected by the Government of Botswana.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Mr. Tony Lloyd, raised the issue of the Bushmen of the Kalahari when he met the Botswanan Foreign Minister on 26th October. The Government of Botswana have undertaken to give the Bushmen a genuine choice about whether to continue to live in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve or move to settlements outside the reserve. Their way of life has already changed substantially, even inside the reserve. We shall continue to press the Botswana Government to keep their promises.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply which, however, unfortunately does not coincide with a long conversation that I had this morning with Mrs. Bridgland, Sue Armstrong, who returned from the Kalahari only a month ago. In those circumstances, will the Minister find time herself to talk to Mrs. Bridgland, who can explain to her why the visit of the British High Commissioner last summer was unacceptably superficial and how these unfortunate people are having their development thrust upon them without their involvement or consent?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is not solely the British High Commissioner who has sent back a report about the Bushmen in the Kalahari. Indeed, the EU Heads of Mission accredited to Botswana meet every month and the Bushmen are a frequent topic of their discussions. As the noble Lord indicated, the British High Commissioner visited the Ghanzi and Xade areas on 22nd and 23rd May, but he was one member of a delegation which included the American and Swedish ambassadors, the Norwegian chargé d' affaires and an EU official, as well as a British senior social development adviser. He was not alone in the views that he put forward. But of course the noble
234
Lord has asked me to see those whom he believes to be well informed on the subject and I shall be happy to do so.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I certainly found my noble friend's Answer quite encouraging. But will she confirm that this matter arises out of a European Union reserve management plan which insists that the Bushmen are removed? If that is so, is that not a form of species cleansing which I hope we should all wish to oppose? Will the Minister use the new Government's people's ethical foreign policy to ensure that the Bushmen are not removed? Will they use their six-month presidency of the European Union to ensure that they are not removed and that they can continue their way of life as they have done since the British set up the reserves 70 years ago?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I must deal with some fundamental misconceptions here. The fact is that the Bushmen no longer maintain their traditional way of life. Some of them choose to leave the settlements and to live elsewhere, outside their usual grounds. They have more access to clean water, clinics and schools outside the reserves and many of them choose to go. But I hope that I have indicated that, not only Her Majesty's Government, but the governments of the other European Union countries are taking a constant interest in the issue; they raise it with the Botswanan Government; and we shall continue to do so during the period of our presidency.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that visits by heads of mission are not the best way to investigate possible violations of human rights because the people seeing those big-wigs descending from helicopters are not going to be exactly frank with them, particularly if they are in the presence of the host community? Does the Minister agree that, although the draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples is still winding its way through the UN machinery, it provides the only yardstick by which we can judge the conduct of states towards their indigenous peoples? Therefore, will she implore the Botswanan authorities to apply that declaration in deciding on the future status and position of the Kalahari Bushmen within the community?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that I have already given assurances that we shall continue to raise this matter with the Botswanan Government and to monitor closely the situation. But it is worth saying that the Botswanan Government have a good human rights record and they have provided us with clear assurances about the Bushmen, although we are still looking into their welfare on the ongoing basis that I have already described. When our High Commissioner visited the Kalahari in May, he and the others on the visit were allowed to go to the areas that they wished to go to and they met Bushmen leaders and had discussions with them. I take the point that there is

235
more than one opinion on this matter. That is why I have agreed, at the request of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, to see those who have other opinions.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, can the Minister explain why, on the same day as the Department for International Development informed the House that it was aware of and concerned about the resettlement programme for Bushmen living in the central Kalahari game reserve, the Foreign Office reported no evidence that Bushmen had been forced away from the reserve? Does that not indicate a lack of liaison and co-operation between the FCO and the Department for International Development which has worrying ramifications for the presentation of a coherent British foreign policy?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: No, my Lords; I do not accept that view. There is a world of difference between what the noble Lord suggests and having hard evidence about allegations that have been made. We have not found such hard evidence. However, on behalf of Foreign and Commonwealth Ministers and, indeed, Ministers from the Department for International Development, I have already expressed ongoing concern in the way that I answered the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and other noble Lords about our continuing vigilance on the issue. There is no hard evidence, but there certainly is a reason to continue being vigilant.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, will the Minister accept my gratitude for agreeing to meet Mrs. Armstrong?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords.

Lomé Negotiations: Conflict Prevention
3.15 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they are advocating for the future of Lomé arrangements between the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states to assist in conflict prevention.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are committed to the promotion of conflict prevention in a number of fora, including the UN, the EU and the Commonwealth. The development White Paper stresses that conflict prevention and political stability are essential for eradicating poverty.
In negotiations on an EU mandate for a future convention of Lomé, we will reflect these underlying principles. We shall seek to improve political dialogue between the EU and the ACP countries. We will support an increased emphasis on policies which promote the prevention and resolution of violent conflict, such as good governance, respect for human rights, the rule of law and democratisation.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that most helpful and encouraging reply.
236
However, does she agree that it is disturbing that of 30 armed conflicts raging in the world today 13 are in Lomé countries? Does my noble friend also agree that there is considerable evidence that, during the grim events of 1994 in Rwanda, the collapsing commodity prices and insensitive restructuring imposed by the international financial institutions aggravated the situation? In view of that fact, will my noble friend accept that, as the negotiations go forward, she will have all possible support from the House in ensuring that all the provisions of the agreement are examined to see how they enhance the prospect of peace and stability rather than aggravating potentially explosive situations? Further, is my noble friend aware that, during the negotiations, we will be looking to how the EU, through Lomé and in other ways, can play its part in a wider international setting in getting the financial and trade arrangements right—arrangements which are essential for peace and stability?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is indeed regrettable that so much conflict exists at present in the Lomé countries. I am afraid that the nature of war and violent conflict is rapidly changing. Indeed, the majority of current wars are between different parties within a single state as opposed to being between different states. I thank my noble friend for his encouragement as regards our negotiations on Lomé. I can assure him that, in those negotiations, we shall be testing the proposals against one of the major strands identified by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development; namely, the issue of conflict prevention. That will certainly be in the forefront of our minds.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, can the Minister say when any progress will be made towards re-evaluating the position that the WTO has taken towards Lomé? The demise of Lomé could exacerbate the economic situation in ACP countries.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there are two issues involved, the first of which is the question of a future Lomé agreement. We are expecting proposals from the Commission towards the end of January. After that, negotiations will begin within the European Union to consolidate the position of the EU as a whole. We shall be discussing the WTO arrangements thereafter. The WTO issue is one which has been in the forefront of our minds, as the ruling has been a deeply unwelcome one for many ACP countries. However, notwithstanding that fact, any Lomé agreement must be WTO compatible. Her Majesty's Government have already made that clear, not only to our friends within the WTO but also to the ACP states.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, can the Minister say what plans the Government have to help countries in the ACP regime which have no alternative other than to grow bananas, and where diversification is simply not possible?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we shall be considering a number of different measures.

237
The noble Lord's questions begs issues about both poverty elimination and new trading positions within the Caribbean areas. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has already suggested that there should be a Caribbean forum to discuss diversification in February next year. Plans in that respect are now well advanced. As regards other countries, we shall promote economic diversification to help develop their trade and supply capacity to prepare them for what we hope will be greater integration into the world economy. We must also ensure that the ACP countries have time to make those adjustments. One of our main proposals is for a five-year grace period to allow sufficient time for the ACP economies to adjust to the new trading arrangements.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that despite a barrage of words she has not answered the question? If you cannot grow bananas and you cannot grow anything else, I am not surprised that she cannot answer the question.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Lord does not think that I have answered the question as I tried hard to do so. I believe that I was fairly explicit about what we are doing in the Caribbean. We have a forum on the Caribbean which will consider diversification, and we are discussing inward investment there. In the rest of the ACP countries we are looking at other forms of diversification. However, we recognise the difficulties that the noble Lord has drawn to our attention and that is why, as I told the House, we have proposed a five-year grace period. I believe that goes a long way to answering the points that have been raised.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, as my noble friend has said, discussions on the future of Lomé are at an early stage. Is she aware that there are some views circulating in the Commission that the Lomé agreement should be abandoned entirely and dismantled in favour of EU bilateral negotiations with each of the ACP countries? Does she agree that that would be disastrous for those countries? Will she make quite clear that we should have a sensible, proper, progressive development of the Lomé agreement?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there are a number of different views within the EU about the way forward in these areas. I assure my noble friend that Her Majesty's Government's position is that we should proceed to a new Lomé understanding in the way that he has described.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, on the subject of good governance which the Minister mentioned, can she tell the House whether the Government will recommend that Zimbabwe remains a beneficiary of the Lomé agreement, given the proposals of the Zimbabwean Government to nationalise several million hectares of
238
farming land without compensation and with access to the courts apparently to be denied to those who are deprived of their property?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the situation which the noble Lord describes is indeed a difficult one. We do not, of course, know how Zimbabwe will take forward what are at the moment proposals. Many noble Lords have already approached me about this issue. So far we do not have a clear view on how the Zimbabwean Government will take forward those proposals. I cannot give the House any undertakings about what will eventually happen, but I can assure the House that the matter will be taken into consideration, along with others, in regard to good governance. I hope that that gives the noble Lord some assurance.

Libraries: Use by Children
3.23 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to encourage the use of libraries by children.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this Government are keen to support the use of libraries by children. They are central to a number of important initiatives we are putting in place. The National Year of Reading will be a high profile campaign to encourage reading by young people and their parents. The National Literacy Strategy will begin next September in primary schools and will encourage them to devote an hour a day to literacy for all their pupils and will make available money to support the purchase of extra books for children. The plans outlined in the report, New Library: the People's Network, will build on the sound education in literacy and numeracy which we shall provide for children. Most significantly, through the information technology which we shall provide in public libraries, we shall actively encourage children to use them. Libraries in all their forms will continue to make an important contribution to education and leisure.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging report; quite a lot is clearly going on. But in the light of the UK survey of secondary school libraries commissioned by the Library Association, where great disparity of provision was found, could the Minister consider providing criteria for school libraries to ensure more consistency of provision and greater fairness for pupils across the country? For instance, every school should have a chartered librarian on its staff. Only 24 per cent. of schools had one; 30 per cent. of schools had no full-time or even part-time librarian. Libraries should be open for a certain number of hours. The amount spent on books should be a recommended sum. Some 13 per cent. of schools spent £10 or more per pupil on books, but 20 per cent. spent less than £2. Will the Minister tell me if it is possible to use these criteria because, after all, £2 per pupil is less than one paperback a year?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it has been the policy of this Government and the preceding

239
government to devolve decision-making to schools as far as possible. That is what the local management of schools initiative means. That means that schools have increased freedom to decide how to spend the money which is allocated to them. Therefore, the importance of a school library service in each education authority is all the greater. I should have thought that the kind of objectives which my noble friend recommends would be better achieved in continuing to encourage the school library service. As for chartered librarians, of course it would be desirable if they could be present in every school, but that would certainly increase the cost of running school libraries and that service might be better provided within the school library service run by the local education authority.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is good educationally for children to act as librarians as they then make sure that the books are properly looked after?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I certainly agree with the first part of the noble Baroness's question. Children who take any kind of responsibility in a school benefit from that. However, I am less sure whether that results in better care of the books.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I, too, was heartened by his first reply to my noble friend? One agrees that local management of schools is intrinsically a good thing. But for those of us who come from a generation for whom libraries were a boon and were central to our education, will he reiterate the Government's view that books play a primary role here and, in my judgment at least—I hope my noble friend agrees—whatever the merits of information technology, it is not a substitute for reading a book?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I certainly did not suggest, or at least I did not mean to suggest, that information technology was a substitute for reading a book. However, it is a fact that many young children are well used to the idea of using screens and keyboards. If they can be brought into libraries to use screens and keyboards there is a greater probability that they will also read books. My noble friend is entirely right about the necessity for real reading.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will my noble friend encourage local authority teachers to take their pupils to these libraries to show what a school can offer and to enable the children to understand that libraries form an important part of their education?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend's question underlines the importance of the school library service run by local authorities. If schools sign up to their school library service, there will be an opportunity for collaboration between schools and, when appropriate, visits to other schools and their libraries.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, although the Minister's first reply was promising, and although this
240
Question deals with children, there are many young people in detention centres or who are disabled. Will our library facilities be available for these groups who most need them?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I know that I ought to know the answer to that question but I do not know whether the library service in detention centres is run by the Prison Service or whether it is run by the education department. I shall have to find that out and write to the noble Earl.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, will the noble Lord inform the House how the Government will use the annual library plan which has just been published to ensure that local authorities improve their books, in particular children's books?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, local authorities have a statutory duty to provide a public library service, which of course includes the maintenance of book stocks and of children's book stocks. However, it has proved extremely difficult—I do not think that it will ever prove possible—to specify by law what the exact standard of a library service should be. That is why there are so many local complaints—at least in my area—about the closure of libraries. Any plan which encourages local authorities to increase library expenditure is very welcome.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that more children would be encouraged into libraries if we had more serialisation of books on the radio? Is it not a tragedy that the BBC is planning to phase out the book serialisation, already a meagre half-hour a week, from Radio 4?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I myself am a hot media man. I like to read things rather than hear them or see them in the McLuhan sense. I do not have personal sympathy with what my noble friend says. However, I understand that for many people having a book serialised and read out is valuable. I am quite sure the BBC will take account of what my noble friend says.

Beef Industry: Assistance
3.30 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm Lord Monro of Langholm asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to relieve the current difficulties of the United Kingdom beef industry.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, since taking office the Government have pressed vigorously in Brussels for the lifting of the export ban and for the adoption of European Union-wide measures to ensure that beef produced in Europe is subject to the same strict controls as that produced in the United Kingdom. The Government are currently

241
considering how and whether further support can be offered to this hard pressed sector, given the constraints both of European Union rules and of limited UK financial provision.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I declare an interest as a farmer and thank the noble Lord for his reply. Does the Minister understand how serious the situation is at present for beef and hill farmers? They expect a lead from the Government. Will the noble Lord be able to help through the livestock grants or compensation to the green pound? Finally, can the Minister say firmly that British beef is the best and that there is no worry about safety whether it is on or off the bone?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, yes, we believe that, given the current controls including the latest ones we have introduced, British beef is safe. We are of course aware of the sufferings of those sections of the farming community. They are not backward in coming forward, I may say, to make their feelings felt. We are looking at whether it is possible, and in what way it would be possible, to assist. But the noble Lord will be aware of the enormous assistance—£1.4 billion a year—that already goes to the beef sector. That is paid for by the British taxpayer.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that not only the farmers but also the British public are completely and utterly confused and bewildered as to what is going on in relation to beef and now lamb? Is it a fact that the risk factor from eating beef off the bone is 600 million to one? Is it also a fact that as regards lamb and lamb cutlets there has been no case of CJD related to BSE? Indeed the scientists are unable to find a link. Is it not awful that people in this country should be frightened and farmers' livelihoods affected by such junk research? Are these people vegetarians who are trying to impose their way of life on all of us?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I do not know whether they are vegetarians. When I took office The Times accused me of being a vegetarian. We have taken the measures on beef because our top priority is the safety of the public. We received advice from the official advisory committee that there was a risk. It is one thing to sit feeling inconvenienced because one cannot order one's T-bone steak. However, when a Minister is confronted with the risk that someone will die, he takes the decision from a different point of view. The Minister acts from the precautionary principle. He decided that he was not prepared to risk people's lives.
On lamb, the noble Lord refers to a report from an advisory committee in Europe. No decisions have been taken in Europe. The evidence was considered by our advisory committee which reported to Ministers that it
242
saw no reason for action. So British lamb is safe, and, as my right honourable friend said, there is no reason not to eat British lamb.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, do the Government foresee the export ban being lifted first from Northern Ireland, given its system for tracing individual animals and the very low incidence of BSE in Northern Ireland?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I visited Northern Ireland. We are aware of the circumstances there and the fact it has the lowest incidence of BSE. Northern Ireland has a cattle traceability scheme. Responding to the Florence Agreement, we submitted two proposals to try to get the beef ban lifted. One is the certified export scheme. That is for herds certified free of BSE. But the Europeans require full traceability. If they agree the scheme would apply mainly to Northern Ireland until our cattle traceability scheme is up and running which should be in the late spring. Our second proposal is a born-after date scheme. If we can get that accepted, it would be of benefit to the whole of the United Kingdom.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, I am sure the Minister is well aware that beef producers' profits are down by 40 per cent. this year. What does the Minister envisage will happen next year?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, on the figures before us, the squeeze on virtually all sectors of the farming community will be severe. We do not have the figures for the near future. That is why I have said that we shall look at ways in which we can help within the constraints I have stated. However, I should point out that other sectors of the economy suffer and they do not always expect to be bailed out.

Business
3.38 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that has been made in another place on the White Paper, Freedom of Information.
I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement after the end of the Minister's initial reply to the Opposition spokesman should be confined to,
"brief comments and questions for clarification".
There is a mandatory limit of 20 minutes from the end of the Minister's initial reply to the Opposition spokesmen.

Social Security Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and to be printed.

Liaison: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the first report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 39).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
Future Committee activity
1. The Committee's First Report, Session 1996–97, recommended the re-appointment of the Committee on the Public Service in the new Parliament, on the understanding that it should complete its work by Christmas 1997. We have therefore considered whether another ad hoc Committee should be appointed after that Committee has reported to the House, but we have decided to defer a decision until the new year. This will enable us to take account of any proposals which may have emerged by then.
The European Union budget
2. We have considered the suggestion, made during Starred Questions on 4 November (Official Report, cols. 1317 18), that an additional Select Committee might be appointed to examine the European Union budget and perhaps other aspects of European Union expenditure.
3 We understand that the difficulties encountered by the European Communities Committee in scrutinising the annual budget proposals arise from the tight timetable, allowing little time for scrutiny, and that this problem is being actively pursued by the Committee, in particular in correspondence with Treasury ministers. We consider that it would serve no useful purpose to appoint a separate Committee. Nor would it be right to set up an additional Sub-Committee of the European Communities Committee, when only a year ago the number of Sub-Committees was increased from five to six for an experimental period of two years.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I might ask the Chairman of Committees a question. It was decided by the House that a Select Committee should be set up to examine the question of changing the ceremony for the Introduction of new Peers to the House. May I ask what has happened about that? It is not mentioned in the report.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, strictly speaking, since the matter does not appear on the face of the report, I suppose that I should protect the interests of the House by concentrating only on matters which arise on the report. Had the House permitted me to do so, I should have indicated to the noble Baroness that it is hoped that a suitable Motion will be placed before your Lordships before the House rises for the Christmas Recess.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Freedom of Information White Paper
3.40 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, I am today publishing a White Paper on freedom of information. Its full title is Your Right to Know—the Government's proposals for a Freedom of Information Act.
"I am delighted to be able to make this important announcement to the House today. Your Right to Know is the latest example of how this Government are delivering the radical agenda for constitutional change set out in our manifesto.
"For our agenda to be effective in modernising Britain, it is essential to identify the linkages between each of the Government's reforms. This has been assured by the role of my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor, who chairs the Cabinet committee on freedom of information. Under his chairmanship we have also published the White Papers on devolution for Scotland and Wales, and the Rights Brought Home White Paper on the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into United Kingdom law.
"Now, this White Paper provides a further essential element in our constitutional agenda. Your Right to Know sets out clear and detailed proposals for legislation which would give every individual a statutory right to know about the information and records which government hold. This is a right which will transform the culture of government and make it more open and accountable. It is a huge step towards rebuilding trust between government and the people.
"These proposals for legislation realise a commitment set out in Her Majesty's gracious Speech last May. Our White Paper is the outcome of a root and branch examination of this complex and difficult policy area. Within seven months the Government have addressed the sensitive issues involved and arrived at the firm proposals described in the White Paper. On this basis I believe few can question our commitment to fundamental constitutional reform.
"Our proposals start from the premise that open government is good government. They are accordingly radical, and with your permission I would like to draw the House's attention to the key features of our FOI regime.
"First, wide coverage. We propose that a freedom of information Act should apply right across the public sector, covering: government departments and agencies; local councils; quangos; nationalised industries; the NHS; schools and colleges; courts and tribunals; police authorities; the Armed Forces; and public service broadcasters. It should also include the privatised utilities and some private sector organisations carrying out duties on behalf of government. Instead of the few hundred public bodies

245
subject to the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, tens of thousands will be covered by the Act.
"Secondly, access to documents, not just information. The right of access would be broadly based, and apply to official records and information held by the bodies covered by the Act. This goes far beyond the code, which provides a non-statutory entitlement to information, but not to records or documents.
"Thirdly, fewer exemptions. The system for protecting information would be based on seven specified interests instead of the 15 exemptions in the Code of Practice. Significantly, in most cases information could only be withheld if its disclosure would cause substantial harm—a further important advance on the code.
"Fourthly, duty to publish. I want the legislation to encourage public authorities to take a positive approach to openness by requiring them to publish information as a matter of course, whether it has been requested or not. My department will be developing an action programme to support the move from a culture of secrecy to one of openness.
"Fifthly, strong enforcement. An independent information commissioner should oversee the implementation of the legislation. To do this effectively, the Government have agreed to give the commissioner wide-ranging powers, including the power to order disclosure. At present the Parliamentary Ombudsman, who supervises the code of practice, can only recommend disclosure.
"Finally, an integrated system. Access rights to current and historic information would be brought together through the integration of the relevant sections of the Public Records Acts into FOI. This would ensure a single legislative approach to the release of both past and present records.
"These points broadly summarise the Government's proposals for a freedom of information Act. And it is fitting that this White Paper marks the start of an extensive and open consultation process, which will continue through much of next year. First of all there will be a period of consultation on the White Paper itself. This will be followed by draft legislation, again for consultation. This will give Parliament and the people a clear idea of the freedom of information Bill we intend to introduce as soon as a suitable opportunity permits.
"Before I conclude, I would just like to mention two further initiatives connected with Your Right to Know, the results of which will inform the consultative process even before the draft Bill. Indeed, I expect to publish both of them shortly after the Christmas Recess.
"The first is a separate consultation exercise on the management of Crown copyright. This is the system which protects the status and the integrity of official government information. It also underpins the charging regime that exists for certain tradeable information-based services. Crown copyright is
246
clearly relevant to our White Paper proposals, and we have almost completed an examination of its operation. I hope to publish the results of this in a Green Paper very shortly.
"The second initiative will be a published paper setting out factual and background material relevant to the production of the White Paper. This fulfils the commitment I made while the White Paper was being prepared and is in line with the good practice set out in the White Paper itself, which commits government to the maximum possible disclosure of factual and background information behind policy decisions.
"Openness is fundamental to the political health of a modern state. This White Paper marks a watershed in the relationship between the government and people of the United Kingdom. At last there is a government ready to trust the people with a legal right to information.
"There are matters, such as national security or personal privacy, where information has to be protected. Government themselves need some protection for their internal deliberations. I believe our proposals strike a proper balance between extending people's access to official information and preserving confidentiality where disclosure would be against the public interest. It is a new balance with the scales now weighted decisively in favour of openness.
"I strongly believe in these proposals, and I am delighted now to be able to commend them to the House as the basis for public debate over the coming weeks and months."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for repeating the Statement. I was somewhat surprised to see him repeating it since I understand that he is, as the Statement points out, chairman of the Cabinet committee on freedom of information. I suggest that that is an internal matter for the Government; the noble and learned Lord obviously decided that he should repeat it rather than make the Statement himself.
We have been waiting for the Statement for some time. It was injudiciously leaked earlier this week. Now the Government have been obliged to come forward to Parliament, the proper place for such Statements, in order to clarify the issue.
We agree with the noble and learned Lord on two key points. It is proper that individual rights should be protected, and we agree with the principle of keeping the public as fully and freely informed as possible. However, there is one serious omission from the Statement. It is worth noting that it could not have been made without the great advances made by the previous government. Those advances provided the foundation for the Statement. On the security services, we were the first to detail Cabinet committees. We introduced league tables and information on the performance of public sector bodies and provided private access to health

247
records and personal records. And we introduced the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, on which, as I pointed out, the Statement now builds.
While supporting the principle of freedom of information, we agree with the noble and learned Lord that, in the interests of good government, there must be some limits on the flow of information. Within that constraint, all legitimate demands for information should be met. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that, above all, it is vital that the position of an impartial Civil Service be preserved and that policy advice, given freely, should be provided without fear of personal identification? Will he assure the House that he will not, as a general rule, publish or provide access to documents in such a way that individual civil servants giving advice on any matters can be directly or indirectly identified? The danger is all too obvious: it might threaten their careers and risk the further creeping politicisation of the Civil Service.
Will the noble and learned Lord estimate the cost to all the tens of thousands of public and private bodies which he is now sweeping into the ambit of information law and compliance with anticipated requests for information? Will he estimate the cost of keeping records which might otherwise have been destroyed and state for how long such records must be kept?
Will the noble and learned Lord accept that the only ultimate judges of the public interest are Parliament and Ministers, who are responsible to Parliament and held answerable by it? Unless I am misreading the document, which is possible, it is disturbing that the proposed new information commissioner will not be responsible to Parliament. as an ombudsman is at present. If my interpretation is correct, is that not a sign of the further degrading of Parliament by the Government?
It is proposed that the new information commissioner will have powers to enter the premises of institutions, not only, it seems—perhaps the noble and learned Lord can confirm this—private sector utilities but also the offices of any company or voluntary organisation doing business with the public sector, and to seize records. Can the noble and learned Lord tell us who will appoint the commissioner, to whom the commissioner will report and what protection there will be against actions of the commissioner?
Is the noble and learned Lord aware of the feeling that the Government have conspicuously failed to demonstrate open government? There has been the use of special advisers and private briefings to journalists. I note with some regret that the noble and learned Lord has himself succumbed to the modern affliction of increasing status by appointing his own special adviser. Will he agree with me and with the Speaker in another place that the first and most critical place for release of information on public policy is Parliament? There have been too many recent examples—this matter is one, as I mentioned a moment ago—of information that has not been brought to Parliament being trailed in the newspapers and the media. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster this week apologised with regard to this matter. With all that they say about freedom of information, does the noble and learned Lord not agree
248
that the Government would gain more respect and trust if they were seen to be scrupulous about releasing information openly and in due form and time to Parliament and not selectively to journalists in their own interests before Parliament has been informed?
3.54 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I have the privilege of congratulating the Government from these Benches on the publication of an historic White Paper, long overdue. We have lagged well behind the rest of the democratic world. The Swedish law on information was enacted in 1776; the American federal law in 1966; the Canadian law in 1982; the New Zealand law in 1983; and the Irish freedom of information Act earlier this year. We are well behind in the democratic world, in the Commonwealth and in Europe, in not having a measure of this kind. If he will allow me to say so, with respect, on listening to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, one can understand why for 18 long years we failed to see an effective statutory right of access to official information enacted by successive Conservative governments.
This measure is part of the important agreement reached between the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats in opposition on constitutional reform. I see in her place the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vemham Dean, with whom I was privileged to discuss this matter, she having gained enormous experience in her role as the head of the First Division Association of civil servants.
I heard the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, speak disparagingly of special advisers. I was one of them, and proud of the fact, working for my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I can assure the noble Lord that the role of the special adviser in bringing some kind of apparent expertise into Whitehall, which I believe his government valued as much as have Labour governments in the past, is particularly important in an area such as this.
I recall with sadness that the Labour government's pledge in their manifesto in 1974 to create a freedom of information Act was one of the few manifesto pledges that was not fulfilled. If I may authorise myself under the old Official Secrets Act to say so, it was not fulfilled because only a handful of members of the Labour Cabinet were willing to countenance a measure of that kind. Three of them are now Members of your Lordships' House; the fourth might have been but did not want to be. That is a measure of the huge, historic change which this measure represents.
I remember one of the Home Office officials in charge of this subject saying to me, "Anthony, if you were to reveal the colour of the wallpaper on the walls of the Home Office in your memoirs, that would be trading in official information and a treasonable act". He was not joking; he was simply exhibiting the pathology of excessive secrecy that is more a problem for psychologists or psychiatrists than for anyone else, a problem that has afflicted this country greatly.
What are the criteria by which we are to judge the White Paper? First, is its scope wide enough? I have only had a chance to read it quickly, but it seems to me

249
very broad in scope. Secondly, are there any unnecessary exceptions? The devil is in the detail. It does not seem to me that, on the face of it, there are unnecessary exceptions. Thirdly, what is the test by which to weigh the competing public interests—the right of access to personal or public information, on the one hand, and, on the other, important public interest? The White Paper proposes a very sensible harm test: will the disclosure of the information cause substantial harm? That seems to me a much better formulation than words such as "likely to", which would be a recipe for evasion.
Fourthly, will there be excessive legalism? Are the courts to become the prime arbiters? The White Paper sensibly suggests that there must be a new independent office-holder, the information commissioner. If the information commissioner is able to do as well as the Data Protection Registrar has done, and if their work can perhaps be combined, the system will do very well indeed. I am pleased that the Government have chosen to adopt a commissioner rather than use the courts as the main place for obtaining effective remedies.
Fifthly, are there excessive costs or procedural bars? I am a little troubled by the fact that it is proposed to impose costs on applications for information. I know that the sum proposed is only £10, but I believe I am right in saying that in New Zealand, Ireland and, I think, in Canada the only costs one pays are photocopying costs. I am worried about the flat-rate additional cost unless it is a substitution for photocopying costs, which I doubt.
Sixthly, are there to be effective remedies for abuse? It seems to me that the Bill which the Government proposes will create effective remedies.
I want to express one minor disappointment, which is that the Government are wedded to retaining the 30-year rule, though they will dilute its effect. Speaking for myself, I should have thought that we are mature enough to be able to countenance at least a 25-year rule and perhaps a 20-year rule. I realise that if it came down to 20 years one would be able to see what Labour colleagues were arguing on this subject in 1977. I do not regard that as being an insuperable obstacle. I am sorry that the Government are still wedded to 30 years and not a shorter period of time.
I attach considerable importance to a remark made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor towards the end of the Statement concerning the separate review of the management of Crown copyright. In other Westminster democracies—New Zealand, Australia, the United States and I believe Canada—measures have been taken to stop the abuse of Crown copyright; that is to say, the Treasury obtaining profits by selling Acts of Parliament, judgments of courts, Select Committee reports or other public documents to the public. I recognise that now the Internet is available that problem has been softened. However, I hope that the Government's review of Crown copyright will take account, as I am sure it will, of the more generous practice in those other jurisdictions.
I am sure that the Government are right to recognise that one cannot govern in a goldfish bowl; that therefore the policy advice given to Ministers by civil servants,
250
as distinct from the background information, cannot he put into the public domain while it is still active and live. That is wise. We look forward to the background information on why the options in this White Paper have been chosen. I am sure that they will disclose a careful survey of best practice in other countries, including, as I mentioned, Ireland. In all, we congratulate the Government on a well-designed measure and regret that their predecessors were so obscurantist in opposing any measure of this kind.
4.3 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was uncharacteristically sour in his reception of this proposed Bill. The lead Minister is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and it is appropriate that he makes the Statement in the other place. Since I was Chairman of the Cabinet Committee. it is appropriate that I should make the Statement following on his in your Lordships' House.
I heard what the noble Lord said in relation to leaks. Leaks were not notable by their omission from the long vicissitudes of our predecessors' administration. And we will not take any lessons in openness from our predecessors; quite the contrary. Apart from putting a right to information and records on the statute book by the Bill that this White Paper heralds, we have already taken steps towards setting up a foods standards agency to provide substantially more open and transparent agencies in this vital area of consumer interest. We have required National Health Service trusts to hold their meetings in public. We have required all executive and advisory non-departmental public bodies to produce and make publicly available annual reports. I could continue with a long list.
It is the fact that we have been, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, sensitive to the need for government not to operate in a goldfish bowl. Therefore, the only area where we have retained a simple harm test and held it outside our new, more demanding threshold test—the substantial one—concerns the integrity of the decision-making and policy advice processes in government. The simple question in that regard will be whether the disclosure of the information would cause harm with in the ordinary way an inference that the answer would be yes in relation to policy advice but no in relation to the factual and background material which stands behind that advice. One hopes that new practices will develop in Whitehall in which Ministers are given advice by civil servants which will distinguish, so far as convenient, between those two categories so that the factual and background material can be revealed, but the advice, in the interests of good governance, not disclosed.
I cannot give any estimate of cost. The public machine already gives much information and, in answer to the noble Lord, the bodies which are caught by this Act when it comes can give only the information which they actually possess. I do not accept the criticism that it would have been better to have an ombudsman responsible to Parliament. We thought about that carefully and took the view that it was better that he should be an independent officer. The information

251
commissioner will have strong powers. He has the power to order disclosure and it is better that he be an independent officer, as is, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, the Data Protection Registrar. The Act will apply to schools, local authorities and many other bodies that are not directly accountable to Parliament. The problem with an ombudsman is always the appearance of a political override; better that he be independent.
The commissioner will be cloaked with strong powers. He will have the right to obtain search warrants and to order disclosure and, where there are flagrant breaches of disclosure orders, that could be referred to the courts, which would treat it as a contempt of court. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, it is not intended that there should be elaborate appeals to the courts. The overwhelming number of cases will begin and end with the information commissioner. There will be no appeal to the court; the court is not suited or equipped to judge these questions. But there will be a backstop of judicial review in exceptional cases.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, would financial proposals, especially those involving tax changes, be protected from disclosure so as to prevent speculation?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is not something which has yet been contemplated. We will consider it. This is a White Paper with green edges and there is to be substantial consultation.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I welcome the Statement and perhaps I might ask a question relating to the "wide coverage" of the public disclosure provisions in relation to government departments, local authorities, quangos and so forth. Some of us in this Chamber will have in mind certain discussions in relation to public authorities under the Human Rights Bill. One would therefore like to know whether the new arrangements will apply to those private bodies which have public functions such as the Press Complaints Commission, the Advertising Standards Authority and the Takeover Panel. They have important powers and if they did not exist as private self-regulatory bodies they would no doubt be statutory bodies. Members of the public may feel that they hold documents which are just as important as those held by quangos and government departments.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, when the Bill is published in due course, it will be accompanied by a list. The list can from time to time by order be altered. The broad answer is this. We have taken the general view that where functions are carried out under statute, whether by the public, private or voluntary sectors, freedom of information should provide a basic line of accountability. A wide variety of such functions are carried out by private companies; for example, running prisons, administering public sector superannuation schemes, collecting council tax, and so on. There will be other examples under the Deregulation and Contracting out Act. Those are the kind of organisations we have in mind. But these matters are
252
ones which can be discussed in consultation. It can be positively put that a particular body ought or ought not to be on the list. When the Bill is published, it will be accompanied by a list.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I have been associated with public records for more than a quarter of a century, but I am not aware that we are a closed country regarding information. A great deal of work has been done on this. There was the Grigg Commission of 1954 and then, after a curious debate I had on public records in 1977, the marvellous late Lord Elwyn-Jones instituted the Wilson Commission. Where other countries have employed freedom of information, they have done so not always to great advantage. In paragraph 6.5 of the White Paper the Government say that they are retaining the 30-year rule. But in paragraph 6.6 the White Paper says that more records will be released within 30 years. I view that with some alarm. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could explain which records will be released within 30 years. Our Civil Service is undeniably the finest in the world and one would not want it to be inhibited by a whole lot of freedom of information.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not sure I can be much more particular than paragraphs 6.5 and 6.6 of the White Paper to which the noble Lord has referred. Our commitment was to open up more government records, and earlier wherever possible. That we will do. We considered carefully and decided against a blanket change to the 30-year rule as such. That will remain the point at which material will be made available in the Public Record Office. I shall not take up time reading paragraphs 6.5 and 6.6 where we give our explanations. We are proposing to bring together in one system the arrangements for freedom of information for current papers and what have up to now been quite separate arrangements, as the noble Lord correctly said, for historic public records. We believe that far more material will in practice be releasable before the 30-year mark. I predict that the proposals in this area will be widely welcomed by historians, others and many in this House, including, I suspect, the noble Lord.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, one of the areas in which there has been a substantial growth of secrecy in recent years has been contracting out and the extension of contracting generally. The secrecy has been imposed by the addition of the tag "business—in confidence". I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could clarify whether this will be covered by the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if the noble Lord reads the White Paper he will see that we are giving active thought to addressing particularly the contracts to which he refers. Through the medium of the bodies which are party to these contracts and which will be subject to the Bill, material under these contracts will be subject to the new freedom of information regime.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord, whose Statement I very much

253
welcome, tell us whether consideration will be given to the charges made at the Public Record Office, which I understand are 40p per sheet for photocopying? That seems an excessive amount. Is it likely that the legislation which follows the White Paper will require modification of the legislation which followed the Widdicombe Report, which exempted from the duty of publishing papers certain local government working parties and sub-committees which did not take decisions?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as part of the exercise for preparing for the Bill, we will be considering a broad range of legislation, including that to which the noble Baroness has referred. It is quite remarkable how many statutes there are on the statute hook with provisions that bear on these issues. I note what the noble Baroness has said about charges at the Public Record Office.

Teaching and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
4.16 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill we are debating today makes radical proposals which, seen together with measures introduced in another place, aim to drive up standards across the whole spectrum of education. The Bill will enhance the effectiveness and the standing of the teaching profession. It will secure fair funding in higher education and reform student support. It will ensure that employed young people can continue to learn.
The Government believe fully in the virtues of consultation. We have radical ideas and plans and the energy and commitment to make them a reality. But we do not believe that we have a monopoly of wisdom. The proposals before us today and in the School Standards and Framework Bill we have introduced in another place have been exposed to public comment through a massive exercise in consultation which has produced a big response. For example, almost 250 universities, colleges, local authorities and others responded to our consultations on the national inquiry into higher education and our own proposals. Just as importantly, we have heard from thousands of parents. We have listened very carefully to what people have had to say. There was clear support for our view that the further expansion of higher education cannot be afforded on the basis of current funding arrangements and future costs should be shared between those who benefit and that a new deal for teachers is long overdue.
Teachers are our greatest educational resource. Teachers, in particular, head teachers, are at the heart of our drive to raise standards. This Bill, and indeed the Government's wider policies, are intended to give them the tools they need to do the job and to do it well. This Government listen to teachers and we intend to work in partnership with them. The provisions set out in the first part of the Bill represent measures which they tell us will help them to do their job better.
254
We all know that the strength and quality of the head teacher can be the deciding factor in a school's success or failure. As the chief inspector has said,
"the weakest schools are invariably the victims of poor management and weak leadership. The converse is true in successful schools".
We are working to develop new training programmes for heads already in schools to raise the standards of all to those of the best. But we believe it is right to move now to ensure that all those coming new to school headship have the knowledge and skills in management and leadership they will need to lead their schools successfully from day one. Clause 12 will therefore enable the Secretary of State to require that all first-time heads should hold a professional headship qualification designated for that purpose.
Good management training is already available for teachers. We believe it is right, however, to look for a single national headship qualification to represent the common quality standard we should expect of all new heads. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already said—but let me place it on the record here—that, subject to further development and continued positive feedback from the current pilot, we expect the Teacher Training Agency's national professional qualification for headship to be the required headship qualification in due course.
As well as ensuring the quality of our new heads, we must also ensure the quality of all new teachers. We have already strengthened initial teacher training. We have launched a new core curriculum to underpin the skills which all new primary teachers must have mastered in the crucial areas of English and mathematics. We have set new standards which trainers must ensure that all student teachers have reached at the end of their training. We must, however, be certain that all training provision meets the standards we have laid down. There can be no excuse for complacency or for risking short-changing students; or indeed the pupils they may find themselves teaching. We must therefore ensure that all teacher training provision—both initial and in-service—is open to full and rigorous inspection by Ofsted so that any shortcomings can be identified and action taken.
As your Lordships may be aware, statutory provision already exists for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector to inspect teacher training, in the form of a letter of assignment made under the School Inspections Act 1996. Regrettably, those existing rights and duties have been questioned or challenged by a small minority of institutions who have sought to delay or question inspectors' access to undertake inspections. Clause 14, therefore, restates the existing statutory position on the face of primary legislation, reinforced by a statutory right of access at all reasonable times. This is not about providing an unfettered or unreasonable right of entry, and relates to inspecting teacher training courses only. There is no question of inspectors having a right of entry to higher education institutions to inspect other higher education. This Government fully recognise and respect the proper freedom and autonomy of institutions.
New teachers face a demanding challenge in taking control of their own class for the first time when they enter teaching. There may well be areas where they need

255
additional support and guidance, or time to work with other, more experienced, teachers to fine-tune their skills. Even with this support, a limited number of new teachers may not prove able to deliver the consistent high quality performance on the job that we expect. Clause 13 provides for all newly qualified teachers to have satisfactorily completed an induction period (normally a year) as a condition to continued employment.
This Government are determined to restore pride and professionalism to the teaching profession. There has long been agreement that a key element in this is the establishment of a general teaching council. Clauses 1 to 11 give effect to our commitment to establish a GTC.
The council will offer teachers a clear professional voice, independent of government, but working with us to raise standards. For too long, teachers have had too little say in determining the shape and future of their profession. Now, for the first time, teachers will have a body advising government on the range of professional issues of concern to them: from recruitment and supply, through training and induction, to professional development. We expect the GTC to promote a positive image of teaching to help us to celebrate the best in teaching and to help inspire others to come and join this most demanding and rewarding of careers. The GTC will represent the highest professional standards and will be charged with establishing a register of those qualified to teach. An effective GTC will be an engine for change and a driving force in our new deal for teachers.
These are important proposals both for the teaching profession and as a key element in our wider programme for raising standards in schools. They build on the proposals in the Excellence in Schools White Paper which we published in July and the extensive and helpful consultations we have had since then. They complement the School Standards and Framework Bill we have introduced in another place.
I now move on to the higher education provisions within this Bill. There is a crisis in higher education funding. While student numbers have risen by 70 per cent. since 1989, funding per student has fallen by a quarter. Maintaining and, in time, increasing student numbers cannot be afforded on the basis of current funding arrangements. Moreover, pressures on funding are making it difficult to sustain the world renowned teaching and research capacity of our universities and colleges. Carrying on as we are is not an option.
Even the previous government recognised that something had to be done. In May last year, they appointed the national committee of inquiry under Sir Ron Dearing. We supported this. In our manifesto we said:
"The costs of student maintenance should be repaid by graduates on an income-related basis, from the career success to which higher education has contributed".
We also made clear that we would await Dearing's recommendations before acting.
Much has already been achieved since Dearing reported in July. On the same day, we announced our intention to introduce contributions from students and
256
their families towards tuition fees, but with important safeguards, in particular for those with lower incomes. We announced that loans would replace grants and that there would be special help for those facing particular hardship. We announced that loan repayments would be linked to graduate income. We also began a consultation period on those proposals in tandem with the consultation on Sir Ron Dearing's report. In September, we announced £165 million extra for students and universities in 1998–99 to improve standards and to make a start on increasing student numbers once again. This will ensure that for 1998–99 all the income raised from fees will be used for higher education.
We are also determined to improve participation in higher education. There is no evidence that loans deter access. Since the introduction of the current loan scheme in 1990, student numbers have increased considerably. In the first five years of the loan scheme, participation in higher education among students from lower income families increased by 69 per cent. compared with an increase of 27 per cent. among those from higher income families. Yet nearly 80 per cent. of those from the professional social group go to university, compared with just 17 per cent. from families with few or no skills. So we start from a very low base. September's extra money included a £36 million access package for part-time students and those facing particular hardship, and £4 million to enable an extra 1,000 students to participate through sub-degree programmes. Since then, we have announced an extra £83 million for further education, which plays a vital role in boosting access. And the Higher Education Funding Council has already been asked to take forward Dearing's recommendation that additional funding for places should be targeted at institutions which plan to improve access. To ensure that the public know of our proposals, we have sent out well over half a million leaflets and are running a free telephone helpline which has taken 22,000 calls. We have advertised in newspapers and on the radio. And my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has written to all second year A-level students.
The Bill before us today provides, in Clause 16, new powers for the Secretary of State to provide financial support by way of grant or loans to students on higher or further education courses. In particular, it provides for any increase in financial support for fees, and hence any increase in private contributions above the rate of inflation, to be subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses. This should offer the "rigorous public review" called for by the Dearing inquiry, without the additional bureaucracy of an independent committee.
It means further safeguards for students and their families as tuition fee contributions are introduced. By linking contributions to income, we will also ensure that the least well-off—some 30 per cent. where parental income is taken into account—will pay nothing towards their fees. A further third will pay only part of the fees. Only the remainder will pay the full £1,000 a year. At least three-quarters of the cost of tuition will continue to be met from public funds. Contributions towards tuition fees will not be a deterrent to less well-off families. They will not have to pay them.

257
Our new arrangements will involve no higher contribution to fees and maintenance during the course of studies from any student or family. Students will be entitled to means-tested maintenance loans of at least £1,000 a year more as a result. In 1998–99 a student living away from home will be eligible for £2,735 in loans in a full year, and could be eligible for a grant in that year of £810. In addition, a discretionary hardship loan of £250 will be available for those who need it. Crucially, repayments under this new scheme will be on an income-contingent basis. Until, and unless, their gross income reaches £10,000 a year, graduates will repay nothing. For many graduates, it will mean lower monthly repayments spread over a longer period; and if a graduate's gross income drops below £10,000 a year, repayments will be suspended.
Clause 16 enables loan repayments to be collected with the assistance of the Inland Revenue, as recommended by Dearing. This will help to reduce the level of default and will offer graduates a more manageable system of repayment. But graduates should not equate their repayment with tax. Once it is repaid, that is it. Further details of the scheme are being worked out and will be announced.
There is one area relating to loans where I should tell the House now that the Government may be seeking an amendment to the Bill, and that is interest rates. We have absolutely no intention of introducing interest rates above the level of the RPI. However, because collections will be arranged through the Inland Revenue there are technical difficulties which will make it impossible to accrue interest from day to day, as provided for in the current loans legislation. We are currently considering how the interest arrangements should work in order to achieve our policy intention, and expect to bring forward an amendment to clarify this in due course.
Clause 16 also enables the Secretary of State to determine who should administer the student support arrangements. This is a task currently performed by the local education authorities and the Student Loans Company. We are presently working closely with their representatives to sort out the details of the arrangements and hope to make an announcement shortly. Our aim is to make the student support system more efficient and cost-effective in providing a service to students and universities.
Through Clauses 16 and 17 of this Bill we seek to discontinue discretionary awards made under Sections 1(6) and 2 of the Education Act 1962 and allow for new arrangements. Local education authorities will be fully involved in the development of future arrangements.
Clause 17 provides for discontinuing mandatory and discretionary awards and the current system of student loans. It also provides for transitional student support arrangements to enable existing students to complete their courses under the same arrangements which applied when they started.
Clause 18 of the Bill gives the Secretary of State a reserve power to control top-up fees. This power is not an attack on academic freedom or university autonomy. It does not give the Secretary of State power to set
258
university fees. It simply ensures that tuition will continue to be free for students from lower-income families and that parents will be expected to contribute no more than under present arrangements. Universities will retain all their essential freedoms, including the freedom to set fees for various categories of students. In the interests of equity and in return for the £3.5 billion in annual grant from the taxpayer, this legislation is intended only to limit the fees that institutions charge home and EU full-time undergraduates and PGCE students.
I know that there is concern that this or some other government might use the power sought in Clause 18 to control fee levels for other students for whom no financial support will be available, such as the generality of part-timers and postgraduates and even for overseas students. Let me make quite clear from the outset that that is not our intention. I repeat that we do not intend to set universities' fee levels for such students. My officials have had a discussion today with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals in response to a letter from the committee expressing its concern about the scope of the clause. Let me assure the House that we have already taken a close look at the current drafting of the clause, and we are prepared to clarify it through an appropriate amendment at Committee stage with a view to ensuring that our intentions are quite clear.
But let me leave your Lordships in no doubt either that top-up fees play no part in our plans. We hope we never have to use this power. But it is necessary for us to have it in reserve to reassure students and their parents that we are determined that access to higher education is on the basis of academic merit, not ability to pay. This is a pledge we cannot and will not break.
Clause 19 provides for the higher education funding councils to give funding to higher education institutions for them to distribute to connected institutions.
Clause 20 defines key terms used in the Bill relating to higher and further education, and Clauses 21 and 22 implement the Government's policy in this area in relation to Scotland.
I turn now to Part III of the Bill, which underpins our commitment that all young people should be encouraged to get the skills and qualifications they need for their future. Clauses 23 and 24 provide that 16 and 17 year-olds in a job will be entitled to appropriate time to pursue approved qualifications in the workplace, at college or with a private training provider. This measure is a vital part of our "Investing in Young People" strategy, which will tackle the problem of underachievement among 16 to 19 year-olds. Currently only 45 per cent. of our 16 year-olds achieve level 2 qualifications—that is, five good GCSEs, an Intermediate GNVQ or an NVQ level 2—the essential foundation for lifelong "employability". Even by the age of 19 only 70 per cent. have these qualifications. This is a waste of talent that cannot be allowed to continue.
Our long-term aim is that all young people who are able to should achieve NVQ level 2 or equivalent to equip them for the world of work and as a starting point for continued learning. Part III of the Bill tackles the

259
problem of the group of young people who, having underachieved at school, leave at 16 and 17 to get a job. Some employers will train them, develop them and offer good career opportunities. The Government appreciate the vision of those employers who already provide excellent training opportunities for their young employees. But for other young people their formal education or training ends the day they leave school. This is bad for them, bad for business and bad for society.
Clauses 23 and 24 of the Bill will insert new sections into the Employment Rights Act 1996. Those aged 16 or 17 who are not in full-time secondary or further education and who have not achieved a certain standard in their education or training will be entitled to take paid time off during working hours to study or train for a qualification which will help them towards achieving that standard. Interpretation of the new entitlement will be both sensible and flexible. In particular, I want to make clear that the phrase "time off'—which is required to enable young people to access this new right—does not necessarily mean time away from the workplace. The Bill does not accord greater status to any particular route. Study or training can indeed be undertaken in the workplace whether actually on the job or elsewhere on site, but it can also take place in a college, with an approved training provider or through open or distance learning. The time that a young person can have will be what is reasonable in all the circumstances, with account taken of the requirements of the course or training as well as the circumstances of the employer's business. We shall continue to consult and discuss with employers and all the other key partners to build on what is already happening and share existing good practice.
In summary, our principal intentions in bringing forward the Bill are threefold. First, we want to improve the future chances of young people who are in work. Secondly, we want to construct student support arrangements that will take us into the next century and put in place higher education of which we can all be proud which is properly funded and in which the damage done by the previous government is put to rights. We want to expand the system and widen access and opportunity. To do that it is right that young people who benefit from our world-class system make a contribution. Thirdly, we want and are determined to see the highest possible standards in our teaching profession. It is still a strong and great profession. We shall make it stronger and greater still—a profession which young people are proud to join.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
4.43 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for introducing the Bill. I agree with her that it is an important measure. I also extend my very best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell of Babergh, on her maiden speech to which all noble Lords look forward.
260
The Bill covers six significant areas of education and training. Much in the Bill is left to future regulations, and we shall need to probe the Government's intention as to those especially as it is understood that most will be by negative resolution. That said, we support large parts of the legislation, particularly the establishment of a general teaching council for England and Wales. We welcome and believe in the principle of self-regulation and the establishment of a professional body for teachers. It is an important acknowledgement of the central and overriding importance of the part that teachers play in the education system. They need and deserve our support. We need a profession of high standard and status. We wish to see an organisation that is equivalent to the General Medical Council or the Law Society.
We also support the development of a special qualification for head teachers. I agree with the noble Baroness that the quality of the head is a good measure of the success of the school. We are all aware of the great responsibility that heads carry today and their changed and enhanced role. They have the responsibility for delivery of the national curriculum in a world of league tables and the financial management of schools and for staff and relations with governors and parents. We live in an age which daily grows more litigious. Often it is the head who must bear the brunt of this. No one can doubt the value and importance of training for the job.
We support, too, the more technical proposals that require newly-qualified teachers to complete an induction period successfully before qualified teacher status is confirmed. We all know about—and wish we had an answer to—the problem of bad teachers. We hope that this particular proposal will help. We support the power to give chief inspectors in England, Wales and Scotland the power to inspect initial and in-service teacher training. Both these proposals encourage high standards which we all want to see and with which we all agree.
Turning to Part II of the Bill, I cannot say the same. I assume that it is meant to be a response to the Dearing Report. I am bound to say to the Government that in the university world today the proposals have caused an unprecedented degree of anger and dismay. Those who teach in the universities are appalled in particular by Clause 18 and the impact on those who study of tuition fees and the ending of maintenance grants.
I turn to the general teaching council. Although we welcome it in principle there are areas we wish to examine further. We are strongly supported by the NAHT and others in saying that the general teaching council should have more than an advisory role both to admit teachers and, more importantly, to debar them. This power is essential to its effectiveness and particularly in respect of how it is perceived by the outside world. The same is true of its advisory powers on competence, teacher conduct and medical fitness. Curiously enough, there is no definition in the Bill of its purpose or function. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, who is unable to stay to the end of the debate and therefore cannot take part, has drawn my attention to this important omission. Surely. the purpose

261
must be to enhance and maintain educational standards in the interests of pupils. Nor is there any mention of the disabled, yet those who are disabled or who have special educational requirements have needs that teachers must meet. Nor, curiously enough, is there a single mention of a pupil. Of its composition, we see a list in Clause 1(4). But who are the general public? Is this a modern statement of that important man or woman on the Clapham omnibus? Should not the council include employers, other than employers of teachers, industry representatives and parents? What about the independent sector? I welcome the desire of the Government to build bridges between the two sectors and believe that teachers must be free to move between each sector of the education service. Others will speak of the general teaching council in Scotland. and I hope that we can learn from their experience. One matter that seems clear is that its members should be elected in their individual right and not as representatives of trade unions.
I turn next to head teachers. I have long supported the idea of a course for head teachers and those who wish to become heads. Here I declare an interest as Chancellor of the University of Greenwich which has started a course, the National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH), developed by the Teacher Training Authority for teachers preparing for headship. The qualification is based on an agreed set of national standards for heads covering key areas: the development of the school; learning and teaching; people and resources; and efficiency and effectiveness. That started in November and I very much hope that it will prove to be of real value.
Of course, we want to ask questions. Should the course be compulsory? Who should be able to go on it? I understand that the latest figures for those going on courses indicate that there are more applicants from secondary than primary schools, yet there are far more primary schools and their needs are very great. There is also concern about its date of introduction and how it will start. Heads have warned me that it is still difficult to recruit heads to schools. We do not want to make it more difficult.
I come now to Clause 23. We all support the principle that everyone should have education and training up to the highest level of the individual's ability. How that is carried out will vary. But there are dangers in the proposals. On the Government's own estimate, the cost is believed to be between £60 million and £130 million for employers. That is hardly an incentive, particularly for small firms from where most of the new jobs will come, to take on young people. We would not want more young people to be unemployed as a result of what is proposed: that would be contrary to the suggestion made in the clause. We need to look at the matter closely.
I turn now to Part II and higher education. I am sorry to have to say it, but much of the Government's higher education policy this summer has been not far short of a fiasco. I find Clause 18 astonishing. I am pleased to hear from the Minister that the Government are considering an amendment to it. Many of us taking part in today's debate will remember clearly the Education
262
Act 1992. I see the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to name just two. There were long debates on academic freedom, and quite rightly so. Indeed, I believe that the Minister took a somewhat different view when Master of Birkbeck College. Yet we have these draconian powers for the Secretary of State. It will be interesting to see how many noble Lords who spoke at such length, and who berated the previous government, stand on the same principles now. We shall see.
I am glad that the CVCP has been to the DfEE. In its brief it states:
"The Bill grants the Secretary of State unprecedented and far-reaching powers which go beyond what is necessary to rule out `top up' fees".
Further it states:
"The Bill exempts all of clause 18 from the checks and balances contained in the 1992 Act".
One must ask why. We have not had a convincing answer.
Academic freedom is fundamental to university life and thought. The arrangements after the 1992 Act strike the right balance between the independence of the universities and the proper powers of the funding councils and the Secretary of State in respect of funding. The Bill permits the Secretary of State to impose requirements on individual universities with regard to particular courses. I am glad to hear—if I understood correctly—that powers which might have prevented universities making normal charges for things such as field courses and laboratories are to be excluded. All that introduces uncertainty and makes academic planning more difficult.
What is worse, powers to control the funding of universities will be exercised by ministerial discretion under Section 68 of the 1992 Act and will be challengeable, if at all, by judicial review in the courts. It represents an extreme example of unaccountable executive control. I understand that the vice-chancellors of Oxford and Cambridge believe that as their particular circumstances are radically different, because of the differentiation between the universities and the colleges, the Bill may be hybrid and are considering a legal challenge in the European Court. What a state of affairs to have arrived at. Nothing in the Dearing Report presaged that, and we shall return to it all in Committee.
The imposition of the £1,000 tuition fee, and the ending of maintenance grants, compound the difficulty. We have already had the problems of the gap year, and the real anxieties of the Scottish universities, with the most incredible decisions about discrimination against students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I shall make my position clear. We on this side of the House support, in general, the Dearing Report recommendations, although we believe firmly that the money raised from the fees should go to the universities and should not be clawed back by the Government. That of course is not what the Government are proposing. To me, it is incredible that they should propose tuition fees at all.

263
I remind myself that no less a person than the Prime Minister said on 14th April:
"Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education.".
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on 24th April said:
"We are quite clear that tuition costs must be met by the state".
No wonder supporters of the Labour Party are demoralised, following immediately on the heels of the débâcle over lone parents in another place yesterday. The proposal comes from a party which asked for trust: just six months ago it won the election to a large extent on that pledge. We now of course see that there is a new meaning to the word "trust". One might almost call it "blind trust" even if it is not on an off-shore island like Guernsey but in the UK.
Coupled with the ending of the maintenance grant, the effect on poorer students will be serious. All except the very rich will end up with large debts. I understand that recruitment for next year is already down. I have heard figures varying from 7 per cent. to 16 per cent. Perhaps the Government will tell us the figure. If it is down at all, that is counter to everything that the Government have said and what the Minister said today about education being at the heart of government policy. I remind Members on the Labour Benches that the great rise in the number of students, the rise in the staying-on rates at school, and the tremendous achievements in education that there were under the Conservative government are matters of which we on this side of the House are proud and they are fortunate to have inherited.
The tuition fees and maintenance will affect students. As I said, I am Chancellor of Greenwich University where many students are poor and come from the ethnic minorities. They will not find it easy. When we return to the Bill in Committee, I shall have figures to show that matters are not as straightforward as they have been put before us. I understand that the gross income for a family identified as poor is £35,000 per year for the husband and wife. Today, that is not a large income from which to pay anything for tuition. There are other issues. The BMA has expressed particular concern about medical students. I hope that we shall not look at the letter from the Secretary of State, Mr. Blunkett, to all sixth formers, which implies that universities might be able to help financially and suggests that they might without difficulty arrange to have the fees paid monthly, although, as we all know, that would add a considerable administrative burden.
There are many speakers so I shall conclude. There is a great deal to which we will need to return at later stages of the Bill. We shall want to have a detailed look at the general teaching council and the head teachers' courses. We shall make a number of constructive proposals. I hope that the Government will think again about Clause 18—I was glad to hear what the Minister said on that point—and sections of Part II. We shall table amendments on those points. We believe that Clause 18, in particular, is important. We hope that there will be genuine second thoughts. It would be a pity if
264
the good and valuable parts of the Bill were to be spoilt by taking what is one of the most fundamental principles of the academic world—academic freedom—and disposing of it in this cavalier manner.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I, too, start by thanking the Minister for her full and good explanation of the Bill and its various provisions, for such an early indication that the Government are listening to the representations made to them and may be a little flexible in improving some parts of the Bill. When I heard that there were to be not one but two education Bills, and that one of them was to start in your Lordships' House, I had mixed feelings. Having now had a chance to look at the Bill, I am pleased that this Bill is starting in your Lordships' House. The Bill is good in some parts but bad in others and it contains a mass of enabling legislation. It will benefit greatly from the calm and informed consideration of your Lordships; a consideration which—dare I say?—it may not receive to the same extent in the other place.
I look forward to being able to clarify the Government's intentions in respect of a number of provisions. We must consider continuously where it is appropriate to place greater safeguards on the face of the Bill in order to ensure that some of those intentions cannot later be misused by successive governments.
We must make much needed improvements to a number of clauses. I am sure that the Minister will listen to all the points which are made, but I confess to being less sure that the Government are willing to respond flexibly to them. However. I hope that they will do so because the Bill is greatly in need of improvement in many respects. I shall refer to a few of them today.
I wish to thank the many organisations which during the past few days have provided us with excellent briefing material. It is a measure of the interest in the Bill outside your Lordships' House, and that is hardly surprising. The briefing material has raised many useful and important points. I shall not be able to cover all of them today but I am sure, too, that we shall return to them at later stages. I am sure that other noble Lords will raise many of the points.
The Bill contains a mass of enabling legislation. Therefore, it is difficult to give an unqualified welcome to any of its provisions without a better understanding of the Government's intentions. However, I wish to begin on a positive note and give as positive a welcome as possible to some of the provisions. We on these Benches have long called for qualifications for entrant head teachers and we strongly support that proposal. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned, we have concerns about access to training for such qualifications and the fact that there are more registrations from secondary schools than from the more numerous primary schools. We are concerned about the equally important elements of training for existing head teachers. Those are proper concerns, but we welcome the provisions relating to qualifications for head teachers.

265
We also welcome the proposal to introduce an induction period for newly qualified teachers, a provision for which we have been calling for a long time. I had intended to ask the Minister whether the induction period would be one year, but I heard her say in opening that that would normally be the case. Perhaps in reply the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will tell the House the circumstances in which he envisages that that might not be the case. My noble friend Lady Maddock will speak on that matter in greater depth and with greater knowledge and experience than I have.
Another aspect of the Bill to which we give an unqualified welcome is the provision for time off from work for 16 and 17 year-olds. My party has been calling for that for many years.
I expected and would have wished to give an unqualified welcome to the provisions for a general teaching council. Only a few months ago I argued from these Benches for the establishment of such a council. Indeed, I recall moving an amendment to give effect to that proposal in the final education Bill of the previous government. I also recall that the amendment was strongly resisted by that government on the ground that there was no case for a council. Therefore, I must in passing welcome the astonishing conversion of the Opposition to the establishment of a general teaching council. The time has long past since teachers should have had their professionalism recognised by the establishment of an independent professional body with a high reputation. That is why I expected to be welcoming the provisions in the Bill.
However, I am concerned because, so far as one can understand the Government's intentions, that will not be the case. We fear that according to the proposals in the Bill, the general teaching council will be Mr. Blunkett's poodle. Worse than that, it will be a toothless poodle which has had its teeth drawn by the terms of the Bill. The Bill is littered with phrases such as "the Secretary of State may". We on these Benches wish to see more of the phrase "the council may". We believe that the teaching council should be responsible for its own composition. We shall be interested to hear whether the Government envisage the membership comprising a majority of teachers. Their intention is unclear.
We believe that to a large extent the teaching council should he independently funded through teachers' subscriptions. If teachers are not to feel resentful at having to pay subscriptions they must believe that they are subscribing to a worthwhile body which properly represents their professional interests. We believe that the council should elect its own chair and appoint its own chief officer. It must be responsible for the register of teachers and not only for the administration. It must be responsible for devising a code of professional conduct and it must have powers of disbarment on the grounds of incompetence or misconduct. It is not enough for it to offer advice to the Secretary of State. Many other crucial issues affecting the profession are entirely proper for the consideration of a general teaching council: for example, the curriculum, the examination system and not least the funding of education in this country.
266
There is also a shortfall in the scope of powers in the English GTC compared with the GTC for Wales. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that. For instance, the Welsh GTC, as set out in Clause 7, can promote recruitment to the teaching profession and continuing professional development for teachers. Liberal Democrats remain strongly committed to that. Furthermore, the Welsh GTC is allowed to give advice, to organise conferences and lectures and to arrange for the publication of material in any form. The English GTC has none of those powers, and in our view it should have. I suspect that one of the reasons for the difference may be connected with the future of the Welsh teacher training agency. Perhaps that will be clarified.
Whatever the reasons, we believe that the English GTC should have those powers and we shall be interested to hear what the Minister sees as the future relationship between the GTC and the teacher training agency. Above all, the GTC must be independent with real powers and not just another quango beholden to the Secretary of State. That is what we fear from the limited descriptions in the Bill.
I turn to the more vexed subject of tuition fees. First, I must make it clear that the Liberal Democrats remain implacably opposed to the charging of tuition fees. We believe that it breaches a vital principle and that tuition should be free. Under the present arrangements, I see the charge not so much as a fee but as a tax. As a local authority leader who lived through the community charge, which was not a charge for services but was avowedly a tax, I see little difference in principle between that and the tuition fee. I suspect that it might more appropriately be called "the student poll tax".
The Government claim that no student will be worse off under the new arrangements. However, I venture to suggest that they are not living in the real world in so far as concerns the current arrangements. The present grant plus loan does not cover the reasonable expenses of many students, who are forced to top up with loans from commercial banks. I have previously declared an interest as the parent of two owners—if that is the right word—of student loans. Others make ends meet by working during the university terms: for example, stacking supermarket shelves and so on.
Just as many parents in reality have not made a parental contribution, whether wilfully or through lack of funds, it is bound to be an additional disincentive to young people embarking on higher education. We may well argue, and continue to argue, about the extent to which applications have fallen this year. We can argue about the figures but it is a fact that those applications have fallen; and that is not surprising. One of the reasons for that fall must be the disincentive of the £1,000 tuition fee.
I suspect that another reason is a lack of understanding and lack of clarity in relation to exactly what the arrangements are to be. If tuition fees are to he introduced, and we remain opposed to them, I urge the Government to provide clarification of the administrative arrangements to local education

267
authorities, universities and, above all, to the students themselves. If it must happen, the sooner that is done the better.
Reference has been made already to the anomaly—and that is perhaps too kind a word—with regard to Scotland whereby a student from Northumbria pays £4,000 for his tuition in Scotland whereas the student from Umbria pays only £3,000. to quote an example from an earlier debate in which I participated. In your Lordships' House on a number of occasions we have asked not only whether that is fair, which demonstrably it is not, but whether it is legal. We have yet to have a clear answer.
I remain puzzled and confused as to why it is considered necessary for medical students to pay for year four but apparently not for years five and six. I hasten to add that we do not believe that they should be paying for any of those but I should still be interested to hear from the Minister why the Government believe that it is appropriate to pay to year four but not to years five and six.
I turn to the equally vexed question of top-up fees. It must follow logically that if we are opposed to tuition fees then so we are opposed also to top-up fees. I am grateful to the Minister for saying in her opening remarks that the Government have no intention of allowing top-up fees. I was extremely pleased to hear from the CVCP that,
"No universities have plans to introduce so-called top up fees".
We believe that universities should not be allowed to do so but we share the concerns of the CVCP and many others about the nature and scope of measures in the Bill and especially Clause 18. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, spoke extremely eloquently and forcefully about those and I could not better that. However, I share those concerns and shall wish to join in expressing those concerns.
I join the noble Baroness, Lady Young, also in expressing gratitude to the Minister for indicating that the Government will be introducing amendments to Clause 18 in Committee. We shall look at those amendments very carefully and with considerable interest. But it is still likely to leave much to be desired.
The Bill includes wide-ranging reserve powers which extend significantly the Secretary of State's powers to attach conditions to the funding of universities. Those unprecedented and far-reaching powers go far beyond what is necessary to rule out top-up fees. Indeed, shortly before coming into the Chamber, I was handed a letter from a person at university who referred to them, probably rightly, as,
"outrageous powers of intrusion. They seem to us an absolutely unwarranted increase in state powers".
The Minister reassured us that that is not the Government's intention and of course we accept wholeheartedly that assurance. But it may be that it is not as difficult to contemplate now as it might have been yesterday that we may not always have the same government. We may not always have the same benevolent Ministers here. I can see looks of shock and horror on the faces of noble Lords on the Benches
268
opposite, but that is a possibility. It is always a good test of any proposed legislation to imagine what it would be like in the hands of a government less inclined to smile at those references and more inclined to make use of such powers in ways which may not have been intended when they were introduced but nevertheless are permitted by the legislation.
The Government plan to override hard-won safeguards to the relationship between the funding councils, the universities and the Minister contained in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. Those safeguards are essential to maintain the necessary checks and balances in those relationships. Under Clause 18, it is now technically possible, if not the intention, for the Secretary of State to interfere with fees charged at a particular university for a particular course. If he chose, he could price a particular course out of the market. I accept that that is not the intention, but that is the danger that we are concerned about in the phrasing of this particular legislation. We shall seek to deal with that in Committee.
I conclude by saying that we are anxious also about the clauses legalising the inspection by Ofsted of universities as PGCE course providers. That may be seen as an infringement of academic freedom, and understandably so. Provided that Ofsted is inspecting only the vocational training element of such courses, we feel that that may be appropriate but we shall need to examine that in much more detail.
In summary, the Liberal Democrat approach to this Bill is to promote our belief in the independence and professionalism of teachers, whether they be in schools, colleges or universities. We wish to see that enshrined in the arrangements for the general teaching council which trusts teachers to behave professionally and responsibly; in arrangements for teacher qualifications which teachers themselves approve; and in plans to assist the funding of universities which do not take away from those institutions their important freedoms.
The Government need to make a certain leap of faith in those matters. Under the previous administration, we had a culture which was sometimes one of hatred, ridicule and contempt for teachers. That has led to a massive walk-out in which huge numbers of talented and experienced teachers have taken early retirement or found other things to do. We have no doubt on these Benches that unless the Government can make that leap of faith to trust the profession, that haemorrhage will continue.
There is much work to do on this Bill but do it we must to ensure that it leaves us in a better condition than it has arrived here today.
5.18 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I look forward to the many contributions to be made to this afternoon's debate in your Lordships' House and in particular to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell of Babergh. I thank the Minister for her very clear introduction to the Bill.
I speak as chairman of the Church of England Board of Education and as chair of the Churches Joint Education Policy Committee, representing the

269
educational interests of all churches. I welcome the broad outlines of the Bill. Before commenting on it, I thank the Government for the way in which they have responded to the concerns of the Churches in the matter of school structures. In particular, the Churches have warmly welcomed the Government's decision to change the categories into which schools will be placed. Instead of the former categories of aided, foundation and community, we now have new categories of voluntary, foundation and community. That change came about after much negotiation and, indeed, after some media reporting. With the other changes which have been incorporated, the Churches are largely satisfied with the proposed legislation. There are still some issues to be debated but we have much more satisfactory proposals than had seemed probable at an earlier stage. All of that is for debate when the school standards Bill reaches your Lordships' House.
Concern for structures should not be allowed to draw attention away from the chief concern of government in education; namely, to raise standards. The Churches share that concern. Probably the chief element in the raising of standards is the numbers and calibre of the teaching profession. Recent figures on teacher recruitment give cause for concern, indeed alarm. Without a good calibre of entrants into the ranks of teachers, and without sufficient numbers, quality education cannot be delivered. That is true for Church schools, many of which are already delivering excellent provision. Our concern is not only for Church schools but for all schools—the total educational scene. The raising of morale is key in the attraction of good candidates for people are not likely to consider a career in a profession where morale is low. In targeting education, and more particularly teachers, as the cause of society's woes—which, in my view is a totally false analysis—society has not helped the teaching profession.
The proposal for a general teaching council will go some way towards raising the perception of teachers as a professional group and of teaching as a career worthy of consideration by men and women of calibre. I salute teachers, many of whom are working in circumstances of great difficulty and are demonstrating commitment and ability. We look for ways of swelling their ranks, not diminishing them as is happening at present. I therefore support the general thrust of the Bill's proposals for such a council.
However, I am concerned that the Bill makes no mention of Church representation in the constitution of the council. Indeed, one third of all schools in England are Church foundations and one quarter of all pupils in the primary and secondary sectors are educated in them. The Church contribution to educational provision is a massive one and there is a strong case for this to be reflected in the constitution of the council. Both my predecessor, Bishop Michael Adie, and I have been involved in the preparations for the council and have been supportive of its establishment. I look for a proper recognition of the role of the Churches in its constitution.
270
Like other noble Lords who have spoken before me, I looked in vain for any power by the council to remove teachers from the register. Clause 2(4) gives powers only to make recommendations to the Secretary of State. I should also like to know what the relationship will be between the council and the Teacher Training Agency. Will the agency retain responsibility for the training and professional development of teachers? These comments, and those made by my predecessors in today's debate, raise the question of whether the GTC goes far enough or whether the profession should be pressing for a Royal College of teachers incorporated by charter.
The proposal to require heads to possess a professional head teachers' qualification is clearly right. The Church colleges of higher education are already involved in training and assessment leading to such a qualification and look forward to continuing that provision. However, there are some practical issues which will need to be determined. For example, how long a period will there be before that requirement is mandatory? Too swift an implementation may cause difficulties for the appointment of heads in the immediate future. Moreover, as has already been mentioned, there is a difficulty about the release of teachers to undertake work for such a qualification. It is not easy, especially at primary level, for schools to provide cover for the purpose. I believe that to be one of the reasons for the differentiation of take-up between primary and secondary teachers. I welcome the provision for a satisfactory induction period for teachers. With the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I hope that that period will be a mandatory year.
The Bill also makes provision for inspection by Ofsted of institutions delivering initial and in-service teacher training. A major provider of that delivery is the Church colleges of higher education, within which one-third of primary teachers and one-fifth of all teachers are trained. Clearly the principle of inspection is right, but there are concerns about the sweeping powers which Clause 14 gives to the chief inspector. Clause 14(5) gives him the right of entry to premises of such an institution and the right to inspect and take copies of any records and other documents.
We have had an assurance from the Minister that, in relation to that right of entry, the power will only be used for such parts of the institution as relate to teacher training. I would be grateful for an assurance that that will also cover the part of the Bill relating to inspection, and the copying of records and other documents. In both cases it would seem to me that a sentence on the face of the Bill would give the protection which is needed.
On the matter of higher education and further education financing I wish to say little, except that it is essential that any money from tuition fees is directed into the higher education and further education sectors. The latter sector, one of great importance and often overlooked, is even more underfunded than the higher education sector. Additional funding is desperately needed. I would find it a little difficult to follow the noble Lord, Lord Tope, down the road of comparison with the poll tax. It would seem to me to he clear that

271
that comparison cannot be maintained in two respects. First, it does not apply to all graduates; and, secondly, it does not apply in all circumstances.
Nevertheless, the question of whether fees and loans will restrict access is clearly a key one. It is not only a matter of affordability; it is also a matter of attitude towards loans. Perhaps I may give your Lordships one instance: we need to discover the attitude of members of the Asian community towards the taking out of loans. Clearly, proper monitoring will have to take place in order to ensure that access is in fact being widened to include proper proportions from all parts of our society and not being narrowed.
Despite the concerns and apprehensions which I have expressed over particular provisions in the Bill, I welcome its general thrust. Those of us involved in the Church-founded delivery, both of teacher training and of primary and secondary education, look forward to working in partnership to ensure, maintain and improve the standards of excellence which our society needs and our young people deserve.
5.26 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, I should like to begin by expressing my appreciation of the welcome extended to me on my introduction into your Lordships' House and my gratitude for the kindness and much-needed guidance which helped me through my initial awe and apprehension. An instance of that kindness happened the day after my introduction, an occasion of some ceremonial and of great moment to me. One of my noble friends leant across and whispered to me, "The body is in the library". That reference was, of course, directed to what I do for a living. It put me at my ease and lightened the atmosphere for me. It was both gracious and timely.
However, on a more serious note, the body must be in the library, or rather the living must be, if we are to achieve a society of educated and fulfilled people. The first writing known was marks on clay tablets made 6,000 years ago. The first recorded instance in Western literature of reading silently to oneself was made a millennium and a half ago in Augustine's description of Ambrose with his book. "When he read", said Augustine, "his eyes scanned the page and his heart sought out the meaning but his voice was silent and his tongue was still".
A century has passed since Britain proclaimed itself literate—the first nation to do so. Today, roughly one in seven adults is semi-literate or illiterate. He or she can read a headline in a newspaper but not the small print on a guarantee or policy, the bottom line in more ways than one. More than one-third of all 11 year-olds fall short of the expected reading standard for their age group. I know one of them. He is now an excellent driver of heavy goods vehicles, but his reading skills are minimal. One of the motives for the Government's literacy strategy is that 80 per cent. of 11 year-olds should reach that standard by the year 2002. Here I must declare an interest for I have written many books, some
272
of them indeed incorporating bodies in libraries or less salubrious places. If I am spared, I hope to write many more.
The year 1998–99 will be the year of reading—its object is to take a giant step forward and achieve no less than a transformation in the way that people regard books and reading. April 23rd, Shakespeare's birthday, will be World Book Day and it is hoped that the launch of the year of reading will be held at Shakespeare's Globe. The whole community will be involved: publishers, booksellers, business and industry, authors, myself included, young people's role models from sport and the media, as well as teachers and teacher trainers. Encouragement to read will be directed at everyone and every child in school will be given a voucher to help with the purchase of reading matter.
Those children who will be 11 in 2002 are six now and in need—particularly if their parents are ill equipped to initiate them—of special attention from teachers. In line with what my noble friend the Minister said just now, there must be no repetition of what happened last week when two institutions were found to be responsible for allowing incompetent students to become qualified primary school teachers. That is especially pertinent as the competence they failed to demonstrate was in the teaching of reading.
Reading may be the most important skill we are taught and the most vital we are taught to teach, for learning to read is a rite of passage out of ignorance and dependency. Illiteracy or a poor level of literacy breeds shame and low self-esteem and is one of the elements in social exclusion. With certain rare exceptions, all education begins with learning to read. The Government's ideal, as we know, is education, education, education. I have written many books, but it is not my books for which I now put in a plea but for non-fiction and works of reference—those which I dread to see surviving only on the shelves of learned libraries.
It is good that every child in school should have a computer. We live in an age of technology and a computer is a wonderful thing. I have used one myself for 12 years. One of the goals of the literacy crusade is that children should be able to read computer screens. But the wonders of the Internet and other information sources should not be allowed to take the place of the dictionary, the encyclopaedia and the thesaurus. I have a god-daughter aged 16 who is currently studying for her A-levels. I asked her preference, expecting an answer in favour of technology, knowing her to be highly computer literate and having called her in for help with such problems as invalid parameters and disappearing text. To my surprise she came down in favour of the book. There is no comparison in her view between bright but arid windows and icons and words on paper where the eye may linger at will or be distracted by just as fascinating new knowledge further down or over the page. Let us have computers by all means but books too, and books not as curiosities from a former age.
To be literate is to begin a process of turning the soul's eye towards the light. Someone has said that all the troubles of the world would cease if everyone stayed

273
at home and shut themselves up in their rooms. I amend that and say that many of the world's troubles would be eased if people stayed at home more often and read a book.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, on behalf of all Members of the House I congratulate the noble Baroness on her splendid and eloquent maiden speech which was a wonderful exposition of the importance of the written word and the book as one of the central pillars of any civilization.
The noble Baroness has written many books. I have read some of them but I cannot say that I have read all of them because her output is prodigious. She also has a pseudonym. I have reviewed some of her books and I am glad to say that they were favourable reviews. It is one of the pleasures of this House that people such as the noble Baroness are appointed to be Members of it. It is one of the ironic twists of fate that two of our leading detective novelists are both in this House on alternate sides. It is immensely encouraging to know that the capacity to deceive right up to the last chapter is not a prerogative of one party. The noble Baroness states in her curriculum vitae that she is a firm socialist. I am sure that will be a measure of support to some Members on her side of the House.
This Bill is an interesting and important Bill but it is also a difficult Bill to interpret. I speak as someone who has laboured in the vineyard of education legislation. Parts of this Bill are dense and those that are not dense are obscure. I would hope that on the very day when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the Government have announced a policy of freedom of information, the Government might help the deliberation of the Bill in this House by placing in the Library of the House of Lords their Notes on Clauses. I am not asking for the sentences at the bottom which refer to the "line to take"; I am asking for the explanation of the clauses so that we could at least know what the Government intend on some of these clauses, even if they know that themselves.
I want to speak mainly about higher education, but I shall refer first to the General Teaching Council. I have always believed that teaching is one of the noblest professions in our country. Several members of my family have been teachers over several decades. The great majority of teachers in our country have the highest professional standards. If they can be enhanced, solidified or codified in some way by this council, that can do no harm. However, I must add that at the end of the day I suspect it will not do much good either. However, I hope I may lay one uncontroversial view upon the table. If one is to codify, as it were, the standards of the teaching profession, then, just like GPs, the Law Society—earlier I think I saw the noble Lord, Lord Peston, nod when the Law Society was mentioned, and I see that he is nodding now—and the Bar Council, teachers may be encouraged to have the same professional standard; namely, to deny themselves the withdrawal of their labour. Nothing so demeans their
274
professional status than a teacher threatening to strike. I have said that that is an uncontroversial matter and I am sure that Ministers will consider it.
I turn now to the funding of higher education. This Bill is important but I believe that it could be damaging. There are two principles which govern the funding of higher education. The first is that the student should contribute something towards it because the student who benefits from higher education and obtains a degree will start work much higher up the ladder. Most of them are likely to earn much higher salaries than people who have not benefited from higher education. Why should those people whose taxes support the students, and who will never benefit from higher education themselves, pay while the students who are the beneficiaries of higher education do not? The second principle is that the funding of higher education should be shared between three groups in society: students, the state and students' families, if they can afford it.
Those two principles are now accepted by the Government. They were not accepted in 1988 when I introduced student loans. They were only reluctantly accepted in 1992 but now the Government not only accept the principles but have built upon them. However, there are certain implications here. If one is to increase costs for the student, one must ensure that it is not a deterrent to those students who cannot afford the costs. I believe that the best way of dealing with that would be to retain the system of grants coupled with access funds. The Government wish to go another way. They propose means tested tuition fees. If I may say so, I think that will involve them in much trouble. I believe that decision was rather a knee-jerk reaction in the giddy month of May and I suspect that they will come to regret it. However, that is the way they are going.
The Minister who is to reply to the debate may explain the position of European students as regards means-tested fees. That is quite a difficult area. Are we to means test students from Rome and France who study at our universities? That question has not arisen before but it is one of the considerations if we are to have means-tested fees. I am delighted that the loans will now be recovered by the Inland Revenue. As the noble Baroness knows, I explained in the debate last week that I was not successful in persuading the Inland Revenue to do that. It was a pity that I could not persuade the then Chancellor of the Exchequer to do that. I congratulate the noble Baroness on her eloquence, or I congratulate someone on his or her eloquence, in persuading the Chancellor to do that as it is by far the easiest way to collect the loans. I warmly welcome that step, but that is where my welcome ends.
I believe that tuition fees should go directly back into higher education. The surest way to do that is to ensure that the fees levied by the universities and colleges remain with those colleges. Why should those fees go back into the general kitty and not necessarily the kitty of the funding councils? Those fees can be lost in the general pool of Treasury expenditure. Unless the fees remain with the institutions, there can be no guarantee.
Why do I say that? I say that because when I introduced student loans and per capita funding for the universities, I always had in mind that one day the

275
system would evolve and develop so that funding councils would not be needed. The system would be self regulatory through per capita funding and fees, with access funds for those students who could not afford the fees. I believe that that would be the best system for higher education in our country. We are moving closer towards it. Per capita funding was a beginning. Loans took the matter a little further. Tuition fees take it a little further. In, say, five or 10 years' time, I hope that we shall attain that situation.
If the individual institutions are allowed to keep the tuition fees, it means that in 1998–99 the institutions will be able to keep £150 million, which goes some way towards bridging the Dearing gap of £360 million shortfall in funding in that year. In the next year the institutions would raise £250 million. In 2000–2001, they would raise £400 million. As the Bill is debated and the argument becomes more widely known, I hope that we shall be able to amend the Bill in that regard.
As regards top up fees, I regret that the Government have taken the line that they have in Clause 18. It is a rather absurd ideological bar. I can see why they have done so. The Government felt that the introduction of tuition fees was a step far enough; they could not go further. However, they wished to put some constraint upon the universities and colleges in the charging of fees. I believe that that is to be regretted. I favour the discretion as to the level of fees being left with the universities, colleges, or even the heads of department. If the institutions can attract sufficient numbers of students, and as long as there are guarantees of access funds and grants to ensure that poor but able students are not denied entry, that would be a much better system.
I believe that the limitations in Clause 18 which deny universities and colleges the right to charge top-up fees offends against natural justice. For all I know, they might offend against their ancient charters and ancient rights. I remember the difficulty when I sought to end academic tenure. It took many years because of the ancient rights of the institutions. I hope that those ancient rights of the institutions may be strong enough to resist this provision.
I hope that the draconian powers of Clause 18 will be modified. The Minister stated that she had a meeting today with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors. The noble Baroness promised some amendments. I am sure that many amendments will be put forward. Clause 18 shifts the balance of legislation since the 1988 and 1992 Acts back to give the Minister and her successors power. In my view it is too much power—power over the funding council by means of direction. I believe that there is a genuine threat to academic freedom in these matters. I do not think that that is the right way to go forward. I believe that these parts of the Bill are shabby, shaming and insulting to our universities. I hope that not only will the Government have second thoughts about them, but that this House will insist that they have second thoughts about them.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I wish to concentrate on the second part of the Bill. I thought it was a little rich of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to denounce the Government with such force on the question of universities. Since 1981, universities have been under continuous attack by the Conservative Party. Conservative governments treated them with contempt and did much to discredit them in the eyes of the public. Today the universities are at the bottom of the pile of the present Government's priorities. It is inevitable. I can hardly blame the Government for that. Universities have had to realise that the Government put before their needs the needs of nursery schools, the reduction in the size of classes in primary schools, the expenditure on improving literacy and numeracy throughout the state system, and further education. I welcome Part III of the Bill. It is absolutely vital if we are to translate education into productivity. As a result of those priorities, universities will receive only one eighth of what the Dearing Committee said was the irreducible minimum.
Meanwhile, university staff have seen the salaries of teachers in the schools rise since 1985 by 30 per cent. when their own salaries rose by 10 per cent. They have been forced to teach five times as many students as they did in 1980 and have been given no extra money to reward what the ignorant marketeers who confuse higher education with business call an increase in productivity. And on top of that Conservative governments imposed a pyramid of bureaucracy about which I shall speak later.
Nevertheless, I want to congratulate the Government on a number of points. Clearly the principle of the Bill is right. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, made the point. For a number of years now sensible men and women have accepted that graduates earn on average more than non-graduates. Those who benefit from higher education should contribute more to it financially. I remember the senior tutor of my college at Cambridge arguing in the early 1950s that public schoolboys were being deterred from applying for Cambridge because they did not qualify for a grant. The Anderson Committee was set up. It altered all that, recommending that grants should be paid to everyone. That sort of thinking made the costs of higher education ruinously high. Now all students must in theory pay. But I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara—I am sorry he is not in his place today—will accept that the Minister has made it clear that the really poor student from a really poor family will pay nothing towards his tuition fees. It is more difficult for those students who are not exactly poor but nevertheless not well off and who will have to pay. In fact it is estimated that only one third of students will pay the full tuition fee of £1,000 a year. I wish to ask one question. Can the Government confirm that medical students will not have to pay tuition fees for the last three years of their time in medical school?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Baker, I congratulate the Government on having defeated the Inland Revenue. It must have been an heroic and bloody battle. For years the Inland Revenue opposed any scheme that meant that repayment of loans could be collected through the

277
operation of income tax. I am delighted to see, too, that the Government have set a perfectly realistic figure of £10,000 a year beyond which the repayment of loans will be obligatory. It is a much fairer scheme than the one set up by the previous government.
The noble Baroness is under attack about Clause 18. I agree with those who have questioned the clause. What has happened is the usual thing. It happened under the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Baker. The usual thing is that the civil servants seize the opportunity of a new Bill to cut back the independence of universities. They will now be able to interfere with the cost of examinations and field courses. Naturally the noble Baroness denies that this will happen. But the civil servants always want to be able to have the powers to do those things. I know that this issue will be debated in Committee, and I think it is right that it should be.
The Government Chief Whip advised me that I should not speak in the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff on Oxford and Cambridge fees when I told him that I could not stay to the end of the debate as I had an inescapable function to attend at the University of London. I shall not speak further about that attempt to bully Cross-Benchers who have a rather different role in this House from that of those who accept a party whip and who, when they are younger, are very often in positions where they have inevitable obligations, entered into months before, and therefore cannot attend to the end of a debate. For the 32 years that I have been in this House I have never known a time when a genuine apology was not acceptable.
The rumours are that the department has already decided that the payment of college fees at Oxbridge should be stopped. I recognise that other universities are licking their chops in the hope of getting their fingers into that pot of gold. I also see that the department has begun to realise that changing the present system will not be all that easy. You cannot cut off part of a don's salary and his expectations at a stroke. If the Government do so, they will be sued for breach of contract. That was a lesson learnt in 1981. Moreover, if the Oxbridge differential goes, the two universities will be able to claim quite a considerable number of senior lectureships—that is a post current in all civic universities but rightly unknown in the college fee economy of Oxbridge. If you abolish college fees, you will be forced on grounds of common equity to grant parity of grade, especially since senior lecturers command the salaries of readers and salary is a reward for good teaching. Will the Minister, in replying, confirm that Oxbridge will not be treated worse than other universities if, in fact, college fees go?
I hope that the Government will not attach too great weight, when they consider the matter, to the argument that the ancient universities do not admit a sufficient proportion of students from state schools. Until the direct grant and grammar schools changed their status at the time the state system became comprehensive, they were in no way bad. They took well over 60 per cent. from the state system. However, when comprehensive education became current throughout the state system, they faced a difficult problem.
278
My own college, King's, admits 80 per cent. of its undergraduates from the state system. It can be done. It requires a great deal of hard work and very intensive teaching. There was no lack of, or drop in, quality. For five years running, King's came top of the colleges league table in the final year of the tripos. I admit that other colleges at Cambridge—I say nothing about Oxford—began rather late in the day to try and increase their intake of state sixth formers. But anyone who attended the seminar on the issue that took place last week will hardly doubt that they are in earnest and doing all that they can. They are up against a problem; namely, the prejudice of head teachers, and indeed of sixth form teachers, in state schools who have decided that Oxbridge is not the place for their pupils. They imagine that Oxbridge still resembles Evelyn Waugh's marvellous description in the first chapter of Decline and Fall. It really has changed since those days.
Perhaps I may tease the noble Lord, Lord Desai, for just one moment. The noble Lord had some rather harsh things to say about Oxbridge in the recent debate. However, he did not reveal that half the students at the LSE come from abroad, and only a quarter from state schools. That is much below the Oxbridge figure.
What can the Government do to help universities? We should prefer not to have the extra charge for tuition fees. But there are endless demands on government in the education sector, to say nothing of the welfare and social security sector. Granted that the money cannot be found, unless of course there is an increase in direct taxation, what can the noble Baroness and her colleagues do to help universities? There is one thing that could be done—and a hoarse cheer would come from the universities, even though their financial plight and the salaries of dons are so deplorable, if it happened. The Government could get off their backs, wind up the quality assessment agency, abolish the funding councils—the DfEE practically does the job now—and stop trying to micro-manage the universities. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, made a very good point. What is a research assessment exercise for? Surely the research councils are more competent to judge where the money should go. All I am asking is that the Government simply follow the policy set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, on the National Health Service; namely, thin down the bureaucracy and, if possible, in many areas, abolish it.
I can guess what those in the department will say. They will throw up their hands in dismay and say, "Doesn't he know that the universities must be made accountable?" Accountable? The books and accounts of the universities have always been open to inspection. Only in one case has there ever been a scandal in the university sector—in University College, Cardiff, many years ago. To protest that universities must be accountable was the kind of offal that Conservative governments used to shovel onto our plates and ask us to eat. I ask the Minister: when was there last an outcry about the disgracefully low standard of teaching in the universities? When was there an outcry about the feebleness of British research? Was it at the time when Britain regularly featured in the Nobel Prize list? We do not win so many Nobel Prizes today. The Minister

279
knows as well as I do that the number of a don's publications is not as significant as their quality. And how does the higher education statistical agency assess quality? Yes, indeed, there was a need to monitor and improve the level of teaching in the schools. But when was there a similar furore about university standards? The noble Baroness knows perfectly well that there never was such an outcry. She has been the head of a London college—and a great one—and I am sure that she deplored what Conservative governments were doing during all those years when the Labour Party was in opposition. What they were doing was master-minding a decline in every part of higher education except in numbers.
Yet that, I suspect, is the line that the Government may he forced to take. Because the Conservatives have lowered standards and made the life of the dons a misery by intrusive, unnecessary form-filling, and because such form-filling has led to chicanery and taking petty advantages of the system, dons have been turned into the equivalent of tax avoiders. Because of that, power has shifted from the dons, who teach and research, to the administrators, who try to put unreasonable and time-wasting government diktats into effect. An inquisition was imposed upon the universities. Enter the inquisition; exit loyalty.
The quality management teams excite derision from both dons and businessmen on councils. Their inspectors demand that every course be comparable to every other course in all universities. Managers complain when students fail in their exams. Why? Because, if they are sent down, their fees will be lost. In 1994–95, the drop-out rate in British universities had risen to 20 per cent. Is it any wonder when the staff-student ratio has risen to 1:20?
We need to continue to expand higher education, but I implore the Government not to force universities immediately to take more students. During all my years in universities, I have spoken up for more students to he admitted and have denounced the Kingsley Amises who said, "More means worse". Now I say festina lente, hasten slowly; do not worsen staff-student ratios still further. You will not get an educated workforce if you do; you will get a workforce which waves a piece of parchment as evidence that it has been through the mill. British universities will become no different from the universities on the Continent where students never meet their teachers.
Do not forget that in France, Germany and America there are élite institutions. We too have élite institutions: University College London, Imperial College. the LSE, Edinburgh, Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol, Sussex. Essex—oh yes, and Oxford and Cambridge. Remember that it is the direct impact of the don, the teacher, upon the student's mind that educates a student. How can a don find time these days to make that impact personally on even a handful of his students when he is so badgered and blackguarded by the bureaucracy? I know that I owe absolutely everything to my teachers. They made me want to learn and, if I got above myself, they told me how much more I had to learn. They taught me not merely about books; they taught me about life. I owe a
280
debt to my teachers that I can never repay, to those who taught me to think more clearly, to feel more deeply, to hope and to put my trust in life.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, perhaps I may be the first from these Benches to congratulate my noble friend Lady Rendell on her splendid maiden speech.
My speech will concentrate on those aspects of the Bill which deal with higher education. Before I embark upon that discussion, perhaps I may say how much I welcome the proposals in Parts I and III of the Bill. Part I will go a long way towards restoring the professionalism of teachers and the sense of pride in the teaching profession which is vital for the recruitment of good quality graduates as future teachers. Part III will help with the development of employability skills, which are absolutely critical to economic performance.
Since I shall concentrate on the higher education sections of the Bill, I should declare an interest. I am Master of St. Catherine's College at the University of Oxford and Pro Chancellor of Southampton University.
After a good deal of heart-searching, I should like to offer my support to the new regime in respect of student payment of the £1,000 tuition fee. As the Dearing Report makes clear, and as everyone involved in universities knows, universities face a real funding crisis. Given the expansion of the sector, the Government's attitude towards constraints on taxation and their own entirely defensible priorities for funding from taxation in education, I do not see that there is any real alternative to charging undergraduates for part of their tuition fees, subject, as is proposed in the Bill, to the ability eventually to pay through an appropriate level of salary. It is true that higher education is in a broad sense a public good and central to the development of employability skills, high level skills of all kinds and competitiveness in the economy, as the Dearing Report makes clear, and therefore should be generously supported out of taxation. Nevertheless a degree produces private benefits for the person taking it in terms of projected higher salary levels. The Government's proposals make the repayment dependent on that higher salary being earned.
I realise that many noble Lords will be concerned about access, as I am. On this issue I say just two things. First, there is not much point in extending access to something which is bound to decline in quality if the funding regime remains as it is. Those of us who teach in universities are aware of the extraordinary pressure that the rapid and inexorable decline in the unit of resource has produced in universities. If we are to encourage more participation and wider access to universities and to university teaching, which maintains their quality, the funding must be found. I believe that the only realistic way of finding that funding is through a system such as that proposed by the Government.
Secondly, for good or ill, attitudes towards debt have changed over the past 20 years or so, particularly when debt can be seen as an investment in one's own career and financial prospects. I came from a family with a very modest income. My parents were extremely averse

281
to debt, to the extent that my father never took out a mortgage. I can imagine that, had I been faced with a large debt when I went to university in 1963, I would probably not have gone. I might have become a deck-hand learner, as virtually everyone else did in my class at a school near Grimsby docks, although I think I am fortunate, given my lack of physical co-ordination, that I chose a different career. I might well have not gone to university in those circumstances, against the background of that culture. I believe that attitudes towards indebtedness have now changed. With the idea of investing in a career which is likely to produce differentially higher rewards, I believe that there is now a case for changing the basis of funding in the way now proposed by the Government. I shall support the Government's proposals, although that will not make me very popular with the undergraduates at my college.
Having said that, however, I believe that prospective students will only want to incur debt—or, preferably, invest in relation to their future—for high quality courses and high quality provision: that is to say, forms of provision and of teaching which are seen as high quality not just by the student, important though that is, but also by prospective employers. The Government's proposals should drive up standards of teaching and may have a stark message for some courses in some universities. I, and, I am sure, many other noble Lords who have been involved in external examining over the years, believe that that is probably all to the good. The myth that all courses are the same and of the same quality and therefore should be funded at the same level seems to me precisely that: a myth. One is faced with a highly differentiated product. If students have to pay a flat tuition fee for what is a highly differentiated product, some of the products which are not up to it will suffer as a result, and I believe that that is a very good thing.
It is vital that, if we go ahead with this set of proposals, the money raised through the £1,000 charge should go back to the universities. The whole argument against top-up fees is that we now have in hand a solution to the problem of funding. If the £1,000 a year charge is the solution to the problem of funding and we do not need top-up fees, it is essential that that money should go back to the universities. That is also essential for the moral and political justification of the charge. While I do not accept the analogy with the poll tax made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I believe that he had a point about its being more like a tax rather than a charge if it goes into a general pot. Given that the justification for this charge is that it will help to meet the funding problems of universities and relates to the services and benefits the students receive from universities, it is right and proper that the money should go back to the universities. If it does not, the funding problem will not be solved and the pressure for top-up fees will re-emerge. It is therefore vital that there is a clear, transparent link between charging the fee and solving the financial problems of universities.
If there is one area where I am concerned about the impact of the charge—and 1 draw it to my noble friend's attention, not in any sense for an answer today, but for reflection—it is in relation to the recruitment of UK
282
graduate students. If someone has spent three or four years studying for a first degree and incurred a large debt as a result of that, there is a strong disincentive for that person to go on and do graduate work. That graduate work may be important for the individual concerned or for the country at large; but the point I want to emphasise is that it could be critical for the financial viability of some areas of some universities. If the accumulation of debt deters recruitment of graduates, we will find that universities with large graduate schools that see a drop off in UK graduate recruitment experience severe difficulties.
I want to spend a moment—no more—registering a concern as to whether the Dearing Report and the Government's response to it deal effectively with the global role that many universities and some departments in even more universities play. The funding of universities is not like the funding of hospitals or other parts of the education system. There is a global academic market place—I do not like the phrase in this context—in which universities operate in terms of recruitment of staff, the publication of research, co-operation between researchers and so forth. Dearing did a splendid job in terms of looking at the requirements of the higher education system within the United Kingdom. I am not sure that the report properly addressed the questions as to how universities have to compete in that global context and fund themselves to be able to do so. Unless the money from the charge comes back to the universities, those universities competing in that global context will put on pressure for top-up fees.
I return to my point. Essentially, the charge is a legitimate charge, but it must be linked to solving the funding crisis, otherwise the top-up fee pressure will recur. I would very much regret that. but it will come back, particularly from those institutions that have to compete in the world market.
A lot has been said regarding the draconian powers the Government are proposing to take in relation to the set of fees in the clauses in the Bill. I am worried about some of those and would like those fears to be allayed, as no doubt they will be, through various amendments proposed at the Committee stage. I have three specific worries and can flag them now, though I shall not dwell on them.
I assume from my noble friend's opening remarks that the position of overseas students is clear, though it is not clear in the Bill. Secondly, in relation to the position of funding and benefaction, the Government legitimately want to see a fair funding environment and a level playing field of funding. Fair enough. But while there are what someone once called capitalist acts between consenting adults, people will offer benefactions and investments to universities. They are bound to create differences in the playing field, whether we like it or not. I am assuming that nothing in the Bill will change the present practice of not thinking that moneys raised from fund raising will be set off against block grant calculations.
Thirdly, we need more of a definition than the Bill contains as to what a fee is, particularly in relation to board and lodging. I am assuming—it seems pretty

283
obvious from the Bill—that board and lodging is not included. It does not say that and I shall be grateful for some clarification on that point.
This is an important Bill for the future of universities. I support the general thrust of what the Government are trying to do but I want the link between what they are doing and the solving of the funding crisis to be made absolutely transparent.
6.16 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, wearing another hat, has on many occasions given me great pleasure. She is also responsible, if she will forgive me for saying so, for writing which is sometimes too good to give pleasure. Along with St. Augustine, to whom she referred, she made me think as hard as anybody about the nature of evil, among other things. She has shown today that both those skills are ones of which your Lordships' House will be able to take advantage—I hope on many occasions.
Before discussing the Bill I must declare an interest as Professor of History at King's College. My college is very much concerned by some of the contents of this Bill: in particular by the contents of Clauses 14 and 18. I hope that it will be in part reassured by what the Minister said about the contents of an amendment to Clause 17, though it will naturally be anxious to see the content of that amendment. However, I must say reassured "in part".
We are under a great temptation today, which we have not always resisted, to twit each other for things we did before the experience of changing places. Since the general election I have had many occasions to reflect on the work of Sir Lewis Namier, who, if I may summarise him extremely crudely, said that although one group of people called themselves Whigs and another called themselves Tories, the values of government were always those of what he called the "court and treasury party"—the Robin Butlers, Richard Bransons and Ron Dearings of their day—and the values of the opposition were always those of what he called the "country party". That seems to me to be still true. But when we reflect upon it we must decide how we handle that information.
Governments—this Government are no exception—are always tempted to argue that the values of government are necessarily right because of superior knowledge. They talk of tough decisions. But talking of a tough decision does not tell us which way we ought to make it.
It is true that over the centuries people at large have not realised what things cost. Therefore, when that is the point at issue, there is a tendency for governments to be right. In that context, when the Minister says that we cannot continue as we are, I hear her. On the other hand, government are not always right; they have an interest of their own which may be opposed to that of the community as a whole. In particular, government breed three ugly sisters: secrecy, cost cutting and control. I join with what my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill said about the pleasure with which he heard the
284
assault today by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the first of those three ugly sisters; but the other two are alive and well on ministerial Benches. Where they are concerned, I think there is a real reason for having doubts about the Bill.
When I consider what should have been in a higher education Bill, there are two things which I think desperately need to be tackled. One is to reverse the cut in unit costs per student given to universities. The Minister gave a figure of 25 per cent. for that. The CVCP gives a figure of 40 per cent. I have no doubt that this depends on the method of calculation and that we shall talk more about it. These cuts have been justified in the name of efficiency. Anyone who tries to use the lifts in my college will feel sarcastic about the notion of efficiency. They are made by a firm called Platt Schindiler. The lifts which are out of order are known as Platt Schindiler's list. We are told that by the year 2000, 79 per cent. of universities are expected to be in deficit. That is not just a matter of lifts. It is a matter of libraries, of equipment and of rain coming in through the roof. Those things are serious.
The other aspect which desperately needs to be reversed is the cut in the level of student support, which is some 20 per cent. below the minimum subsistence level. As recently as yesterday I was listening to two students whose work is becoming seriously run-down because, as a result of the amount of time they have to spend earning money during term, they simply do not have the energy to do the work that is needed. Customers in London shops in December are not always the most courteous of people. There is nothing about reversing those things at all.
Obviously, something needs to be done. I recall an exchange I had with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, during the proceedings in 1990 on the Education (Student Loans) Bill. He said to me: "I hope the noble Earl understands that there is a limit to what the public purse can afford". I said: "Of course I do, but I hope the noble Earl understands that the country cannot have more students than it can afford".
The previous government, in the last part of their existence, put a cap on expansion. I wonder whether that is a more sensible approach than the one the present Government are adopting; and if they are determined to go on with expansion, whether they might consider channelling more of it into open and distance learning. They might remember Tawney's law: the more people have any qualification, the less it is worth and the more people want it.
The next aspect that concerns me—and mention of the Education (Student Loans) Bill brings it back to mind—is the way in which the Bill is drafted. It is a skeleton Bill; and I would add skeletons to the Cornish Litany:
"From ghoulies and ghosties and long-leggety beasties And things that go bump in the night,
Good Lord, deliver us!".
Let us have a look at Clause 18(4), which I hope may be the one on which the Minister's amendment will purchase:

285
"A condition under this subsection shall require the governing body of any such institution to secure that the fees payable to the institution by any specified class of persons in respect of any specified matters in connection with their attending courses of any specified description are equal to the prescribed amount".
As Serjeant Buzfuz said in Bardell v. Pickwick, "Gentlemen, what does this mean?". I appreciate the offer of the amendment, but what is wrong is the method of legislation. This is void for uncertainty. One simply cannot know what Ministers may do under this provision. While it is now clear that this House may vote against a regulation, it is a blunt instrument. What is usually needed is amendment. As my noble friend Lord Tordoff once put it, one cannot amend regulations; that is the nature of the beast. So we simply do not know what we are getting.
I share the misgivings which have been expressed about Clause 14 and so does the department of education in my own college. Plutarch tells the story of a painter who painted a picture of a woman which he showed to a cobbler. The cobbler said, "You've got the shoe wrong". So he altered it. The cobbler then said, "You've got her face wrong". He said, "No, I won't alter that".
I heard what the noble Baroness says about the restrictions of the scope of this clause. I am interested. But the Secretary of State said at the beginning of the Government's term of office that he intends to change from the centre the way reading is taught. That was in the Secretary of State's article in the Daily Mirror in the first week of the Government. I have it at home. I can produce the words if needed. It made my blood run cold. It was quoted again last week by Professor Pring at a conference at the Institute of Education. When the Government are thinking in those terms, can they make the distinction between practice and academic research which any defence of academic freedom demands? I doubt it. I understand the argument that there must be inspection. Why do we not consider the possibility that the general teaching council can do it?
I share my party's objection to tuition fees. When I arrived in the United States in 1979 I read an article by Russell Baker in the New York Times. To those who are not familiar with him, he is the equivalent of Miles Kington and Rory Bremner rolled into one. He was describing a father attending his son's graduation ceremony and bursting into tears on the spot at hearing that his son wanted to go to graduate school. I decided then that I did not want us to go down that road. I have not changed my mind.
I shall deal only with two points about tuition fees. One is hypothecation. I heard the noble Baroness's assurances, but assurances are not proof against the Treasury. They are not proof against successor Parliaments. In 1436 another place for the first time voted an income tax. The other place was so afraid that it might be done again that it resolved that it should not be entered in the records for fear it might be taken for a precedent. To the fury of historians, it was not entered in the records.
The other point that concerns me is parental consent. These fees are chargeable on the parent, but the parent does not always consent. I recall a pupil who did not
286
get his maintenance contribution paid because his parents were putting all the money into his sister's independent school fees. He ended up working himself to exhaustion. He set fire to his flat, burnt all his notes and had to go down. I recall another person, a neighbour of mine, from an Indian family whose father is not prepared to have her live away from home, so she spends four hours a day commuting to university. Think of the financial power used to reinforce that kind of authority.
We also heard in the pensions debate on 15th October that people are likely to be expected to make much bigger contributions than hitherto to their personal pensions. That and the obligation to pay tuition fees are—I shall not say contradictory—potentially divergent. That point requires some thought.
My particular objections are concentrated on Clause 18. Universities are not nationalised industries. They are private corporations. As part of academic freedom one must decide what is necessary for a degree. That means it must be free to the university to decide what it costs, for academic reasons and also for market reasons. In any sensible market there is a negotiation between a buyer who knows how much he can pay and a seller who knows how much that money will buy. Presumably, both of them will budge a little if the alternative is no sale. But although the Treasury does not seem to realise it, there is such a thing as a true cost below which the job cannot be done at all. If one considers the safety of cut-price airlines, one may perhaps be reminded of that point.
As regards the power to charge top-up fees, no university that I know wishes to do so. I echo what the noble Baroness said about the clause itself. She said, "We do not want to use this power, but we need the reserve power". We feel that quite as strongly as the noble Baroness does, because as long as we have that power it is something which is part of the negotiation in the public spending round, as last year's public spending settlement illustrates very clearly indeed. If that goes, the Treasury controls both the buyer's and the seller's side of the equation.
I appreciate that the noble Baroness is technically right that the university is still free to set its own level, but that is only so if it is prepared to go out of the state sector altogether. It may well be that certain universities will feel that they need to take that road because they can no longer supply quality education, competitive in an international market, at the rate which the Treasury is prepared to pay. In my view that would be a disaster. But closing the doors finally of institutions, some of which are older than Parliament itself, would also be a disaster. If Clause 18 remains in the Bill one or other of those disasters will happen.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, in general terms there are many features of this Bill which are welcome, but I have reservations about specific points of detail which I now hope to explain.
As many of your Lordships are aware, from 1990 I have chaired the Hamlyn Foundation National Commission on Education. We published our first

287
report, Learning to Succeed, in 1993. Many features of this Bill are in accord with our recommendations. We strongly recommended that a general teaching council for England and Wales should be created, particularly in view of the perceived success of the council already in existence in Scotland. This Bill proposes two councils, one for England and one for Wales. I am delighted that this long-overdue development is to become a reality.
I was myself president of the General Medical Council from 1982 to 1989. The Medical Act, which first established that council in 1858, has been extensively modified on many occasions, even within the past few years, to give that body increasing powers over education, registration, conduct, regulation and professional performance of registered medical practitioners. I have no doubt that the creation of two new general teaching councils will do much to counter the current malaise in some sections of the teaching profession and to enhance its status and responsibility in the public eye.
I also played a part in assisting the passage through your Lordships' House of Bills for the statutory regulation of osteopaths and chiropractors. I am pleased to see that the General Osteopathic and Chiropractic Councils are now in being and are assuming their specific responsibilities. Professional self-regulation is a cornerstone of a learned and civilised society, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said some years ago. It is timely that the teaching profession should now, like so many others, be so regulated.
The clauses in this Bill relating to the registration of teachers, to the definition of a qualified teacher, those which deal with the appointment and training of head teachers and the authority which such councils should have over standards of teaching, of conduct, training, career development, performance, management and of recruitment to the profession, are all of fundamental importance, as is the responsibility which the councils will have relating to medical fitness to teach.
Your Lordships may also be aware of discussions led by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, about the establishment of a college of teachers, a complementary body concerned with academic development rather than with regulation.
My concerns about the proposed framework set out in this Bill relate to the fact that so much is to be prescribed by regulation. The constitution of the council, including the crucial issue of the number of lay members not themselves in the teaching profession, and the question as to whether all teachers, as defined in the Education Reform Act 1988, will be eligible for registration must be clarified.
But the extensive authority vested in the Secretary of State is a matter of great concern. The medical, dental, nursing, osteopathic and chiropractic Acts are much more specific in relation to sensitive issues such as constitution and membership and the council's authority over training, conduct, health and performance, as well as registration. And as a point of principle, these bodies are each answerable not to a Secretary of State, but to
288
the Privy Council, which must approve rules, constitution and electoral schemes. The right of appeal against suspension or erasure from the register rests with the judicial committee of that body.
I must therefore ask the Minister whether this first and welcome step towards the creation of two general teaching councils will leave these important issues to be dealt with under regulations approved by the Secretary of State, or whether it is envisaged that further primary legislation, comparable to that already in existence in relation to other professions, is intended to follow. Much discussion is inevitable before even the first set of regulations on constitution are framed as this is a very large profession. Issues relating to the magnitude of the initial financial subvention from government to enable the two councils to be established, but also relating to the annual registration fee, remain to be resolved.
Perhaps my principal concern, on which I hope the noble Baroness can reassure me, relates to the massive powers vested in the Secretary of State. It is vital that the powers of such regulatory bodies should never be subject to modification by political whim when governments change.
Perhaps I may now turn to issues of higher and further education, with again an expression of general welcome coupled with anxiety over points of detail. In an ideal world, if government finance were infinite, I believe that all education, through primary, secondary, higher and further education as well as continuing education throughout life, should be free and provided from the public purse. This country has had a proud record of paying fees to higher education institutions from public funds and has also, for many years, provided generous maintenance grants to students from lower income families.
However, when the National Commission on Education examined unit costs in dollars per annum in higher education in several countries, the figures for 1988 were: France, 3,780; Germany, 5,085; the UK, 7,960; Japan, 2,504; USA, 4,301; and Sweden, 6,334. Only the Netherlands, at 9,542, was more generous than the UK, and the OECD average was 5,534. Analysis revealed that the large size of the UK subvention was largely the result of student maintenance grants and fees. After the most earnest and careful consideration, therefore, accepting that in the past few years we have seen a major expansion in higher education, with upwards of 30 per cent. of young people now participating, we reluctantly concluded that this country could no longer afford to maintain existing levels of fee payment and student maintenance support. We therefore proposed, and Dearing in a sense accepted, that each student should be required to pay a flat-rate contribution of £1,000 per annum towards university fees which must, we recommended, be credited to the funds of the individual universities, but that in addition maintenance grants should be slowly phased out and replaced by loans.
We also recommended that the contribution to fees should be included in such loans, but we were very unhappy with the existing loans system introduced by the previous government and, as I said in your

289
Lordships' House last week when debating the Education (Student Loans) Bill, it was our firm recommendation that, instead of repayments having to be made at regular intervals over five years, it would be much better if repayments could be made through the tax or national insurance system. We did not propose a life-time graduate tax on the Australian model, but suggested that once an individual's income after graduation had reached a certain threshold a surcharge should be applied through PAYE until the loan was paid off. However, there must be an agreement that the clock would stop if the individual's income fell below the threshold or he or she were temporarily unemployed, for whatever reason.
The previous government told us that the tax system was not intended for debt collection, and when I asked a supplementary question in your Lordships' House recently the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, gave me the same answer. Happily, the Government have had a sensible change of heart in that in Clause 16, as we have heard, provision is to be made for repayment through the PAYE system. May I ask the Minister to clarify what special arrangements are proposed to assist students from low-income families as well as those such as medical, dental and architectural students on five and six-year courses, who may face an intolerable burden of debt?
The proposal that the loan system should be extended into the further education sector is also welcome. It is an area of growing importance and effectiveness in training our workforce to meet the demands of a learning society. It is a sector in which fee payment has generally been the rule and upon which the country's future prosperity and economic viability depends.
I was also pleased to note that, as the national commission recommended, young people who enter employment after leaving school should be allowed time away from work, or in work, for further education in order to acquire the skills which today's employers increasingly demand. Through credit accumulation and transfer, they will be enabled to work towards the acquisition of one of the many higher qualifications through the NVQ system, but the interests of employers, and especially of small and medium-sized enterprises, must be protected.
To return to higher education, I must, like others, express my personal concern about Clause 18, which specifically precludes any higher or further education institution from charging what are colloquially referred to as "top-up fees". Such a blanket ban could have a potentially serious effect on the future of some of our most successful higher education institutions. Over the past 10 to 15 years we have seen a gradual erosion of the unit of resource in higher education, now in real terms reduced by about 40 per cent.; staff:student ratios have deteriorated; universities have had increasing difficulty in maintaining high quality teaching and, above all, research, and they have found it difficult to keep pace with industrial competitors overseas, particularly in science, because of their inability to replace ageing equipment or to buy new equipment at the cutting edge of technology. The UK has a proud record of inward investment in science because of the
290
perceived strength of the UK science base in our universities. We also have an outstanding reputation in medical research, a field in which today's development in basic laboratory science often brings tomorrow's practical development in patient care.
However, inquiries carried out by your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology have demonstrated that clinical academic medicine, upon which the future of such research crucially depends, is now in a parlous state with more than 50 clinical chairs vacant for lack of suitable applicants. Funding constraint is only one factor but, for a variety of reasons, clinical academics have found that the time available for teaching and research has been gravely eroded. The medical schools have found it exceptionally difficult to maintain a credible research identity, as witnessed by their relative lack of success, particularly in the undergraduate schools, in the last research assessment exercise.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, referred to the question of Oxbridge college fees. I was unfortunately unable to speak in the debate introduced recently in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, as I was undertaking a professional commitment overseas. Having spent much of my professional life in clinical academic medicine in the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, I was then somewhat sceptical about the value of the Oxbridge college fee but, after moving to Oxford as Warden of Green College in 1983, I became progressively more convinced of its importance. There has been much loose press comment suggesting that Oxbridge fees cost £35 million. That is inaccurate, as the grants from the Higher Education Funding Council to Oxford and Cambridge are approximately 90 per cent. per capita of those to other universities which provide the sporting, cultural, catering and other facilities which in Oxbridge are provided by the colleges. Admittedly, if one adds the college fee, the figure approaches 110 per cent. Nevertheless, the actual additional cost of the fees is £17 million, not £35 million. Graduate colleges such as Green College, which have no access to the endowments of the richer colleges, would be damaged almost beyond survival if the college fee were withdrawn.
For very many reasons, UK universities are suffering financially, as are their seriously underpaid and undervalued teaching staff. If the Bill goes ahead, it is vital that some of the money saved by phasing out student maintenance grants, and certainly all of that resulting from the fee contribution, must be available to those higher education institutions if they are to preserve the intellectual achievements and research influence which have been so much a feature of British higher education. If restriction of public finance for higher and further education is to be the order of the day, it would be foolish—indeed, potentially devastating—to prevent universities by statute from ever, even as a last resort, charging additional fees which could themselves be covered by additional loans.
I must conclude with a personal and provisional apology. Since I became a Member of your Lordships' House eight years ago, I have been fully aware of the convention that if one puts down one's name to speak

291
in a debate one must stay throughout. I have always endeavoured to comply with that convention and I heard the statement from the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees last week on this very topic. My apology is provisional because I may be able to stay, but the other thing that I have learnt in eight years is that one is never able to predict with any degree of confidence when a debate will begin and, even less, when it is likely to end. I am faced late tonight with a train journey to Oxford and a 20-mile drive to my home in Burford. I must be in Oxford tomorrow to attend the funeral of Lord Dainton, representing the Cross-Bench Peers. Hence I trust that the House will, in these exceptional circumstances, accept my apology if I have to leave before the end of the debate. I believe that it would be unfortunate if one was compelled in such circumstances to withdraw one's name from the list of speakers, thus effectively being disenfranchised from speaking on topics of great importance.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I should like first to congratulate my noble friend Lady Rendell of Babergh on her superb maiden speech, which I hope made us all feel that we shall want to hear her again and again. I hope that the body is not in the Library—and that it is often here, and speaking.
I must declare an interest. Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I am a university teacher. Indeed, having entered primary school at the age of six, I have never left the education sector. I have never done a job outside it and my only job in this country has been at the London School of Economics. So, some of my remarks will come from the heart. It has been said that teaching is a noble profession. It must be, because it is so badly paid. If it were not a noble profession no one would want to enter it.
Much to the surprise of my noble friend on the Front Bench, I support the Bill. When I was a student in India there was no free higher education. It was a very poor country with very poor people but we all paid and went to college. There were lots of colleges, some good and some bad. These colleges had different fees. There was some element of subsidy but by and large it was not free. From India I went to the United States. I could not come here. Although in the halcyon days of 1961 the fees were low, there were no scholarships. Therefore, I went to the United States where I obtained a full scholarship. The United States also has a very diverse system with different fees. There is very little federal support of higher education but a good deal of access. Access in the United States has been much higher than in this country until very recently. Access has nothing to do with the level of fees; it is to do with the quality of secondary school education, access to capital markets, the ability to earn money and the ability of institutions to charge different fees. For example, one can have a Harvard that charges very high fees and there may be ordinary two-year colleges.
One of the great problems of the British higher education system in which I have toiled for 32 years is that it imposes excessive uniformity. Because of that
292
one must treat all universities as if they are the same. One then gets into funding problems because as universities come on stream one must pretend that they are alike and provide similar courses. Once one has a uniform system one must have inspecting bodies that tell one that courses must be alike if they are to get public money.
I very much enjoyed the radical speech of the noble Lord, Lord Annan. I wish that I lived in a world where he ruled. I served in a university while he ruled as Vice-Chancellor of London. His was a very good speech. What we have now is an anomalous state funding system that cannot deal with quantity. As it deals with quantity so it lets go of quality. Academic freedom in this country ended in about 1981. For the first 15 years of my life here as a teacher I did not have to worry about money in relation to my students, research and so on. In about 1980 or 1981 there was a drastic change in the funding of foreign students. The LSE suffered a 37 per cent. cut in total revenue. It had to go out and recruit. In answer to the rather teasing question posed by the noble Lord, we do not have endowments. We were not founded by Henry VIII. We have to get out there and make our living.
A good deal has been said about £4,000 being the average higher education fee and that students should be asked to pay one quarter of it. I do not believe that the cost of higher education is £4,000 but £8,000. That is what a foreign student pays. A non-EU student coming to a British university pays more than £8,000. Not all of them come from rich countries; many come from very poor countries. They subsidise the students from rich countries. Foreign students from Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, India or wherever pay £8,500 to maintain free higher education in this country. Thank God I did not go to a British university, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said to me the other day.
I see equity in a much wider context than the narrow confines of 18 year-olds going into full time university education as the only people who are entitled to free higher education. Part-timers and mature students are not so entitled. Therefore, free higher education does not exist in this country. If one is to defend that freedom one must be quite clear as to how limited it is. It is almost a privilege that we are defending.
When I hear about welfare dependency it is interesting that it is always stoutly defended for the middle classes whereas for the poor it is always attacked. Mortgage interest relief and higher education are always defended. When it comes to higher education parents who send their children to private schools get on their hind legs and say that they cannot possibly be asked to pay it when they have just spent £15.000 sending their little brats to private schools. They say that they should be entitled to free higher education.
However, I do not believe that in an ideal world parents' income is a very good criterion to judge poverty or otherwise. Students should pay against their future income. In terms of future income, there are many fewer inequalities of students in terms of parents' income than would be the case in an ideal world. But we do not live in an ideal world. Since 1988 the nominal value of a

293
unit of resource—I speak only of "nominal" because when we get down to real people we begin to play games with statistics, and I can play that game too—has gone down from £7,000 to £4,000 per student. That is a big resource gap. That gap will not be closed in a short time. Therefore, the Government are to be congratulated on having tackled the first part of the problem. We are on our way back by having agreed that some people at some time should pay for some part of their education—a quarter of the unit of resource, which is one eighth of what it really costs to give quality education to students.
As many noble Lords have said, one welcomes the fact that there is now a proper system of collecting repayments. The Inland Revenue will collect them. I have been in favour of tuition fees since about 1987, if not for ever. In 1987 my colleagues at the London School of Economics, Dr. Barr, Mr. Crawford and Mr. Barnes, published studies which showed that one could finance higher education by an income-contingent loan system which, unlike a mortgage, could be financed by 1p in the pound on the National Insurance contribution. Over a cohort of students, not individually, the debt would be paid back. But that is much too complex economics to convince the Treasury. The Treasury will have to he educated again and again that cash flow is different from income, but at least a beginning has been made. Having got this far in a very nice way, one should concentrate on discussing the principles of classification of income from loans that the Government will receive. One hears the complicated stories about the way in which the Government will account for the income from higher education. The Education and Employment Committee of another place in its third report has considered this issue. That committee explored the idea that to reclassify the income from loans and taking it off the Government's accounts in such a way that it does not go into the PSBR will somehow release resources. There is here a paradox. A grant-maintained school can borrow against its assets and spend the money but it does not go into the PSBR. A university is not a public body. If a university goes bankrupt the Secretary of State for Education does not have the responsibility to bail it out. He may or may not do it, but he does not have that statutory responsibility, unlike the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Health in relation to a health trust.
Although we are not considered to be part of the public sector we are still bound by rules which apply to public sector borrowing. That is an anomaly. If these loans were given by universities as private bodies—if universities had an arrangement with the banks to give loans—and they could recover those loans somehow through the Inland Revenue system, the monies would come back to the universities and we would not have all this palaver of the Treasury telling them that they cannot do this or that.
The treatment of higher education loans presents a problem. Should they be treated as capital spending? If they are treated as capital spending one can borrow against them, according to the economic golden rule which was rightly adopted by my right honourable
294
friend the Chancellor. According to the golden rule, one can have capital spending. After the Bill we shall need to think about the treatment of higher education loans.
We have reached a stage, but there are further stages ahead. We should not stop here, because the tremendous resource deficit which has built up over the past 10 years cannot be eliminated in one bite. We shall have to explore other avenues of increasing contributions from the students, or the Government, towards higher education. The Dearing Report suggests that the matter be revisited after five years. That suggestion should be taken seriously by my noble friend the Minister. In 2002 we should have another hard look at how far we have improved the funding of higher education. Of course, if the funding improves before then, I shall welcome that. The Bill is a good and sensible first step. There is still some distance to go, but I welcome the Bill immensely.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I shall begin by underlining the worry about the Bill expressed by other noble Lords. It is that so much of the detail will be known only when the regulations are seen. At the moment we are faced with generalities. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was kind when he talked about a skeleton. The Bill reminds me more of one of the photographs one sees of an archaeological discovery, where the skeletons of those who once existed are visible only as shadows in the sand. In the Bill we are dealing with shadows in the sand. We do not know whether they are sinister or beneficent.
So many powers are reserved in the Bill to the Secretary of State that, in contrast, the dictatorial Statute of Proclamations of Henry VIII looks almost like an amateur effort at control. However. let us cast the runes and look in the sand to see what we can dig out.
I agree that, in principle, the general teaching council can be welcomed. It is good that the teaching profession should have a body designed to foster and develop the highest professional standards. Here again, the devil is in the detail. Whether the council is successful will depend upon its membership and powers. Unless the Minister wants to face a horde of amendments—I endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Baker—we should see more detail.
As a former teacher for 34 years, let me say what a teacher will face with such a council. A wide range of views exists within the teaching profession as to what constitutes the highest standard. In that, the teaching profession differs from medicine and the law. Noble Lords will be aware that at present there are disputes as to the best way to teach reading. There are arguments as to the value of whole-class teaching—whether to teach in groups. My daughter who has begun teaching faces that problem at the moment. My own subject, history, was beset by controversy during the 30-odd years that I taught it. The battles I describe are as nothing compared to the battles I experienced. We teachers are, I fear, members of a fragmented and at times disputatious profession. So the powers, membership and style of the new council will have to be handled with care.

295
Although we can give a general welcome to the Bill. the fact that it contains no detail is a flaw. I cannot join noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches and say that it is marvellous just because it is called a general teaching council.
The same vagueness is apparent in Clause 12 which sets out the plan for a professional qualification for head teachers. That is a good idea. But whether the qualification will be good or bad will depend upon how it is arranged. A head teacher's role is diverse. I survived as a head teacher for 17 years, possibly more by good luck than good management.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Not true!
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I still find it hard to say what factors secured my survival. If the Minister were to ask me to prepare a paper on what would make a successful head teacher, I should reply by asking her to prepare a paper on what makes a successful politician, because they have something of the same characteristics. The council could, if mishandled, become a burdensome and not very useful exercise.
We live in an age that believes in techniques, more than previous ages have done. The shelves of bookshops are full of books that tell you how you can be transformed. I saw one the other day. It said that if one read that book one could become a leader of men. I have not yet read it, but one will see the effect as time goes on. If we are to make the ideal head teacher, the detail must be apparent to the House before we give the proposal a general welcome. Otherwise, it will just become another load on teachers.
We shall want to look closely at the structure. We need to know how much time will be provided for teachers who wish to take the qualification; whether it will be compulsory; who will pay; who will select; and whether local authorities are to be pre-judgers of the head teachers. Many successful head teachers whom I have known had little experience before they started, but once they had the job they proved that there were geniuses at it.
We all welcome a period of induction, but we would want to ensure that it was monitored properly. I should like to know from the Minister how she regards the present training-in-schools scheme where people are trained on the job and how that will relate to the period of induction.
I turn now to the delicate area of finance. We know that the Government intend to charge a tuition fee of £1,000, with means testing for poorer students, and replace the existing maintenance grant with a loan. The general feeling in some parts of the House seems to be that that will not be too much of a burden. Although it may be a narrow concern. I still worry, as I have said previously, about the position of a graduate. He or she may be the child of poor parents who do not own their own home and perhaps live in a council house. That graduate might decide to work in a primary school. Such graduates are valuable citizens. We want to encourage
296
them to go into primary schools, so we must make it possible for them to do so. The graduate would earn about £16,000 a year when he or she started teaching. I accept that a repayment of between £30 and £40 a month—I believe that is what the means testing would lead to—is not, on the surface, arduous. That repayment takes place over a long period through the tax system.
I got in touch confidentially with three banks. I put to them the position of such a person. I asked whether they would be able to give that person, who would have a debt of £12,000, a mortgage. I enter a warning about that debt of £12,000. Noble Lords will be aware that when one lives away from home one often has to hold the flat in which one lives, albeit one shares it with others, for a whole year. People are often ruthless over the rents they charge students. My daughter was at Manchester. If she had had to pay for everything, she would have emerged with a debt larger than £12,000.
The banks pointed out that with such a loan it would be very hard for a person to get a mortgage. The result is that a teacher earning £16,000 a year and living in London would have little prospect of owning his own property. If he married a graduate his position would be worse. Therefore, thought must be given to the fact that such a debt might discourage poor families from encouraging their children to go to university. The noble Lord, Lord Plant, underestimated the enormous fear of debt which exists among poor families. My family—and I agree that it was many years ago—would never have let me get into such a position. In many areas of the country, the thought of debt is horrifying.
I wish that the Government had kept to the suggestions in the Dearing Report, and we shall be proposing amendments to that effect. That would have satisfied most of the need and would have left the person in my example with a much smaller debt.
We welcome the inspection of teacher training and would wish it to begin as soon as possible. Above all, we want absolute assurances that the money gained by these new measures will go straight into the institutions of education. It would be a disaster if it became the subject of the annual row with the Treasury. Nothing would be gained. We must remember that as a result of the abolition of maintenance grants about £1.5 billion is in circulation.
The Minister has given assurances which I respect, but I hope that she will say more precisely that the Treasury has stated that the money will go straight to the institutions of education and will not be diverted to other government needs. If not, I can assure your Lordships that the money will vanish elsewhere.
I said at the beginning of my speech that to a large extent the Bill is unsatisfactory merely because of its vagueness, and I illustrated some examples. Unless we are to sit in this House until three o'clock in the morning dealing with a multitude of amendments which try to put flesh on the skeleton, I urge the Minister to do so or to give us an analysis of the archaeology.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, teachers have taken a lot of stick over the past decade, and if the shortcomings of a

297
few have caused the many to feel undervalued, anything that will help this vast majority of teachers to hold their heads high and assert their professional pride is greatly to be welcomed. So, as many noble Lords have said, it is good that, just as doctors have their General Medical Council, there should be at last a general teaching council.
I welcome also a second major provision in the Bill, strongly endorsing the role of Ofsted, a body which has also come in for its share of stick but which has fully earned the confidence of the present Government as it did of the last. But much clarification is needed of the functions of the GTC and Ofsted as they are set forth in the Bill. The GTC is to advise on standards of teaching and teacher training, but so must Ofsted—along with the DfEE's own new instruments, the Standards Task Force and the Standards and Effectiveness Unit. We need assurance that lines of responsibility will be clear and that these various bodies will not get in each other's hair.
The GTC is to advise on teacher training—but again so is Ofsted and of course there is the Teacher Training Agency, not mentioned in the Bill but it is known that Mr. Blunkett has sent a lengthy letter within recent weeks reaffirming the TTA's
"central role … to draw up and implement effective policies across all aspects of teacher recruitment, teacher training, and teaching standards".
Again, we need assurance that all this has been thought through and that there is no danger of crossed wires.
So—subject to a lot of clarification—Part I of the Bill consists of provisions which I very much welcome. Part II is something else, and I am plainly not alone in so thinking. I note that the Minister said that the Government will be introducing amendments around Clauses 17 and 18 and we look forward to going into those matters in greater detail at the Committee stage. But I for one shall need to hear better arguments than have been advanced so far for levying a flat tuition fee but prohibiting top-up fees. And I look for clarification on the matter of extra fees already charged—for field trips, modern language study abroad, and the like. It is some relief that the new fee is to be demitted in respect of certain professional degrees such as nursing and that the PGCE will also escape. But why stop there? We are desperately short of good recruits for main-stream teaching degrees. We are also short of secondary teachers in several subject areas such as maths and modern languages. Why not use the new tuition fee as a device to influence student choice of degree? For example, if graduates in maths or modern languages are not as plentiful as graduates in, say, media studies, why not for some years exempt maths and modern languages from all or part of the £1,000 fee?
One might object of course that not all graduates in maths and German go on to become school teachers. But many do, and if the TTA's campaigns and the GTC's recruitment role are successful, many more must. Indeed, it is to be hoped that the GTC will speedily and profoundly influence universities to work more closely with the profession that so many of their graduates will join.
298
A couple of years ago, Patricia Spacks. president of the Modern Language Association, told American universities that they must accept,
"responsibility for what happens in earlier years of education",
and she added:
"The current attempt to articulate national standards … for secondary schools dramatises the consequences of the vagueness and multiplicity that currently mark higher education".
Perish the thought that any such remarks could be directed at British universities—though they are not all that far from the thought expressed last week by Mary Lord, policy head of the Training and Enterprise Council. She insists that our universities should,
"build work-related learning into every undergraduate curriculum".
This may strike professors of classics or philosophy as a tad extreme, but we must not forget that university dons have always been concerned with the future career of their students. Straightforward, of course, with medicine and law, but less so with science and arts, where professors (and I speak in confessional mode) have perhaps concentrated on their students' potential in research rather than on their future needs in other careers, especially school teaching. Today, with a participation rate set to rise towards 40 per cent. and with a hundred universities, formally undifferentiated and with many if not most strenuously insisting on such a seamless HE raiment, we are plainly into mass higher education and all that this entails.
Of course, it must continue to be from our BAs and BScs that future FBAs and FRSs will be elected and blue skies research pursued successfully. But far more of our graduates will become school teachers and it is in the interests of us all that this should be so and that this future career pattern be very much in the mind of those guiding their steps as undergraduates.
It makes sense therefore that those responsible for designing BA and BSc curricula and those responsible for monitoring quality in undergraduate teaching should seek liaison with Ofsted, with the new GTC, and perhaps in due course with the proposed institute for teaching and learning so that those graduates who choose to enter teaching can go on to their professional courses confidently equipped with the subject knowledge and skills that they will need.
I end by restating the points on which I hope the Minister will in due course respond. They concern clarifying the role of the GTC in relation to existing bodies; the justification for a flat tuition fee but no top-up fees; the question of minor fees for field study and the like; and the reduction of or exemption from the flat tuition fee in strategic relation to national need.
7.21 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I shall say a few words about the general teaching council proposals, the proposed induction period and the general effect of Clauses 16 to 22 on universities and their students.
As the Minister and other noble Lords have said, a general teaching council for England and Wales has been talked about for some time. Teachers were delighted when they realised that it was in the Labour Party manifesto and now here it is in this Bill.

299
The question that Parliament must now ask itself is that which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked; namely, whether this general teaching council, as proposed, will have the effect intended? Are we sure it will be a council worth having? Will it be worth the teachers' subscriptions, the effort of elections, the time spent away from classrooms and the public money required initially to set it up? The noble Lord, Lord Plant, thought that it would be worth it.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tope. What the Bill proposes is no more than a creature of the Secretary of State: it is an advisory body advising on a wide front; a body which keeps a register but which does not determine who is eligible to be on the register and does not decide who is to be removed from it.
In a helpful brief from the Local Government Association. it quotes the Minister for School Standards as saying that the general teaching council is intended,
"to restore the morale of teachers who for too long have had too little say in determining the shape and future of their profession".
The association expressed the view—and again, it is a view echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Tope—that if the general teaching council is to have success in that role, it will need to be trusted and given real powers over the register, over standards of professional conduct and have responsibility for the professional framework.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, made a plea for a body answerable to the Privy Council, more like those bodies in the medical profession. The right reverend Prelate toyed with that idea too. I believe that such autonomy is desirable but may be some way off for teachers. Yet surely if the Government's immediate aim is to be realised, teachers should at least be given responsibility now of the kind that they have had for a long time in Scotland. Since 1966, the GTC in Scotland, with a large majority of teacher members elected by teachers, has had strong executive powers. For example, it decides who is to be on the register. It must be emphasised that no-one can teach at all in a state school in Scotland unless he or she is registered. It decides who is registered as a probationer; who is to be removed from the register for reasons of incompetence, health, misbehaviour and so on; and it operates a statutory appeals system.
I am sorry that neither the Minister of State nor the Scottish Office Minister are able to be here at this moment. They must eat, as we all must. But when the Minister winds up, he will perhaps be able to say why the Government are not proposing at least that level of autonomy for this GTC. Are they perhaps afraid that teachers would not rise adequately to the occasion; that they would not find themselves able to be sufficiently detached about registration, tough enough about discipline, competence and removal from the register? If those are the department's fears, I suggest they should look more carefully than perhaps they already have to the north of the United Kingdom. Scottish education has its problems, none of us denies that, but the General Teaching Council there appears to work smoothly. These days, teacher politics come into it during the electoral process, but thereafter the elected teacher
300
members operate in a properly professional way. They are detached and tough in their decision-making. Interestingly, I have found from the teachers to whom I have talked recently that it is the registration and disciplinary work done on their behalf that those teachers know most about and value most.
If the Government have it in mind to test out the profession south of the Border by first creating an advisory body and if that works, adding executive powers later, I suggest that they are going about it in the most alarming way. To add powers, even such as exist in Scotland. to decide literally who can teach children and who cannot, by means of a statutory instrument—and if I read Clauses 5 and 25 correctly, worse still, under the negative resolution procedure—is downright dangerous. Surely there would need to be careful discussion, made possible only by the introduction of further primary legislation, before such draconian powers are transferred.
But I ask the Government why they do not send a more encouraging message now. Why do they not trust English and Welsh teachers as those in Scotland are trusted? Why do they not give them the responsibility right away? It will be extremely interesting to hear anything from the Minister about that. We shall certainly pursue that matter in Committee.
On the proposal in Clause 13 for an induction year, I simply ask whether one year is enough. In Scotland the probation period has long been two years and compulsory, with reports at the end of each year. Perhaps in Committee we should make some comparisons between that system and the proposed system.
Much has been said about the clauses relating to universities and there will be much more to examine in Committee. I simply say now that the great worries expressed to me are that, contrary to what the Minister said about fair funding for students—she said that right at the beginning of her speech—it seems to me and many other people that there is enormous unfairness built into the student funding proposals, and with the loan repayment arrangements not on the face of the Bill, there is doubt too.
With the removal of maintenance grants, a decision flying in the face of all the work of the Dearing Committee, there is a clear intention to influence students to attend university from home. That will diminish choice and opportunity for many students and it will greatly damage the quality of what is on offer at a number of our most successful universities where a mix of students' home addresses is so important to the educational experience.
Students' reaction to these matters are interestingly set out in a survey of 500 students carried out by the Edinburgh University Students' Association in October. At that time, 38.5 per cent. of the sample taken across the UK felt that, under the Government scheme, they would be less likely to, or would not, enter into higher education; 45 per cent. of Scottish students and 40 per cent. of other UK students felt that the proposals would discourage them from studying for an honours degree in Scotland. The figures for applications for this

301
year will be known next week. As my noble friend Lady Young said, the rumours are rife but perhaps we should leave discussion of those figures until the Committee stage.
Clauses 18 and 22, which would prevent universities charging extra for home and European Union students on pain of having taxpayers' funding removed, even if the university could find ways which would not inhibit access, seem to be likely to be extremely counter productive. I shall read with interest what the Minister said in her opening speech and also what the noble Lord will say in reply. I wonder whether the Government realise just how much university behaviour has changed during the past few years and how much the quality of their offerings is now dependent on their considerable and developing entrepreneurial skills—skills devoted not to limiting access but to widening it. However, we shall pursue that matter in Committee. I believe that this rather strange reversion to Soviet socialist thinking that the Government have produced will be very bad for students. I hope that they will think again. I much look forward to participating in further stages of the Bill.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, for the first time in a career at Westminster which goes back to 1974, I find myself declaring an interest. I do so somewhat prematurely because it is not until 1st January that I will take up the chairmanship of the Further Education Funding Council. It is clear, therefore, that my remarks this evening will reflect an element of that interest and, more particularly, the feeling I have had over many years that we underestimate the significance of further education when we consider the other crucial areas of education—schools and higher education.
We should recognise, even with this Bill in which clearly the major issues of controversy revolve around student finance in Part II, that Part III can only be delivered to an extent by the contribution of further education colleges. Of course, some employers will fulfil their obligation of adequate training for their 16 and 17 year-old employees; indeed, many do so. But this important part of the Bill, which gives expression to the concept of life-long learning for everyone and which recognises that skill levels for everyone in our society are absolutely essential in the world of employment of the future, requires us to make proficient both 16 and 17 year-olds. Many of them at present—about 30 per cent.—leave education and receive no training at all and will, under the terms of the Bill, be able to place an obligation on their employer to get the necessary skill levels either provided at the place of work or elsewhere. Of course, that "elsewhere" will frequently be at a college.
I am grateful for the fact that other speakers in the debate have mentioned aspects of further education against a background where, quite clearly, the real issues of controversy are those involving higher education. Let us be quite clear about the position with regard to higher education support. As was made clear earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, the original concept of student support which was largely unique to this country was brought about in 1959 by the Anderson Committee. In
302
fact, it was the most lavish form of individual support for students anywhere in the developed world. But that structure was bound to come under strain when we moved from a position of a relatively small percentage of the population enjoying higher education to the position today where we have 30 per cent. with a cap because, without that cap, people knocking at the doors would seek to get access now. The Government have responded by saying quite clearly that they intend to remove the cap to encourage increased opportunity in higher education.
However, the Government have not made such a commitment without willing the resources which higher education will need to sustain quality. That is why the Dearing Report was full of urgent requirements upon government. That is why there has been such a rush. Criticism has been voiced this evening that the Government have somewhat rushed their fences as regards their proposals on student support. The simple fact is that higher education institutions could not wait. The result of the budgetary settlements we have at present, and the promise contained in Part II as regards the new financial arrangements for students in higher education, is that some resources have been made available immediately to higher education and some also to further education against a background of most parlous need.
Therefore, in my view, the Government are to be congratulated on the proposals. We should recognise that the controversial issue of the cap upon tuition fees is part of the bargain. I listened carefully to the argument presented by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in which he said that no one in the university world wanted to produce top-up fees "but don't take away from us the bargaining weapon with the Treasury whereby we might threaten to do so." I do not believe that that argument can be sustained. The issue of higher education was serious and the situation had become so parlous that, unless the Government found resources from elsewhere and made new arrangements with regard to students, higher education institutions felt that they would be obliged to introduce top-up fees. I do not regard that as an idle threat. I do not know whether the Government do; or, indeed, whether anyone should do so. It is but a presentation by higher education of what it thought the state of play was at that time.
However, the bargain strikes both ways. If the Government grasp the nettle, the very unpleasant nettle of introducing a fresh arrangement for student support and maintenance, and if they propose to introduce the tuition fee—not desirable developments as I am sure all of us would admit, but necessary—then they would have the right to turn to higher education and say, "Of course, we will also safeguard the validity of that tuition fee and the bargain with students entering higher education that institutions cannot rack up that tuition fee beyond the £1,000 which has been established." That is the necessary part of the bargain to release resources into higher education. It formed part of the negotiations with the CVCP and other sectors of higher education and it was proposed to the previous government. This Government have learnt lessons from that. It is the necessary framework within which we go forward.

303
But we do so against a background where none of us is comfortable with the difficulty of presenting the new arrangements to prospective students. I cannot pretend that I know families from modest backgrounds who regard with equanimity incurring these costs of higher education. However, the biggest single constraint on people from modest backgrounds entering higher education is to limit the places as they will be outbid by others. There is also the problem of hardship for students from modest backgrounds while they are at university. The National Union of Students has accurately stated that the previous arrangements of maintenance grants and loans were not sufficient adequately to sustain students in higher education.
We shall not solve that problem overnight but it should be recognised that when the new arrangements are in place students will be several hundred pounds better off than they are now. The payback period will not comprise the short-term mortgage which students clearly rejected. After all, only 60 per cent. of students have availed themselves of the short-term mortgage loan. That has been rejected by students. In its place the Government are proposing a long-term repayment scheme which is income contingent and which will be collected through the Inland Revenue. That is a settlement which guarantees resources for higher education and at the same time enables us to expand higher education, to increase opportunity and to preserve and maintain quality in higher education. In my view the Government are to be congratulated on having grasped those difficult issues and on having tackled them within the framework of this Bill.
The part of the Bill which has so far commanded more general support from this House concerns the general teaching council. I have no doubt at all that in Committee we shall have to focus more clearly on the role which the general teaching council is to play. Some have said this evening that the concept was mooted five or 10 years ago. I certainly know people who have worked hard on the concept over the past decade. When I was a teacher in a secondary school more than 30 years ago I recall debate on the necessity of establishing a general professional body to put the teaching profession foursquare with other professions. The fact that such a council has not been established is, I believe, one of the contributory factors of the general malaise in teaching. We all recognise that we now face a crisis in education which will require drastic action on the part of government to remedy. I refer not just to this Bill but also to the schools Bill which we shall discuss later in the Session when it arrives in this House.
I recognise that the Committee stage of this Bill will probably be long, arduous, detailed and full. I urge the House to recognise the merits of the Bill. It creates a framework which enables us to look forward to adequate resources for further and higher education. The Bill provides the opportunity for this country to move into the next millennium on the basis of the concept of lifelong learning. We all know that that is the essential concept for our future society.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, when one has sat through 15 speeches one becomes increasingly worried as to whether one will have anything new to say. I am happy to be able to assure your Lordships that nothing I say has been said in the previous speeches, with all of which, to some extent, I disagree.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, reminded us, by referring to his sad engagement tomorrow, of the loss that we have sustained in the death of Lord Dainton whose contribution to a debate of this kind would have been invaluable. In a sympathetic obituary in a newspaper the writer stated that Lord Dainton disagreed with me when I claimed that the state was always a bad paymaster for higher education. The author did not, however, make the point that our argument took place in the 1960s when Lord Dainton was confident that in the University Grants Committee of that day an unbreakable barrier had been erected between the power of the state and the functioning of individual universities. In later years, as noble Lords will remember, Lord Dainton's approach became a very different one.
It seems to me that we have to look at the problem at a rather different level than has so far been attempted. That is to say that what we face is a system—this has, of course, been referred to—which was designed (and worked fairly satisfactorily) for a relatively small sector of higher education which has been adapted quite suddenly, over a decade or even less, to a mass education system without proper regard to the financial and other consequences. The danger of simply letting that go has resulted in the possibility, which I think is inherent in this Bill, of some simply saying, "We shall be like some of our continental neighbours". We shall have a system in which the unit of resource is tiny, where students rarely see their professors let alone are taught by them, as is the case in Italy, in parts of Germany and, to a large extent, in France. These countries have, of course, tackled that problem in various ways: the French by exempting from the constraints of expenditure the grandes écoles; the Italians, where they can afford it, by sending their offspring to study abroad; and the Germans increasingly by founding independent universities outside the state system. Naturally, with my background, I regard that as a rather desirable event.
I suggest—I have suggested this in this House before—that the model we should look at and the area we should study is not continental Europe but the United States of America. In the United States you have both a mass system of higher education—and in some states an even higher participation than is planned for this country—and institutions of world class with which, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, says, we have to compete if we are to retain in this country a science base, or even a scholarship base. Otherwise the advantages the system can offer, both materially and perhaps in atmosphere, will be too much for us.
We have to ask how the system works in the United States. First, it is a system of infinite variety. There have been many professions by Ministers and their

305
spokesmen that they believe in a variety of institutions of higher education. But nothing in the Bill or in other policies suggests that that is a genuine belief. Secondly—it is a point of equal importance—there is a three-fold system of funding: from the public purse by the states themselves, in many cases the creators of some of the institutions or systems; from the federal government with a variety of objectives; and from the students or their families. It is difficult to appreciate the fact that in total it means that in the United States a great deal more money is being spent on higher education, even allowing for the greater population and wealth of that country than we are contemplating, and that families and students are prepared to accept the fact that it is fair to demand from them some of the input which will result in social or economic promotion. It cannot be argued seriously that those practices are a harrier to access. Although there are problems in some areas with particular ethnic minorities, access is widespread in most American states. That access extends, for the brightest students, to the great prestigious universities
How is it done? To put it bluntly, the institutions charge the wealthier students what the market will bear and from what they receive they syphon off money to enable people who cannot pay the fees to attend the institutions free. Various universities have devices to do that. We need not go into them now. It is an accepted principle. Even given our different circumstances, I believe that that is the kind of system which we should be considering.
I do not often agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, but on this occasion I do. The middle classes—if one puts it that way—will have to accept that free higher education can no longer be a perk. It is also true, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai pointed out, that simply to mulct overseas students in order to provide education for UK students is to some extent morally undesirable.
For that reason I would not support the idea of a government £1,000. For one thing, I do not trust the Treasury. From the record of central government, I see no reason to believe that you can bind the supreme financial authority. Unless the money was handed over in cash to the institution on the day that the student arrived, I would think that it was not a good way to proceed. I much prefer the alternative. Let us stop all this talk about top-up fees. No one talks about top-up fees at Harvard, Yale or Princeton. Where they can and should, institutions will charge fees appropriate to the quality of the education they are offering and with regard to the capacity of students to pay. That would eliminate the Treasury. It would mean that different students from different backgrounds would no doubt wish to raise loans. At least there is now the possibility of a loans system which would be repayable through a simple mechanism. But we could discard all the talk about what happens to the £1,000.
Therefore, it seems to me that by prohibiting universities from charging fees, Clause 18 of the Bill is going in exactly the wrong direction. The institutions should be encouraged to do that. They should be encouraged to find out in this way how much more this
306
country as a whole is prepared to pay for its status in higher education. It would also correspond with what I think was mentioned by one previous speaker: that in the scientific field in particular universities are becoming increasingly entrepreneurial. If Cambridge is now made a major centre of research in computers, why should Cambridge University not charge fees to people who will benefit from that important investment?
We cannot have it both ways. If we choose to have a state system, we will have a system which continental experience shows us will be one of downgrading—uniformity without excellence. Alternatively, we can go the other way and aim for a system of variety financed in a multiplicity of ways in which the business of the Department for Education would simply be to reckon the proportion of the general funding for education it can extract from the Treasury and devote to higher education. Limit the Secretary of State, my Lords. Limit the funding councils. Let the universities fight for their freedom. If some of them fall by the wayside, so be it.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the debate in a clear and concise way. I wish to make an apology, to say a few brief remarks, and to highlight some aspects of the Bill. In doing so, I shall ask some questions.
First, I owe the Minister an apology for the reception I gave her Statement on the publication of the Dearing Report. In mitigation, I can only say that my heart ruled my head. I saw the Government's position then as selling the principle of free higher education. On mature consideration, I can now see that that pass was sold by the previous Conservative Government some time ago. I can see now that we cannot go back; we can only go forward from where we are.
I was one of the lucky ones who was given the opportunity of higher education in the white heat of Harold Wilson's technological revolution. All the education and training I received did not cost me a penny. Most of my peer group went on to highly paid jobs. That is not surprising when only 15 per cent. or thereabouts of young people 30 years ago had the benefit of higher education. I have never earned much more than the national average wage; but in my case, as with quite a number of people, my reward was in having interesting jobs and a sense of making a valuable contribution to society through voluntary work.
However, the situation is different now. Thirty per cent. of our young people are in higher education, and the aim is to increase that figure to 50 per cent. The implication of 50 per cent. of people being highly paid is that the rest of the population would have to be in poverty. We have to lower our expectations in terms of financial rewards for graduates and find ways of relieving the burden of cost to students in higher education.
Another difficulty facing us is the lack of relevance to industry and commerce of higher education. Too many people believe that it is merely a middle-class finishing school and has very little relevance to the world of work. In some cases it has the wrong relevance, as

307
witnessed in the career progression of Oxbridge graduates compared with better qualified graduates from other higher education institutions. It is worth remembering that the engines of growth of the Industrial Revolution were the mechanics institutes and not the universities of the day.
I wish to comment on certain aspects of the Bill. I welcome the proposed establishment of the general teaching council, and in particular hope that it will lead to the recognition by society of the value and importance of teachers, in the way that the General Medical Council has helped to enhance the reputation of the medical profession.
My query is: why should there be a general teaching council for Scotland, one for Wales, one for England and presumably, eventually, one for each of the English regions when they have their own regional government? In this connection, what is the situation in Germany and France? Do those countries have one or many bodies governing their teaching professions? Further, what are the implications for pan-European recognition of professional teaching qualifications?
Chapter II introduces the requirement for new head teachers to have a professional headship qualification, and I welcome that. However, given the worries that many people had that under the previous government's LMS schemes we risked having school managers rather than head teachers, I hope that we may either receive very strong assurances or have it written on the face of the Bill that a head teacher should be at least a qualified teacher.
Chapters I and II of Part II are the meat of the Bill. They give the Government powers to introduce higher education tuition fees and maintenance loans instead of grants. One of the reasons I support the Government's policy in this area is that we now have the example of the way in which nurses and professionals allied to medicine are to be treated. As I understand it, in their case tuition fees will be waived and they will in effect be paid a grant instead of having to borrow their maintenance costs. Student teachers will receive similar help. I commend those arrangements, and hope that similar schemes can be evolved with other employers in industry and commerce to ensure that business pays a fair share of the costs of educating and training the people that it needs to help make Britain great again.
I can see two advantages in those provisions: first, because students will not have to bear the costs of studying, they will not need to demand very high salaries in order to repay those costs; and secondly, they will provide an incentive for industry and commerce to ensure that the courses for which they will effectively be paying are relevant to the needs of their businesses.
My questions to the Government are these. Have discussions been started with industry and commerce—for example, with the CBI and other industrial organisations—to set up these arrangements? Has the Treasury been consulted in order to ensure that there are no problems with the tax authorities that may create disincentives to industry and commerce playing their part.
308
In relation to this part of the Bill there is another question that I must ask. It relates to students who are the sons and daughters of very rich parents. I accept that those students will have to pay the £1,000 annual tuition fee. But will they qualify for the approximately £3,500 a year income-contingent interest-free maintenance loan? To put it another way, shall we be paying rich students £2,500 per annum net, interest free, for them to invest and make money with?
If higher education graduates are to be paid higher salaries than their peers, why set the repayment threshold at half average earnings? Why not set the repayment threshold at at least average earnings. if not above, if they are to be earning higher sums of money?
Part III of the Bill introduces paid time off for young people to study or train. That is one of the most magnificent features of the Bill. It is marvellous. It offers a real engine for growth in modern apprenticeships to provide the skilled workforce that our country needs so desperately for the future.
I have one small query in regard to proposed new Section 63A(i)(c) of the Employment Rights Act, which implies that the provision will apply only if the young person has not achieved a certain level of education. My worry is that that might prove to be a bar on employment for young people who did not do very well at school, and that there will be an incentive for employers to make sure that their employees have the minimum qualification and therefore they will not need to give them time off for study. With that reservation, which may be discussed in Committee, I welcome Part III of the Bill.
The Bill contains some very useful provisions. It forms part of the Government's package of measures to ensure that education and training, particularly of young people, is there to enable them to play their full part in building a better society for all of us in the 21st century. I commend the Bill to the House.
8.7 p.m.
The Earl of Limerick:My Lords, I believe that we generally agree that the Government deserve credit for biting some quite hard bullets in response to the dire picture of under-funding that was revealed in the Dearing Report, and many aspects of the Bill are to be welcomed. I hope that those words may be remembered when I make less obliging remarks about particulars in the Bill.
In entering this debate I declare two interests. First, for several years I have been chairman of the board of governors of London Guildhall University, formerly the City of London Polytechnic. Secondly, I am finishing a term as chairman of the Committee of University Chairmen, a position to which I was elected by my colleague chairmen three years ago.
I shall resist the temptation to range widely, as some speakers have done, and address the Bill that is before us. I shall confine my remarks to two substantial points arising from the Bill: the student fee, its collection and who ultimately benefits from it; and, secondly, the powers sought by the Secretary of State under Clause 18.

309
Universities are under-funded for their present purposes, let alone for the expansion in numbers sought by the Government. That is common ground. It was Sir Ron Dearing's clear and principal conclusion. I say nothing about Oxford and Cambridge, although I am an Oxford graduate. Plenty of others have done that recently. But I do speak with some passion about the likes of the former City Poly, which has the misfortune to he the worst endowed of the 100 universities in England and Wales. It has been a real struggle, against a background of cuts in course funding for universities of more than 40 per cent. in real terms over the past 20 years, the major impact falling over the past six years, and of further "efficiency gains" still being sought, albeit that Dearing's judgment was accepted that cuts exceeding 1 per cent. for the two coming years would he unsustainable.
I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Davies, properly conscious of his forthcoming responsibilities at the FEFC, recognise the urgency of the funding crisis. For years those responsible for the finances of HE and FE institutions waited for Dearing in the hope that he would produce from the hat some rabbit which the Government had not been able to discover or were not prepared to grasp. His main recommendations surprised very few.
The only sources of higher education funding are central government, local government and students and their families. It was made clear that nothing further could be expected from the first two, so Sir Ron Dearing turned to the third and proposed a student fee at the level of £1,000 a year. That is deemed equal to about 25 per cent. of tuition costs.
Patterns vary but in our case, if we can recover the indicated fees, it would initially add only £2 million a year, or 5 per cent., to our total funded income. On the other hand, we are faced with a complex and undoubtedly expensive bureaucracy for maintaining records and collecting money from students and local education authorities and predictably also for debt collection. We thus become unremunerated revenue collectors. The question is, for whose benefit?
If I heard her correctly, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that for 1998-99 all income from fees will remain with the HE institutions. I was looking to her for confirmation, but I see that she is not in her place to give it. If that is the case, that assurance is welcome. But what of subsequent years, as fees build up over the three or four-year period?
Certain provisions in the Bill sit uneasily together. First, the Secretary of State is telling universities individually that they may not, without penalty, charge the students the fees which they might themselves wish to charge, the so-called top-up fees. Secondly, he is telling all universities that they not only may but must charge, and be responsible for collecting, the fee which is determined to be appropriate. However, unless universities can specifically be assured to the contrary, they will remain sceptical about the fact that they will continue in the long term to enjoy one penny piece of extra revenue in consequence of the cost and effort involved in collecting the fee. I follow the noble Lord,
310
Lord Plant, in that argument. In the absence of such assurance, universities with hard pressed budgets may prefer to be excused the onus of collecting the fee at all if it is to become simply an alternative source of taxation, as was foreseen by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Therein lies my own ambivalence on the issue of top-up fees.
Dearing's purpose was that student fees should add pro tanto to the income of the universities which educated them. This view was shared by those education Ministers of whose views I am aware. The reality is that the funding council allocation is made annually by the DfEE from within its own Treasury grant. There is nothing to say that Treasury Ministers, having discovered a new source of revenue, will allow the net benefit to remain with the DfEE. There is no hypothecation. The DfEE grant could simply be cut by a comparable amount and universities might end up as unremunerated tax collectors, to no benefit, getting the worst of all possible worlds.
Mr. Blunkett is to be applauded for his enthusiastic pursuit of Mr. Blair's priority of "education, education, education"; but other departmental Ministers also have priorities, such as the health service and social security, and the Treasury is the arbiter. Furthermore, even if my fears are unjustified and there is no cut in the DtEE allocation as a result of new fee income, it is generally understood that the needs of further education institutions are even more pressing than those of higher education. Might the fees payable to HE institutions be the source of some cross-subsidy?
Universities have welcomed the advent of student fees as representing the only foreseeable source of the extra revenue they so urgently need. If they are to be lumbered with the cost and bureaucracy of collecting the fees, they are surely entitled to an assurance that they will continue to secure full benefit from the amount collected. I shall listen with great interest to the Government's response on this point. I hope I shall be told that my suspicions are unworthy.
I turn now to Clause 18. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, conceded in her opening that this clause requires some restrictive amendment. It certainly does. Although somewhat disarmed, my feelings are sufficiently strong that I shall express them. I believe the blanket authority which the Secretary of State seeks to restrict funding without further reference to Parliament to be both excessive and unwarranted. I know that that opinion is shared by other university chairmen. Our concern is that, as it stands, Clause 18 could be selectively used to instruct funding councils to cease to provide money to particular universities, for particular courses or even for particular courses in particular universities, a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. This is not consistent either with academic freedom or with the need to encourage diversity. Of course, we are told that the power would not be so used, but the unacceptable fact is that it could be.
My understanding is that the principal concern of the Secretary of State is to enable him to prevent any institution which may choose to charge top-up fees to

311
its undesignated students continuing to receive support from public funds, at least to the extent of the top-up fees charged. I have no quarrel with that.
Not without some ambivalence, I am against top-up fees, believing, as the Secretary of State does, and as Sir Ron Dearing strongly urges, that universities should be adequately funded for their purpose from public funds, except to the extent in future that all of them will be in receipt of additional student fees for tuition. Mr. Blunkett is a man of principle, determination and honour. I have no doubt that he is entirely sincere in saying that he has no intention of abusing a power given by Parliament in any of the other selective and damaging ways that would be open to him. He might even go so far as to say that he would use that power only to negate the charging of top-up fees. If that is his purpose, it should be explicitly stated and the power which Parliament gives to him restricted accordingly. One does not deploy the heavy artillery to shoot a rabbit.
Such wide powers would raise a further, unintended danger; that is, the prospect that diversity and innovation would be inhibited. No one, even Sir Ron Dearing, can foresee, for example, how the electronic media may affect further and higher education in the future, but new approaches may well rely upon private funding. Universities will simply not risk their time, effort and money if they are liable to face appeals to the Secretary of State under Clause 18 or are forced to seek legal clearances, case by case, to their entitlement to each new funding prospect. The powers sought in the Bill risk freezing what needs to be a fluid and developing pattern. Furthermore, the mere existence of these powers threatens, and might even override, the statutory duty imposed upon funding councils by the 1992 Act to:
"have regard to the desirability of not discouraging any institution … from maintaining or developing its funding from other sources".
Finally, there is the constitutional argument. Parliament has over the centuries been properly reluctant to give too wide an authority to any Secretary of State, and the powers sought by Mr. Blunkett in Clause 18 are unwarrantably wide. What is asked by the Executive exceeds both reason and need. That should be the answer of Parliament. It was the answer given when comparable powers were sought by a Conservative Secretary of State in the Further and Higher Education Bill in 1992. That attempt was rebuffed by Parliament and the message should be repeated.
I suggest that there is a way forward. Discussion ahead of Committee stage—the Minister has already hinted at this—should be able to identify amendments which would achieve the Secretary of State's principal object in relation to top-up fees without going unnecessarily wide. Any government spending £3.5 billion annually on higher education naturally need to ensure that it is properly spent for that purpose. But if matters of academic judgment of institutions or courses are involved, they should be made by funding councils, to whom a delegated authority in general terms has already been given and whose membership is chosen so that the councils are qualified to make such judgments. That would apply equally to a judgment of
312
which charges made to students against the cost of providing services are or are not deemed to be top-up fees—a question of detailed complexity.
Several of the purposes of this Bill are commendable. But it will only become a good Act of Parliament if its serious deficiencies are corrected.
8.20 p.m.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords though I congratulate the Government on this important piece of legislation, like the noble Lord, Lord Walton, I was a commissioner on the National Commission on Education and would like to endorse his support of the Bill which echoes a number of the recommendations of the commission's report. The creation of a general teaching council will do much to raise morale within the teaching profession and improve the status of teachers who felt profoundly undermined by the policies and negativity of the last Government.
I recently chaired a committee for a further education funding council on widening participation in education. Our report—Learning Works—deals with the ways in which many people fail to take part in the great journey that education offers. We welcome particularly the right of time off to study and train for 16 to 18 year-olds and I know that the further education sector will rise to the occasion in making that provision.
However, I rise to speak on the issue of student funding in higher education. I am one of the chancellors of a new university. I feel strongly that the media coverage which has attached to this issue has distorted the reasoning behind the reform. It has failed to give adequate coverage to the detail. Student numbers, as many people have said, have rocketed over the past few years in response to the last government's policy, and for that I give them credit. That expansion brought with it not only the need to meet institutional costs, but also the requirement to foot the bill for student support in terms of fees, maintenance grants and student loans.
The last government put forward no funding strategy to underpin the costs of expansion other than driving down unit costs. The effect upon universities has been devastating. Finances have been pared to the bone and it has had an enormously demoralising effect upon academics who feel that it is a devaluation of their vital role. Yet, as my noble friend said in introducing the Bill, our higher education system has been the jewel in our educational crown. If we wish to maintain high quality and a world class system, we must fund that system properly.
When the crisis in higher education developed, the last government's response was to cap the growth in higher education rather than take courage in their hands as this Government have done. The system of higher education created in the 1960s, of which I was a beneficiary like other noble Lords, is no longer working even for the poorest students. The value of the maintenance grant was at its peak when it was introduced in 1962–63. But at that time only one in 10 of our school pupils went to university; now one in three are entering higher education.

313
The value of the maintenance grant is now not enough for a student to live on. That has already been dealt with by other noble Lords and I do not intend to repeat it. Students are now extremely hard up. Even when they take out a loan, many have to work casually and arrive in lectures exhausted. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, many parents do not make up their children's grant to the statutory level and they are placed in genuine financial difficulty.
This Government recognise the crisis that exists in higher education; it is a crisis not only for student support, but also for the institutions seeking to deliver quality education. The loan system introduced by the last government created a frightening burden for many people. It was not income related. There was no "stop-the-clock" arrangement for women taking time off, for instance, to have children. The Government were therefore presented with a real problem with which to grapple; the problem of finding a better way of helping students and continuing to provide for expansion so that many more students come into higher education.
I find it alarming to hear a number of noble Lords in this House say that the cap should continue. Is it realised how many working class students are currently participating in higher education? Is it realised that the majority of students in higher education remain, as they always have been, children from the more privileged sections of our society? The numbers of children from lower social classes participating in higher education remains a scandal.
The majority of students to whom I spoke when I was chairing the committee on further and higher education for the national commission, who actually are in hardship, expressed the view that they would rather have a decent living now and the opportunity of repaying as long as the repayment could be over a period of time and was not at extortionate levels. They recognised—I ask that the opportunity be given for the National Union of Students to consider this more closely—that it may be in the interests of many students to have that sort of slow repayment system rather than the system which exists at the current levels.
What concerns those who are involved in institutions is not just the poverty of their students, but also the quality of what is being made available which is endangered by the inadequacy of funding. If we look at the expansion of the numbers, which must be welcomed in a society which is seeking to provide equity in education; if we welcome that expansion and see that many women now participate who did not previously; that we have many more mature students—40 per cent. of our students are now over 25; we must recognise that if we have that richness coming into our universities, they deserve the same high quality as those of us who have gone through the process ahead of them.
Places in higher education in the United Kingdom have always been occupied by a disproportionate number of people from families in the upper income bracket. Research shows that people from families in social classes 1 and 2 are currently four times more likely to apply to university than those in classes 3, 4
314
and 5. It is a pattern which has changed little since the war and certainly little since I came in—a child of the working classes.
The overall picture for social class is of a barely changing world. That means that the households in the top income bracket on average receive subsidies through higher education study away from home that are 10 times greater than households in the bottom income bracket. Despite the fact that the top income groups take less advantage of state schools, they are still substantially favoured overall by educational benefits. The highest education subsidies in this nation fall to the best off.
A new balance must be struck and that is what this Bill does. Contributions to fees should be made by those from better-off families. The £1,000 contribution is, in my view, at the right level. One-third of all students will pay no fees. The money brought into the system will benefit the institutions; it will benefit all students; and it will help to create access to higher education for many who are currently excluded.
I am committed to the widening of participation in education. Like my noble friend Lord Monkswell, I came to this issue with trepidation and concern because I was a beneficiary of the system which allowed for grants. Many people from working class families are fearful of higher education. Some place no value on higher education. Some just feel excluded from it. The feeling in some groups in our society is that higher education is not for the likes of them. That view is still firmly entrenched. We have to tackle it.
Concern that this change may create even more fear among poor families and poor applicants is real. I recognise it. Debt is frightening to working class people. The noble Lord, Lord Plant, is right to acknowledge that many more people nowadays see investment in education as an investment for the future. It is important that we spread the word on that. We have to work hard to try to create a wider invitation into education for poor applicants.
Squaring that circle is difficult. At the moment, those from less well off families are going into the new universities. They are going into universities which are on their own doorstep. Those universities are suffering most. The quality is threatened most there. Why should they be receiving something different from that which is received by other students? Money is needed to ensure that what they get is as good as that which anyone else gets.
When similar changes were introduced in Australia equity considerations were critical to the design of the new student fee and funding system. To ensure that access was not adversely affected and that there were no unintended consequences of the new scheme, the Australian Government committed themselves to regular monitoring. That regular monitoring has been carried out by an independent body. I recommend to the Government that they look at creating a regular monitoring body to ensure that those who traditionally have not participated have access.

315
Good advice and guidance for potential students and outreach projects must be at the heart of any programme of inclusion in education. I have understood from previous debates in the House that many universities are creating much better relations with schools. They are inviting teachers in. I hope that this will happen more in the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge where there is the intractable problem that for many students that world seems remote and uninviting. The invitation to working class children and young people to participate has to be of a different order from that which is made to those in the private sector.
In Australia the changes were closely monitored. What is interesting is that reports to date have concluded that the scheme has had little effect on the decisions of particular educationally disadvantaged groups to participate in higher education. That, at least, is some encouragement.
I am alarmed to hear so many people take issue with the Government for introducing Clause 18. If the Government are to prevent higher education remaining something which is only available to middle class families, the issue of top-up fees is one in which they must engage. It is clear that the effect of top-up fees would be to decrease access. I support the Government in maintaining Clause 18. It is a principled stance against top-up fees.
Under the Bill some sections of society will be called on to make a greater personal contribution to the cost of the system. But they do so in the interests of maintaining quality. They do so to allow for the continued expansion which is crucial if we want to see working class participation and if we want to see a regeneration of the nation. But it will also mean that we will provide incentives and encouragement because quality will be available at local level in universities to which working class people are more likely to go.
I congratulate the noble Baroness on her courage and her vision. I believe that in the Bill the head and the heart come together. It is an important and necessary reform. I am glad to see the Government engage with such a difficult issue.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, at this stage in the discussion of a Bill it would be easy to repeat what has been said before. I shall try to restrict my comments to the area of students with disability and summarise my attitude towards the rest of the Bill as briefly as possible.
A general teaching council is probably a good thing provided it is a watchdog for a profession that is somewhat grumpy, provided its teeth are in good order and provided it is territorial. If it becomes someone's pet, no matter how big it is—poodle or great dane—it will be useless. Correct training for head teachers should have happened a long time ago. If it is said that we managed to get good results in the past and therefore we do not need this in the future, we ignore the fact that very bad head teachers came through every now and then. We should take the provision on board.
316
I turn to Part II of the Bill. I have always thought the idea of taking time out of the working lives of 16 and 17 year-olds to be a good one. I have thought it was a good idea ever since I saw it in one of my party's policy documents. However, when it comes to the idea of fees being charged for higher education, I just cannot buy it. I have always thought that higher education should be free. That was my experience when I went through the tail-end of the golden age of financial support for students in the late 1980s. I feel that that should be allowed for other people. When it comes to other areas of student support, the Government may be starting from a dodgy platform. I feel that a little more courage and a greater will to resist the Treasury might solve the problem in another way.
I wish to concentrate on disabled students. The reason they should be given special consideration is simply that they need support and help. We are talking about groups of people with special problems. That has been accepted not only in terms of education but in terms of all other sections of society. Two important pieces of legislation are the Disability Discrimination Act and the code of practice under the Education Act 1994. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, should take a degree of credit for helping the code of practice come into being. Indeed, the whole House can, having given her the necessary support to bludgeon it past the then government.
We have accepted that, in terms of work and services, disabled people have particular problems. In education, too, there are problems which need specific help and support. In higher and further education we have already accepted that need. All I am seeking—I hope I am pushing at an open door—is confirmation from the Government on three issues. First, will the student disability allowance be extended to groups, as recommended by Dearing? Will it be extended to part-time students? Many people with disabilities find themselves doing part-time degrees for a variety of reasons. For example, they may have mobility problems or learning impairment difficulties. They will take a longer time to get through the courses. That is something that does occur. I believe that having an extension made will greatly assist them.
Secondly, will the disability allowance also be extended to postgraduates? If one is prepared to educate a person to the first degree stage, why not to the second? It is merely a continuation of the logic of the argument. Thirdly, if someone sustains a disability subsequent to obtaining a first degree—for example, a person loses his sight—will that person receive a disability allowance and extra funding to take on a second degree and further training? That is very much in the spirit of everything that has gone before.
As regards the repayment of debt and the repayment levels, I hope that the Government will give a full commitment that they are not prepared to take into account any allowances and benefits that are given when calculating repayments. There is also the question of extra expenditure if a person is wheelchair bound or incontinent and has to have extra clothing. Will that higher cost of living be taken into account? This attitude

317
towards disability will merely bring the higher education sector into line with everything else that has been done and which is increasingly being striven for.
I hope that the Government will be able to give favourable responses. If they cannot I can guarantee to the House that we shall he returning to these issues at all other stages of the Bill.
8.42 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, out of respect to the lateness of the hour and the fact that there are many noble Lords waiting to speak, I shall confine my own remarks to Part II of the Bill while giving a genuinely warm welcome to Parts I and III. The proposals there are imaginative and well directed. 1, for one, wish the Government very well with what they are doing.
The problem is Part II of the Bill, as many noble Lords have said. Like other noble Lords, I am confident that the Government's intentions are very good. They have recognised that there is a crisis both with student funding and with the funding of universities. They are trying to address those problems. The difficulty is that I do not believe that the provisions in the Bill as it stands succeed in either respect.
In recent years I have reluctantly come to the view that it is right that students should make a contribution to the costs of their own higher education because they benefit from it. It is for their own private good as well as the public good. I believe that the majority of students might have just accepted the £1,000 contribution either from their own or their parents' pockets or, for those students who are very poor, the state paying that sum. I believe students have come to accept that that is a necessary part of bringing more money into the provision of higher education for the very large number of people who now seek it. The trouble is, of course, that there is no guarantee that the money will go to the provision of their own higher education. Without that assurance I believe that we have the makings of a student rebellion on our hands of mammoth proportions.
If students are required to pay, as many will have to do, including those whose parents are on the cusp, so to speak, and can only just afford it, and they then discover that the money is not going to improve their own experience of higher education, it will be a very serious matter indeed. I, for one, would support the students' anger if such a thing were to come to pass.
That brings me to Clause 18 about which many noble Lords have spoken. I welcome very much the Minister's promise in her introduction that she intends to look again at the wording of the clause. I know that we all welcome that. My difficulty is that I believe the clause needs more than rewording: it needs to go entirely. I do not wish to be over-dramatic, but I believe that the Secretary of State is taking draconian powers. I am sure that the current Secretary of State has no intention of using the powers in anything but the most beneficent way. But that is not the point. Legislation stands on the books for others of more malevolent intentions.
Again, without wanting to be over-dramatic, I remind the House that the first acts of the Nazi government in Hitler's Germany were to take control of the
318
universities. The first act of the cultural revolution in China was to take control of the universities. Dictatorship always attacks freedom of thought which academics represent within society. We are providing a tool for those who would be the enemies of free thought if we allow Clause 18 to go through in its present form. So I ask the House to take a very stern view of the clause, recognising at the same time that the present Government have no wish to do any of these terrible things with it.
I come to a more parochial point about Clause 18. In this Second Reading debate it is important to write into the record the very particular concerns which my own university, the University of Cambridge, has, having taken legal advice, that the Bill is of a hybrid nature. Clause 18 enables the Secretary of State to impose a condition on his grant to the Higher Education Funding Council that the institutions receiving grants from the council shall secure that the fees payable to the institution are equal to the prescribed amount. The clause aggregates for that purpose the fees payable to the institution with those payable to connected institutions.
The provision uniquely discriminates against the University of Cambridge, about which I speak. I do not speak for the University of Oxford which, I am sure, will speak for itself. Several of the Cambridge colleges have both the power and the duty under their statutes to charge their students tuition fees, those charges being currently in excess of the sum which the Secretary of State has indicated will be prescribed under Clause 16 of the Bill. The colleges are legally independent from the university and Cambridge, unlike most other universities, is likely to find itself subject to a condition under Clause 18 with which it cannot comply and which puts at risk its whole grant from the Higher Education Funding Council.
The university appreciates that the Secretary of State has under consideration the future of college fees in consequence of Recommendation 74 of the Dearing Report. Both the university and the colleges wish very much to work with him in a way which will respect his need to control public expenditure and his intention that fees do not fall personally upon publicly funded undergraduates beyond the levels prescribed under Clause 16 as well as respecting their own proper constitutional relationship. They are concerned, however, with the present drafting of Clause 18, which is especially prejudicial to the University of Cambridge. I therefore seek an assurance from the Secretary of State that, in considering the general concerns expressed by the CVCP and by many of us in the House today, he will also look further at the clause with the apprehensions of the University of Cambridge in mind.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I wish to confine my comments this evening to three aspects of this Bill: the general teaching council, the new system of support for students and the right to time off for study for 16 and 17 year-olds. I warmly welcome the Government's intention to establish a GTC. In the days of the previous Administration no education Bill was

319
complete without a set of opposition amendments to establish a GTC. These amendments were traditionally and invariably rejected. That was before the Damascene conversion before the last election, although I have to say, judging by some of the speeches tonight, namely, from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Baker, that that conversion may be somewhat less than wholehearted.
Raising the status of the teaching profession and the drive to raise standards are inextricably linked although a direct link will be difficult to quantify. I cannot imagine raising and protecting standards without developing and valuing the professional judgment of our teachers.
Other key professions are represented by professional bodies. The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, spoke about that in detail. It is right that the establishment of the GTC should be seen as a vote of confidence in our teachers. The GTC must establish itself as a distinct body with a distinct voice, and not as a talking shop for existing organisations. It is for this reason that I would argue that teachers should be in a minority on the GTC—at least in its initial phases. It should be a teaching council, not a teachers' council. Many other professional bodies have lay members, and parents would undoubtedly be suitable lay members of the GTC. I would understand if the Government did not want to prescribe the exact interests to be represented on the GTC, but they should undertake, at least in the initial stages, to ensure that no single group holds the majority.
Perhaps I should be a little blunter. There is, I am sorry to say, still some suspicion among some parents—this has been expressed to me—that teachers may put their own interests above those of the children. I do not hold that view at all and I go out of my way to defend teachers from such accusations. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that such suspicions exist, and I believe that if the GTC is to grow in stature it needs to be above suspicion. Therefore, teachers should be in a minority on it. The role of the GTC can, and will, evolve as it grows in stature and authority.
I believe that it is right that the Government should put only enabling clauses on the face of the Bill. I thought it a bit rich of the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Addington, to talk about "toothless poodles" and the like while congratulating the Government on putting forward an enabling Bill. I should have thought that the GTC would be able to carve out its own agenda for its evolution and clearly establish itself as separate from government. I believe that such provisions show a greater vote of confidence from the Government than would seeking to be excessively prescriptive at this early stage.
I turn now to the new system for student support. I should say at the outset that I wholeheartedly support the Government's proposals. I endorse many of the speeches made by my noble friends this evening. However, in spite of what the Government have said, and in spite particularly of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, about there being no particular principle involved in the charging of fees for higher education, I believe that a Rubicon is being crossed in
320
this Bill. Free higher education, like a free National Health Service, was something about which I used to boast to my American colleagues and others. It was special and it was an achievement, but I accept that ultimately it is not defensible in the face of the Government's wider aspirations for further and higher education.
That brings me to those aspirations. I believe that the Government could have done a better job in spelling out the benefits of moving to a partial fee system. In particular, they could have set themselves some targets—not only to monitor their own success but, more importantly, to illustrate what they believe to be the benefits of fees.
My noble friends Lady Kennedy and Lord Davies said that increased access was a highly desirable result of the Bill. One target I would have set is that 40 per cent. of 18 to 21 year-olds should be in full-time education at some defined point in the future. Other targets could, and should, be set and publicised. I believe that that would help the Government in presenting their case to the public at large.
I refer now to the right to time off for study and training for 16 and 17 year-olds which, of course, I support wholeheartedly. Yesterday I received a letter from the CBI addressed to "Dear Peer", which was not a very good start. The letter was less than wholehearted in its support for this measure. It spoke of a disincentive to employers to employ 16 and 17 year-olds. I hope that the Government will not pay attention to such complaints, especially when one considers that increased maternity rights have not led to any decrease in the number of women in the workplace. I believe that educated 16 and 17 year-olds are more employable than uneducated ones.
The CBI did, however, raise another point when it wrote that off-the-job learning has a greater status in the Bill than on-the-job learning. I know that my noble friend Lady Blackstone addressed that point in opening the debate, particularly when referring to Clauses 23 and 24. Nevertheless, I should be grateful if my noble friend Lord Whitty will confirm that on-the-job learning will be possible under the Bill. I am sure that he will do so, but I must make the point that many young people will have been turned off by classrooms and will learn better through on-the-job training. Perhaps I may express one note of caution: there are unscrupulous employers who would use this as a loophole for not providing proper training. There should be a proper method of certification to ensure that on-the-job training is what it says it is.
I welcome the Bill. It contains many important measures. I look forward to many late nights discussing it and its details. I wish my noble friend the greatest good luck in piloting it through this House.
8.56 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I share the general concern about the apparently arbitrary and authoritarian nature of Clause 18, which removes the vital checks and balances which were so hardly won in 1992 and which, I fear, severely undermines the

321
independence of the universities. I am disturbed too by the opaque nature of the Bill—it might almost have been drafted in Brussels—and by its lack of transparency. Have the Government considered the legal problems which must arise if it is true that there are to be no top-up charges in contravention of several Royal Charters of long standing? Can the Secretary of State really assume unlimited powers (based on nothing but ministerial discretion) to penalise institutions which are already suffering severely from a lack of money for capital equipment and underfunded research?
I referred in the Oxford and Cambridge debate in this House to the possible closure of good but poor colleges without substantial endowment if the fees decision goes against us. I believe in intellectual elitism and I do not wish to see the opportunity of access to excellence diminished. I hope very much that the final decision has not been taken and that the issue will be freely debated here in the context of Clause 18.
I have always strongly advocated a move to income-related repayment. I warmly congratulate the Government on achieving that, but I wonder whether there has been time for the administration to be properly organised. Nothing will be worse for student morale than serious muddles and delays such as they experienced four years ago. It is deeply unfortunate that the maintenance grant, which was gradually falling, has now been so abruptly abolished just when tuition fees come in. There continues to be real hardship and the sort of strain on undergraduates which leads to poor academic work and wasted opportunities. I greatly regret the fact that, like the last Government, this Government will not consider the simple solution of restoring housing benefit. But I know that that is a hopeless quest.
Students and universities alike feel concern about the speed with which the new measures are expected to take effect. Although the local education authorities will, I understand, continue to help to administer the scheme, the Student Loans Company seems likely to be swamped by inquiries and will presumably be operating as before, through computers, the post and the telephone. There was a terrible mess over that before. It needs a much more regional structure. I wonder whether there are any plans for that.
Meanwhile, according to the pamphlet issued to would-be students, the universities will be administering the £1,000 tuition fee—another task to be added to their administrative load. Equally, they will administer access funds while the Student Loans Company administers the £250 hardship loan. How, may I ask? According to the admirably effective Edinburgh University Students Association, the Scottish universities expect to have to spend £100 on each means-tested tuition fee on collection, not tuition. According to a review that it carried out in schools in Scotland, 68.5 per cent. of head teachers thought that the percentage of students from their schools entering higher education would fall because of the tuition fee. Seventy per cent. expected a similar fall because of the abolition of the grants system. Ninety-one per cent. of them feared that the Government's proposals would not provide equal access to higher education whatever the financial circumstances. I am sure that the Government do not
322
want that, although unfortunately it appears from the Bill that the Government intend to take arbitrary and unnecessary powers and to take them fast. I hope that during Committee stage the Government will disprove that and will listen to and consult both students and the institutions, and perhaps even be ready to defer implementation of the scheme for a year. Students have moved a long way towards accepting the rationale of loans and repayment, but they must feel that the administration of the system is fair and just. Incidentally, they regret as I do that they cannot borrow to pay the tuition fee in cases where parents cannot or will not pay it. Everyone in universities has met such parents.
The Bill must not defeat itself by turning out graduates who are still too poor to use their academic experience as it is meant to be used. I hope that we can rely on what the Minister said in her opening speech and that the Government will respect the proper autonomy of institutions.
9.2 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I rise to support the thrust of the Bill. The Bill takes some courageous steps. Quite frankly, anyone who is interested in the long-term future of higher education will back it. The Minister will probably have a difficult ride on the Front Bench.
I should perhaps declare an interest. I was a member of the Dearing Committee. Of the 17 members of that committee, 10 came from the higher education sector. The committee made 93 recommendations, every one of which, including that relating to tuition fees, was the subject of unanimous agreement. There was no minority report. The Dearing Committee was concerned with higher education in a learning society, not higher education in parts of society but throughout Britain as a cohesive community. That point is sometimes lost in the debates that take place on the future of higher education.
I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is in her place. I was astonished by some of her contribution today. The last time that the subject of higher education was looked at was in 1961 when the Robbins Report considered the matter. At that time only one in 10 in our community entered higher education. In those days higher education usually meant that a full-time student aged 18 went to university and was away from home. Today higher education does not mean that. Thirty per cent. of the population enter higher education. However, they do not have the same profile as those who entered higher education during the Robbins era. Less than 50 per cent. of students now in higher education have that traditional profile. It is on that group that most of this debate has concentrated.
The proposals in this Bill are progressive; they are about creating a fairer society and access to the learning society with which the Dearing Report was concerned. The noble Baroness, Lady Young—
Baroness Young: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness. She has referred to me on two occasions. To make my position absolutely clear,

323
the fact that today there are tremendous numbers of students in universities is due entirely to Conservative policies. I make no apology for that. I believe that it was quite right. As Chancellor of the University of Greenwich I am only too well aware of the proportion of students taking part-time degrees, the number of people from ethnic minorities taking degrees and the number of people taking degrees who are the first in their families ever to have considered university education. All of that has resulted from Conservative policies.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I did refer to the noble Baroness a second time but before I could go on to give details the noble Baroness interjected. Perhaps I may continue.
The Dearing Committee was set up because higher education was in crisis. Funding for students has reduced by 40 per cent. over the past 20 years. For 19 of those years those now in opposition were in government in this country. It was at a time when the Government assumed that spending on higher education would drop by 6.5 per cent. in real terms over the years 1998 to 2000. In the few months that they have been in office the present Government have put in something like £165 million. In 1993 a cap was put on higher education. Subsequently there has been a withdrawal of almost all public funding for capital expenditure. I find it difficult to believe that higher education has been passed to the present Government in a pretty good state. I challenge that. Certainly, that was not the evidence that the Dearing Committee heard. On the contrary, it was said that the 6.5 per cent. reduction could not be achieved. It was also said that higher education was in crisis. It is also a fact that, despite a number of the statements that have been made, the proportion of the gross national product of this country spent on higher education has not changed by a fraction of 1 per cent. in the past 20 years.
I support the Bill. The Bill may give rise to some difficult decisions. There is no doubt that we have reached the crossroads in higher education. I should like to refer to three particular aspects of the Bill. First, I refer to the general teaching council. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede has covered much of what I would have said. But it is also a matter of the professionalism of the teachers in this sector. It is absolutely essential that we go down this route. It may not be clear; perhaps not all of the t's have been crossed and the i's dotted. However, we must have this council to improve teaching and courses.
As a member of the Dearing Committee I found the subject of tuition fees difficult. I, too, believed that we had free higher education. We do not, and we have not had it for many years. The bulk of the money that is put into higher education is being spent on the less than 50 per cent. of students who are in full-time education. The Bill will change that.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but she is the only member of the Dearing Committee who will be speaking
324
this evening. Is she happy with her Government's decision not to follow the Dearing Committee recommendation to charge 25 per cent. but keep the maintenance grant? I am sorry to burden the noble Baroness with this matter, but I am interested to know whether she is committed to the Government who have rejected her own committee's recommendation.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I am convinced that the Government are committed to higher education. At the end of the process, higher education will have a much better future than it had when the Dearing Committee was set up.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Baroness, who is a great friend. She has not answered my question. Does she agree with it?
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I agree with the introduction of tuition fees. I note also that the elimination of the maintenance grant was a decision taken by the previous government and not this government.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I am sorry to keep interrupting, but the Dearing Committee recommended keeping half what remained of the maintenance grant. I do not believe that the noble Baroness heard my speech. I am worried about people earning £16,000 a year. The decision the Government have made hits them. The Dearing Committee pointed out the difficulties. I fear that the noble Baroness still has not answered me. I shall not stand up again, I promise.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I do not mind answering any questions that the noble Lord chooses to ask. The Dearing Report recommended tuition fees for all students. The Government's proposal will protect lower income students from working families, because the loan is income contingent. That was not proposed by the Dearing Committee in the way that the Government have put forward.
We have seen the introduction of a system whereby part-time higher education students in further education colleges—some higher education is delivered in some parts of this country through the further education system—have to pay their tuition fees while full-time higher education students do not. We have the Open University, introduced by a Labour government, which is rightly lauded and which is a great success. I declare that I am a member of the OU council. OU students have to pay tuition fees to obtain a degree. Many of them have to work and bring up a family at the same time as studying. The Bill will bring an end to many of those inconsistencies.
Top-up fees have generated a great deal of criticism. I hope that the Government have the courage to stick to their proposal in the Bill. I say that probably for different reasons from those raised by noble Lords who have spoken against them. The package that the

325
Government have put forward includes a pledge to parents that, with the introduction of tuition fees, they will have nothing else to contribute.
While on the Dearing Committee I heard the Russell Group mentioned for the first time. It is doing first class work, but there is a degree of elitism in it. In a small society such as ours that needs social cohesion and a learning society, the introduction of top-up fees would create an elite structure within the HE system. Establishments in poor areas will be unable to find students who can afford top-up fees while other universities will continue to provide courses, charge whatever top-up fee they wish, and still attract students—many of them from abroad.
I may be challenged on this, but the student profile of some of the universities advocating top-up fees does not reflect society in general in Britain today. That may be a factor. If noble Lords on the Benches opposite are so committed to introducing top-up fees, why did not the previous government introduce them? Higher education has a wonderful ability to survive, despite all the cutbacks. The crisis in higher education is not new. The Dearing Committee was set up because the previous government, with all due respect, did not know what to do about the crisis. The financial crisis existed, so why not allow top-up fees? Many universities wanted to introduce them but they were prevented from doing so.
Several noble Lords spoke about the independence of universities. I agree that academic freedom is very important. However, to give individual universities complete freedom would not solve some of the existing crises. Between 58 and 70 per cent. of university expenditure is on staff and the estate. According to the National Audit Office, the average utilisation of the estates is 30 per cent.—25 per cent. if universities are really efficient—and the value is said to be £30 billion. That cannot be an effective use of taxpayers' resources. The issue is covered in the Dearing Report, and I suggest that it is another reason for saying yes to academic freedom but that taxpayers should have a centralised say in how resources are spent.
Finally, I turn to the day release provisions. It is an imaginative move, which I did not expect but welcome. It is essential and I can understand the CBI objecting to it. When one compares the record of employers in this country with those in Europe and note what has been spent on training employees, there is not much to grumble about. The financial implications point to a cost of between £60 million and £130 million a year. That would soon be won back and justified by having a more skilled and committed workforce who are able to contribute in the higher value work that we need in Britain today. That is an investment in business.
I, too, look forward to the Committee stage when no doubt changes will be made to the Bill. However, the central thrust of tuition fees, top-up fees and other proposals should be welcomed. When looking back in 10 years' time we will see that the Bill was a major step in protecting our universities for the future.
9.16 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I rise rather surprised. This is the third education Bill debate I have entered into since I was raised to this wonderful Chamber in 1988. However, it is the first time that I have ever spoken on education before 1 a.m. If your Lordships think that this is a late debate, wait until we reach the Committee stage.
I claim an interest in the Bill because, if your Lordships were historians and went to the original amendment proposing a general teaching council you would find that I and the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, among others, proposed it. The proposal in 1992 fell on stony ground. I shall be commenting on the requirements of the GTC because Lord Dainton, who died recently, had agreed to make certain points in this debate. As a result of my long association with Professor Tomlinson and with Roger Haslam, the GTC secretary, I was asked—I shall not say press ganged—to pick up the threads which the late Lord Dainton would have been weaving now before your Lordships.
When the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon mentioned the GTC and a college of teachers, when my noble friend Lord Walton said that he had to leave because tomorrow morning he is to attend the sad event of Lord Dainton's funeral, and when the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, mentioned Lord Dainton I felt I must tell your Lordships what Lord Dainton intended to propose. My comments come from him and I fully support what he wanted to put forward.
I wish to make it clear that most of the people to whom I have spoken are not so much in favour of the teachers being retained in a minority on the general teaching council. I have detected a strong feeling in the various meetings that I have gone to that if teachers are in the minority, they will feel, in a word, "smothered".
I shall now make the points which were to be made by Lord Dainton. He preceded me in the vice-chancellor's office at Nottingham. He always pleased me when he used to say, "Well, I don't know the solution to that problem. It needs a good dose of socialism". So I hope that I shall not draw too much fire from the Government Benches.
Lord Dainton would have wanted me to say that there should be a majority of registered teachers on the council and not a minority, as has been suggested; that all teachers in all schools, maintained and independent, should be included in the register—that in accordance with the views of all the organisations representing teachers and head teachers on the provisional GTC the council be empowered to include on the register of teachers all those teaching in nursery education; further education, and all trainers of teachers in higher education. All council members should be elected from constituencies for which they have responsibility; and initially, those teacher constituencies are mainly based on teacher and head teacher unions and professional associations, because that is the source of 90 per cent. of the council's teaching members. After the initial Nolan procedures, the appointment of the chair of the council should be made by the council itself. It is hoped that Government should fund the work of the general

327
teaching council in proportion of the representation of the non-teacher members of the council. The teaching members of the council would be the voice of teachers to he considered by government, while the voice of the educational service would be the views of the full council.
I am very proud to have been given the responsibility to read those points into the record. I now wish to turn to the remarks made about the possibility of a Royal College of Teachers as a parallel development of teachers by teachers for teachers, funded by teachers. That suggestion comes from a 19th century organisation, the College of Preceptors.
If you were a young lady or gentleman going off to, say, India at the end of the Victorian era to teach, to help you get your job, you might want some statement about your standing and recognition as a teacher in the UK from the College of Preceptors. The noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, and I have been closely associated with the College of Preceptors and the noble Viscount has been helping their interest in establishing a college of teachers by calling meetings in the House of people who are interested. Indeed, the noble Viscount and I put to the House the suggestion of the establishment of a college of teachers.
The College of Preceptors has now established an interim council, which noble Lords should know is laying plans for a college of teachers as soon as is reasonably practicable. It is hoped that it will ensure that teachers have a route for expressing their academic concerns rather than employment or registration responsibilities which can be done through their trade unions or local authority associations.
I have told the College of Preceptors—and I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, who cannot be here this evening because he has 'flu, agrees with me—that we are very proud and see ourselves as crusaders who will do our best to support education and teaching.
I should now like to say a few words on university finances. I shall begin with access problems at Oxbridge. I grew up in Stechford which is part of Birmingham and, I believe, composed of social classes 5, 6 and 7. My father was a petrol pump attendant. However, I was extremely lucky, the Lord smiled on me and I managed to obtain scholarships. I want your Lordships to know that I have been in college life at Cambridge, and am anxious to try to get more people to come from those social classes to Oxbridge.
We heard earlier from the former Provost of King's College, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, how he managed to get a very high proportion of his intake from non-public schools; that is to say, non-independent schools. However, we are meeting difficulties in that respect. When we go out and ask people to apply—and I am sure that, if she were here, the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, would nod in agreement—we find that there is enormous propaganda against people going to Oxbridge. I do not know how we shall get around that problem. We shall probably have to ask the Government for guidance on the best way forward—they have a
328
wonderful organisation in association with their Minister without Portfolio—to find out how to get people to at least pay attention to such a possibility.
The last comment that I shall make before I sit down is to point out that there is of course a difference between Oxford and Cambridge and that there are charters in many of the colleges in Cambridge. That is one reason why there has been such a fuss and bother in Cambridge about the possibility of the hybridity of this Bill. I hope that that will be sorted out between the lawyers in the department and those in the university who understand such matters better than I do.
When I set out today to come here for the debate, I told my wife that I would be very late home. I did not expect to be speaking so early in the evening. She asked, "Why is it that when there is an education Bill hundreds of people put down their names to speak and you all go on for hours in defence of universities?" She is an American, went to Harvard and does not really understand our problems. However, I believe that I have now convinced her that so many of us want to enter into these debates because we feel compelled to defend the academic freedom that began with Socrates so long ago.
We must remember that the universities were the first ports of call for all those people who came over from Germany because of the terrible suppression under Hitler. People in the universities heard more about what was going on in other universities; for example, the awful sufferings of the Jews. Again, through our contact with people in Russian universities under the old regime, we were very conscious that certain great people in the university world just "disappeared". I believe that the 100,000 students who left the People's Republic of China and came here or went to America, carried many clear indications that, whenever they can, universities are wise to stand up for their academic freedom.
9.29 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, at this time of night and at this point in the debate much of what one wished to say about the generalities of the Bill has already been said by other speakers. I shall not, therefore, tempt the patience of your Lordships by repeating those points, except to say that I add my great welcome to the extended loan scheme which is proposed and which I addressed in another debate some time ago. I shall concentrate on Part II of the Bill and in particular on the question of top-up fees; and I shall address the possible impact of Clause 18 on veterinary education in the United Kingdom.
The clause is intended to prevent institutions charging top-up fees in excess of the £1,000 annual tuition fee proposed by the Government. Should this be applied to graduate entrants to veterinary courses in the country, at least in four of the six veterinary schools, it would make it totally uneconomic for those schools to recruit graduate students. That point was recognised by the principal of the University of Glasgow, Professor Graeme Davies, who mentioned this in respect to those individuals who were self-financing their studies in Glasgow and elsewhere.

329
I shall explain the reasons for this. For many years there has been great pressure as regards entrance to veterinary schools in the United Kingdom. It is frequently said that it is more difficult to enter veterinary medicine than it is to enter medicine. The number of veterinary students who are funded by the funding councils—about 420 per annum—falls well short of the national need. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons continues to register more graduates of veterinary schools from outside the United Kingdom than from United Kingdom veterinary schools. There is a pressing need to increase the output. To some extent the shortfall is made up by admitting students who are already science graduates and who have already benefited from state supported higher education.
In four of the six veterinary schools in the country such students are charged full cost fees, which vary between the schools, but in no case do they average less than £10,000 a year. This practice has been in existence for some seven years. I should declare an interest here as a former dean of the veterinary faculty in the University of Cambridge, now retired. Noble Lords may be interested to know that Cambridge does not practise this scheme of top-up fees because it would disadvantage some students who are unable to afford the top-up fees. The average charge of £10,000 per year should be compared with the cost of educating a veterinary student which, according to the English Higher Education Funding Council, is £11,700 per annum. I should emphasise that these are the self-funded students referred to by Professor Graeme Davies of Glasgow.
Overseas students, including contract students from countries such as Iceland and Norway pay similar fees, but they of course return to their native lands after the course, whereas the graduate students who pay the top-up fees remain in this country. There is no shortage of applicants or acceptances for the places—despite this being a costly second bite of the cherry, so to speak—such is the high demand for places in the veterinary schools.
These full costs are ploughed back into the provision of clinical facilities in the veterinary schools to enable students to master their clinical skills. It is here that veterinary education differs considerably from medical education and indeed dictates the necessity for such top-up fees. In the medical field, teaching hospitals are provided by the National Health Service and a subsidy of up to £40,000 per student per annum is provided through the Service Increment for Teaching Scheme (SIFT). The total amount of that was increased two years ago by £40 million, and last year by a further £40 million.
In veterinary education there is no SIFT. There is no National Health Service to provide the teaching hospitals. All the hospitals, the staff, equipment, nurses, medicines and bandages have to be supplied out of the funding provided by the funding councils and any income generated from clinical services. Should veterinary schools be denied that source of income, which is increasingly important as resources provided by the funding councils continue to fall, it will be quite uneconomical for veterinary schools to recruit such
330
graduates. The corollary for that is that a number of people will be denied access to education leading to the veterinary profession, and the annual output of veterinarians in the United Kingdom would be reduced.
An alternative to such top-up fees would be to charge all students for certain clinical facilities, as, for example, in the subjects of French, architecture and engineering. However, one would not wish to go in that direction.
Finally, if the restriction on top-up fees is to be enacted, I hope that it will apply only to new entrants to the veterinary courses and not to those who have previously undertaken a science degree and who come in as graduates. They are about 10 per cent. of the student population. Those individuals have already benefited from state support for higher education and now wish to pursue a professional qualification through a self-funded mechanism.
9.37 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in general but not in every particular I give a warm welcome to the Bill. There are many things in it that we have wanted and for which we have been asking for a long time. Chief among those is the general teaching council. Those of us involved with education policy making have worked for decades for a general teaching council and have failed. My noble friend and her fellow Ministers are to be congratulated. If they are asked one day, "What did you do during the first Blair Government?" I hope that they will be able to say, "A great many things". But even if they could not say that, they will be able to claim, "We set up the general teaching council". Before we end these deliberations, I may answer that same question about myself.
When the House sits as a Committee, we shall examine the general teaching council in detail. But even if it has imperfections in its opening phase, we must assume that like all institutions the council will evolve. It would be wrong to damn it, let alone kill it, because it starts off with some deficiencies. It will in due course have to change. I am confident that it will get off to a good start and will develop in a satisfactory way. In particular it can and should be a body that lays a new professional foundation for teaching and will set the high standards for teachers for which we all aim.
One factor that troubles me about your Lordships' House is that among us we do not have—perhaps we have never had in my time—a teacher from a state school. Our deliberations on these matters might well have been improved had we had one or more such people.
I also welcome the training of head teachers. I still stand in awe of those who were my teachers and head teachers. Unlike some of my friends, I still find it impossible to think of them except as Mr. X or Mrs. Y. One or two of my old friends still refer to their teachers by their Christian names. To me that is inconceivable. I regard my teachers as great people and wish it to remain that way. What has to be said about head teachers is how much over our lifetimes their jobs have changed. The Bill is an attempt to help them cope with the incredibly complex world with which they now have

331
to deal. Perhaps I may make my usual point on teachers: we all know full well that when our children succeed it is because they are clever, and when they fail it is because of their teachers. That is always worth remembering.
I am also very keen on the induction period for new teachers, but above all on the provision entitling all 16 and 17 year-olds to paid time off in order to study or train for appropriate qualifications. It is a major step forward, and one which I hope the House will support. We shall examine the proposals in more detail in Committee.
I, too, was concerned about the views of the CBI on young people. As my noble friend Lord Ponsonby said, it is vital that all employers play a full and honest part. Unlike many of my friends, I am less than impressed with the contribution that businessmen might make to policy-making in our country. But I am certain that we must not allow the business community to sabotage this initiative on grounds of cost. To paraphrase yet again my favourite economist, Adam Smith: businessmen are always concerned about cost, except when it comes to raising their own salaries. That is the positive side.
In preparing for today's debate I discovered to my horror that I wrote my first paper on student loans some 35 years ago. It expressed what was then very much a minority view. I note ruefully that many of my friends who opposed those ideas most strongly have since risen to senior positions in public life and are now, so far as I can see, enthusiastic supporters of the proposals in the Bill.
In relation to the matters upon which I shall criticise the Government, it took me a short while to appreciate that if we were looking at loans to replace maintenance grants, which was the original area in which we worked, then logic required us to look at tuition fees as well. So in this area I regard my credentials as not all that bad. I must add that, over the years, further consideration has led me and others to realise that many of our earlier thoughts on the question of grants and loans were rather simpliste.
On the question of contingent loans replacing maintenance grants, I have no difficulty. As I said, we advocated it for an enormous period of time and I am not ready to change my mind on that. I shall not bore the House, but the matter is a good deal more complicated than some people think.
However, my real worry relates to the subject of tuition fees. Let me begin with my noble friend the Minister. My difficulty is that she and I have been comrades in arms on all education matters for as long as I can remember, and it is with deep sadness that I have to say that on this occasion we differ. But more to the point, for the first time in all my years in this House I find myself in disagreement with every single one of my noble friends who have spoken. I believe that they are mistaken on the subject of tuition fees—or rather, their views differ from mine. The more I heard them speak, the more I thought that perhaps I was wrong. Then I thought some more and decided that they were wrong. However, there is time between now and
332
the Committee stage of the Bill and I promise my noble friends that during the Recess I shall think about the matter yet again to see if I can find a valid case for what the Government propose.
It may be that those of us who wish to examine the issue of tuition fees in detail and analyse the problems are wasting our time. It is a fact that higher education is seriously under-financed. It is also true that the Treasury refuses to provide the extra funds needed. It is obvious that, to get anywhere at all, the Secretary of State was bounced into accepting tuition fees. In my judgment he has since then sought to bounce the rest of us. It looks as if for the present the Treasury is determining higher education policy and Ministers are merely the Treasury's handmaidens. When my noble friend replies, perhaps he can confirm whether that is so. If that is the case, I for one should be prepared to stop and not further waste your Lordships' time either now or subsequently by pointing out the principles involved and the consequences of the Government's proposed actions.
However, it is my judgment that we ought to examine the matter. In particular—and here I differ fundamentally with my noble friends—I believe that there is nothing necessary about the policy which the Government propose to adopt. There are no underlying forces in our society which make us introduce tuition fees. If we do so, we do it because we want to. We ourselves did not pay tuition fees—I certainly did not. We need a better explanation than any offered by my noble friends, and in particular by the Government, as to why, when we did not pay, our successors should do so. The argument that we were few and our successors are many has no logic to it and certainly no ethical foundation that I can think of.
Let me assume for the moment that the subject is worth debating. I start with the Dearing Report. I must warn my noble friend that I am not impressed with that report. It devotes much space to student finance and tuition fees but its treatment has at least two major deficiencies. It offers no serious analytical foundation for the discussion of the subject and little or no evidence on crucial matters. A serious analytical foundation would require at least two things. First, it would require some theory of what determines a person to try to enter higher education, what determines the choice of subject and what determines the specific institution or institutions he or she applies to. Secondly, it would require some theory of how higher education institutions determine what they do and whom they admit. I am again being very acerbic, but I listened to the pathetic remarks made by the various heads of Oxford and Cambridge colleges; their desperate attempts to recruit people from the state sector carry very little weight with me. Dearing did not even bother to go into such matters.
Viewing what happens as a form of market, albeit a rather complicated one, what can we say about demand and supply? We can ask the questions, but at the moment we have nothing like a set of answers. Dearing and those who have spoken today, including my noble friends, look at the average student and point out what he or she earns as a return on the investment in higher education. Like others long ago, that is exactly how I looked at the subject. I pointed out, as my noble friends have done, that the average beneficiary is middle

333
class, that entry into the system has an upper income group bias, and that what is true in general is true of certain universities in particular. It is easy to move from that to the rather left wing proposition that therefore more of the costs should be borne by the individuals who gain.
That is exactly the line I took 25 years ago and more. Unfortunately, the fact that the average student gains and the average student comes from a higher economic class is not a satisfactory point. What matters—it is perfectly obvious—are the marginal students, and they are not those students. The marginal students come from poor backgrounds; they come from certain other minorities in our society. If we introduce a financing system which we justify by saying it hits the average, its devastating weakness will be that, though it may hit the average, it will also deter the marginal students. The marginal students are the students my noble friends said that they wanted to help and that is why they are mistaken in supporting this policy.
If I can he personal, particularly on the subject of higher education—others referred to it—I was the first member of my family to go for higher education. Most of my friends at the time were also the first members of their families to go on to higher education. If the word "fee" had been mentioned to us when we were 17 or 18 I am absolutely certain that we would not have gone to university. I have no doubt about that at all. Though we were clever boys then, if someone had outlined the whole argument about investment, rates of return and how we would gain, we still would not have gone. We lived in a milieu where education was free or one did not do it.
Many of our successors are like that today. I reject this policy on the grounds that my noble friends have offered me nothing that will make me believe that they will not be deterred in the way that I would have been. Let me say, cynically, that I may well have been better off not going to university. I may have made a lot of money and entered your Lordships' House via the businessman route, which is the lesson nowadays. So it would not necessarily have been a catastrophe; but it might have been.
The only other aspect that I want to dwell on—for some noble Lords it is late; I have sat here for hours so it does not feel that late for me—is the fact that there is a terrible administrative mess in all of this. Policies seem to have been made on the hoof and I am bound to say—looking towards the officials—that I do not believe the officials remotely understood what they were getting themselves into or, more to the point, letting my noble friends and my ministerial colleagues in for. It is a mess and the mess is not yet over. They will find further difficulties the further they go.
Most extraordinary of all is the idea that we are actually going to expect students from the European Community to fill in parental means forms; that someone will monitor them and we will then check the incomes. The whole idea is mad.
One reason why I favoured the student loan scheme was that I hoped that we could end the notion of parental contribution. I realise that there are problems with
334
income distribution. But one would argue that students now are all adults; they are 18 or more and we should take a totally forward look at how we finance the whole thing. The relevant incomes are those of the students and not those of the parents. I have one other warning for my noble friend—I am sorry that she was led down this path. Sticking with this parental means test nonsense has thrown away the one great benefit of the contingent loan scheme.
I shall make one last point. We use the expression "tuition fees". I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tope; they are not tuition fees. That is a complete misnomer. The right reverend Prelate doubted what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, as did my noble friend Lord Plant. I was Reader in public finance in the University of London for a while so I believe that I know what a tax is. This is a tax on entering higher education. It is a poll tax. It may have an income adjustment, but it is a straightforward poll tax. These charges are not related to either marginal or average costs; they are not related to the institution that will be paid them or the subject; they are certainly not a market equilibrating device. Therefore we ought not to be discussing it. We ought to be discussing whether we should put a tax on entry into higher education. If we want to impose such a tax, we should then say at what rate the tax should be levied. Finally, we should say what should be the criteria, if any, for exemption.
My grandchildren or great grandchildren will ask "What did Maurice Peston do during the first Blair Government?" I will say that I did not contribute very much at all, but I did stand up for rationality and I did stand up for looking at problems sensibly, from a Labour Party point of view.
9.55 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, as one who made a maiden speech only last week, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, on her maiden speech. I found it extremely refreshing. It was good to hear someone emphasising the importance of education to enable us all to live fulfilled lives. I particularly enjoyed her words about the joy, pleasure and knowledge that we can get from books. I also enjoyed the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, not least because he was voicing opinions which my noble friend Lord Tope put forward earlier in the debate, opinions with which I entirely agreed, particularly on the right of adults at 18 to be considered adults and independent of their parents.
Uppermost in the minds of many noble Lords today have been the aspects of the Bill dealing primarily with higher education, particularly the autonomy of higher education institutions and the charging of tuition fees. Perhaps I may remind the House that the Bill is the Teaching and Higher Education Bill. My noble friend Lord Tope eloquently put the case for not charging tuition fees and the problems Liberal Democrats believe will ensue should we go forward on that basis.
Before I tackle some of the detail of the Bill, I wish to air one or two issues about the development of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, touched on some of

335
the points I wish to make. A generous interpretation of events leading up to the Bill might be that the Government are new, are anxious to raise standards in our schools and colleges and want to involve as many interests as possible in ensuring that we arrive at legislation that will be lasting, that will be good and that will achieve high standards for our young people—future generations. Indeed, in introducing the Bill the Minister told us that wide consultation had taken place and that the Government had listened. But given the anxieties expressed today, one could almost conclude that it had been rather hurriedly put together, with insufficient consultation with those affected by the passing of such legislation. Noble Lords will be able to draw their own conclusions as the debate ends tonight and as we continue to debate the Bill as it passes through the House.
There is undoubtedly a great deal of consensus surrounding the setting up of a general teaching council, the reintroduction of an induction period for newly trained teachers and having a qualification for head teachers that will recognise the special skills needed for head teachers to be successful. However, when we look more closely at the Bill, we see at times a lack of clarity of purpose. That has given rise to many of the anxieties that have been expressed today. Not only my colleagues but others outside the House are worried that our new Government are taking on too many mantles of the old government; not least, they want to stick to the same spending targets. But in this piece of legislation we see that they are also taking on the mantles of the previous government in giving a great deal of power to Ministers in centralising our system of education.
Liberal Democrats—there seems to be confusion among some noble Lords, but the noble Lord, Lord Tope, believes this, too—have proposed for a long time setting up a general teaching council. Many of the professional bodies which represent teachers are also in favour of it, but questions surround the issue. Many people believe that the Government's proposals fall short of the sort of body that teachers want and deserve. A general teaching council needs authority and autonomy if our teachers are to feel that the Government are prepared to trust them. We should see the Government putting their trust in teachers to try to regulate their own profession.
The various bodies representing teachers have raised with us many issues. They emphasise that they want accountability and independence. But there is one other area about which the professional bodies are concerned and that is the keeping of the register and the fact that they will not be directly involved in removing people from it. It would be helpful if the Government could comment on this. Many of the professional bodies believe that the general teaching council should not be merely a policeman to the profession but that it should be involved in all areas to do with teaching and education. There is a lack of clarity in the Bill as to how the council will be made up. That point has been raised tonight by many other speakers.
336
The Professional Association of Teachers is particularly concerned that the body should be independent. It is concerned that if we are not careful we shall get yet another quango. I hope that in winding up the Minister will be able to answer some of the queries, before we reach Committee stage. I hope that the Government will allow amendments, as was said earlier by one noble Lord, to put flesh on to the bones of parts of the Bill.
I now turn to an area which interests me greatly. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, commented that there was no teacher in the House. I have not practised teaching in schools for some years now, but I trained as a teacher in the 1960s. I remember getting a certificate at the end of my probationary year which said that I was now a fully qualified teacher. However, I can also remember not entirely understanding exactly on what basis I had achieved the certificate at the end of my first year. I believe that the re-introduction of an induction period is an opportunity to deal with the problems that surround quality and quality assurance. It is an important part of ensuring that we have higher standards in our schools.
Although it is not written clearly in the Bill, in her opening comments the Minister told us that the induction period would be 12 months. Does that mean when we reach Committee stage that there will be an amendment to clarify that in Clause 13? It looks as though that clause can be changed.
There is also a lack of clarity surrounding the status of teachers doing their introductory year as regards membership on the list to be held by the general teaching council. Another problem concerns standards and qualifications for head teachers. Insisting on a qualification for new head teachers is something that we on these Benches have long believed to be essential.
I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, who asked what made a good head teacher. In my early teaching days, I was fortunate enough to do my probationary year, as it was called in those days, in a school which had an extremely good headmistress. That meant that the school was run in an orderly fashion. The head teacher had a presence—that is the only way that I can describe it—which affected all of us in that school. It meant that certain standards were expected and it made my job as a probationary teacher so much easier. Indeed, I think that it enabled me to make a reasonable start on my secondary school teaching career.
That experience contrasted sharply with the atmosphere in another school at which I taught. I shall never forget arriving at that school on the first morning for assembly. I had been abroad with my husband and was starting there at the beginning of term. I did not know what sort of school it was, and when I arrived at the hall I found the curtains hanging in shreds. When the headmistress walked into the hall, the children did not even stop talking. It was a stark contrast with the way in which the head had behaved at my first school. I knew from that moment that I would have to fight my corner in my classroom, because whatever the head did would not help me. Thank goodness I had had a better experience at my first school. If I had not, I am sure that I would have gone under. I hope that that anecdote will help to clarify what goes to make a good head teacher.

337
We on these Benches have a couple of queries about the proposals with regard to head teachers. First, what plans do the Government have to extend the qualifications to head teachers already in post? I believe that others are also concerned about that point.
Secondly, I would like to ask about who will pay. That is not made clear. Noble Lords have already expressed concern that this point is of particular importance in primary schools where it is difficult to fund cover if the head wants to go off to gain the NPQH. We know that not many are coming forward from primary schools, yet there are many more primary heads than there are secondary heads.
The problem with speaking late in a long debate is that there is very little new to say. However, I hope that I am now about to introduce a new aspect and one about which I feel particularly strongly. I refer to what help we are to give to those who undertake higher education part-time. A couple of noble Lords have referred to this briefly. I suppose that I should have declared an interest earlier when referring to fees, in that one of my daughters already has a loan and another is likely to take out one. My interest here is that when my eldest daughter was born I took a part-time postgraduate qualification. Fortunately, the job that I had just given up and my husband's income enabled us to pay the fees for that course, but everyone is not in that position. However, we need to develop a flexible workforce where people can continually develop their skills and gain new qualifications and, dare I say it, we want to help single mothers to get back into work on earnings that are greater than their benefits. That is why we need to consider this area which I know that Dearing highlighted.
The problem for the Government is resources. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has told us that a recent London Economics Report, which was commissioned by the Open University, analysed the funding implications of giving half a million part-time students access to the same loans deal as full-timers. It concluded that to do so would cost the Government an extra 0.5 per cent. per annum in the short term and 1.5 per cent. per annum in the long term.
Another important area on which the noble Lord, Lord Desai, touched earlier was how the Government dealt with public spending and what headings they used. Dearing talked about this. Only yesterday the Select Committee on Education and Employment in another place reiterated the points that Dearing had made. Currently in the public accounts the Treasury classifies all lending to students as grants but takes no account of the fact that a large proportion will be repaid. If the Government do not look at that fairly soon it will become a problem. To fail to take this opportunity to deal with the matter is short-sighted. I hope that when the Minister replies he will give an indication of how the Government view this and where they are going.
This debate has shown that there are many areas that noble Lords want to pursue during the Committee stage and that tonight will not be the only late debate. I hope that the Government listen to what has been said and will give some indications before Committee stage,
338
perhaps even tonight. I look forward—I think—to taking part in those debates. I have enjoyed a baptism of fire in my second speech in this House. I have had to make a winding-up speech on behalf of the Liberal Democrats on education having been housing spokesman in another place. However, I have felt very much at home here. The debates have been held late at night and it has been difficult to get something to eat. I thought this was a different place, but perhaps it is not. I look forward to carrying on with this Bill late into the night on another day.
10.12 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am full of admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, for a brilliant performance in her second or third week as a Front Bench speaker for her party in this House. It is a great tribute to the way in which she has entered into the work of the House. We look forward to those nights, albeit they may be very late, when we work together. I also join with other noble Lords in warmly congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell of Babergh, on her maiden speech. She enjoys exceptional talent and has kept us awake many a night gripped by the prolific writing in which she has engaged over the years. She has said that she intends to continue that for some time yet. Not only did I enjoy the speech of the noble Baroness but I believe that what she said was fundamental. I agree with her about the centrality and importance of reading not simply for enjoyment but as the cornerstone to all learning. I look forward very much to hearing more from the noble Baroness in future debates.
I pay a warm tribute to my noble friend Lord Pilkington who in the past few days has suffered a serious personal tragedy. He has returned today to take part in this debate because he too believes that it is important. I thank him very much indeed because I know that this has not been an easy time for him.
We are discussing the Bill in a vacuum. On almost every page the Secretary of State takes powers to regulate. We are left with some of the detail from Green Papers, White Papers, television and radio interviews, Answers to Questions in Parliament and what we read in the newspapers. My noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking thought that it would be helpful to have Notes on Clauses if they were available. I have a copy of the Notes on Clauses but I am afraid that they throw little light on the detail that will follow in secondary legislation. It is that information which is lacking in both the Bill and the Notes on Clauses.
The Bill is hardly enlightening. It poses many questions about what really matters, and the devil is in the detail. There are aspects of the Bill which, in principle, we support. However, the method and the details of implementation will be crucial as to whether our support can be sustained over time.
The financial memorandum does not deal adequately with all the costs of implementation—a point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. Therefore, as the Bill progresses through its stages, the costs and sources of the funds will be challenged.

339
Clauses 1 to 11 deal with the general teaching council. We support the development of a greater professional status for teachers. We welcome the idea of a general teaching council. We shall, however, as I said, look carefully at the Government's proposals for its constitution and remit—neither of which are addressed in sufficient detail in the Bill—to assure ourselves that the new body will contribute to professional standards, professional education and teaching quality, and that it will not become a kind of pay rations body, a creature of the Secretary of State, or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, just a quango.
The noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Peston and my noble friend Lord Butterfield, for understandable reasons, chided me obliquely for having in the past opposed a general teaching council.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I did not chide her. I would not dream of chiding her. It never occurred to me to chide her.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, because he and I enjoyed coming to the House at the same time. It was a noble Lord on the opposite Benches who chided me. I can understand why. I was the person, on the other side of the House, who was usually receiving proposals from various parts of the House about a general teaching council. I hope that all noble Lords who know me well, and certainly my noble friend Lord Butterfield, will be aware that whenever I argued against it, it was not against the principle that there should be a body responsible—I have always thought of teachers, by teachers, for teachers—for professional standards, the quality of teaching and professionalism. People will jump hurdles to become a member of that body, and there should be powers to remove teachers from that body. Those proposals were never on offer in this House, and for those reasons I have always had reservations.
I have reservations about those bodies that grow out of government. I have always been attracted to the idea—I am interested in what will come from the College of Preceptors—of this body rising from the body of teachers themselves, and not from some bureaucratic organisation or government. Regulations are to be made. When will the House see them? It is important, in relation to many parts of the Bill, that we see some of the regulations in draft as we proceed because it is only by seeing some of the Government's detailed ideas that our debates will make sense.
From the little we can glean from the Bill, the proposed general teaching council will be predominantly an advisory body. In fact, as I have suggested, it will be a creature of the Secretary of State. I am puzzled by some of the Bill's provisions. For example, references to registration in Clause 3(2) appear to imply that registration will be voluntary. Is that so? However, Clause 4 (2)(c) sets out that regulations will make provision as to,
"the registration, on the establishment of the register, of persons who have not made such applications".
340
There is to be a register of people who do apply to be registered and a register of people who do not apply. If the general teaching council keeps the register of those who do apply, who keeps the register of those who do not apply? Why do they keep the register at all? What information will be kept on the non-applicants' register? Where does the private sector fit in to all these proposals?
Clause 5 gives the Secretary of State the power to impose any additional functions. Is that included as a reserve power just in case one day in the future something may come along which sounds like a good idea, or has the Secretary of State in mind something particular which may follow on from the proposals?
An issue that has not been discussed today is the Welsh dimension. What will be the role of the Welsh assembly in these matters? Will it, for example, be free to interpret secondary legislation independent from the Secretary of State for Education? How does that fit with the explicit powers of direction by the Secretary of State for Education? I understand that the Welsh assembly will be free to interpret not primary but secondary legislation, so it would be helpful to know where the assembly fits into the proposals.
Clause 10 provides for employers to be required to deduct fees for the GTC at source. Will those who do not apply for registration, referred to in Clause 4(2)(c), be free to opt out of paying a fee, or is it likely that there is a fee to be paid by non-applicants in order to cover the cost of those who do not wish to register for the general teaching council?
Probing a little further on the establishment of the GTC, who will determine the qualifications for a person to start practising as a newly qualified teacher? Who, for example, will determine the training requirements for the professional development of teachers? Who will determine standards and codes of practice for the personal conduct of teachers? What will the role of the GTC be in all of that? What will the process be for determining whether the standards have or have not been upheld by individual teachers? Do the Government envisage, for example, giving the GTC at some time powers to remove teachers who fall short of professional competence or conduct? If so, the Bill needs revising substantially.
I turn to Clause 12 and the training for head teachers. I warmly welcome the measure and agree with it in principle. I, too, believe that training for headship is a good thing. However, I have concerns about the compulsory nature of the provision. Until we know what the provision is, it will be difficult to agree its compulsory nature. Other concerns include who will pay for the training, which teachers will receive the training and who will select the teachers trained. Perhaps as an aside, as someone who was involved in a local authority for a long time, I may say that I can remember the negative side of teachers being beholden to advisers who would come in and out of the school and choose the possible candidates for headships, deputy headships and heads of departments. I remember the bad feeling which grew up among the teachers that somehow or other the way in which they were being selected was very

341
subjective and not objective in any way. It set up a tension between many of the teachers. Those who felt capable but were not being selected were not "in" with the LEA advisers at the time. We would not want to see that history repeated.
Will self-selection for the training be acceptable? Will there, for example, be a menu of qualifying courses? Given that the gaps in knowledge and experience will differ from teacher to teacher, will there be a system of exemption from the requirements or will there be flexibility in precisely what qualification a teacher requires in order to be a candidate for headship? A compulsory monolithic qualification would present an unwelcome rigidity. Would, for example, a person coming from the state or independent sector, displaying all the competences and qualities for headship, be required to gain a specific Secretary-of-State-approved qualification?
I believe that the induction period provided in Clause 13 is a good idea in principle. However, like the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, I ask what period of induction is envisaged by the Government and whether they can give the rationale for choosing a particular period.
There is reference in Clause 13(2)(c) to the pre-qualified teacher being employed as,
"a teacher … to he assessed for the purpose of deciding whether he has satisfactorily completed an induction period".
Does that mean that probationary teachers, as I prefer to call them, will he employed as full members of staff? If that is not the case, there is a very real cost involved. If they are to be employed as full members of staff before it has been decided that they are competent to teach, that presents a real conundrum for the Government and it would be helpful to have some clarification.
In principle we support Clauses 14 and 15 on the inspection of teacher training. We also believe that commencement should coincide with the passing of the Bill. We cannot see a reason for any delay whatever. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, referred to the debate about this matter within the higher education sector. I am aware that there are tensions arising as regards whether Ofsted should be given the task of inspection, whether the recommendations of the Sutherland Report should be followed or whether we should retain the present system of higher education inspection. On balance, we agree that Ofsted should carry that responsibility and that it should be statutory.
I could not refute more strongly the accusation made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that my government, when in power, showed only contempt for teachers. My noble friends, like my noble friend Lady Young and the people I worked with in ministerial teams, have the highest regard for teachers. In fact, most of our energies have been engaged in trying to find ways in which to make sure that the best teachers are recognised and that other teachers who are not so good are brought up to the standards of the best.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, referred also to the exodus from teaching. Perhaps I may give some reasons for many teachers leaving the profession. There was the introduction of trendy teaching methods in the 1960s, following through into the 1970s and 1980s, and the
342
move away from traditional teaching. I reacted warmly to the examples given from the experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. Consequentially, there was a rise of poor discipline in schools. Children were free to do "their own thing" which took child-centred to absurd lengths. There was the discouragement of competition and the abolition of testing so that positions in class were discouraged; the discouragement of the teaching of reading by the phonics method; the discouragement of teaching basic tables as a basis for understanding numeracy; spelling and grammar were deemed to thwart progress. There existed a great deal of political correctness in the system. I was a parent of children in school, a local authority member, a member of a school council and a member of the council of local education authorities. I can tell the noble Lord that that philosophy was not only given wholehearted and enthusiastic support by the Labour and the Liberal Democrat parties but was positively promulgated by them.
If one was in a local authority, and more significantly, in a school which resisted such fashions, one was deeply grateful. But for many parents and children it was a game of chance. It coincided also with almost no choice of school available to parents. The children who were most let down at that time were many of our children from urban areas.
Before addressing the issue of student fees and loans, will the Minister take the opportunity to provide the latest information on college fees for Oxford and Cambridge?
The introduction of tuition fees in Clauses 16 to 22 and the abolition of grants—because I want to couple those—is unacceptable. We prefer the Dearing recommendations which were rejected with unseemly haste—within a matter of hours—by the Secretary of State. The present proposals are in such disarray. It is unacceptable that students who are applying at this time for university places do not know, nor are likely to know for certain until the Bill has Royal Assent and the regulations receive parliamentary approval, the details of the financial arrangments. I wish to impress upon the Minister this evening that draft regulations must be placed in the Library of both Houses well before the first day in Committee. I put the noble Baroness on notice that if they are not, I shall be calling for a delay in the handling of the Bill.
What we now understand, not from the Bill but from what we have gleaned, is that there is to be a means-tested tuition fee applied differentially and there is to be the abolition of maintenance grants. Clause 18 is extraordinarily draconian and acts as a sword of Damocles over our free-standing, independent, chartered institutions. Let us make no mistake about it: the impact of the powers taken by the Secretary of State to impose conditions goes very much wider than the noble Baroness indicated and, I have to say, will inevitably impact on academic freedom in our universities. I would prefer to see it out of the Bill, rather than amended.
I turn now to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, on Second Reading of the student loans Bill. Why on earth are we creating a new piece of legislation, concurrently with this Bill, which includes a

343
measure to repeal it on Royal Assent, if the Bill contains—as it does—transitional arrangements for the present system? Could not the Government have addressed the changes necessary for the management of student loans in this one Bill?
We oppose the abolition of the present levels of maintenance grants and we shall do so by bringing forward amendments to place safeguards on the face of the Bill for those families whose income is sufficiently modest to qualify for maintenance grants under the present system to continue to receive them. Applications for places in higher education are already affected by the Government's proposals. Frankly, the proposals fly in the face of what we all believed was a concern of the Labour Party, both new and old; namely, to encourage bright young people from all backgrounds to benefit from higher education. These proposals actually mean that students from low-income families will leave university with the greatest burden of debt. How can the Minister justify that?
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, talked about the financial plight of students with great feeling. There is not another penny for students in the proposals now before us. In fact, those who presently receive grant for maintenance will lose it and will be required to borrow the difference. For the students referred to by the noble Baroness—those whose parents are expected to support their sons and daughters but who do not—there is no extension of loan facility. They will have to go out and borrow on the market and will actually be worse off. There is nothing in the Bill to alleviate that situation. The consequences for students as a result of these proposals will be to lose grants and face increased loans with an extended period over which to repay. Indeed, some students will be repaying loans over many decades.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, regretted the fact that there were no state teachers. However, if, for example, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, had not mentioned the fact that she was a teacher, I would have probably guessed that she was. That applies also to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, to my noble friend Lady Perry and my noble friend Lord Mackay who sometimes sits with me on these Benches; and, indeed, to many others. We should not, of course, forget the noble Lords, Lord Glenamara, and Lord Dormand of Easington. There are quite a number in the House—
Lord Peston: My Lords, I should point out to the noble Baroness that most of those she has just mentioned have not been near a classroom for many years. I was in fact referring to practising teachers.
Baroness Blatch: Nevertheless, my Lords, there are a number of people who have teaching experience. We also have governors and parents of children who are in school or in college and university.
Following the unilateral pronouncement of the Scottish Minister which created a different system for the setting of fees, we shall challenge the principle and the proposal of differential fees for UK students within the European Community. There is no justification—
344
and, I believe, possibly no legal basis—for treating a student from France, Scotland or Southern Ireland differently from a student living in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.
I move on to consider gap-year students. There has been a considerable lack of understanding of the impact of these proposals on students who take a year out before entering university. There have been a number of changes concerning gap-year students. However, for clarification, can the Minister say whether those students who will have the tuition fee waived in the year 1998-99 will also enjoy the benefit of the present system of maintenance grants?
Local authorities, too, are in a state of flux. I believe that they will continue to means test applicants for loans and grants, although I understand that is in the melting pot. But how are they expected to means test families of overseas applicants? If they are successful in means testing the families of Italian students—something that even the Italian Government have not managed to do over many years—they really will deserve a bouquet.
We shall seek to ensure that all of the income generated by the introduction of fees is dedicated to higher education. If it is not, then the Secretary of State is wrong in his claim that the fee is not a tax. If the money is exclusively generated from higher education students and not dedicated to higher education institutions, it cannot be anything other than a tax on higher education students and their families. When the noble Baroness said that the tuition fees would go direct to the university that each student attends, I believe she was referring to a mere technicality because my understanding is that the money will be clawed back, pound for pound, and then reallocated. It would be helpful to have clarification on that point.
As regards the impact of the new funding system on the public sector borrowing requirement, I was interested to read the Select Committee report on this area of funding. Is there any example of a situation where public money is loaned and collected by a public body, for example the Inland Revenue, which is not counted against PSBR? Under the system that is proposed there will be large cash flow costs to the Exchequer which must impact on the PSBR. Will the Minister tell the House what are the intentions of the Treasury in this matter? Does the Inland Revenue have a system already up and running to deal with a measure that will be in place in a matter of months?
As regards the pay-back arrangements, will there be a point at which the debt owed by a student will be written off over a period, and if so what will that period be? At the moment it is the age of 50, or a period of 25 years, whichever comes first. What size of fund will be created for the £250 additional hardship grant available to students under the new proposals? Who will administer it? Who will determine the level of hardship that will qualify for such grant, and is it new money?
I turn to Clause 23 and the entitlement for 16 and 17 year-olds, and indeed some 18 year-olds, to time off work, with pay, for studies. That is a laudable aim and I agree with everyone who has talked about the desirability of that measure. However, I see this in the

345
context of burdens on business. The right to time off is an entitlement. To give paid time off poses an obligation on an employer irrespective of cost and irrespective of whether a small, medium-sized, or large employer can afford the expense of that. When consulted, employers asked for flexibility but there does not appear to be scope for that in the Bill. This Government are no friend to small and medium-sized businesses. They are imposing many measures—for example, the minimum wage, social chapter provisions, working time directives, paternal leave and maternal leave. I could go on. The cost of this measure was deemed to be derisory—£80 million to £130 million—but one has to add that to the cost of the other measures that employers will have to fund. Frankly, this is another example of a policy where the intention is laudable but the policy is counter productive. Employers will be cautious about employing a 16 or 17 year-old who does not have a government decreed standard of education, as opposed to one who does. We shall oppose the imposition of this further burden on business while helping the Government to look for ways and means to ensure that these young people gain their qualifications.
Like many who voted on 1st May, I am baffled by these policies. In the run up to the election the Government asked the electorate to take them on trust. The Government said that they would not remove single parent allowances, but yesterday they did so. Right in the middle of the election the Prime Minister said that he would not introduce tuition fees. We now have a proposal to introduce tuition fees. The Government wish to widen access but these proposals have produced the reverse effect. The Government have argued for fairness. How can it be fair to hit the students from the lowest income families the hardest? The Government wish to promote greater professionalism for teachers. Yet the Secretary of State has taken many powers of direction over the life of a teacher, not only in this Bill through the general teaching council but also through the Schools Standards and Framework Bill. We shall have a lot of fun when that Bill comes to this House. The Government profess to be friendly to business. Yet Clauses 23 and 24 add another cost and another practical burden on business. This Government are without principles, and, frankly, their policies lack consistency.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she accept that the number of questions she has asked in a Second Reading debate is unacceptable? She has put my noble friend in a quite impossible position by asking up to 50 extremely detailed questions, some at the level of minutiae which the noble Baroness should raise at the Committee stage of the Bill and not at Second Reading. Had I done so when I was principal spokesman on education in Opposition, she would have refused to answer them and would have been very critical.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, having sat on that side of the House, I can say with some feeling that the Front Bench spokesman for the Opposition did it to me every single Second Reading speech. If the noble
346
Baroness has time in between dealing with her red boxes, she can turn up Second Reading speeches and look at the long list of questions.
Secondly, Second Reading speeches are about flagging up our concerns and putting the Government on notice about specific anxieties we have. As a Minister I found it enormously helpful to know what the concerns were so that between Second Reading and the first day of Committee I could do some homework and return better prepared for the first day in Committee.
Thirdly, a large number of my questions were repeated by many noble Lords who have spoken in the House today; many questions were repetitious. I shall not be offended if the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, says at the Dispatch Box that he is sorry he cannot answer all those questions tonight. but that he will read Hansard carefully, and that he and the noble Baroness will come back better prepared at the Committee stage of the Bill.
10.42 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this has been a stimulating debate, witnessed by the fact that we are all still awake. From the discussions we have had there is no doubt that we shall have many late nights on this issue. The House has a good and proud tradition of concern for higher education and for the teaching profession. The proposals in the Bill and the debate today take that tradition further.
First, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Rendell of Babergh on her effective maiden speech. It reminded us what education policy is about. Teenage and adult illiteracy is a stark reminder of the failure of an education system; and there are too many such failures in our society today. It is fitting that the reminder should come from a new Peeress who is herself very literary, very literate and—I was going to say very "literable" but that might rule me out from ever taking part in any education debate—very readable. We welcome her into our midst and welcome that timely reminder of what education is about.
It has been a complex debate. Perhaps I may indicate how I shall deal with the comments. First, there are clearly two areas which raise points of principle for noble Lords: tuition fees and top-up fees. I shall deal with those two issues first, upfront and in some detail, if I may. Then there is the general teaching council on which there seems to be broad consensus about the principle and a lot of anxiety and misunderstanding on the details. I shall deal with that. If I have time I shall deal with the other areas of the legislation in the sequence of the Bill.
On tuition fees, maintenance costs and related matters, we have had a good explanation by my noble friend Lord Davies, and the noble Lord, Lord Walton. They reminded us of how we reached the present position. My noble friend Lady Dean explained the background to the Dearing Report. We are facing up to a situation whereby, unlike the time when some noble Lords were in higher education and were among only 5 per cent. of the population, the age cohort now has 30 per cent. of people in higher education.

347
I was relieved in that I had expected an attack from the Left all the way through this debate but had to wait for my noble friend Lord Peston and the Liberal Bench at the end of the debate to raise anxieties of principle on a front that I was standing ready to deal with. I understand the position that they take. They must be arguing that the system we propose, and proposed by Dearing—given that there is a cash problem within the higher education system as a result of the higher take-up—and the whole question of tuition fees would be better dealt with by higher (as the Liberals would say) or more progressive (as my noble friend Lord Peston would say) taxation.
I understand that argument, and it is possible that I have been sympathetic to it in the past. But that was not the policy on which the Labour Party went into the election. That was quite clear; and it is quite clear that we have to act on the basis of what already exists. What I cannot understand is why my noble friend Lord Peston objects to the changes that we have made to the "dog's breakfast" situation that we inherited, and which in a sense move in his direction. Those changes are income-contingent. The fees will be paid by those who can afford to pay them. It means that the 30 per cent. of people who are in higher education will not be subsidised by the 70 per cent. who are not. And it means that we begin to tackle the problem outlined by my noble friend Lady Kennedy; namely, that under the previous situation the higher subsidies went to the better-off. We are therefore talking about a very progressive system of payment for higher education at a time when we want more and more people to enter that field.
The loans repayment system, as compared with the one we inherited, will mean slower repayments, and will be better geared to the income of graduates. It will also make it more sure—a request that noble Lords have repeatedly made clear—that the money goes to the educational institutions.
I was also slightly surprised that my noble friend Lord Peston advocated the abolition of parental contributions. Providing subsidised loans to cover total living costs would be extremely regressive and would surely be counter to my noble friend's intention. I was also surprised that the Liberals appeared to support that view.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if the Minister does not want to abolish parental contributions, does he propose to introduce compulsion that parents should pay them?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we expect, as has been the case for many years in regard to both grants and loans, that parents should make that contribution.
In deciding to support the Dearing Committee's recommendations—
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend. I take it, then, that my noble friend is saying that 18 year-olds are not adults and are not to be treated as adults for tax purposes, and that we are living in the past. We have discussed this matter. He does not
348
have to answer; I am merely making a little trouble. When we come to the Committee stage we can go into all these matters in some detail. However, I must state my position; namely, my great desire for the Government, of which I am a great supporter, not to be stupid.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, so far as parental contributions are concerned, I understand my noble friend's point. We are maintaining the situation as it is. That is the essence of our policy. However, it is a much more progressive policy. Compared with those who do not obtain qualifications, graduates receive about 20 per cent. more than the equivalent age cohort. So at £24,000 a year, they receive £4,000 more than an equivalent non-graduate. Out of that we are asking people to repay about £100 a month. That does not seem unreasonable.
We have adopted the Dearing Committee's recommendations, with three very important safeguards, which also ought to appeal to my noble friend Lord Peston but which he does not seem entirely to have accepted. Tuition will continue to be free for the one in three dependent students who come from lower income families. His concern about the marginal student is addressed directly and explicitly in that area. Moreover, while some full-time students will pay up to £1,000 a year. no family will have to pay a higher up-front bill than under the present arrangements; and there will certainly be no increase above the rate of inflation.
Our proposals will mean more money for universities. We have made clear that the savings will go to universities—
Baroness Blatch: All of them? My Lords, I apologise profusely for having spoken from a sedentary position, but the noble Lord said something important. We have all been very concerned about this point. Will the money, pound for pound, that is collected through tuition fees be returned to the home university of the student?
Lord Whitty: Yes. We have already made the commitment in the £165 million we have ploughed back into university education.
My Lords, concerns were expressed by the noble Lord. Lord Tope, the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and others about the administration of the system. We are currently considering the Dearing Committee's recommendations for a student support agency and we expect to make an announcement shortly. We have to weigh the potential gains in terms of efficiency and simplicity against the benefits of building on the existing systems and the expertise within local authorities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, raised questions regarding the application rate by students in the light of the slightly misleading publicity about the changes. It is as yet too early to make an overall assessment of the effect. If there has been a reduction in applications, it follows an upward blip last year in applications for entry into

349
college this year which resulted from some earlier miscommunication of what was intended. The two will cancel each other out, in our opinion.
The noble Baroness asked about the student loans Bill. I need to clarify this point because the noble Lord, Lord Tope, raised it at an earlier stage. The student loans Bill will amend the current student loans legislation—that is, the 1990 Act—to allow the existing student loan debt to be sold to the private sector. Loans to students who entered the higher education system before 1998 will continue to be made under the existing legislation, including the new Bill. That means that the 1990 Act, together with the 1997 Bill which we debated last week, will remain on the statute book for the purposes of those students who are already in the system for at least another five or six years.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for trying to clarify this point. My recollection is that the effect of the final words in the Bill before us tonight is to repeal the whole of what will become the student loans Act 1997. I understood the Minister to say just now that it would be effective for another five years. We have recognised tonight that the process of the Bill will take some time, but I suggest that we might have finished it within five years.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as will become clear as we debate the Bill and other Bills, there will be saving provisions which will maintain in force the provisions relating to students already within the system.
I was asked a number of detailed questions on the position with regard to student loans. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked whether the Government accept the Dearing recommendations about disabled students. The Government have announced that disabled students' allowances will continue as grants and that from 1998-99 they will not be means tested. We are currently considering a recommendation that these allowances should be extended to other areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, asked about self-financing systems, particularly for veterinary students. We have no intention of using the powers to control the levels for students for whom no public financial support will be available.
I was asked about medical and dental students. The NHS will continue to provide income-related bursaries for living costs and we shall meet students' tuition fees and contributions for periods in excess of four years.
A number of concerns have been expressed which are perhaps better addressed during the course of the Committee stage of the Bill. I emphasise that the move in relation to tuition fees will provide a system whereby we shall have a progressive means of paying for those fees and which will ensure that the least well-off families will benefit from it and that the money thereby saved will come back to higher education. I believe that that deserves the support of the whole House.
I come on to another area of principle which relates to top-up fees—Clause 18 of the Bill. Many noble Lords. with varying degrees of passion, argued against the inclusion in this Bill of a power for the Secretary of
350
State to control top-up fees. An allegation was made that my noble friend Lady Blackstone had previously opposed them herself. She assures me that, even when in a previous capacity, she always opposed the principle of top-up fees.
The reserve power that we require in this Bill to control top-up fees is a power we hope we never have to use; but we need to have it in reserve. We are not seeking a power to set university and college fee levels. We are seeking a reserve power to require. as a condition of public grant, that universities and colleges limit the fees that they charge to students. This is in no way a clause that attacks academic freedom in any meaningful use of that word. Universities will remain responsible for deciding the courses; they will retain their essential freedom to decide which students to admit, which staff to appoint and what to teach students.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister understand that it is not possible to decide the content of the course if one has no say in the cost?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the question is whether Parliament has the right to impose conditions on the public purse's grant to an academic institution. If that is regarded as an abuse of academic freedom, then I do not understand the use of the word.
I must proceed. I have taken many interventions and I need to proceed. I do not believe that academic freedom is the issue under Clause 18. But I need to reiterate why we oppose top-up fees. We have to introduce this clause because home full-time undergraduates need reassurance. They and their parents need assurance that tuition will continue to be free for students from low income families, and that tuition fees for students from middle income families will be kept at an affordable level. They need an assurance that parents are not expected to contribute more than at present. Above all, they need to be sure that both entry and choice of higher education will be on the basis of academic merit and not on the ability to pay.
Our view on that matter was set out well before the general election. In our document on lifelong learning we made clear our views that, while top-up tuition fees for students would represent an immediate source of income to institutions to offset their problems, the introduction of such fees at the point of access would be an unfair and unsustainable solution. We stick with that view. It is not in any sense an attempt to undermine university autonomy. We respect universities' autonomy and do not intend to attack academic freedom.
Perhaps I can speak briefly about the resources that arise from this. The Government need to be able, if necessary, to control the top-up fees that universities may consider charging. Principally, we are referring to home, full-time undergraduates and postgraduate certificate of education students. It is not in any sense our purpose to control fees generally for part-time students, for postgraduate students, for board and lodging charges or for overseas students to whom we have given no direct financial support.

351
I repeat my noble friend's words. Officials have discussed the scope of this clause with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and we have taken a close look at the current drafting. We are prepared to try to clarify this through an appropriate amendment at Committee stage to ensure that safeguards are built in and that our intentions are clear. I hope your Lordships will accept that commitment. We will look at it again at Committee stage.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, before the Minister leaves the question of fees, will he just answer one question? He said several times this evening in reply to other questions that he is giving guarantees that the money raised from fees generally will be fed back to the system of higher education. Does that mean specifically that if, say, Hull University raised £100,000 in tuition fees, that Hull University will receive £100,000 back?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in effect it means precisely that.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, if that is the case, would it not be sensible to leave the fees with the universities and colleges that collect them?
11 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I wonder whether I may crave your Lordships' indulgence not to have repeated interventions from one speaker at this stage. It is extremely late.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on a point of order, the duty Whip of the day, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, is certainly within her rights to appeal to us to finish early or to curtail the points we have to make. But I want to say that this day has been put aside for a very, very important Bill. There are no rules on Second Reading. As long as we have queries on Second Reading, we can come back with questions to the Minister. It is not a convention of the House that points of clarification are refused.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this is a very long point of order from the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do have a right to make a point of order. Therefore, I do not know what new rule has been brought into play by the duty Whip to curtail points of clarification.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, clearly, if it is in order for noble Lords to raise questions, or to attempt to raise questions, it is also in order and in the tradition of the House for me not to give way. I have given way on a large number of questions so far. I do not intend to give way further on any points or questions.
The noble Earl, Lord Limerick, was suspicious that universities would not get back the fees which they receive from local authorities. The Government will take account of this, along with the needs of the higher
352
education sector and of course wider public expenditure considerations, in deciding the level of grant in the Higher Education Funding Council. We have made clear that the savings from the introduction of tuition fees will be used to improve quality, standards and opportunity for all in higher and further education. We have honoured that pledge by announcing an extra £165 million for higher education in 1998.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, raised the question of part-time students. I regret that we are in the situation where the Dearing Committee concluded that extending loans to part-time students should not be a priority, particularly as a high proportion of part-time students are in employment and therefore able to support themselves.
On further education, I welcome the recent appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, as chairman of the FEFC. The Government have also welcomed the publication earlier this year of the Kennedy Report, Learning Works, from my noble friend Lady Kennedy. Further education makes a vital contribution to the education and training of people of all ages and to the Government's objective of life-long learning. We are committed to supporting and strengthening the work of the FE sector.
Having dealt with top-up fees, I can now go on to the general teaching council. Questions were asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, and others. It was welcomed, I note, by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, although in slightly less ringing tones by the noble Lords, Lord Baker and Lord Pilkington. I believe there is a general consensus in the House that the general teaching council should go ahead. It will bring together and reflect the interests of all of those who have a stake in ensuring the highest possible standard of teaching. It will include parents and employers. The teacher voice will be central but it will not in any sense be a super union or simply a talking shop or a body to defend the way things are. We are pleased that the teaching unions have generally welcomed our proposal to establish a GTC and we will want to work with all those who are interested in higher standards in education.
Questions were asked about the initial functions and the fact that there is no detail in some of the areas of the GTC. It is a deliberate part of our policy that we should establish the GTC first, with powers and duties which it can immediately undertake. The provisions we have put forward are therefore the initial core functions. When it is established—probably in the year 2000—we intend that the Teacher Training Agency, which will clearly have to have a relationship with the GTC, will retain its existing statutory functions and continue to pursue the major new remit we have recently set for it. We expect the TTA and the council to develop a strong partnership. Clause 5 allows the addition of further functions to the GTC related to those on the face of the Bill.
In response to various questions about this, further extension of the GTC's powers would require further primary legislation. We would not rule that out for the future, should it be justified. It could further reinforce

353
and underpin the major role that we see for the council. But let us now focus on getting it off the ground, working on a step-by-step basis to increase its role and authority.
As regards the composition of the council, we intend to consult widely with all elements of education. It is vital that we get it right so that the GTC does indeed command respect within the profession and beyond. It is too important an issue to be rushed. There will of course be detailed proposals on the composition put before this House. It is likely to be a combination of direct elections, nomination by major representative bodies and appointments made direct by the Secretary of State.
I was asked about the register. The GTC should be for all teachers who are employed in the maintained sector. That is how other professional associations operate. Teachers who have qualified status will be able to register with the GTC as long as they have not been barred from the profession and they have paid their registration fee.
I was asked about the powers of the GTC in barring teachers. The Bill provides that it should advise on barring teachers it considers are not up to standard, but Ministers will retain the final decision. It is important to retain the best features of a system which currently works well. It is true that other professional bodies have such powers, but they have generally been introduced as regards the regulation of a profession where none has existed before. The GTC faces a different task and we need to consider whether it would improve on the existing system. It may be possible to review this area once the GTC has established itself.
I was asked about the separate provisions relating to Wales. Because there is no effective operation of a GTC in Wales and the need to provide for the role of the Welsh assembly, which will be free to set regulations, the situation in Wales will be somewhat different and therefore the powers of the GTC provided for in this Bill are different for Wales from those for England. I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, when the regulations will be available. We intend to consult widely on them and only then will we see them.
I need also to respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, about a college of teachers. I believe that the noble Lord will be aware that my honourable friend Stephen Byers met with the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote. He indicated the Government's general view on the subject. The Government would not stand in the way of teachers establishing such a voluntary membership body, which will be funded primarily by subscriptions. We want to support any initiative which advances the professionalism of teachers.
For now it is important to focus on the setting up of a general teaching council and define what its role and responsibilities would be. So we can offer only a qualified endorsement of the proposal to establish a college of teachers and we must be careful not to create confusion.
Partly because of the interruptions I have little time to deal with the other elements of the Bill. As regards the mandatory headship qualification, Clause 12,
354
I believe that that has received a general welcome in this House. There were a number of queries from the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, and others. Clearly, we need to assess the success so far of the national professional qualification for headship and base the qualifications on that. At this stage it is difficult to predict what time scale will be required for the acquisition of candidates for headship. It is mandatory to have that qualification. We shall be moving as rapidly as we can to that situation. We are not, however, intending to extend the mandatory qualification to serving heads.
There are questions of release, of paying for it, and the effect on the recruitment of head teachers which we shall have to take very carefully into account. As regards inductions, the introduction of an effective period was generally welcomed in this House. It will need to be operated somewhat differently and have a greater support system than the old probationary period to which the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, referred.
Some anxieties have been expressed about Clauses 14 and 15 on the right of inspection of teacher training facilities, but there was general understanding of the reasons we need that. The previous government had already provided inspection by statutory means by Ofsted and teacher training provisions. However, there have been a number of problems and we are seeking to guarantee through primary legislation the necessary access at reasonable times for inspectors to do their job. We recognise that there are sensitivities and anxieties, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out. There is already a complaints procedure, but we shall study those concerns carefully to see whether we can do anything else to reassure the institutions affected.
I turn finally to the time off for study provisions. It has to be right to invest in all our young people and, in general, in principle, that has received positive endorsement from the Chamber. Interpretation of the new entitlement will be both sensible and flexible. In particular, we have made it clear that the phrase "time off which is required to enable young people to access the new right" does not necessarily mean time away from the workplace. The Bill does not afford greater status to any particular route. We can reassure the CBI and others on that point.
Turning to the concerns of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, the right to study is for a relevant qualification. That means that the quality of study at the workplace will be ensured by the new employment right. We shall continue to consult with the CBI and others to build on what is already happening and to ensure that the right is turned into a reality. This is an important and impressive part of the Bill. Far too many of our young people leave school at 16 and 17. It is bad for them, for the economy and for society. If the Bill did nothing else, that alone would be a major legislative achievement of which we could be proud.
I regret that due both to my own fault and to the many interventions this reply has been slightly disjointed. However, I hope that I have managed to cover most of the points raised. I apologise if I have not fully covered some points. I shall read noble Lords' contributions in

355
Hansard to see whether it would be sensible to give them a written answer. We shall have another opportunity to consider such points in Committee.
In conclusion, the Bill aims to enhance the standing of the teaching profession; to secure fair funding in higher education; to provide new hope for unqualified young workers and to reform student support. It delivers key pledges made by the Government in opposition and in power. I commend the Bill to your Lordships for a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Burma and Sudan
11.12 p.m.
Baroness Coxrose to ask Her Majesty's Government how their commitment to a foreign policy based on human rights is being implemented in Burma and Sudan.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, through an oversight the name of my noble friend Lord Moynihan is missing from the list of speakers. As I understand that he will sum up for the Opposition, and as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has withdrawn his name, I ask the indulgence of the House to allow my noble friend to speak for eight minutes in the gap.
I am most grateful to all noble Lords who are to speak this evening, and especially to those who spoke on Sudan last week. I apologise if this follow-on debate coming so quickly has caused some confusion. I tabled my Unstarred Question before that debate appeared on the Order Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNair. I was unable to participate last week as I had longstanding commitments with the Ministers of education and health from the Russian Federation.
I begin by commending Her Majesty's Government for their principled commitment to develop a foreign policy based on human rights and by the position already adopted with regard to both Burma and Sudan. I wish this evening to provide more first-hand evidence of violations of human rights by the National Islamic Front (NIF) regime in Sudan and the State Peace & Development Council (SPDC) in Burma.
My evidence on Sudan is based on first-hand experience of 15 visits, including five this year, to many different areas in southern Sudan; the Nuba Mountains, southern Blue Nile and eastern Upper Nile; and eastern Sudan between Kassala and the Red Sea. The areas we visit are those designated "no go" areas by the NIF, where the people, cut off from the United Nations and its organisations, and from the ICRC are bereft of aid and advocacy. I suggest that if the noble Lord, Lord McNair, were to visit these areas, he might come to rather different conclusions from those derived from visiting Sudan as a guest of the NIF.
The NIF totalitarian military regime seized power by force in 1989 and has declared a jihad against those who oppose it—Christians, Moslems and animists—and are fighting for fundamental human rights. Many Arab
356
Moslems from the north, the majority of whom belong to opposition parties represented in the previously democratically elected government, have suffered arbitrary arrest, imprisonment, torture, extra-judicial killings and other forms of repression. For example, on 3rd April the NIF disrupted the 29th memorial festival of Al-Sayid Ali Al-Merghani, blocking access to the celebration and using tear gas. Many people were imprisoned.
In other parts of Sudan the NIF's violations of human rights can be summarised under four headings: military offensives against civilians; the displacement of over 5 million people from their homelands; the enslavement of tens of thousands of black Africans; and the forced conscription of thousands of boys and young men into the government army. The NIF is waging a ferocious war against its own people in southern Sudan, the Nuba Mountains, southern Blue Nile and eastern Sudan. It has received massive financial assistance from other regimes which support terrorism. For example. there have been recent reports of donations from Iran to purchase tanks, MiG fighters and chemical weapons. There are reports of bases being established for the manufacture of chemical weapons inside Sudan.
The Government deny that they bomb civilians, but I have spent hours in foxholes during the aerial bombardment of innocent civilians that have inflicted death and injury, terrorising them and driving them from their homes into the bush, desert or mountains where they have to scavenge for food with no access to water. They suffer from cold and have no shelter, clothes, blankets or mosquito nets. Earlier this year we were in the Nuba mountains. The Government continue to destroy villages as part of their publicly-declared jihad. Offensives by ground forces are accompanied by aerial attacks by low-flying helicopter gunships which hunt and mow down women and children. We met local Moslem and Christian leaders who described attacks on their villages, such as the one on Regife on 1st March when two elderly men were burnt in their huts, 370 homes were burnt, cows, pigs and poultry killed or stolen and all crops burnt. Over 4,000 people had to flee to the bush suffering severe hunger and cold. The enemy used two helicopter gunships on that occasion, killing and wounding civilians. Three churches were destroyed.
In other parts of Sudan many thousands of people have been driven from their homes. Many have to flee to government garrisons or so-called peace camps in order to try to survive. Christians are compelled to adopt Moslem names and practices to receive food and medicine. When we visited Bahr-El-Ghazal in May 1995 we discovered widespread slavery. For example, on 25th March Popular Defence Forces (PDF) attacked the town of Nyamlell killing 82 civilians, enslaving 282 women and children, burning dwellings and looting cattle and grain. We returned seven times and visited many other locations to obtain evidence of slavery. We have interviewed former slaves, slave traders and the families of people who are still enslaved. We have also interviewed PDF officers. We have taken independent journalists, including NBC Dateline, and accumulated an abundance of evidence to prove beyond doubt that chattel slavery is widespread and encouraged by the

357
NIF regime. The UN rapporteur for human rights in Sudan, Dr. Gasper Biro, has come to the same conclusion. We estimate that there are tens of thousands of slaves in Sudan.
Christian Solidarity International (CSI) therefore developed a two-pronged strategy to try to reduce slavery. The first prong is Arab-Dinka reconciliation. We arranged a visit to the region by the Moslem religious leader Mubarak El Fadil El Mandi and other prominent Arab leaders to meet local Arab leaders and persuade them to advise their people that this is not a jihad and it is in their interests to live in peace with the African Dinkas. Consequently, last dry season there were far fewer slave raids in that area.
We also discovered the possibility of redeeming slaves and reuniting them with their families for the price of two to three cows per slave. Since October 1995 CSI and other organisations have given enough resources to free over 700 slaves, and we have seen many happy family reunions. But the NIF has also pursued a policy of abduction and forced conscription of boys and young men into the government army, where they are compelled to fight against their own people. Those conscripts are usually put in the front line where they are among the first to die. It is estimated that many thousands have suffered this fate. There are no happy family reunions for them.
I turn briefly to Burma, where the SPDC regime continues to violate the human rights of many of its people, repressing political dissent and carrying out ethnic cleansing of minorities such as the Karen and Kerenni. The repression of courageous leaders such as Aung San Suu Kyi is well known and widely condemned. Less well known are the government's military offensives against the Karen, which have driven them off almost all their remaining territory in eastern Burma. They are not even safe across the border in Thailand, where they are subjected to bombardment and ground attacks.
In Karenni state, SPDC troops have almost completely accomplished ethnic cleansing. Villagers have been forced to go to relocation camps. Some who have escaped have described conditions there as lethal: food inadequate, contaminated and possibly poisoned. Death rates are high and no foreign aid organisations are allowed to bring medicine. Their homes are mined, so return to the villages is impossible. Those who escape are killed on sight.
Karen and Karenni who are caught by SPDC troops suffer torture, slave labour and use as human minesweepers. Just two weeks ago I received a letter from one of my Karen friends. She wrote:
"I stayed at my village until we had to evacuate in a hurry because of a SPDC attack in that area … As I was the biggest person at home at that time I had to piggy back my paralysed grandfather for three days, from place to place, until we were able to cross to Thailand … As I write this letter it is the end of the monsoon season and with this comes fear of attacks on our camps. Everyone is afraid".
I wish to ask the Minister three questions which relate to both Sudan and Burma, and one which is specific to Burma. May I first say how encouraged I was by her reply to the debate on Sudan last week. First, will the Government consider further measures to alleviate the
358
suffering of civilians in Sudan and Burma. For example, will they press for open access by aid organisations to all areas of Sudan and Burma to ensure that life-saving supplies can reach all those who are denied them?
Secondly, until such time as those regimes allow access to all areas by aid agencies, will the Government consider more favourably giving resources to organisations such as CSI—I must declare an interest—which are prepared to reach people cut off from all other aid? Otherwise, many more thousands will suffer and die in the months ahead.
Thirdly, will the Government consider following the example of the USA in increasing economic pressure, trying to develop more initiatives for arms embargoes, and investigating allegations concerning chemical weapons?
Finally, with regard to Burma, will the Government raise the plight of the displaced Karen and Karenni with the Thai Government? While the Thai Government's willingness to provide camps is appreciated, there is concern over inadequate security for those camps, and a fear of forced repatriation.
I know that this debate will bring immense comfort to those people who are suffering so much. Whenever we have the privilege of visiting them, they always say that the fact that they know that they are not forgotten gives them the strength to continue to struggle to survive. I shall ensure that the Hansard report of this debate will reach them in the bush, the desert and the jungle. I know that they will derive great comfort from the assurance that they are not forgotten in this time of tribulation.
11.23 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble Baroness is to be warmly congratulated on and admired for her consistent perseverance and determination in the matters that she brings before us tonight. I hope that it will be a little earlier on another occasion, but of one thing I am sure—we shall hear a great deal more from her on this subject. I believe that her persistence is beginning to make some impact. I hope that I am right in thinking that.
I shall speak only about Burma, of which I have some background experience and knowledge. I have affection for its peoples. I knew and admired Aung San. I have been shaken to discover that his daughter, Suu Kyi, whom I met when she was a delightful child, is being treated by fascist militarists of her own nationality with the same hostility as they applied to her equally brilliant father.
Aung San was murdered by his political opponents immediately after he and his anti-fascist Peoples Freedom League had been democratically and overwhelmingly elected to office. As Colonel Donnison, who probably knew Burma better than any other Englishman, wrote in his book:
"Aung San and seven of the best and most dependable of his colleagues were dead, a loss from which Burma has not yet recovered, and from which it is probable that she never will recover".

359
That was written in 1970, and I believe that the arrival of his own daughter on the scene means that Burma now has the possibility of recovering the democratic process. Indeed, it did recover it, but for a second time it was swept from them by military action. Of course, in 1970 Donnison was not to know that a person such as Suu Kyi would come along and that she, too, would be elected and deprived of office, this time, thank heavens, by military force short of murder but nonetheless disastrous for Burma and its people.
In the interim, Suu Kyi wrote a book entitled Freedom from Fear. It is one of the most remarkable I have read and I commend it to your Lordships. It is written with what is in the circumstances astounding objectivity and an absence of rancour which is remarkable. I was considerably impressed by Aung San and on this evidence I am no less impressed by his daughter. It is a tragedy that the world does not rush to the assistance of this brave woman.
Clement Attlee was perhaps the British Prime Minister who most clearly recognised the obligations to Burma of the departing imperial power. Let us hope that we have another Attlee. The new Government have not been short of sympathetic words, but there has been relatively little action. I am hoping that tonight my noble friend will tell us that the Government have plans for bringing further pressure to bear on the existing regime in Burma. The Government's support for trade with Burma has certainly been stopped, but trade continues without hindrance, let alone sanctions. Tourism halted for a while, but I understand that it is now resuming.
I wished to ask my noble friend to take certain action, but I cannot remember what it was. I am sorry to keep your Lordships waiting, but my papers are mixed up. I appear irrevocably to have lost them, but I remember what I wanted to ask my noble friend and I shall turn to that in a moment. Old age appears to have crept up on me.
I have offered no explanation of how, in 1945, a then obscure flight lieutenant in the Royal Air Force came to be so deeply involved in the affairs of Burma at the highest level so that on demobilisation I made it my business to see the Prime Minister and confirm my friendship with Aung San in the Dorchester when he led the delegation which came here to negotiate the successful Attlee/Aung San agreement. Anyone who would like to have a little further information on the background may wish to know that I have an article in the current issue of the New Humanist, a quarterly publication, which is available in the Library.
As it is so late and I have apparently lost a page of my notes, I shall not delay the House further this evening except to say that this debate is important for the reasons which I have given and for further reasons which your Lordships may read about in that magazine in the Library. In my opinion, it is one of the most important guarantees that a government can give that they make themselves truly responsible for the welfare of people who have been within their influence, to make sure that they too share the kind of life which we ourselves are privileged to enjoy.
11.32 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, it is entirely in keeping with the dauntless character of my noble friend Lady Cox that we should be addressing not one but two nearly intractable human problems—the Sudan and Burma—in one debate tonight. Because I still remember the great debt that we owe to the brave Karen people of Burma who fought the Japanese with us, I shall concentrate on Burma. Nevertheless, I wish to say unequivocally, having read the interesting debate on the Sudan initiated by the noble Lord, Lord McNair, on 1st December, that I continue to believe, with confirmation from the UN, that there is indeed widespread slavery and oppression in the south in areas which CSI has visited many times. Those were closed areas to which the noble Lord's official guides from the Sudanese Government in Khartoum obviously did not take him. Moreover, I am not surprised that he remained unaware of the true number of prisoners of the regime. I suggest that there is little to choose in inhumanity between the hostage taking which he admits and slavery.
If I am to judge by the wise speech of the Minister in that debate, I believe that the Government are right to view "the April Agreement with interest" but to remain unconvinced. Given the past experience of sanctions as they were tried in, for example, the long struggle with the South African regime, I do not believe that sanctions, which in any event are frequently broken, are effective alone in changing the minds of an authoritarian regime which acts by dogma. But they have a moral effect which should not be underrated. They send a message to the oppressed that they are not forgotten and the ANC in South Africa supported them for that reason.
In the Sudan, I believe that we should always be ready to talk but we should not be prepared to accept at face value formulae and "peace agreements" which are not acceptable to those most concerned. We should be doing all we can to secure access for UN human rights monitors so that the truth can be widely known and for aid to be administered by the NGOs and not the Khartoum government. We have a particular standing because the contingent countries, Uganda and Kenya, are members of the Commonwealth and not least because we are dealing in Khartoum with a government who, there is good reason to believe, are allowing Iraq to make chemical weapons on their territory. They have some way to go to convince the world, especially neighbouring Egypt, that they are a benevolent regime.
Very similar problems arise in the case of Myanmar or, as we have known it, Burma. The ruling group recently changed its title but not its spots. So I shall continue to call it SLORC. We, the European Union, and the Americans, have moved over the past few years from attempting to convince the regime that it made sense to allow democratic political development and to pursue a programme of opening up to economic development. We have moved to the imposition of economic sanctions. Since 20th May this year new US investment is forbidden. On 24th April the EU removed Burma from the generalised list of references—GDS—and our own Foreign Secretary announced that Burma would be excluded from the Asia-Europe (ASEM)

361
summit in London in April as part of the EU's policy of sanctions and because of Burma's record of extensive drug trafficking.
However, the ASEAN powers' decision to admit Burma with Laos and Cambodia to ASEAN, growing Thai-Burmese economic co-operation, the statement of Dr. Mahathir, the Malaysian Prime Minister, that discrimination against Burma is discrimination against ASEAN, together with the long-standing links between Ne Win and the Indonesian leader, all go far to ensure that Burma will not feel particularly threatened. Further, Burma is joining the Bangladesh-India-Sri Lanka-Thailand economic co-operation unit, Bist-ec. We have to accept the harsh fact that the Asian countries, like China, resent the West's efforts, as they see it, to impose alien ideas of humanitarian rights upon them.
So what can we do? Here is a country which has signed up to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child but which presses children into the army, and a country which relocates whole Karen and Shan populations. In central Shan state since March 1966 over 100,000 people from 600 villages were moved into 45 relocation sites where they found neither shelter, food nor medicines but were pressed into forced labour and left to live on roots and leaves. In a further relocation drive, 12,500 were moved in March this year.
Because my noble friend Lady Cox has told us so much about the sufferings of the people, I shall concentrate on what might be done to help them. I suggest that HMG could start by making the strongest representations both to the Thai Government and to the UNHCR to end the absurd system under which the latter has no presence on Thailand's borders but has to require those fleeing persecution in Burma to make their way to Bangkok where the UNHCR conducts its screening procedures. Most fear, with some justice, that they will be arrested and returned to the border before they ever reach Bangkok to attempt to establish refugee status determination.
We should advocate a strong UNHCR presence at the border and protection for the camps from attacks by SLORC forces. Thailand does not, I believe, impose such restrictions on UNHCR at the Cambodia and Laos borders and it is painfully clear that growing Thai-Burmese common economic interests may account for the fact that a refoulement and "voluntary repatriation" have for some time been the order of the day, especially for the Shan. Refugee camps are now designated as temporary shelters, and the shelter provided is deliberately temporary: it will not survive a rainy season.
In May this year 430 Shan were escorted to the border by Thai troops and "repatriated" to Burma as they were no longer categorised as "fleeing fighting". It is of course a considerable burden on Thailand to receive such large numbers of refugees, but what is the UNHCR doing? It should insist upon being free to carry out its mandate of care at the point of entry and to prevent or, at the very least, most strongly denounce forced repatriation — refoulement! By March this year the UNHCR director for Asia and the Pacific had not visited
362
the new camps on the border. The UN is trying. under the new Secretary General, to order its affairs better. I urge the Minister to take up in New York the recommendation made in the UN's own programme for reform issued in July this year: first, to achieve greater co-ordination and oversight in the development assistance area; and, secondly. to "institute a major restructure of secretariat machinery responsible for co-ordinating humanitarian assistance". What the UNHCR is doing, or rather not doing, in Thailand for a whole population fleeing from Burma should be at the top of the agenda. I believe that this Government have the will and the commitment to put it there.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, on a point of order, may I ask your Lordships to extend to me a special privilege permitting me, as I have recovered my note, to complete my speech, which I can do in one minute if your Lordships will allow me to do so? 1 know this is out of order, but I ask you to grant me this special privilege.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was not aware of my noble friend's earlier difficulty but he really ought to write to the Minister on any additional points.
11.40 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I, too, rise to support the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and to express great admiration for her courage. I have not been to either Sudan or Burma. I was due to go to Sudan this time last year as the leader of a human rights reporting mission for the International Commission of Jurists, a highly respected international body of lawyers and judges. The International Commission of Jurists had been trying for some years to get permission from the Sudanese Government to send a mission, and we eventually obtained that permission. Less than a week before we were due to go out, and after two members of the mission had already arrived in Cairo to interview Sudanese exiles, that permission was withdrawn. Therefore I cannot speak from personal knowledge.
I have, however, among other things, seen recently the comments on Sudan of the United Nations Human Rights Committee. That is a body established under the international covenant on civil and political rights, to which Sudan is a party. Member states are required to submit periodic reports to the Human Rights Committee and the committee publishes its comments on those reports. On 7th November the committee published its comments on the report of Sudan. Those comments are devastating.
Among the principal subjects of concern that it listed were, first, the imposition of the death penalty for offences such as apostasy, illicit sex, embezzlement, robbery, and a third conviction for a homosexual act. Apostasy—perhaps one could describe it as a right to change one's religion—is of course not only not a crime but a recognised human right.
A second subject of concern is the recognition of flogging, amputation and stoning as penalties for criminal offences. Recently 37 women were flogged for demonstrating outside the house of the United Nations

363
representative. Thirdly, the committee referred to female genital mutilation, described by the Human Rights Committee as a cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment which is in violation of the covenant. It is widely practised, and not a criminal offence, in Sudan. Fourthly, the marriage of a woman is prohibited, even if of full age, without the consent of her guardian—a prohibition which can only be overridden by a court. Fifthly, there is the absence of a legal minimum age for marriage.
Sixthly, there are many reports from the United Nations and NGO sources of extra-judicial executions, torture, slavery, disappearances and abductions. We have heard the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, speak of those matters. Seventhly, the vague and legally undefined concept of national security is used as a basis for arrest and detention without any specific charge. Eighthly, there is a power to detain persons for excessively long periods before trial.
Ninthly. there is the arbitrary refusal of the freedom to leave Sudan, and in particular an arbitrary requirement for a woman to show that she has the consent of a male relative before she does so. Tenthly, there are inadequate prison conditions and the existence of "ghost house" detention centres; that is, secret prisons where neither the existence of the prisons nor the identity of the inmates is revealed. Eleventhly, there is a system of media licensing which jeopardises freedom of expression. Twelfthly, there is the absence of a right to use local languages for official purposes. Thirteenthly, religious minorities are adversely affected by a range of discretionary administrative acts, such as the destruction of schools on allegedly town planning grounds. Fourteenthly, the judges are not independent, not selected on the basis of legal qualifications, and are subject to pressure from the Government. Very few judges at any level are either women or non-Moslems. Fifteenthly, there are the strict dress requirements for women in public places, with inhuman punishments being imposed for breach of those regulations. Sixteenthly, there are documentated cases of official action which interferes with the rights of non-Moslem religious denominations to practise their religions.
Those are the comments of the highly respected United Nations Human Rights Committee.
I shall not go into detail on Burma. It has been covered by other noble Lords. But the situation there is at least equally bad on human rights. As we have heard, there is extensive forced labour, the suppression of political opposition, the repression of ethnic minorities and the control of the Government by armed forces.
Sudan and Burma may not be the very worst countries of the world in terms of violations of human rights. They rank perhaps marginally above Iraq, Afghanistan and countries such as Somalia where law and order have completely broken down, but that is the best that can be said for them. If Her Majesty's Government mean what they say about a commitment to foreign policy based on human rights, they must do nothing to maintain support for the existing regimes in either country. They must indeed do all they can by all means short of military force to support the democratic elements which exist in
364
both those countries. That means of course no arms, no commercial deals, no investment and no aid except where it can be routed through a non-governmental organisation operating independently of the Government. I wait with interest and hope to hear the reply of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean.
11.47 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, when we debated the issue on 1st December, I welcomed the interest of the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Bradford, who made his maiden speech. However, during the course of his remarks, he said that the situation in the Sudan is most certainly not a war between Christians and Moslems as there are people of each faith fighting on both sides. He said that it was a longstanding and complex conflict. It may well be longstanding and complex, but I believe that if our Christian brothers and sisters in other countries are in need of our help it is our duty to speak out. In all my reading and gathering of material about the Sudan, I have yet to come across any examples of Moslems or other religious faiths being forced by Christians to convert. I think that we gain a rather one-sided view of matters at times.
I wish to take a few examples from the report—I referred to it previously—of the US State Department on religious freedom, with particular reference to Christianity. In introducing the issue, John Shattuck, the Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor said:
"The issue of persecution is a serious one, affecting many religions. The issue has not previously received much attention with respect to Christians".
The report goes on to say that the United States believes in religious freedom for all faiths. It then gives much detail about conditions in different parts of the world. I shall not say too much about the conditions in the Sudan. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, whose work we all admire and support so far as we can, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, with his detailed exposition of the United Nations Human Rights issue.
The report deals with the current situation in the Sudan. The American study states that,
"in practice the Sudanese Government treats Islam as the de facto state religion. Forced conversion to Islam of Christians, animists. and other non-Muslims takes place as part of government policy".
It goes on to talk about the civil war between the largely Islamic north and the largely animist and Christian south claiming more than a million lives, and states that,
"In war zones, government efforts to restrict religious freedom are particularly heavy-handed—churches are closed or permission to build them is denied, clergy arc harassed, and members of indigenous faiths are persecuted".
The United States is taking action against the Sudan in terms of sanctions and also reduced diplomatic presence. We look forward to the Minister's reply to see whether the Government can strengthen those measures.

365
So far as Burma is concerned, the United States report deals with the current situation and states:
"The Government imposes several severe restrictions on fundamental freedoms. Adherents of all religions … are duly registered with the authorities…However…publications remain subject to control and censorship. Christian Bibles translated into indigenous languages cannot legally be imported or printed. It remains extremely difficult for Christian and Muslim groups to obtain permission to build new churches and mosques".
So Moslems are persecuted and restricted in the same way as Christians are in Burma. We have to try to broaden the issue in order to have as much tolerance of all faiths as we possibly can.
The report goes on to state that both the Moslem and the Christian minorities are regarded with suspicion by the authorities, and goes into detail as to how the situation deteriorated significantly last year and how the United States is imposing very much stiffer conditions on Burma than previously in order to try to show the level of its disapproval at the neglect of basic rights. That applies in the diplomatic field particularly, as well as the economic field.
The last time that I addressed the House on this subject I mentioned the visit of Colonel John Garang to President Mubarak of Egypt and said that that was a promising development. Only yesterday the visit took place of the Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright to East Africa, and she met the Sudanese leader, Colonel John Garang, in Uganda on Wednesday. I believe the meeting took place in Kampala. That was a major show of approval by the Secretary for the Sudanese opposition. She urged Colonel Garang to bury the differences which exist between the liberation SPLA and other groups and to form credible governments. The report of the meeting goes on to state:
"Albright's meeting with Garang and five other representatives of the National Democratic Alliance umbrella group was Washington's highest level contact so far with Sudan's opposition".
Madeleine Albright had said earlier that she had met the Ugandan President Museveni and they had agreed how their two countries, the United States and Uganda, were very deeply concerned about the situation in the Sudan. Finally, she said that members of the National Democratic Alliance must not only oppose the Khartoum regime but also try to lay the groundwork for a new Sudan in which people of all faiths and cultures can focus on rebuilding their country.
That is a feeling which all of us share. We all have to try in our small ways to press forward to achieve much greater religious tolerance and understanding throughout the world wherever it is necessary. If we can achieve a groundswell of feeling like that, then a number of these apparently intransigent situations could well start to lessen and be relieved.
11.55 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving us yet another opportunity to debate the situation in the Sudan, which will be the subject of my remarks. I should certainly consider visiting some of the areas that she suggested, and look forward to hearing about that.
Debate is the theme of much of what I want to say.
366
I was pleased to hear the Minister say, on the previous occasion that we debated this subject, that there were two sides to the issue. At least, that is what I thought she said. However, when I looked in the Official Report, did not see those words. I wonder whether I was mistaken or whether she or a helpful Private Secretary had a change of heart at the last minute. There are two sides to this debate.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I am sure he is not suggesting that I in any way interfered with the record of the House. I am sure that I misunderstood his remark.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I am expressing my puzzlement and that of other noble Lords. I thought that that was the gist of the remarks that the noble Baroness made.
Last week my noble friend Lord Avebury sent me a copy of a letter to the Minister. I have discussed with him my intention to refer to it in this debate. In that letter he correctly raised the issue of a demonstration about the school leavers who had been conscripted into the Sudanese Army. There is a perfectly legitimate and important debate, from a human rights and civil liberties point of view, about conscription. In the United Kingdom we ended National Service in only the early 1960s. Several western European countries still retain conscription.
My noble friend wrote of "forcible conscriptions". Apart from the fact that the word "conscription" is not commonly used in the plural, even in discussions about the present Government of the Sudan, is not conscription, in every country where it is used, by definition backed by the force of law? The human rights concern about that incident should be about whether the executive interfered with the judiciary on that occasion or whether the judiciary exceeded acceptable norms in meting out punishment to the women who demonstrated. Several points have been raised this evening which I know are misguided or misdirected, but I do not have time to counter them.
I notice about the debate over human rights violations in the Sudan what my father used to call selective moral indignation. That is what I object to about this debate. My noble friend, the noble Baroness, the Minister, and all noble Lords who have spoken out against human rights abuse in the Sudan must be aware of the many thousands of Sudanese boys, some as young as six years old, who have been abducted by the SPLA in a manner that can only be described as systematic and cold-blooded; but it is an issue on which this House has been virtually silent.
On 18th December 1996 the Interpress Service quoted Farouk Saleh Mohamed Abdellah—I doubt if he is a Christian—a former SPLA member who used to train child soldiers at Dima camp in Ethiopia:
"We took them by force from their homes, from their parents and guardians. We confined them to one place. The children that we usually looked for were between the ages of five to sixteen years".

367
That practice is clearly defined as slavery or a slavery-like practice by the slavery convention of 1956. It has helped to dislocate southern society. It has removed generations of children from their communities, their society and their way of life. They do not know the names of their parents or grandparents or even the clan to which they belong. They have forgotten, or been denied, the wonderfully rich tradition of oral history that forms the backbone of southern tribal life. Some of those children were returned to the Sudan from Cuba, where they had been sent for ideological training, speaking only Spanish.
The living conditions of those boys are mentioned by John Prendergast, an internationally recognised expert on development, in his book Crisis Response: Humanitarian Band-Aids in Sudan and Somalia. He also described Sudanese children in a UNHCR refugee camp in Uganda. He said that they drew harrowing pictures of pre-rape scenes, killings and lootings, with "SPLA" written on top of many of the pictures. Are not some of those children Christians? Are not the overwhelming majority "black African" southern children?
Reports suggest that there used to be an estimated 10,000 of those boys. By 1995 Human Rights Watch/Africa estimated that the number was down to 4,500. The rest have died as under-age conscripts forced into battle or from illness or malnutrition in the appalling conditions in which they are kept. It is a dreadful situation. And, as Human Rights Watch/Africa made clear, it is a practice which continues to this day.
We must persuade the SPLA to release the children who are still alive into the care of the International Red Cross, UNICEF or other international organisations which care for children. That is something that they have so far refused to do. We should also press Mr. John Garang to account for those who are missing. I hope that the noble Baroness who initiated this debate will press him to do that and to deliver the surviving children from what is a form of slavery.
I also ask the Minister to convey to Mr. Garang, as a matter of urgency, the concern of this House about this matter as it affects children on both sides of the civil war, when the FCO is next in contact with the SPLA. John Prendergast also wrote scathingly in the book I mentioned earlier about the SPLA's behaviour towards the people of southern Sudan. He wrote that they had
"terrorized the southern population into passive compliance",
and that,
"the predominant instruments … have been and still are coercion and corruption. It [the SPLA] has not managed to integrate society around any positive values".
And also,
"Institutionalisation of the top-down arrangements by the socialist group who initially established the SPLM/A has led to a permanent oppression of those persons in the area under the control of the movement".
Finally,
"The human rights abuses of the SPLA are by now well documented … What is less understood is the abuse and manipulation of humanitarian assistance, the undermining of
368
commerce and the authoritarian political structures which have stifled any efforts at local organising or capacity building in the south".
That describes nothing so much as a gangster state, or part of a state. Does the Minister and do the British Government really want to lend their authority to such people?
On 1st December the Minister referred to the large mailbag which the department receives about human rights in the Sudan,
"despite limited media coverage on the subject".—[Official Report, 1/12/97; col. 1235.]
Media coverage on Sudan is most definitely limited; it is limited to what is at times a grotesquely one-sided account. Bernard Levin is a particular culprit. He has written about himself,
"hyperbole is my middle name".
He has admitted that he exaggerates awfulness just for fun.
Despite assurances by the Minister last week that the Islamic nature of the government is not a problem and that it is not just a north-south issue, I know that the popular belief in this country reflects the one-sided media coverage of these issues. If we fail to publicise the plight of these children, if we fail to press hard for their early release so that they can be reunited with their families, we will have closed our ears, our minds and our hearts.
12.3 a.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for bringing us news of the persecuted minorities in Burma and Sudan. On Burma, I once had the honour of meeting a Karen war hero who served under Bernard Fergusson. He gave me a tin of tea to carry back from Burma to your Lordship's House for his former commander. It carried the message:
"To dear Lord Ballantrae, from sunshine—Mandalay".
We owe a great debt to the Karen people and the other minorities who are now living in appalling conditions, many caught between the Scylla of the SLORC and the Charybdis of the Thai Government, as other noble Lords described. I urge the Government to further the cause of the Karen through the European Union and Thailand in particular, while continuing to support the refugee work of our NGOs through the Burmese Border Consortium.
On Sudan, the noble Lord, Lord McNair, said last week that we must all beware of distortions. Moral outrage is not a scarce commodity in this House; reliable facts sometimes are. The noble Lord said that there was no evidence whatever of the CSI allegations of slavery in Kordofan or Nuba Mountains. We have now heard an unequivocal reply. He also quoted other sources, including Anti-Slavery International, saying that there was no evidence of government involvement in slave trading or raiding.
I would specifically like to answer for Anti Slavery International, the oldest organisation in this field, founded in 1839, with much experience in Sudan. Slavery is a problem which has perplexed this House

369
ever since. General Gordon, with all his influence, was unable to solve it 100 years ago, and in some areas few have been able or willing to alter the way of life of slave traders ever since. In a sense slavery symbolises the struggle of the south for liberation from the north and cannot be separated form the political, ethnic and religious struggle which we simplify into the term "civil war".
It is a highly complex problem. But it is important that we pool our resources and our information and respect the well documented evidence of ASI, CSI and others that slavery does exist in many areas of Sudan, and that it is wrong and a serious abuse of human rights which must, in time, be removed.
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, quoted ASI and Sudan Update's joint 1997 report in support of his response to CSI, stating that there was no evidence for government raids in Sudan. ASI' s position is that, while it may be inaccurate to accuse the Government of direct involvement in slavery, there is certainly evidence that slavery is a by-product of the Government of Sudan's arming of the local Baggara militia in Kordofan and Dharfur.
Age-old competition for pasture between the Baggara nomads in south Kordofan and the Dinka herders of northern Bahr al Ghazal worsened because of drought and civil war in the mid-1980s when the then defence minister channelled modern weapons to the Baggara raiders as a means of holding off the SPLA. These weapons have since given the Baggara the upper hand in their violent attacks on Dinka cattle and villages. There is evidence that children as well as adults have been captured during these raids and either enslaved or conscripted.
The Government of Sudan have made a number of statements denying the existence of slavery which has officially been illegal for over a century. Slaves, they argue, are merely captives or hostages. But by using those who practise slavery as part of their military campaign, whether or not as a deliberate policy of condoning slavery, they are allowing this major abuse of human rights to persist, at least by default. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned last week, the special rapporteur has criticised the "manifest passivity" of the Government of Sudan, leading him to the conclusion that abductions and slavery,
"are carried out by persons acting under the authority and with the tacit approval of the Government of Sudan".
There are clear measures at the government level recommended by ASI and other agencies which could, in the long run, lead to the elimination of slavery. They include ending the practice of arming local militias, encouraging reconciliation between the Dinka and the Baggara, requiring police to help families in the location of slaves, and working closely with international agencies with experience of tracing and human rights monitoring. Purchase or redemption is a controversial subject because it could create or encourage a slave market.
There is now considerable experience inside Sudan among the Churches and human rights agencies of tracing missing persons and of monitoring human rights
370
abuse. Dinka retrieval groups have had some success, especially in tracing children. But in a sense it is only a determined government campaign at the highest level, gradually backing up the recommendations of the United Nations special rapporteur and of local human rights arbitrators and monitors, coupled with a long-term public education policy, which will have an impact on slavery. I sincerely hope that our own Government will be able to endorse that through the United Nations.
I was grateful to hear from the Minister that Britain is indeed supporting the Sudanese refugees in other countries through the United Nations agencies. I would like to ask in particular whether she has any news of the Kakuma camp in Kenya, where there are reports of dire malnutrition coming through the Church Mission Society and other sources. Can she say—perhaps she will be able to do so by letter—whether aid is getting through?
I was reassured by her, following last week's debate, that humanitarian aid will not be affected by sanctions. That is very encouraging for the NGOs involved. I am sure that she will agree that there is some confusion between ECHO and DG8 over food aid which, while understandable, should be kept to a minimum. I would only ask for clarification on one further point, which is food-for-work programmes. Is there any reason why this useful, localised form of humanitarian aid in Sudan, which often takes the form of small dykes for water catchment, essentially for crop growing in areas of shortage, should be refused support on the grounds of sanctions?
12.10 a.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I offer sincere apologies for my oversight in not confirming my name was on the speakers' list. I offer additional apologies to those who work so assiduously in the Government Whips' Office for adding to their workload this evening. Your Lordships and the Officers of the House have been most considerate in allowing me to contribute to this debate.
I, too, would like to take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lady Cox for securing this important debate. It seems to me ironic that we should have this debate on the anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and on the eve of Human Rights Year, the end of which will mark the 50th anniversary of the signing of that seminal document. For tonight we are discussing two countries whose governments have violated almost every international standard of human rights addressed in that declaration.
Despite their respective locations on two continents separated by thousands of miles and no obvious geographical, historical or cultural connections, these two countries still have marked and tragic similarities. The authoritarian, totalitarian, military regimes in both countries hold power without the consent of the people whose elected representatives were either overthrown or denied their rightful mandate to rule. The international community, particularly Britain, who has close historical ties to both these countries, has an obligation incumbent on it to keep faith with the people of Burma and with the people of Sudan. They have made clear

371
their support for human rights and democracy and it is their will that the ruling regimes have chosen to disregard.
Democracy, political pluralism and opposition have no place in Burma or Sudan. Those who are brave enough to stand up for their beliefs risk arrest and detention. Both regimes terrorise many of the ethnic and religious minorities who live within their borders, who by the very nature of their minority status should most merit the protection of the government
In Sudan, there are reports of attempts of forced conversions to Islam of the country's African non-Moslem people, while in Burma the Christian Chin children of the Chin ethnic minority are forced to convert to Buddhism and Christian crosses are burned.
Both regimes are characterised by the contempt they show for the opinion of the international community. Each seems to revel in its status as a pariah of the late 20th century and each ignores the opprobrium, condemnation and censure heaped upon it by the rest of the world. Thus Sudan has become a haven for terrorists and Burma turns a blind eye to its status as a world centre for opium and heroin, from which its government profits, while the international community seeks to counter and eradicate the evil scourge of the drugs trade.
It is government by the government for the government. Hope is starved and desperation is fed, while corruption and nepotism prosper. While the people of Burma and of the Sudan are denied their rights, these countries will never fulfil their potential.
In Sudan, wracked by one of Africa's most bitter and protracted civil wars, in which 1.2 million people are estimated to have been killed since 1983, the north is ravaged by soaring inflation and commodity shortages, while the economic infrastructure of the south is in ruins and the villagers are starving, their livestock is stolen and crops destroyed. All of this in a country capable of food surpluses.
In Burma, image and rhetoric have played a greater part in the renaming of the regime than substance or new policies. The military junta has shown no credible signs of willingness to cede its power or to negotiate with pro-democracy forces and ethnic groups for a genuine political settlement, to allow a return to the rule of law and respect for basic human rights as demanded by the international community.
Despite an announcement last month that they wished to:
"create conditions in which political parties, especially the NLD, can play a constructive role in moving Burma to democracy",
in the same week four members of the NLD were arrested in the "interests of maintaining stability" and Aung San Suu Kyi's car was blocked by barbed wire barricades to prevent her attending an NLD meeting in case it created an "unnecessary disturbance of the peace".
These potentially prosperous nations have failed their own people. Sudan, the ninth largest country in the world, a land of extraordinary diversity and potential, has contributed negatively to the region's welfare as a
372
whole, while the economic miracle of the South East Asian tigers has bypassed Burma entirely. Its economy weak and seriously short of foreign reserves, its political institutions moribund, its bureaucracy bloated, its governance arbitrary, facing social crisis, soaring drug addiction and a related AIDs epidemic, Burma is a stark and isolated contrast to the open, integrated and prospering economies of the region.
The 1996 parliamentary and presidential elections in Sudan were neither free nor fair. With any political opposition banned, the people of Sudan were yet again denied a real choice. In Burma, the SLORC regime continues to reinforce its rule via a pervasive security apparatus led by military intelligence and to restrict sharply basic rights to free speech.
At this point, I would like to pay tribute to the work of the BBC World Service. Aung San Suu Kyi has said that during the six years of her house arrest the World Service provided one of her few links to the outside world. Without the BBC World Service she would not have heard about the historic events of those years, which saw the domino topple of Communism in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union; the release of Nelson Mandela and the ending of apartheid in South Africa; and the extraordinary revolution in global communications and information technology. I pay tribute to the work of the World Service and the many languages in which it broadcasts and I would like the Minister's reassurance that its future is secure.
There is consensus in your Lordships' House that Britain must use its influence to promote real democracy in these countries, to promote the rule of law and respect for human rights, which will follow in its wake. There are two models that the international community can follow in order to put pressure to reform on a regime which abuses the rights of its people: that of critical dialogue and constructive engagement, combined with strong combined international pressure for reform, and that of isolation.
I do not think there is such a gulf of difference between the Opposition and the Government as the Foreign Secretary's rhetoric would have the world believe. I must ask the Minister if she sees a difference between our policies and, if so, in which countries do Government consider the abuse of human rights to be sufficiently serious to merit the imposition of trade sanctions? Given that human rights are now at the centre of the Government's foreign policy, how much further would the level of human rights atrocities in any country with which we trade have to deteriorate before the Government impose sanctions, if not in Burma and the Sudan? If the Government are not considering the imposition of trade sanctions in either of these countries, how will they reconcile the inherent tension between the policy of constructive dialogue and non-isolation on the one hand with the expectations raised by an ethical foreign policy?
The international community looks forward to the day when it can send messages of congratulation to peaceful and stable governments in both Sudan and Burma, which reflect, not reject, the will of their citizens. During its presidency of the EU, Britain has an

373
opportunity to use its influence to lead the world community in helping to fashion an African and an ASEAN solution to the problems of the Sudan and of Burma respectively. We hope that it will rise to that challenge.
12.18 a.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, as on many previous occasions I have the honour to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for her outstanding work on human rights in the many very dangerous parts of the world which she visits with great frequency—none less than Sudan and Burma, to which she has assiduously drawn your Lordships' attention with regard to the many and gross violations of human rights in both countries.
This evening I shall concentrate on Burma as we had a debate on Sudan last week and this evening my noble friend Lord Goodhart dealt extensively with the devastating report of the UN Human Rights Committee which is absolutely unanswerable. It is no adequate reply to say, as my noble friend Lord McNair has this evening, that if Mr. John Garang, commits human rights abuses as well, that forms some kind of excuse for the government.
Lord McNair: My Lord, if I may intervene briefly, I did not say that Mr. John Garang's misdemeanours let the government off the hook but that we needed a two-sided debate and it was important to realise that these human rights abuses were committed by both sides.
Lord Avebury: My Lord, it is the state which is responsible for the rule of law, not the opposition or some person who sets himself up as an alternative to the government in one part of the country. I should have thought that my noble friend would have read Mr. Gladstone's famous letter to Lord Aberdeen about the Bourbon regime in Naples in which he made this point very clear. But I do not want to be diverted by that because I do not have time to do more than cover the human rights abuses that now occur in Burma about which all of the human rights NGOs and UN agencies that have looked at the matter have reached similar conclusions. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch Asia and particularly the UN special rapporteur, Judge Rajsoomer Lallah, have all published detailed reports on the gross and persistent violations that have been committed ever since the SLORC came to power. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that it does not matter what they call themselves. Unlike the rose, this regime has a nasty smell whatever name it chooses to use.
The SLORC does not allow any investigation by the international bodies that I have mentioned inside the country. The UN rapporteur has just told the UN Third Committee that he has been unable to gain the co-operation of the Government of Myanmar in the two and a half years since his appointment. The special rapporteur says that the absence of democracy is at the root of all the major violations of human rights in the country. There is no accountability and the structure of power rests on the denial and repression of fundamental
374
rights, including extrajudicial executions, torture, and forced labour, particularly in the context of development programmes and counter-insurgency operations in minority-dominated regions. The special rapporteur says that arbitrary arrest and detention are widespread. partly because of the absence of an independent judiciary coupled with a host of executive orders criminalising normal civilian conduct, prescribing enormously disproportionate penalties and authorising arrest and detention without judicial review or any other form of legal authorisation. He concludes that there is no freedom of thought, opinion, expression or association in the country. The absolute power of SLORC is exercised to silence opposition and penalise those holding dissenting views or beliefs. Because of both visible and invisible pressures the people live in a climate of fear in which whatever they or their family members may say or do, particularly in the area of politics, involves the risk of arrest and interrogation by the police or military intelligence.
The special rapporteur says that there are violations of the right to freedom of movement and residence including the right to leave and re-enter one's own country, some of which are racially based. He says that internal deportations and forced relocations violate freedom of movement and residence and in some cases constitute discriminatory practices based on ethnic considerations. Some of the thematic rapporteurs are also heavily critical of Myanmar, while others simply note the conclusions of the special country rapporteur. There would be no point in a separate investigation by the rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers because the regime does not even pretend that the courts are independent. The special rapporteur on violence against women reports that debt bondage is used to control women and that women and girls from Myanmar typically "serve" six men per day, 25 days a month and earn one dollar a day in the prostitution industry. She says that officials of both Myanmar and Thailand are involved in trafficking women from one country to the other, and she quotes a report which claims that girls are transported into Thailand by policemen in uniform, armed and often in police vehicles. Mrs. Kirin Htay Kyu of the Burmese Women's Union says that women suffer under the SLORC as men do, but face additional sexual abuse when imprisoned. She claims that ethnic cleansing has forced women out of some rural areas and into Thailand's sex industry. She reports that the SLORC's soldiers are told to rape women from ethnic minorities in a systematic effort to destroy their people's identity. That has echoes of what we know about Bosnia. Presumably none of the special rapporteurs or working groups have tried to get an invitation to visit Burma, in the light of the country rapporteurs' experience of refusal. Should not they formally ask the SLORC to let them in so that the position would be on the record? Will the Government propose that at the next meeting of the Human Rights Commission?
One of the effects of the human rights disaster in Burma is the pressure, as has been mentioned, of refugees on other countries in the region. Human Rights Watch Asia reported in August about the continuing

375
plight of the Rohingyas, who were persuaded to return to Arakan state from the camps in Bangladesh, even though there are new refugees crossing the border. The SLORC has deprived all the Rohingyas of their citizenship. Thailand has started to repatriate what it calls illegal alien workers: 93,000 this year to the end of October, most of whom were Burmese. An article in the November Burma Issues says that many refugees are being refouled under the eyes of the UNHCR which has not published a report on its observations. The international community should ask the UNHCR to undertake a comprehensive study of the refugee problems arising out of the SLORC's oppression and the financial penalties that it imposes on neighbouring states. Perhaps ASEAN could then discuss compensation, to be paid out of oil and gas revenues, as in the case of Iraq.
I realise that the UNHCR has no presence on the border, as other noble Lords have said, but the Burma Border Consortium might be asked to help with that survey. Speaking of oil, UK-based Premier Oil is negotiating, or may already have completed negotiations, to buy out Texaco's stake in the Yetagun oilfield, which would make it the second largest investor in Burma. That indicates that the advice being given to British companies by the Foreign Office is not strong enough. I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government would consider proposing urgently a mandatory ban on investment by EU companies, to bring Europe into line with the US. Why is it that so often dictatorships receive mixed signals, when part of the democratic world is trying to impose restrictions while others opportunistically try to step in to grab the business?
The Yadana pipeline, which brings gas from the Andaman sea deposits across Burma into Thailand, led to massive attacks on the local people in Tennasserim in which thousands of people were killed, and even more displaced, many of them over the border into Thailand. Total, the main partner in that development, says that the company applies the same standards in Myanmar as in the other parts of the world where it operates, particularly as regards human rights. I am not aware that Total has any general policy on human rights, and its comment upon what it admits are tragic events in that area is that they are merely a continuation of the ethnic insurgency which started before independence. It does not see that petroleum developments tend to bring troops into the area, and thus may be indirectly the cause of human rights abuses in the country.
I shall mention the drug problem.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I would point out that the noble Lord has gone well beyond nine minutes. At this time of night, we should observe the eight-minute limit.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am sorry about that. I was going to mention the association of the Burmese regime with the drug problem. I shall conclude by saying that we should not have any dialogue with people who are associated with the drug peddling mass murderers in charge of Burma. We should do our utmost
376
to tighten the screws on them until they are removed. It is as intolerable that we should be doing business with those people as it would be with Saddam Hussein. I hope that the Government will take the strongest possible line on disinvestment, on severing all cultural and sporting links with Rangoon, on nailing the crimes of the SLORC at the Human Rights Commission, and on supporting democratic opponents of the regime both within the country and abroad.
12.30 a.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, human rights are at the centre of the Government's foreign policy. This is not an issue which can be put into a special box to be taken out and examined only when the situation absolutely demands. Human rights are an integral part of our policy formulation, informing all our decisions.
In raising her Question, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has drawn attention to two of the most repressive and authoritarian foreign regimes in the world. I applaud the sustained interest which the noble Baroness and other noble Lords have taken in the appalling human rights situation in Burma and Sudan. I thank her warmly for introducing the debate tonight, even at this late hour.
The Government strongly share the concerns expressed this evening. It may be useful if I outline the situation on the ground in Burma and Sudan and explain how the Government are translating their concern into action for the benefit of the peoples of these two benighted countries. Let me first address the situation in Burma.
The sad fact is that the track record of the Burmese authorities remains deplorable, as the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Avebury. said. Their gross violations of human rights continue. Under their stewardship the Burmese economy has seen the free market exchange rate for the kyat lose over 70 per cent. of its value since April. The ruling State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) was formally dissolved on 15th November. But this was no cause for rejoicing: it has been succeeded by an equally unelected and unaccountable body, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). We can all understand why the SLORC wanted to change its name, but regrettably it has not changed its nature. Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy remain tireless champions for democracy in Burma despite the appalling harassment to which they and other pro-democracy groups continue to be subjected collectively and individually, as the noble Lord. Lord Moynihan, illustrated.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has rightly drawn particular attention to the plight of Burma's ethnic and religious minorities. I strongly share those concerns. There are widespread reports of forced labour and forced relocations, particularly in Karen and Karenni and Shan states. The brutality of the Burmese authorities is deplorable. Following a Burmese army offensive against the Karen earlier this year, an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 refugees tied into Thailand. In response to my noble friend Lord Jenkins, I must say that the Minister

377
of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Mr. Patchett, summoned the Burmese ambassador to condemn this violation of human rights and press for swift remedial action. Her Majesty's ambassador at Rangoon made a similarly forthright démarche to the Burmese Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
I turn to some of the specific points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. The problem of refugees needs to he tackled from both sides of the border. There are now some 110,000 Burmese refugees in Thailand. Her Majesty's ambassador in Bangkok has urged the Thais to provide necessary shelter and protection for refugees. He did so most recently in response to the displacement on 15th November, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, drew particular attention. Since 1992, we have provided £630,000 in humanitarian aid for Burmese refugees.
Access to ethnic and religious minorities in remote areas within Burma remains difficult. We are proud to have developed a close working relationship with non-governmental organisations, particularly those working on the Thai-Burma border. I pay tribute to their dedication and tenacity under very difficult circumstances.
This pooling of knowledge and expertise is invaluable in helping us to take swift action where necessary in support of human rights in Burma. We seize every suitable opportunity to do so. For example, noble Lords may be aware of the instrumental role Her Majesty's Government have played in negotiating with EU partners a package of political measures on Burma. We see strong arguments for adopting still further measures to increase the pressure on the SPDC for change. There is at present, however, no consensus for this among EU partners. Her Majesty's Government have therefore shown a lead within Europe by adopting, unilaterally, a suspension of government financial support to companies for trade missions to Burma and trade promotion activities within Burma. We shall continue to press for EU-wide implementation.
But there is another side to that coin: we want to do more to help relieve the suffering which Burmese government policies cause to ordinary Burmese people. We are encouraging our EU partners to consider drawing up a package of "positive measures" to strengthen civil society in Burma—and to reinforce the excellent humanitarian work which is already being done. We are discussing with our friends in the NGO community how best to take forward this further important British initiative.
There is also a convincing case for keeping Burma high on the agenda for intergovernmental discussions. Ministers regularly compare notes with their counterparts in key foreign and Commonwealth countries and international organisations on the political and human rights situation in Burma. This includes members of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), to which Burma acceded earlier this year, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, reminded us. We firmly believe that governments in Asia have an important role to play, in using their influence with the SPDC to press for reform in Burma. We continue to urge them to do so.
378
In answer to the points that the noble Baroness made about ASEM 2, there is no automatic link between membership of ASEAN and participation in ASEM. Expansion of ASEM must be agreed by consensus among the existing members and no consensus exists on Burmese participation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, also raised questions about the UN Fair Committee Resolution on human rights in Burma, adopted in committee by consensus. We expect adoption in the plenary session on 12th December. The UK has offered detailed contributions at each stage of the drafting process.
Several noble Lords also raised questions about the major elements and asked what more could he done in UK policy towards Burma. Ministerial statements since 1st May have unequivocally condemned abuses and called for some substantive political dialogue with opposition groups, including the ethnic minorities. There is not any sign of progress at present. The EU common position includes a full-scale arms embargo, a ban on visa issue for members of the regime and their families, a ban on defence links and aid, except, of course, humanitarian aid. and that is being renewed for a further six months at the GAC which took place on 6th October.
I turn now to the position in Sudan. Increased respect for human rights in Sudan is a centre-piece of our policy towards that country. As I explained to noble Lords recently, we have made it clear to the Government of Sudan that an improvement in relations is dependent on an improvement in the human rights situation. We want to see a peaceful, democratic Sudan where the human rights of all citizens are equally respected.
I spoke, I hope reasonably informatively, on 1st December, about the civil war in Sudan. It is clear that many of the human rights abuses reported in Sudan are linked to the civil war. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has briefed us tonight on her experiences in the war zones and the terrible sights she has seen there. Her accounts are the more compelling because she is not giving us second-hand accounts. She is telling us dispassionately but very clearly what she has seen for herself. She has not been where only the Sudanese Government sent her. She has been where she felt she had to go in order to get that clear, first-hand account. I am sure we all respect her for her courage in doing so.
The UN Special Rapporteur on Sudan, Dr. Gaspar Biro, for whose work the Government are grateful, has also reported terrible abuses. Not only Christians suffer: all southerners not allied to the government are targeted, Moslems and Animists as well as Christians. Such unacceptable abuses take place not only in the south of the country, but also in the Nuba Mountains and eastern Sudan. Allegations have also been made against opposition forces. The displaced people living in camps around Khartoum also suffer maltreatment and the destruction of their churches and schools.
We do not accept that human rights problems in Sudan are just an unfortunate by-product of the civil war which can be ignored. Human rights must be respected even in war zones by all sides to the conflict.

379
Moreover, it is clear that those who raise their voice against the government, in Khartoum as elsewhere, are subject to maltreatment. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, told us and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has written to me about the beating with sticks and rubber hoses of women demonstrating against the conscription of high school graduates; and the subsequent detention of 30 of them. The UN complained to the Sudanese Government about that brutality and the British ambassador in Khartoum has also done so.
Human rights work constitutes a major part of the work of the British Embassy in Khartoum. It raises specific cases with the Sudanese authorities as well as making use of its contacts to urge greater respect for human rights and progress towards democracy in general. It stays in close touch with opposition and human rights activists in Khartoum and is supporting work to reunite families split up by abductions, about which we have heard.
We play our part in international pressure: we were a co-sponsor of the recent successful resolution in the UNGA's 3rd Committee expressing concern about the continued human rights abuses in Sudan. There is already an EU arms embargo on Sudan. A UN arms embargo is a possibility, but such measures need to gain sufficient support in the UN Security Council. It is not clear, as yet, that such a measure would gain sufficient support.
We remain very concerned about the continued refusal of the governments of both Burma and Sudan to allow access to a number of locations in their countries to relief aid and monitors. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, reminds us about that situation both rightly and often. We continue to press for access to all areas of Burma and Sudan, not only by aid organisations to deliver humanitarian assistance, but also by human rights monitors. We are in touch with the Commission for Human Rights in Geneva about the expected appeal for UN human rights monitors. We are also in touch with human rights NGOs about monitoring activities in the Sudan.
We continue to take the view that the best way to ensure such assistance is through operations, in the case of Sudan under the umbrella of the UN's Operation Lifeline Sudan. But where there is urgent need the Department for
380
International Development is prepared to support agencies outside that umbrella if they have experience of working in conflict situations, are able to act neutrally and can ensure that aid reaches those for whom it is intended. I hope that that meets the points raised by the noble Baroness in relation to her earlier remarks about CSI.
In answer to a specific question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, we are not attracted by the example of unilateral US economic measures against the Government of Sudan. It is not the Government's policy to use such measures as tools of foreign policy. There are serious legal difficulties involved and the effect on target countries is very small.
A number of other detailed questions were raised this evening. However, in view of the lateness of the hour, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I respond to some of those points by way of correspondence. The noble Lord, Lord McNair, raised questions about the debate that we had on the Sudan on 1st December. I raised those points with my officials, who are the same ones who were present on that occasion. They assure me that there was no interference whatever; indeed, I would have been extraordinarily concerned, shocked and surprised had there been any interference in the official record in Hansard on that occasion.
I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, will recognise that I have written to him concerning the points on Kenya and the Kakuma camp. I should point out to him that if he has not yet received that letter he will do so very shortly.
I believe that all of us in this House are agreed that human rights abuses in Burma and in the Sudan are truly unacceptable. The British Government have not turned a blind eye to those abuses. We have responded to the widespread concern in the country, in this House and among NGOs, about the situation in Sudan and that in Burma. In doing so, we sometimes have to act through different channels from those of NGOs: the arena of international relations involves both advantages and restrictions. But we will continue to press our concerns about human rights and related issues; and we will continue to keep under consideration other initiatives to help the human rights situations in both those countries.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before one o'clock.

  Party Political Donations
  Party Political Donations
  Millennium Dome: Contracts
  Millennium Dome: Contracts
  BSE
  BSE
  Vitamin B6 Controls: Representations
  Vitamin B6 Controls: Representations
  Vitamin B6 Controls: Compliance Cost Assessment
  Vitamin B6 Controls: Compliance Cost Assessment
  Vitamin B6 Controls: Regulations
  Vitamin B6 Controls: Regulations
  Horses: EU Classification
  Horses: EU Classification
  Royal Ulster Constabulary: Performance Indicator
  Royal Ulster Constabulary: Performance Indicator
  N.I.: Health Service Funding
  N.I.: Health Service Funding
  Gibraltar Prison
  Gibraltar Prison
  Mr. Unsal Ozturk
  Mr. Unsal Ozturk
  UNITA Representative: Expulsion
  UNITA Representative: Expulsion
  UNITA: UN Sanctions Committee
  UNITA: UN Sanctions Committee
  UNITA: Sanctions
  UNITA: Sanctions
  British Forces in Germany: Health Services
  British Forces in Germany: Health Services
  Littlehey Prison: Self-Inflicted Deaths
  Littlehey Prison: Self-Inflicted Deaths
  Rapid Draw Lotteries
  Rapid Draw Lotteries
  Verne Prison: Kairos Project
  Verne Prison: Kairos Project
  Altcourse Prison: Probation Services
  Altcourse Prison: Probation Services
  Lunar House: Immigration Applications
  Lunar House: Immigration Applications
  Households: Projections
  Households: Projections
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Rural Development Commission
  Rural Development Commission
  Scotland: Education Capital Allocation
  Scotland: Education Capital Allocation
  Scotland: Housing Capital Allocation
  Scotland: Housing Capital Allocation
  Scotland: Road Capital Budget
  Scotland: Road Capital Budget
  Scotland: NHS Budget
  Scotland: NHS Budget
  Scotland: Prison Population
  Scotland: Prison Population
  Scotland: Prisoners' Mental Illness Screening
  Scotland: Prisoners' Mental Illness Screening
  Scotland: Opencast Mining Planning Applications
  Scotland: Opencast Mining Planning Applications
  Scotland: Opencast Mining
  Scotland: Opencast Mining
  Gene Therapy Advisory Committee
  Gene Therapy Advisory Committee
  Smokers: GP Consultations
  Smokers: GP Consultations
  Child Protection Conferences: Records
  Child Protection Conferences: Records
  NHS Medical Posts: Overseas Staff
  NHS Medical Posts: Overseas Staff
  Medical Profession: Emigration
  Medical Profession: Emigration
  NHS Consultants and Doctors: Staff Retention
  NHS Consultants and Doctors: Staff Retention
  NHS Doctors
  NHS Doctors
  Parental Discipline
  Parental Discipline
  Vitamin B6 Toxicity in Animals: Studies
  Vitamin B6 Toxicity in Animals: Studies
  Meningococcal and Pneumococcal Vaccines
  Meningococcal and Pneumococcal Vaccines
  Meningitis Awareness: Students
  Meningitis Awareness: Students
  NHS Trust Chairmen: Appointment Details
  NHS Trust Chairmen: Appointment Details
  House of Lords: Reform
  House of Lords: Reform
  Zimbabwe: UK Aid
  Zimbabwe: UK Aid