Sitting of 10 February 1997

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

    Bicycles (Rail Carriage)
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received concerning the transit of bicycles on trains; and if he will make a statement. [13344]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): Representations have been made recently to my Department and to the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising about the carriage of bicycles on trains. I am very encouraged that franchisees are being ever more responsive to cyclists' needs, simply because they want more people travelling by train.
    Mr. Barnes: Is it not a good idea for cyclists to make use of the railway? I understand that the Secretary of State has an honourable record on this in connection with work that he produced when he was a Back Bencher, which involved my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). However, has not a new situation arisen with the railways' fragmentation? It has presented many blocks and problems, so that information to cyclists about
    2
    moving throughout the system is difficult to obtain. Pre-booking is beginning to be required. There is the costs problem and there is no official monitoring of cyclists' problems. Perhaps it is time for the Secretary of State to get on his bike and sort those things out.
    Sir George Young: The Secretary of State never got off his bike. It is true that, in the 1970s, some hon. Members, including my predecessor as Member of Parliament for Acton, and I launched initiatives to make it easier for people to carry their bicycles on trains, and I think that we achieved modest success. I am happy to say that, since privatisation, there are signs that the new system is even more cycle-friendly. For example, at Paddington, a station that I use regularly, there are now many cycle racks. Franchise operators that order new rolling stock are making provision for bicycles. Great Western Railway has tripled the capacity of its high-speed trains to carry bicycles; the franchising director has invited franchisees to make it clear, when they bid, what they propose to do for cyclists; and the regulator has a role to play in ensuring that any charges are reasonable—so a brighter dawn is before those of us who like to carry our bicycle on the train.
    Mr. Waller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the routes from Bradford and Leeds to the Yorkshire dales, particularly Airedale and Wharfedale, are among those that are of particular value to cyclists? Does he agree that it is therefore particularly good news for cyclists and visitors to the dales that the franchising director has today awarded the franchise for the service on those two lines to MTL Rail Ltd? Would it not be good to ensure that the new electric multiple units, which replace the existing class 308 rolling stock, have adequate space for cycles and for equipment carried by walkers?
    Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has reminded the House of what is happening throughout Britain: where a new franchise is let, provision is often made, through either refurbishment or the introduction of new rolling stock. I am anxious that, when

    3
    rolling stock is refurbished or new rolling stock ordered, adequate provision should be made for the bicycle. My Department recently funded the cyclists public affairs group, which is known to my hon. Friend, to draft the "Bikes and Trains" publication, which identifies opportunities for new operators and explains how they can broaden the market base by making it easier for cyclists to travel by train.
    Mrs. Wise: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that in many cases new rolling stock has no physical capacity to carry bicycles at all? Would not the simplest, most efficient and most effective thing for him to do simply be to make it obligatory for all trains to have adequate space to carry bicycles?
    Sir George Young: That is what is happening. Connex will introduce new stock on the south-eastern network which makes provision for the carriage of cycles. For Anglia, GB Railways is committed to ordering a number of new trains that must have space for the carriage of at least four cycles. The new operators are introducing rolling stock that will make it easier for people to put their bikes on trains.

    Fatal Accidents (M180-A180)
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fatalities attributable to drivers falling asleep at the wheel there have been on the M180-A180 since it was opened. [13345]
    The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Bowis): Such information is not normally collected by central Government, but I understand that Loughborough university carried out a study of accidents on this route over a one-year period. In that time, there were four fatalities, resulting from accidents that were related to driver fatigue.
    Mr. Brown: I am glad that my hon. Friend has had the opportunity of seeing the Loughborough university study. Will he confirm that the case put by Professor Jim Horne in the report—I hope that my hon. Friend has a copy—is that there is clear evidence that if one travels in an easterly direction, particularly on the A180 towards Grimsby, accidents or fatalities may be caused by the fact that the road has certain conditions that cause drivers to go to sleep? Will my hon. Friend consider introducing a national study using Professor Jim Horne's work in the report?
    Mr. Bowis: I have seen the report to which my hon. Friend refers. It shows that the accident record of the A180 is lower than the average for that sort of road, but rather higher in terms of the number of accidents involving driver fatigue while travelling in an easterly direction towards the docks. That may have something to do with the nature of the road, the length of the journey or people not complying with the advice in the highway code. I will certainly draw the attention of the Highways Agency to the matter. A national study looking at counter-measures to combat tiredness is being conducted by the same Loughborough university team, which will take on board the points raised by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Dalyell: As one who has been in close contact with Jim Home for three years regarding two constituency
    4
    cases and his sleep laboratory, may I ask whether his funding is thought to be adequate? Will the Government interest themselves in the proposed closure of the sleep apnoea laboratory run by Neil Douglas in Edinburgh, as the two work closely together?
    Mr. Bowis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising both those points. We keep closely in touch with centres of excellence in research, and the main research has been commissioned through the Transport Research Laboratory. The work started in 1992, and we expect the finished report in April this year. It certainly will be interesting to see what comes of that work. I am not aware that funding has been a problem, but I will certainly look into it.

    Parking Restrictions
    Sir Irvine Patnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking with regard to the enforcement of parking restrictions. [13346]
    The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): In general, enforcement of parking restrictions outside London is a matter for the police. Under the Road Traffic Act 1991, local authorities may take over responsibility for on-street parking enforcement from the police on a decriminalised basis. The transfer has been a success in London, and we welcome applications from authorities elsewhere.
    Sir Irvine Patnick: What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that proper consultation takes place between authorities and local residents? In two areas in my constituency—Crookes and Abbeydale—little consultation appears to have taken place before the introduction of parking restrictions and road alterations, although consultation is now taking place. That cannot be the right way to function—or can it?
    Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend is right: proper consultation with a view to building a consensus is important, and the Government guidelines require authorities to review all their existing restrictions before taking on enforcement to ensure that restrictions are used only where genuinely necessary.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Parking restrictions in London—particularly central London—are a joke. Some local authorities are enforcing and some are not. Of those that are enforcing, some are using it as a fund-raising exercise, rather than the sensible application of regulations. There are people parking on double yellow lines who put on their hazard warning lights and think that they have dematerialised. It is time that the police stepped in and took more effective action, instead of zooming around London in large vans keeping their helmets dry. They should do something about enforcing proper parking restrictions in London so that public and private transport can move easily.
    Mr. Watts: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should take up his complaints with Labour London authorities which chose to have the powers of parking enforcement. As he should know, the police are responsible for enforcement

    5
    on red routes in London, but local authorities enforce everywhere else. I suggest that he talk to some of his Labour party colleagues about their deficiencies.
    Mr. Brooke: Will my hon. Friend accept that in the past 20 years—thanks to the changes the Government have made in London—the number of free metered parking spaces in Westminster at any one time has gone up from 5 to 30 per cent., not only making it easier for motorists to find space, but reducing traffic and pollution by a compensating amount?
    Mr. Watts: My right hon. Friend makes an important point in his inimitable way.

    Private Finance Initiative
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made with PFI projects in his Department. [13348]
    Sir George Young: My Department has made excellent progress with the private finance initiative and continues to take the lead: PFI is delivering substantial investment in transport infrastructure of more than £3.7 billion over the next three years.
    Mr. Arnold: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, in many ways, north-west Kent is the epicentre of the private finance initiative. Not only do we have the leading hospital PFI at Darenth Park, but we have the channel tunnel rail link. Given both those projects and many others, does my right hon. Friend agree that the PFI presents magnificent opportunities for our transport infrastructure?
    Sir George Young: The Government have worked up the private finance initiative and it is successful across the range of Government Departments. My Department has played a significant part in that the bulk of the deals have come from the Department of Transport. My hon. Friend mentioned the channel tunnel rail link and, as he knows, London and Continental Railways was appointed last February. It took over European Passenger Services and intends to achieve its main project financing and flotation by late 1997 or early 1998. The PFI also has applications for the London underground, roads and civil aviation—it has a lot of potential left.
    Mr. Gunnell: The Secretary of State will know that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, when speaking to the Leeds chamber of commerce on the last day of January, mentioned the go-ahead for the Leeds supertram. What private sector contributions have been made to that project? Can the Secretary of State give more details of the reality behind the Chancellor's comments? Can he assure the House that there will be a start in obtaining funding for that scheme in advance of the need for fresh parliamentary provision to pursue it?
    Sir George Young: I was in Leeds recently and I took the opportunity to talk to representatives of the local authority and others about the Leeds supertram. It is an important project. The difficulty at the moment is that the amount of private sector contribution is not as high as the sponsors would have liked. If we are to make progress
    6
    with the scheme, which has potential, it is important to drive up the private sector contribution so that the project becomes more affordable within my Department's baseline. I am conscious of the deadline in the relevant legislation.
    Mr. Mans: Bearing in mind the reports over the weekend about the franchising of the west coast main line, can my right hon. Friend say when we may expect a formal announcement, instead of information being leaked out through the press?
    Sir George Young: The Director of Passenger Rail Franchising announced on Friday night that a preferred bidder had been identified. I hope that that deal will be finalised in the next few weeks; we will then see whether the benefits of franchising that we have seen in the rest of the country can be extended to that most important line.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: If private finance is serving transport so well, will the Secretary of State tell us why he will not bring forward proper public-private partnerships for the London underground to attract investment now, in place of the running farce of his privatisation plans, which would sell public assets cheap and mean no new investment for years?
    Sir George Young: The whole House knows the Labour party's policy on privatization—the Labour party is against it until it happens and then conveniently forgets about it.
    On private finance, the hon. Gentleman must know that we are pursuing with London Underground a range of private finance deals—my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London rightly reminds us about the Northern line trains on every occasion. The three other major projects are power supplies, an upgraded ticketing system and the communications network—some £500 million of private finance initiative. It is therefore not the case that the Government are not driving that forward with the underground.
    Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the pleasure felt in Scotland at the announcement of the PFI projects for the air traffic control centres. When is the second centre likely to go ahead?
    Sir George Young: The bids are still being discussed and, following consultation with the airlines, we expect to be in a position to announce the outcome in March.

    London Transport (Finance)
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from London Transport on the potential consequences of the Government's reduction in funding for London Transport for the financial year 1997–98. [13349]
    Mr. Bowis: There has been no reduction in planned Government funding for London Transport's core business or for the Jubilee line extension for the financial year 1997–98.
    Mr. Hughes: If there is to be no reduction in funding, why is London Transport suddenly making it clear that at

    7
    its meeting later this week it may well say, for example, that the east London line cannot open again for two years and that it will have to stop some of the major works programmes that are scheduled in its budget? Will the Minister give a direct answer to the question that the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) asked the Secretary of State? Why does he not listen to the one representation above all others made clear by the chairman of London Transport—that all London Transport wants is to be -allowed to borrow from the private sector? It does not want to be privatised and does not mind who owns London Underground, but wants to be able to have public and private money and to be allowed to get on with the job.
    Mr. Bowis: That, of course, is precisely what it is getting. It is astonishing that all that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who speaks for the Labour party, can do is criticise every time we invite and encourage private sector money to come into the underground system. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) ought to know better than to peddle rumours on what may or may not be decided at some future meeting, when he knows perfectly well that, if he starts to talk up the possibility of services being delayed, the people who will be worried are his constituents.
    The hon. Gentleman knows that I walked the course of the tunnel to which he is referring on the east London line recently and saw the work that is going on. It is forging ahead, as indeed are the links to, and the Jubilee line extension through, his constituency. He has pleaded for those over the years. Is it not time that he said thank you and stopped whingeing?
    Mr. Dykes: Is not the Minister right in saying that, instead of being criticised and knocked all the time, London Underground management should be strongly praised for their remarkable performance in providing the world's biggest underground network, despite the pressure on finances? Is my hon. Friend aware that the Jubilee line, which goes to my constituency, will have a service every two minutes once the modernisation and the link to docklands are achieved? Is not the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) right to say, however, that ownership is secondary to adequate investment?
    Mr. Bowis: Ownership and investment may go hand in hand. My hon. Friend is right: enormous achievements are in progress for London Underground through investment. The biggest investment is the £2 billion-worth for the Jubilee line, which includes partnership with the private sector—it is the biggest construction project in Europe. He is also right to draw attention to other work, such as the Central line modernisation and the refurbishment of trains; more than half of London's rolling stock is being refurbished and, as we know, the Northern line is not only getting new trains but its structures are being refurbished. A tremendous amount is going on and it is down to the partnership that we have successfully introduced. We are now looking ahead to find out how we can extend that in the future.

    School Transport
    Mrs. Golding: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many children travelled to school by means other than private car in (a) 1979 and (b) 1995. [13350]
    Mr. Bowis: It is estimated that, on average, about 5.7 million children aged five to 15 travelled to school by means other than private car during the period 1993 to 1995. Figures are not available for 1979.
    Mrs. Golding: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that Staffordshire county council is being asked to pay an exorbitant 85 per cent. increase on the contract price for the school bus service for the coming year? Bus prices were supposed to fall following deregulation, so will he investigate why that price is rising and whether cartels are being formed by bus companies? We do not want even more children to go to school by car.
    Mr. Bowis: I certainly cannot comment on a particular contract between a local authority and a bus operator. The great advantage of privatisation and deregulation is that there is a greater choice, and if the authority is not satisfied with one company, it can go to another. I hope that the hon. Lady will welcome the measure that I announced this morning: the extension of safety measures for children travelling on minibuses and coaches. From today, seat belts will have to be installed in all such post-1988 vehicles. That is a good step forward on road safety, but we want strongly to encourage children to use public transport and bicycles, and to walk.
    Mr. Rathbone: My hon. Friend may be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited my constituency on Friday and saw, in Southover school, the preparation of posters to encourage walking to school. Will he report to the House on the success of that initiative, which encourages what must be the best way for children to get to school, saving fuel and helping the environment?
    Mr. Bowis: I am not able to give an update on the Southover experiment, but it is one that I hope will be emulated throughout the country. We want routes to be designated by planning authorities, engineers, local education authorities and schools that make it sensible and safe for children to walk to school. It is no good encouraging them to walk if the routes are not safe. The routes must be signed and well lit, and obstacles and places from which people might jump out need to be removed. I formed, and chair, a walking strategy group that is examining carefully ways to encourage more walking and safe walking; that certainly includes walking to school.
    Mr. Dafis: Are not strategies to enable children to go to school by means other than private car encompassed in the provisions of the Road Traffic Reduction Bill? I congratulate the Minister and the Government on allowing the Bill to have a Second Reading, and I anticipate that it will have a fair wind. Would not the best way to ensure that the Bill works be to have targets, including UK-wide targets, for the reduction of road traffic? What are the Government's thoughts on the matter?
    Mr. Bowis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thanks to the Government for encouraging the progress of that

    9
    Bill, which had all-party support. The Bill is based on local targets, and that fits neatly with the principles of our transport Green Paper, which encouraged such schemes and gave examples of how they could be run. National targets would be unwise and unworkable, because what is right for a rural area is not necessarily right for a city centre. One has to consider each area according to its needs.
    We want to encourage more children to walk or cycle to school, given that of the rush-hour traffic about 17 per cent. nationally, and 25 per cent. in London, is accounted for by mothers taking children on short journeys to school. Already, 74 per cent. of children go to school by means other than private car, and we want to increase that figure still further.

    Chiltern Railway
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the director of Chiltern Railway to discuss the quality of service provided to passengers. [13351]
    Mr. Watts: I would be delighted to meet representatives of Chiltern Railway to congratulate them on consistently beating the exacting punctuality and reliability standards required by their passengers charter. Chiltern's passengers are clearly enjoying the fruits of privatisation.
    Mr. Lidington: May I invite my hon. Friend to join me in the near future for a journey on the Chiltern line through my constituency, which would enable him to appreciate at first hand both the success of Chiltern Railway in attracting ever more passengers to use its service and the need to encourage Railtrack to work with the company to provide a dual track on the stretch of line north of Princes Risborough in my constituency, which would both benefit commuters travelling from Buckinghamshire and allow for much faster journeys along the Chiltern line between London and Birmingham?
    Mr. Watts: I am happy to accept my hon. Friend's invitation to join him on a journey on the Chiltern line.
    On track improvements, I understand that the franchising director is willing to consider the proposition of M40 Trains that the investment costs of doubling the track should be assimilated into track access charges and has invited Chiltern Railway to submit informally a draft business case.
    Mr. Chidgey: Is the Minister aware that the managing director of Chiltern Railway has stated that, because he has only a seven-year franchise, it is impossible for him to justify purchasing more than four new 100 mph trains, which means that he cannot provide an hourly service between London and Birmingham? Is it not time that the franchising director recognised the needs of the travelling public and stopped letting franchises so short that proper investment is impossible? For the benefit of us all, will he remind the franchising director that we had thought that the purpose of privatisation was to enable rational investment, not to create more constraints than existed before?
    Mr. Watts: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is so ill informed about the process of franchising and the
    10
    substantial number of rolling stock orders that have been placed, in return not only for 10 or 15-year franchises but for franchises of seven years. Indeed, Chiltern Railway was the first private franchise operator to place an order for new trains. This morning, the franchise for Regional Railways North-East was awarded, with a commitment to replace the class 308 rolling stock that serves the area north-west of Leeds with 16 three-car electric multiple units. I am sure that Madam Speaker will not permit me the time to do so, but I could reel off other examples that prove the hollowness of the hon. Gentleman's case.

    Rail Privatisation
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his current estimate of the cost of rail privatisation. [13353]
    Sir George Young: In the six years since 1990–91, the following costs will have been incurred in restructuring, privatising, franchising and regulating the new railway industry: Department of Transport, £91.7 million; British Rail and Railtrack, £417.2 million; and the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and Office of the Rail Regulator, £121.1 million. Those costs represent some 2 to 3 per cent. of total railway industry turnover over that six-year period. They are far outweighed by the proceeds of more than £5 billion that the Government have received from privatisation.
    Mr. Grocott: That is a staggering waste of public money, and an incomplete list. Why did the Secretary of State not include the £450 million of consultancy and other fees involved? Why did he not mention the train leasing companies, valued at £3 billion but sold for £1.8 billion? Cannot the Government understand the anger people feel about the sale of priceless national assets such as the rail network, which was built for the most part with picks and shovels owned by us all? As soon as the Government got their grubby hands on the assets, they were sold off at knockdown prices to the few at the expense of the taxpayer.
    Sir George Young: That was the same speech that we heard 10 years ago when the Government privatised British Airways. We heard the same diatribes from Opposition Members at every privatisation. Every privatisation has incurred some up-front costs. We believe that they are justified by the enterprise, investment and improved service for customers. Exactly the same arguments apply to British Rail.
    Mr. Robathan: Does my right hon. Friend welcome nostalgia that harks back so lovingly to the days of the British Rail sandwich, the mass closure of stations and lines, the wrong snow and the wrong leaves on the track: the standing national joke that was British Rail, notwithstanding the good work done by many? Will he reassure my constituents that he will travel on Midland Main Line so that he can see the excellent work that has been done and the plans that are in hand to increase the number of trains to allow a half-hourly service from London to Leicester, and appreciate the 4 Sight fare, which is finally encouraging people off the M1 and into the trains?
    Sir George Young: People outside will contrast what they have just heard from my hon. Friend with what they heard from the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott). My hon. Friend has rightly pointed out that we are already seeing improvements in punctuality and reliability as a result of franchising. The long-term savings from privatisation will be substantial; after seven years, the subsidy for the 20 franchises that we have let will be less than one third of that required by British Rail in 1995–96. We are, therefore, getting a better deal for passengers, at less cost to the taxpayer.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is not the Secretary of State a little frightened of being struck down for the marvellous interpretations of the figures that he manages to give the House? Is not the reality that under some of the new franchises, the old slam-door stock, which is known to be dangerous, is being brought back into operation, painted a new colour and presented as a new service? Is it not true that taxpayers will be paying more after the end of the right hon. Gentleman's machinations, having lost all the assets, than at any other time? Would not it occasionally become the Conservative Government if they just admitted that, in the most brutal and panicky fashion, they have handed bars of gold to all their colleagues in the City in exchange for a worse and unacceptable standard of transport?
    Sir George Young: The party that needs to admit that it got it wrong on privatisation is the Labour party, not the Conservative party. As a result of franchising, we are witnessing a £1 billion investment in new rolling stock. There is no way that that sort of investment could have been achieved had the railways remained in the public sector—not under this Government and not under an alternative Government supported by the hon. Lady. We are driving up investment to a far higher level than would have been sustained had the railways remained in the public sector.
    Mr. Garnier: When the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) mentioned the slam-door rolling stock that has been painted a new colour, did not my right hon. Friend think of new Labour? Will he ask his Department to cost the amount that the privatised Railtrack and privatised franchise companies will be investing in the railways in the next few years? Were that money to come from central Government funding, how much would that cost the British taxpayer?
    Sir George Young: The figure for Railtrack is £8 billion spend over five years and the figure for rolling stock investment, which I have just given to the House, is £1 billion. That investment is not coming out of the public sector, and it no longer has to compete with funds for health, education and law and order. The public sector constraint has disappeared. As with other privatisations, railway investment has been driven up fast after privatisation.

    London Underground (Privatisation)
    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies he has carried out concerning the practicability of privatising London Underground. [13354]
    Mr. Bowis: We are examining whether the benefits of privatisation can be extended to London Underground. We shall announce our conclusions once that work has been completed.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that there would be a further disbenefit to London from the further disintegration of public passenger transport? Is he not aware that London Transport, the pride of the world's transport systems, was introduced by Herbert Morrison in a Bill in this place? It was initially passed by a Labour Government and passed again by a Conservative Government in 1933. Would not privatisation be disadvantageous to Londoners because, by order, public property would have to be disposed of at a knock-down price? Londoners would also have to continue to pay taxes to subsidise not just the natural subsidy that must be paid, but the profits of the operator. That might conceivably be disadvantageous to the Conservative party at the election.
    Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman is selective in his use of history. I think that he will recall that much of the London underground started as projects of private railway companies, which put the necessary Bills through the House—as did those responsible for the main line rail services. As I said in my initial answer, we are looking carefully to see whether the benefits of privatisation could sensibly apply. If they did, all the relevant requirements and guarantees—for example, those on fares, the levels of service, travelcards, concessionary fares and so on—would have to be included in a Bill .
    If the hon. Gentleman wants to see the advantages of privatisation, he need look no further than the privatised railway companies where the number of complaints has been falling, passenger numbers are going up, and reliability, punctuality and new investment are improving. That is certainly something of which we need to take note.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, if London Transport were to be privatised, a regulator would ensure minimum standards of service, maximum levels for fares and the continuation of the concessionary fares scheme which is so vital to pensioners across London?
    Mr. Bowis: Leaving aside the detail of regulators and so on, I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend that we would not proceed with a privatisation proposal that did not ensure exactly the reassurances that he and, I think, the majority of Londoners want. That would be in stark contrast to anything that I have heard so far from the Opposition about their policies, which would give no new investment, no new lines and no new money to London's transport services.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: Do the Government intend to make any detailed departmental announcement to the House regarding their impractical and deeply unpopular proposals to privatise London Underground, or will such a statement emanate, as has been reported,

    13
    from Conservative central office? If it were the latter, would that not constitute a misuse of civil servants by their drafting party political dogma, demonstrating the Government's gross abuse of dedicated public servants whose duty, first and last, is surely to the British people and not to the chairman of the Conservative party and his propaganda machine?
    Mr. Bowis: What a load of nonsense. I yield to nobody in my admiration for the public servants who work for the Government of the day and who work to enable them to propose sensible and workable schemes. The hon. Lady is quick to dismiss a proposal that has not even been announced yet; I suggest that she waits, although I can understand her anxiety for it to be introduced quickly. She now recognises—or, if she does not, at least her hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) now recognises—that privatisation has brought benefits in many parts of the transport system and she wants to see whether we have proposals to enable those benefits to be available to London's underground system.
    The hon. Lady is impatient for our policy, which is based on a record of investment unequalled since the war. She should be aware that we, too, are impatient—for more details of her policy because they have trickled out, piece by piece by piece. We have had the triple whammy for Londoners of Labour's London transport policy: first, no more money, secondly, no new lines and now a utilities tax on London's buses.

    Rail Privatisation
    Sir Alan Haselhurst: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received about the performance of the train operating companies since privatisation. [13355]
    Mr. Watts: My Department and the franchising director have received 241 letters about the performance of franchised services since franchised operations started, which for some services is now over a year ago.
    Sir Alan Haselhurst: Will my hon. Friend contrast the reaction following privatisation with the doom and gloom that we heard before privatisation? Are we not starting to see a steady stream of investment and improvement in the railways? All the services are being maintained at least at the level that existed before privatisation and we have the prospect of improvements in track investment—not only the investment that Railtrack has just announced for the West Anglia line serving my constituency, but investment all around the compass.
    Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend is entirely right and, to put those 241 letters into context, those same franchise services will have carried 510 million passengers over the last year. He is right to draw attention to the substantial improvements in services that are being delivered, such as West Anglia Great Northern, which serves his own constituency, and the commitment to introduce a third Stansted skytrain service per hour when necessary to accommodate rising demand. It is a story of new rolling stock, more services for passengers and services being maintained at least at their level before privatisation—and all at substantially lower cost to the taxpayer. It is a double win for passengers and taxpayers.
    Mr. Bradley: How many of the representations that the Minister has received from the public relate to the chaos
    14
    in customer information? Does he accept the view expressed by the Rail Regulator in his recent report that he expects the new customer information system to
    "Do much better than it is doing today in providing information about railway services"?
    Is the Minister satisfied with the fulfilment of obligations imposed on private rail operators to provide passengers with details of the cheapest fares and the most rapid journey times available, including those on fares and times relating to competing companies?
    Mr. Watts: The last time I was asked a question regarding complaints about passenger information, the answer was 12 complaints from genuine members of the public. Unlike organisations that make bogus complaints, most passengers wishing, for example, to travel to the west country would not go to King's Cross to obtain information on services. On Tuesday 4 February, the first anniversary of the Great Western franchise, I opened the new telephone inquiry bureau in Cardiff, which has expanded capacity and new high-tech equipment and which is fully equipped to give impartial information—a licence condition for all rail operators.

    Road Embankments (Landscaping)
    Mr. Robert Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to improve the landscaping of motorway and dual carriageway road embankments. [13356]
    Mr. Watts: Existing guidance on the landscape treatment of new schemes is set out in the "Good Roads Guide" and is kept under constant review. New guidance on the landscape management of roadside planting is in preparation. Landscape treatments were addressed recently in the Highways Agency's environmental strategy document, "Living with Roads".
    Mr. Banks: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that even more should be done to improve the landscaping of embankments along our motorways and dual carriageways, and that we can learn a great deal from schemes that have been completed in other countries? Specifically, will he ensure that the embankments along the new motorway sections of the Al are imaginatively landscaped with trees, shrubs and features? Moreover, will he instigate a competition among architects, landscape designers and sculptors to redesign the approach road from Heathrow into the capital city so that we can at least impress our visitors? It would be a stimulus for sculptors to put some of their work on public display.
    Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that tree and shrub planting along the A 1(M) Walshford-Dishforth improvement section has started this planting season. The remaining tree and shrub planting will take place as soon as possible following completion of the remaining engineering works. We take special care to choose native species of trees and shrubs to enhance the landscape through which our roads are built.
    Regarding the approaches to London, my hon. Friend will have noticed significant work on the A4 corridor between Chiswick and Hammersmith, and I invite him to accompany me or my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London to inspect those works.

    Rail Freight (Yorkshire)
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage the transportation of freight in Yorkshire by rail rather than road; and if he will make a statement. [13357]
    Mr. Watts: The key to the revival of rail freight is privatisation. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may scoff, but it is a fact that the amount of freight carried by rail declined steadily throughout the years of state ownership, but that it has recently started to increase. The new private sector freight companies are attracting new traffic to the railway. Meanwhile, we will continue to make available grants to encourage the shift of freight from road to rail.[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The question is about Yorkshire.
    Mr. O'Brien: is the Minister aware that the rail freight terminal serving Yorkshire and the northern region is in my constituency? It is a key terminal, linking the Yorkshire region with towns in the European Community. The mode of travel for freight is now such that we can introduce a speedy, efficient, door-to-door container service from Wakefield to towns in Europe.
    Is the Minister aware of the differences between the piggyback consortium and Railtrack concerning the rail gauge enhancement and of the difficulties that those differences are causing? What will he do to knock heads together so that we can get that system into operation? If the Euro-terminal in my constituency is to succeed, the service must be operating efficiently. Will he ensure that the enhancement of the rail gauge is not put on the back burner or delayed, creating difficulties in getting the terminal operating from my constituency?
    Mr. Watts: I am well aware of that excellent new facility, because I took a close interest in the provision of assistance for it from Government funds.
    We have appointed consultants to monitor the work undertaken by Railtrack on the piggyback enhancement proposals so that we shall be ready to make a rapid decision should it apply for a freight facilities grant to contribute towards the enhancement. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that some piggyback services can already start to operate commercially because of the development of the spine wagon, which I launched at Rosyth at the end of last year. He will also have noted that English, Welsh and Scottish railways has been in discussions with Milk Marque about the resumption of milk trains using piggyback wagons to carry the tanker trailers.

    London-Tilbury-Southend Line
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the level of services provided on the LTS line to Southend and Shoeburyness since privatisation. [13358]
    Sir George Young: The services provided on the LTS line have improved significantly since the franchise, which is operated by Prism Rail plc, commenced operation on 26 May last year. More trains are being run, and reliability and punctuality have improved.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Secretary of State aware that, under the previous management, the service to Southend, where I live with my family, was so deplorable and appalling that it was widely known as the "misery line"? Is he also aware that the job applications of many people in Southend, some of whom I know, to work in London were refused because those people depended on the LTS line to travel to London? In those circumstances, would he be willing to offer his sincere congratulations to the new management? Will he, in all sincerity, seek an assurance from all the parties in the House that, irrespective of who wins the election, there will be no going back to the bad old days?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend speaks for his constituents when he recognises that, following our introducing the passengers charter in 1992, train service performance is at an all-time high. That is good news for his constituents, and good news for all who use that railway.
    Under the franchise, two thirds of the rolling stock must be replaced with new rolling stock, and the other third with more modern rolling stock. A new station is being built at West Ham, and £14 million is being invested in new security arrangements. Interestingly, there has been a 66 per cent. fall in the number of assaults on passengers since the franchise was taken over. I hope that all hon. Members will welcome that improvement.

    Traffic (M65-A56)
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment he has made of the amount of traffic that will transfer to the M65–A56 after November 1997 from the M62. [13359]
    Mr. Watts: No assessment has been made of the amount of traffic that may transfer to the M65–A56 from the M62 upon completion of the M65 Blackburn southern bypass. However, completion of the M65 will result in a 10 per cent. increase in traffic on the existing M65 immediately east of Blackburn.
    Mr. Prentice: Is that not an absolute disgrace? Many motorists will look for an alternative means of getting to the north-east from the M6, and they may use the M65-A56 in my constituency. Does the Minister understand the tremendous concern of people in Colne that thousands of vehicles will be dumped on their doorstep? The Government have done absolutely nothing about trunking the A56, which could offer those people some comfort. When is the Minister likely to undertake a general review of the trunk road network because at the moment the silence is deafening?
    Mr. Watts: I am aware of the concerns in Colne to which the hon. Gentleman refers, not least because I had an opportunity to discuss them with local councillors when I visited the constituency at the hon. Gentleman's invitation. I undertook that once the M65 Blackburn

    17
    southern bypass was completed, we would monitor traffic flows, and that I would keep an open mind about whether a case could be made by the local highway authority for further trunking of the local road network. It is sensible for us to consider such possibilities in the light of evidence, rather than on the basis of speculation.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is it not the case that despite the Government's £6 billion road programme, traffic in the Pendle area will be reduced by the introduction of the west coast main line, which will considerably shorten journey times between the north-west, Birmingham and London? Would not the west coast main line, which will encourage trade in the north-west, be jeopardised by a Labour Government, who have sworn not to see the programme through?
    Mr. Watts: I share my hon. Friend's confidence that the substantial improvements to the rail network and rail services will help to provide a solution to the problems of congestion on our road network. My hon. Friend is right to point out the fact that Labour would rather spend taxpayers' money on renationalising Railtrack than on carrying out sensible improvements to the entire transport infrastructure.

  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    Drugs
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a further statement on the Government's policy on the misuse of drugs. [13374]
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The Government's policy remains that set out in the White Paper, "Tackling Drugs Together", which was published in May 1995. We are determined to sustain a vigorous approach to law enforcement in reducing the supply of illegal drugs, while taking effective action to reduce the demand for drugs among young people and providing accessible treatment to reduce health risks. That strategy is being actively carried forward at the local level by the 105 drug action teams in England, with parallel arrangements in other parts of the United Kingdom.
    Dr. Spink: I thank my right hon. Friend for the action that the Government have taken and, indeed, that he has taken to tackle the evil of drugs in our society. Did he see the programme about the dangers of drugs in south-east Essex and note that drugs destroy the lives of our constituents in Essex? Will he join me in welcoming the Crimestoppers initiative and the say no and phone—SNAP—initiative, which encourages youngsters to turn the tables on the evil people who push drugs by giving information to the police on the 0800 555111 telephone number which they can use confidentially?
    Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. I did not manage to see the programme, but my office is obtaining a video and I hope to watch it. There is no doubt that the results of the SNAP campaign have been striking. I hope that that effort, continuing as
    18
    part of the general Crimestoppers campaign, will be pursued. I strongly commend my hon. Friend's support for it in south Essex.
    Mr. Rooker: May I take this opportunity to offer the Opposition's congratulations on the work that the Leader of the House has done in chairing the important Cabinet Sub-Committee? From recent meetings that I and some of my colleagues shadowing other Departments have had, we are well aware of the right hon. Gentleman's contribution and non-gimmicky approach. The work is treated very seriously outside the House and will be continued by Labour following the general election.
    Mr. Newton: I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about me, and for the assurance that he gave, although I do not anticipate the eventuality.
    Mr. Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention to activities to discourage people in the music industry from making statements and acting in a way that encourages the consumption of drugs among young people, and continue the Government's support for the Public Entertainments Licences (Drug Misuse) Bill, which is going through the other place and which we hope will soon become law?
    Mr. Newton: I can assure my hon. Friend of the Government's continued support for the Public Entertainments Licences (Drug Misuse) Bill, sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg). I note also the earlier comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), with which I have a great deal of sympathy and on which he has recently received a letter from my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

    Non-Sitting Fridays
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the operation of non-sitting Fridays. [13375]
    Mr. Newton: Under Standing Order No. 11A, there are 10 constituency Fridays, on which the House does not sit, in each Session. Those Fridays are treated as sitting days for the purpose of calculating periods of notice, and on them hon. Members may give notice of questions and of amendments to Bills between 11 am and 3 pm. The Government have undertaken to use their best endeavours to avoid taking highly contentious business on Thursdays, especially those that fall before constituency Fridays.
    Mr. Barnes: Has the Lord President of the Council noticed the impact that non-sitting Fridays and the business generally dealt with on Fridays has had on Thursdays? The right hon. Gentleman has already mentioned the subject. If he compares Prime Minister's Question Time on a Tuesday with that on a Thursday, he will notice that the Chamber is only half full on a Thursday. There is no difference between a Tuesday and a Thursday—the Prime Minister is equally boring on both occasions, so that cannot be the reason. The difference

    19
    must involve non-sitting Fridays and their impact on Thursday's business. The House now works virtually a three-day week.
    Mr. Newton: Leaving aside the characteristically tendentious second half of the hon. Gentleman's question, I can tell him that the basis on which the Jopling proposals were put to the House was that if constituency Fridays were to be sufficiently beneficial to those who sought them, business on Thursdays would have to be kept light. The non-sitting Fridays have been disproportionately
    20
    beneficial to the Opposition owing to the greater geographical distance from the House of many Opposition Members' constituencies.
    Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Order. There will be no points of order until after the statement. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that we are about to hear an important statement.

Ashworth Hospital
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): With permission, I should like to make a statement about action being taken to address the allegations involving the personality disorder unit at Ashworth hospital in Merseyside. The unit comprises six wards, with 115 patients, within the total population of Ashworth hospital of 473 patients.
Hon. Members will be aware that last Friday I instituted urgent action to address the very serious situation that had been brought to my attention in the preceding few days. In October last year, Stephen Daggett, a patient at Ashworth hospital, made a number of allegations, including the misuse of drugs and alcohol, financial irregularities, the availability of pornographic material, and possible paedophile activity involving a child visitor within the personality disorder unit.
I am advised that the hospital began investigations at that time and that a subsequent ward search on 17 January found a large amount of pornographic material. Despite the availability of this evidence and of Mr. Daggett's allegations, the hospital continued to maintain that press reports of unacceptable and possibly unlawful activity within the personality disorder unit were unfounded.
On 28 January, the Home Office received a letter from the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) enclosing a 60-page dossier setting out the detail of Mr. Daggett's allegations. The dossier was passed by the Home Office to my Department.
On 31 January, police visited the home of a former Ashworth patient who had continued to be a frequent visitor to the hospital. Following that action, a child has been taken into the care of the local authority under an emergency protection order.
In light of the allegations made by Mr. Daggett and of other evidence that has recently become available, I made three announcements on Friday of last week. First, the hospital has suspended three members of staff, including the chief executive. An acting chief executive was appointed with immediate effect. He is Mr. Erville Millar, chief executive of Lambeth Health Care NHS trust, who has a strong background in mental health services. I can further inform the House this afternoon that the hospital has today suspended a member of its medical staff.
Secondly, I established on Friday a statutory inquiry under section 84 of the National Health Service Act 1977 to review the clinical policies and the management of the personality disorder unit at Ashworth hospital. The inquiry will be led by His Honour Judge Peter Fallon QC, a recently retired senior circuit judge. A section 84 inquiry has the power to summon witnesses and to take evidence on oath. The inquiry will determine how and on what terms it takes evidence. It will also be for the inquiry to ensure that its work does not compromise continuing police investigations or possible criminal proceedings, but I would expect it to report within a year. That report will be published.
The terms of reference for the inquiry will be published as soon as possible. They will make it clear that, as it is activities within the hospital's personality disorder unit that have caused recent concern, the inquiry should focus on the policies, management and clinical care provided by
22
that unit. The inquiry will, however, also wish to follow up any wider questions that are necessary to the proper consideration of the issues.
The third announcement I made on Friday was on the alleged involvement of a child. The chief inspector of social services, Sir Herbert Laming, has asked the local authority concerned for a full report on the handling of the case by its social services department. I will decide, in the light of that report, whether further action needs to be taken.
The allegations that have been made about Ashworth hospital are extremely serious, and the public are entitled to reassurance on two counts. First, Ashworth hospital must be properly managed and must provide a high level of security for the benefit both of patients and of the public at large. Secondly, the hospital must also ensure that its patients receive a high standard of clinical care. The action that I announced on Friday is directed at the achievement of both those objectives.
Ms Tessa Jowell: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, and his action in setting up the inquiry under Mr. Fallon. I should also like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) for her action, on behalf of her constituents, in ensuring that the terrible allegations were brought to light and investigated.
The revelations are shocking. Equally disturbing, however, is the fact that the alleged pornography trade and paedophile activity could have gone on undiscovered in a hospital that has recently already been subject to a fundamental and far-reaching inquiry, under the chairmanship of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper. That inquiry was to have led to the introduction of a new complaints procedure, 24-hour nursing across the hospital, and an independent patients' advocacy service. I understand that Ministers were also to monitor the hospital's performance in acting on the inquiry's recommendations, through the so-called "accountability review process". The new allegations illuminate the failure of any effective accountability in the hospital.
Will the Secretary of State tell the House when allegations related to this inquiry were first made to any party? Were the allegations—or allegations on related matters to do with Ashworth hospital—reported at any earlier time, before 28 January, to the Secretary of State, to his predecessor or to any Minister; or to the High Security Psychiatric Services Commissioning Board, to the Ashworth hospital board or to the Mental Health Act Commission? If so, what action was taken in each case?
What visits were paid to the hospital by Ministers or by any of the bodies I have mentioned between October, when the allegations were first made by Mr. Daggett, and receipt of the dossier submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax to the Secretary of State? What conclusions, if any, were drawn from those earlier visits? Were unannounced visits made to the hospital by the commissioning board in the second half of last year? If not, why not, given Ashworth's history? Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the allegations expose the dreadful inadequacy of the monitoring systems which are supposed to ensure safety at high-security hospitals?
As for the future, we welcome the inquiry, but we hope that it will be held in public. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the inquiry will deal with the

23
hospital's chronic staff shortage—which has come to light only because of the dreadful allegations? Does he accept that the gagging of staff, which was introduced by the Government, has made it more difficult for such allegations to come to light? Will he now join Labour in a commitment to end the gagging of staff in the national health service?
After yet more allegations about abuse and depravity in a special hospital, will the Secretary of State also establish an additional and separate inquiry to examine the appropriate treatment and custodial arrangements for people suffering from personality disorder, as part of the wider review called for by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and Dr. John Reed into the future of the three large special hospitals as appropriate institutions for the care of dangerously mentally ill people?
We do not doubt the seriousness with which the Secretary of State has taken these allegations since they were brought to his attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, but perhaps he needs to be reminded that the people of Britain want a Secretary of State for Health working on health and not devolution, fighting for patients and not the Tory party leadership.
Mr. Dorrell: The Blom-Cooper inquiry made a number of recommendations, all of which except one were implemented. I was on a radio programme with Sir Louis on Saturday morning when he was good enough to acknowledge that, as a consequence of the recommendations that he had made, there had been substantial changes in the regime at Ashworth, changes that he welcomed and which he said reflected the burden of his report.
The only recommendation of the Blom-Cooper report that we did not implement was that we should put an end to the use of seclusion in special hospitals. We stated at the time that we did not intend to accept that recommendation because we felt that it was not possible to run hospitals of that nature while eschewing ever the use of seclusion. Every one of the other recommendations of the Blom-Cooper report was implemented. I shall return to this, because there is an important lesson in the fact that we implemented all but one of Blom-Cooper's recommendations, which we should keep in mind now.
The hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) asked when the allegations were first made. The answer is that they started to circulate in the press in the autumn of last year. It is precisely because the advice and information relating to the allegations and coming to the Department of Health from the hospital now appears to suggest that adequate knowledge was not then being passed on to the Department that we have made the changes that I announced on Friday—the suspension of the manager and the establishment of the inquiry to ascertain exactly what happened, what should be happening and, more important, what should happen in the future.
The hon. Lady also asked whether the inquiry would take place in public. I was careful to say in my statement that that was a matter for the inquiry itself. Therein lies one of the lessons of the Blom-Cooper process. That inquiry was held wholly in public. One of the lessons that we should draw from the Blom-Cooper process is that it did not resolve all the issues for the future of Ashworth.
24
More recent inquiries, especially that surrounding the events of the Beverley Allitt case, suggest that it is easier for independent inquiries of this nature—I stress the words "independent inquiries"—to get to the bottom of what exactly happens in these very difficult cases if at least some of the evidence is taken in private.
That specific provision was included in the announcement that I made on Friday so that Mr. Fallon should have that option open to him if he wishes to take it. It is a matter for him and his inquiry. The inquiry report will of course be published.
I reject what the hon. Lady said about what she calls gagging clauses. The only provision that we have made in contracts for staff of the health service is that, where there is a disagreement between members of staff and their employing authority, the staff should first take their disagreements to the authority. We have never sought to prevent members of staff taking their disagreements outside the authority if they fail to get satisfaction. With respect, it is not members of staff who have been the key to the changes that I announced on Friday.
The hon. Lady is right about the treatment of personality disorders. One of the difficulties surrounding the treatment of mentally ill and disturbed patients is knowing how to deal with those suffering from long-term personality disorders. That question is currently the subject of discussion with the psychiatric profession and is, I suggest, best dealt with in that context, as it is the clinicians who ultimately have to make the decisions about the treatment of individuals.
The commissioning board is part of the Department of Health. It is conducting a review of the future of special hospital provision and high-security psychiatric care. That is one of the issues that Sir Louis Blom-Cooper feels that we should consider in the light of the history of the special hospitals. That is why the commissioning board is reviewing it.
Mrs. Alice Mahon rose—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Mahon: I welcome the Secretary of State's decision to set up the inquiry. Will it investigate the treatment meted out to Stephen Daggett, who went to extraordinary lengths to get the inquiry under way, including absconding and, when he was moved to Rampton against his will, going on hunger strike? Can I have an assurance that his case will be looked into? Will the Secretary of State also give other whistleblowers, such as staff who might want to speak out, some protection? I share the anxiety about gagging clauses expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell).
Is the Secretary of State aware that the chief executive of Rampton had Stephen Daggett's report on 25 November? Did she call the police, inform the Department of Health or the Home Office, or—as I am led to believe—simply photocopy it and send it back to Ashworth, saying to Mr. Daggett, "This is an Ashworth question, not ours"? If she did, will her behaviour be included in the investigation?

25
When did the visits to Lawrence ward by the little girl mentioned in the report stop? Does the Secretary of State agree that, if they were allowed to continue after early October, many people who should have known better left her unnecessarily exposed to danger?
Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the way in which she has responded to the announcements that I made on Friday. I should also have said that I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dulwich for the way in which she and her hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Health have responded. To the extent that examining the background to Mr. Daggett's care is relevant to the wider inquiry on the way in which Lawrence ward has been run—it is clearly one of the central issues—of course the inquiry will look into the nature of the care that he received and where it went wrong.
It is perfectly true that the dossier that Mr. Daggett provided to the manager of Rampton was sent, on my understanding, on the Monday following its receipt to the manager of Ashworth, but, as I said in my original statement and repeated this afternoon, that dossier was not made available to officials or Ministers in my Department until the hon. Member for Halifax sent it to me.
I do not seek to give an authoritative answer to the hon. Lady's question about the last day on which the girl who is now in care visited the ward, because it is one of the issues that the inquiry will consider in great detail. It will look into whether such visits took place, on what terms and how often, and when they came to an end. Those alleged visits are at the centre of the concerns that have been expressed about the case.
Sir Roger Sims: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the prompt action that he took as soon as he was alerted to the situation. The apparent lack of supervision at Ashworth is worrying. The suggestion of paedophilia and child abuse is horrifying and appalling.
My right hon. Friend referred to wider issues. Do those include the way in which such institutions are run? Anyone who needs medical treatment should surely receive it, but the people in Ashworth are there, first, because they have committed serious offences, and, secondly, because they need medical treatment. Should not security and supervision in such institutions be just as rigorous as in conventional prisons? Is it not self-evident that that was not the case at Ashworth?
Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome for the prompt action that was taken. I entirely agree with him about the pre-eminent need for security in hospitals of this nature, although he is not entirely right in saying that every patient in a special hospital is an offender. People can be sent to such hospitals if they suffer from dangerous disorders, without having committed an offence. They are there because both they and the rest of society need the protection that a highly secure environment can provide. Hospitals are failing if they do not provide that security: they are failing their patients, and the wider public. My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that that is one of the prime responsibilities of such institutions.
26
As for the broader question of the long-term future of high-security psychiatric care, that—as I said in answer to an earlier question—is one of the issues that the commissioning board is now actively reviewing.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for the prompt action that has been taken. Like him, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahan).
May I put it to the right hon. Gentleman, however, that the answers that he has given today have not dealt with one issue? I refer to the fear that quasi-independent national health service trusts, and the management of the three special hospitals—Ashworth, Broadmoor and Rampton—are able to be semi-autonomous, and that no one checks that they carry out their activities in the interests of patients and the wider public, rather than in their own interests and with a view to their own managerial self-preservation.
May I suggest that the way forward—I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would give it serious consideration—is the establishment of a standing inspectorate of health and social care that can inspect any trust, hospital or other health service facility at any time, at the instigation of patient, member of staff or friend or relative? We need to ensure that there is someone outside the premises who can check on what is going on. In this instance, the concern is that, although the allegations were made, for internal reasons people decided not to take them seriously or to do anything. That is a very worrying state of affairs.
Mr. Dorrell: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's diagnosis. The problem is that such institutions are too tightly held, and that information that should properly be available to the accountability chain—including, ultimately, me as Secretary of State—apparently was not available. I have set up the inquiry to establish why it was not.
The hon. Gentleman asked for a separate agency or inspectorate to examine such issues. With all respect, that is not the solution that immediately suggests itself to me, given that we already have two agencies dealing specifically with mental health. The Health Advisory Service actually went to Ashworth in 1995, and delivered a report that suggested that the situation there was improving. That agency—an agency of the precise kind that the hon. Gentleman suggests—delivered a report which, although not devoid of criticism, was generally encouraging following that visit, which was not very long ago. Detained, restricted and sectioned patients also already have the protection of the Mental Health Act Commission. So, in the specific field of high-security psychiatric services, we already have two bodies of the kind that the hon. Gentleman is considering.
Ms Ann Coffey: They are not very effective.
Mr. Dorrell: Indeed. That is why I do not think that we should leap to the conclusion that another of those agencies is the answer. We should be considering why information did not flow, at the time when it should have, to the people who were accountable for what went on in the hospital.
Mrs. Jane Kennedy: The Secretary of State suggests that the information was in the

27
public domain because it was being discussed in the media—in the press. Is it not a shocking indictment of the commissioning boards that no one appears to have made an unannounced visit to Ashworth, given the history of that unit? Will the Secretary of State accept ministerial responsibility for the commissioning boards—and for the failure of those boards—if it is shown that they are failing us to such an extent, given that they were set up such a short time ago by his Government?
Mr. Dorrell: I have never sought to avoid ministerial responsibility for what goes on in any part of the health service, including special hospitals. That is why I took the action I did on Friday, when it was clear to me that questions had been asked, and that charges and allegations—serious allegations—had been made and had not been adequately examined by those in the front line. The question whether unannounced visits should take place is no doubt one of the questions that Mr. Fallon will examine.
However, with respect, I do not think that that can be the whole answer. I do think that there needs to be in place a management structure that observes the protocol between the Department of Health and individual special hospitals. That protocol makes it crystal clear that, where such allegations are made about treatment in the hospital, they should be reported. The advice available to me at present suggests that they were not.
Mr. David Alton: Does the Secretary of State accept that, over a long period, there has been succession of inquiries, including by journalists—particularly the local newspaper editor, for instance, who suffered as a result of gagging restraints being placed on him because of speaking out about what was happening at Ashworth? That has all militated against bringing out into the open what takes place in the hospital.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the greatest public concern at present involves the presence of a child on those premises? Will he now tell the House which local authority that child is in the care of, and undertake that nothing will be done to impede the flow of any information that may come out of the inquiry to the Merseyside police, particularly in connection with their inquiry, which is already under way, into paedophile and child abuse activities in the region?
Mr. Dorrell: I can give the absolute assurance that nothing will be done to impede the flow of information. I do not propose to reveal which local authority is responsible for the social services department, for the fairly obvious reason that it would be quite hard to preserve confidentiality in relation to the child if we narrowed it down to one local authority and an ex-Ashworth patient with a young child. That would severely jeopardise the ability to maintain that confidentiality.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is evidence that, some time ago, trade unionists who worked at the hospital received representations about the allegations, and that, in some cases, they were warned that, if they opened their mouths too wide, the union would be de-recognised? Is he aware that one of the features of this Government is that, more and
28
more, trade union free collective bargaining is prevented in these institutions, including in nursing homes? His Government encourage such activity.
The Secretary of State and the Government should be aware of the fact that trade unions are not just about wages; they are about conditions, and they act as watchdogs to alert the management to practices. It is high time that more attention was paid to such people, who have to work for a living, so that they can alert the authorities to some of the abuses that have taken place at Ashworth and elsewhere.
Mr. Dorrell: The suggestion that any part of the health service has threatened to remove recognition from a trade union that has raised such a concern is, frankly, ridiculous. One of the features of the hon. Gentleman's contributions to the House's debates is that they get further and further removed from anything that resembles the sort of world in which the rest of the House lives.
Mr. David Winnick: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), who carried out her parliamentary duties in the most conscientious way. A tribute should certainly be paid to her for so doing.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the large majority of people believe that he should have enough on his plate as Secretary of State for Health without delving into Scottish nationalism, devolution or developments in the European Union? Is it not unfortunate that he finds plenty of opportunities for such headline work, trying to promote himself in the Tory party, and not doing the job for which he was appointed in the first place?
Mr. Dorrell: I notice that, when the opportunity arises to make a contribution to one of the most difficult aspects of the health service, all the hon. Gentleman can think of is an opportunity to make silly party political points. I think that the House and the country will draw their own conclusions from his action.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: If it is true that some information about these matters, in particular Mr. Daggett' s comments, was being reported in the press in late autumn, is it not fair to say that the Minister's private office would have been aware of that? If it was aware of it, why did it not carry out inquiries as early as that, instead of the inquiry being set up today?
Mr. Dorrell: The answer is that questions were asked on behalf of Ministers, and answers were given that suggested that there was not a problem. It is precisely that failure to pass on the information central to proper accountability that is the focus of the inquiry that I have set up.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Should not the whole question of the grouping together of so many people with the medical condition that leads to this sort of perverse conduct be re-examined? Is it really advisable that so many people should be congregated together who are only too likely to indulge themselves in this sort of improper performance and conduct? Should this not be a matter that is looked at in this investigation?
Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Incidentally, it would be wrong to imagine that every

29
patient in the personality disorder unit is there because of sexual offences, as that is not the case. Personality disorder has a wider meaning than that.
However, there is a serious question about the proper provision for people with severe personality disorders. I suggest that lay Members of this House should approach this question by taking the advice of trained psychiatrists, who have a proper understanding of what is and is not possible with modern psychiatric science. Having said that, I believe that the hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that there are important questions about clinical judgment concerning the treatment of such patients, and that is exactly what the commissioning board is examining.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Why is it that everything that goes right in government is the result of the work of Ministers, and everything that goes wrong is the fault of civil servants?
Mr. Dorrell: Whenever I speak about the work of the NHS, I am careful to say that its successes are the result not of political insight but of the dedication and professionalism of the professional staff who work in the health service day after day. I find it rather difficult to stomach the slighting of their work that sometimes comes from Opposition Members.
Mr. John Gunnell: The Blom-Cooper report—all but one of whose recommendations have been followed—recommended that there should be an internal inquiry into the dissemination of what it described as "unacceptable literature". It is clear from what the Secretary of State has said that that inquiry has been held. What recommendations were made as a result of that inquiry? From what he has said and what has been reported today, it seems that the recommendations were not effective. When was the inquiry held? What system of accountability currently exists? At what point do he and his office become aware that the system is breaking down?
Mr. Dorrell: I inherited the regime that was introduced following the report. The hon. Gentleman asked how I deal with the implementation of recommendations. The answer is that I make individuals responsible for them, and I set time scales for reports on the implementation of the proposals. I am advised, and am satisfied, that all the recommendations in the Blom-Cooper report, with the exception of the one concerning seclusion, were implemented. I do not know precisely what regime was set up to enforce accountability for the implementation.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Pursuant to the Secretary of State's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), what questions were asked, and what answers to those questions suggested that there was not a problem? It seems as if the Department's officials were deceived by the answers. Is that the case, or were the wrong questions asked?
Did any Minister or official go to or contact this hospital between September and January? As a former parliamentary private secretary to one of the Secretary of State's predecessors who had to deal with Ely, Farley and South Ockenden, I know how difficult questions relating to psychiatric hospitals are. However, I repeat: what questions were asked, and what answers led to the suggestion that there was no problem?
Mr. Dorrell: The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), visited the hospital last autumn. He discussed the issues with the hospital management when he was there. I refer the hon. Gentleman and the House to the paragraph in my statement in which I said:
"Despite the availability of this evidence and of Mr. Daggett's allegations, the hospital continued to maintain that press reports of unacceptable and possibly unlawful activity within the … unit were unfounded."
The hon. Gentleman asked what questions were asked. The questions asked were the obvious ones, given the nature of the reports that were circulating: we asked, "May we please have advice about the nature of the allegations and what is being done to follow them up?" I do not propose to be drawn further on the advice that was given, beyond saying that the advice received by Ministers and officials in the Department of Health from the hospital made it clear that the hospital did not believe that there was a problem. That is one of the issues that will be at the centre of the inquiry that Mr. Fallon will lead.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Further to the previous question, how often do Ministers visit such hospitals? Should not those hospitals be inspected regularly by official bodies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) suggested, and by Ministers, in order to build a culture that encourages visits rather than a culture of neglect?
Mr. Dorrell: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is illustrated by the fact that my hon. Friend with direct responsibility for the special hospitals has visited all three in the four months that he has been responsible for them. In the period that I carried that responsibility, I visited two of the three. Those hospitals are regularly visited by Ministers, but anybody who believes that a ministerial visit is the means of discovering whether serious abuse is taking place on an individual ward has not carried out any ministerial visits.

Questions to Ministers
4.6 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last week, I read in the press that the Prime Minister had given the Secretary of State for Health some constitutional responsibilities, so I attempted to table a question at the Table Office. My question was refused. If the Secretary of State has those additional responsibilities, should not hon. Members be able to ask him questions? Should he not be accountable to the House? In the light of the statement we have just heard about the Ashworth scandal, would it not be better for him to stick to the Department of Health?
Madam Speaker: I always enjoy the hon. Gentleman's points of order and the way that he is able to keep his face straight when he is making the most facetious comments.

Ordered,
That the Birds (Registration Charges) Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mrs. Lait.]

Orders of the Day

  Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.7 pm
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill will make a major new contribution to the Government's highest priorities for shipping policy—improving safety and minimising pollution at sea.
  There has been widespread consultation on the measures in the Bill in all quarters. In line with the Government's policy, the Bill itself was published in draft before its introduction. The consultation revealed a high degree of support as well as some useful suggestions for improvement. The Bill has benefited from extensive consideration in another place, where it received all-party support.
  The Bill adds new measures to the existing framework of policies and is wholly consistent with the Government's fourfold approach to safety and pollution policy—first, seeking to prevent incidents from happening in the first place; secondly, mitigating the consequences once an incident has occurred; thirdly, ensuring that timely and appropriate compensation is paid following an incident; and finally, ensuring that the lessons will be learnt to help prevent future occurrences.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the second issue, does the Secretary of State intend to introduce mandatory provision for port waste reception facilities, with mandatory port waste management plans?
  Sir George Young: I shall reach that section of my speech in a moment. The answer is yes—we are planning to impose an obligation to have waste management plans on the port authorities. We propose to proceed by voluntary methods if we can, and when I reach the relevant section, I hope to say something further on that.
  After the loss of the Braer tanker in 1993, the Government decided that the time was right to commission a wide-ranging investigation into the prevention of pollution at sea. Lord Donaldson was appointed to head an inquiry whose remit was
  "to advise on whether any further measures are appropriate and feasible to protect the United Kingdom coastline from pollution from merchant shipping. Due consideration should be given to the international and economic implications of new measures".
  The report of Lord Donaldson's team, "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas", was welcomed by Government and has since also been recognised internationally as an outstanding contribution to maritime policy on safety and pollution.
  The Government have accepted 91 of the 103 recommendations in the report. More than half of them have already been implemented. In some cases, the Government were able to act without new legislation or international agreement. For example, the United Kingdom continues to exercise a rigorous port state
  32
  control regime and has taken the world lead in publishing lists of detained ships. It has become increasingly successful in detecting substandard ships. Flags with poor safety records, as well as certain types of ships—including oil tankers—are targeted for inspection. Expanded inspections on certain types of ship such as passenger ships, bulk carriers and tankers, began from the start of last year. We have also announced our intention to publish a list of ships found polluting in UK waters or committing offences likely to lead to pollution.
  My Department is continuing to press hard for early implementation of those of Lord Donaldson's recommendations for which international agreement is needed, through the International Maritime Organisation and other international forums. The Bill will enable us to implement the recommendations that we have accepted, which require primary legislation.
  The Bill contains a number of measures that will contribute to our primary objective of incident prevention. Standards are a key weapon of safety policy and a wide range of standards, covering the design, construction, maintenance and operation of ships, are already in place.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The reality, however, is that another incident has been reported today, with yet more sea birds dying of pollution. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the House will have sufficient time to examine this most complex and technical legislation, by jamming it between a statement lasting until 4 o'clock and a decision at 7 o'clock? Is that an adequate and sensible way of considering legislation?
  Sir George Young: As I said, the Bill was published in draft, there was extensive consultation and many helpful comments were made. It was also debated at length in another place. Of course, there will be a Committee stage and the Committee will have an opportunity of going through the Bill clause by clause. I know that the House will want to give the Bill the serious attention that it deserves.
  Flags with poor safety records, as well as certain types of ships, including oil tankers, are targeted for inspection. Expanded inspections on certain types of ship, such as passenger ships, bulk carriers and tankers, began from the start of last year. We have announced our intention to publish a list of ships found polluting in UK waters.
  The Bill contains a number of measures that will contribute to our primary objective of incident prevention.
  Mr. Dalyell: My constituency on the Forth is deeply affected—our beaches are filthy because of dumping. Is the lack of prosecutions for the illegal disposal of plastics at sea primarily because the Marine Safety Agency has insufficient evidence to take legal action? Could that matter be dealt with at some point during the Secretary of State's speech or during the debate?
  Sir George Young: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will deal with that when he replies or in Committee. One of the clauses clarifies the powers for dealing with pollution other than by oil. Perhaps action is not taken simply because there is not enough evidence to secure a conviction.
  The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred to the incident this morning. The marine pollution control unit has arranged for

  33
  samples of oil from the birds to be sent for analysis, to find out more details. If it can be shown that the oil came from an oil tanker, as it is attributable to the slick, it should be possible to make a claim through the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund.
  Standards are constantly kept under review and updated by the Marine Safety Agency, often in the context of international agreements. For the majority of vessels in UK waters, the legal powers to update those standards are already in place.
  In his report, Lord Donaldson identified fish factory ships, also known as klondykers, as a particular problem. Some klondykers fall through a loophole and are not at present covered by national or international standards. Clause 11 would allow requirements relating to safety to be prescribed for such ships. To ensure that those standards can be enforced, the clause provides for a notice to be served prohibiting the ships from carrying on with fish processing if the requirements are not met.
  With marine pollution, public attention and headlines often focus on the high-profile single incidents, such as large spills from oil tankers. The Government are no less committed to doing all that is reasonably possible to prevent the equally important problem of illegal discharges of ships' wastes. To that end, my Department announced in January last year a package of 18 measures to combat illegal discharges.
  The measures make use of the carrot-and-stick approach. Clause 5 is the carrot. It increases the incentives to ship operators to make proper use of port waste reception facilities. The stick is more effective enforcement measures and the threat of tougher penalties, strengthened by the higher maximum fines in clause 7.
  Mr. Nick Ainger: Why is the maximum fine increased to £250,000 for oil tankers, but to only £25,000 for chemical carriers? The Secretary of State will be aware that there have been several illegal discharges of chemicals that have caused as much damage as an oil discharge to the marine environment. What is the reason for the glaring discrepancy between oil and chemical tankers?
  Sir George Young: When he winds up the debate, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will deal with that specific point on clause 7, which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, increases the penalty for causing pollution to £250,000—if it is indeed the case that the higher fine applies only to oil.
  I said that the measures took the carrot-and-stick approach, and I touched on the stick, which is the threat of tougher penalties, strengthened by the higher maximum fines in clause 7.
  Mr. Dalyell: Before we leave the subject of the stick, there is the crucial question of evidence, which has to be obtained to bring a case to court. There has to be proof that a vessel does not have the appropriate amount of waste on board for its size and the length of time that it has spent at sea, but in the North sea, it is extremely difficult to identify the culprits. Often, incidentally, we suspect that they are not tankers but other ships discharging waste. Is there any way in which an assessment can be made of how much garbage should be on board for the length of time that has been spent at sea?
  Sir George Young: Again, I hope that we shall be able to say something helpful to the hon. Gentleman later. It is
  34
  certainly the case that the marine pollution control unit is doing more work to identify more accurately which waste is dumped by which ship. The question of evidence is crucial. As I said a moment ago, when it can be proved that the oil has come from an oil tanker, there is the prospect of compensation. We are doing more work to identify those who are polluting our seas.
  Lord Donaldson's inquiry recognised the importance of port waste reception facilities to the fight against pollution. In order to improve their provision and use, the inquiry recommended dialogue between the ports and the shipping and waste industries. We consulted those industries and other interested parties and they agreed that the best way of guaranteeing an effective dialogue was through the development of port waste management plans. Such plans should ensure that port waste reception facilities are adequate for the types and amounts of wastes generated; easy to use; easy to find; and not disproportionately expensive.
  We are very encouraged by the fact that many ports have already begun the planning process on a voluntary basis. However, if necessary, clause 5 would enable us to make plans mandatory for all ports, from the largest commercial port to small fishing or yachting harbours.
  Clause 5 would allow us to alter charging practices if they were acting as a disincentive to the use of reception facilities. It would also allow us to make the discharge of wastes mandatory, for specific types of waste or ships if, in spite of adequate and fairly priced provision, the facilities at ports were not being used.
  Clause 10 allows us to reduce the risk of incidents at sea by preventing dangerous situations from arising.
  Mr. Dalyell: I am sorry to interrupt again, but it would be helpful if the Secretary of State said something about his attitude to the inclusive fee arrangements.
  Sir George Young: In some ports, there is no charge for using the waste facilities—it is included in the overall port fee. In others, there is a separate charge at the point of use. The Government's view is that when an arrangement works adequately, there is no point in our intervening, but there are reserve powers to make the discharge of wastes mandatory for specific sorts of waste or ships if, in spite of adequate and fairly priced provision, the facilities at ports are not being used. Clause 5 contains powers to alter charging practices if they act as a disincentive to the use of reception facilities. In other words, if the reception facilities are so expensive that no one uses them, we have powers to alter the way in which they are charged for. I hope that the Bill contains powers to deal with the hon. Gentleman's important point.
  Clause 10 gives the Government the power to require ships to move on, provided that they are not on legitimate business or exercising a right of innocent passage. For example, the power could be used on a ship anchored in the middle of a busy sea lane or a ship deliberately obstructing others in contravention of the collision regulations.
  The Government are committed to ensuring that steps are taken to reduce the scale, and mitigate the impact, of an incident that has already occurred. Clause 2 would widen our powers to intervene in a salvage operation following a pollution incident at sea. The powers exist so

  35
  that action can be taken if, for example, a shipowner is taking insufficient action or a salvage operation is not being conducted in an appropriate manner.
  The current test for intervention stipulates that the power to act is exercisable when an accident has occurred to, or in, a ship and oil from the ship will, or may, cause
  "pollution on a large scale".
  Clause 2 changes the wording to "significant" and so ensures that the powers can be used where appropriate, regardless of the size of the incident. It also extends the range of persons to whom directions can be given for the purposes of intervention, by providing that directions can be given to harbour masters, harbour authorities and pilots, in addition to the owner, any person in possession of the ship, the master or the salvor.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: When a pilot is guiding a ship through straits or into a harbour, does he have charge of the ship, or is his role that of an adviser to the captain of the vessel?
  Sir George Young: There are some questions that one can answer without hesitation at the Dispatch Box, and others in respect of which one would do well to pause and take professional advice before even thinking about answering. The hon. Gentleman's question falls into the latter category. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has the answer when he winds up.
  The geographical limit of the powers has been extended to include UK-controlled waters up to the 200 nautical mile limit. Clause 1 introduces powers for the establishment of temporary exclusion zones at sea. Such zones would be set up for life saving, prevention of pollution and prevention of damage in UK waters, or part of the sea that includes designated areas lying within the 200 nautical mile limit. Details of the size and position of the zones would be regularly broadcast by Her Majesty's Coastguard and notified by the International Maritime Organisation. The innovation is similar to air exclusion zones, which can already be defined, and was among Lord Donaldson's recommendations.
  A swift response and co-operation among several parties are vital during emergency counter-pollution operations. Clause 6 simplifies the procedures for the Government to grant indemnities to those who assist with counter-pollution operations at our request. It is important to ensure that mechanisms are in place to provide adequate and timely compensation to those who have suffered loss following a pollution incident at sea. The UK has played an active part in negotiations to secure agreement where international co-operation is necessary. In the past, that led to the setting up of an international fund for compensation for damage arising from oil pollution.
  Mr. Dalyell: Does the Secretary of State think that what he is doing in relation to compensation will prevent people who have to make quick decisions from having compensation at the forefront of their minds, to the possible detriment of the speed at which the decision is made?
  Sir George Young: One of the objects of the Bill is for the Government to give indemnities, to prevent those
  36
  who have to respond at the Government's request from hesitating to do so because of fears of litigation. I hope that that deals with the hon. Gentleman's point.
  The Bill contains provision in clause 15 for the United Kingdom to implement and ratify a protocol to amend the 1976 convention on limitation of liability for maritime claims. The protocol would increase the amount of compensation available to meet maritime claims other than for oil pollution. More important, the protocol would increase the amount of compensation available to passengers and their dependants.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: Eligibility for compensation certainly remains a sore point and a live issue in Pembrokeshire at the moment. At the beginning of his speech, the Secretary of State gave an undertaking that full compensation would be paid to people affected, but some people who can clearly show that they were affected find that they are not eligible on the ground that they were affected once or twice removed from the original incident.
  The right hon. Gentleman may recall the case of one of my constituents, Mr. Barrie Foster, who is an adviser and consultant on tourism activities. He found that courses that he had prepared for commercial purposes had to be cancelled because the market had gone. Mr. Foster has been told, however, that he cannot be compensated because the link between the Sea Empress disaster and his work is some distance removed. Will the Bill address that issue?
  Sir George Young: I am not sure that it will. As with every insurance claim, one has to establish that one has suffered a financial loss. That is true as a result of the Sea Empress, as with any other accident. I understand that compensation is paid for financial hardship when people find themselves in real difficulty. At the moment, there is a 75 per cent. cap on the claims that are being paid, but there will be an opportunity to review that in the next few days, when the relevant committee meets.
  The IMO is considering the development of an international regime, to require all ships to carry documentary evidence of the owner's ability to meet third party liabilities. No such requirement currently exists, except for oil tankers. An irresponsible minority of shipowners operate without insurance. We believe that it is unacceptable for them to gain a commercial advantage over responsible shipowners. Clause 16 contains an enabling power for the UK to introduce a requirement for shipowners to have insurance, or another form of financial security, to cover their liabilities. Failure to comply with those requirements could result in tough penalties, including detention and fines of up to £50,000 in the magistrates courts. Our preference would be to exercise those powers in the context of international agreement.
  Mr. Eric Clarke: The Braer disaster was caused by a ship in transit from Norway to Canada. Does the Secretary of State intend to re-route ships to keep them out of territorial waters, because how can he justify boarding a ship to find out whether it is covered for insurance, when it is sailing through the Minch and the Moray firth? How would we achieve that? Would we use

  37
  gunboats and insist on boarding such vessels? Or would we ban all those coffin ships from our waters, as the United States has done?
  Sir George Young: As I understand the powers, they apply to ships that come to United Kingdom ports, not to ships of passage through international waters. As I have already said, the IMO is considering an international regime, which would cover all ships. It would require all ships to carry documentary evidence of the owner's ability to meet third party liabilities. We are taking powers in the legislation to deal with the United Kingdom, and on an international dimension, we are pursuing powers to deal with ships outside UK waters.
  When the Government invited Lord Donaldson to make his report, he was asked to consider the international and economic implications of any new measures. He endorsed the "user pays" and "polluter pays" principles, in accordance with which the shipping sector should bear the costs that it imposes.
  Clause 13 contains enabling powers to recover the costs of maritime services. That could include the standing costs of emergency response and emergency towing, the costs of inspection where not already recovered, and the costs of standard setting activity. If necessary under the terms of an international agreement, light dues, which are already charged for, could be included in a wider charging scheme for maritime services.
  We recognise that new charges for maritime services could have adverse implications for the competitiveness of UK ports, shipowners based in UK ports and exporters and importers using UK ports. We take those issues very seriously and have therefore stated that the preferred approach would be to implement those provisions in the context of international agreement.
  Dr. Godman: On the question of charges, what of charges relating to Coastguard duties? Why are the Secretary of State and his officials so—I nearly said hostile—so reluctant to address the concerns felt by many about vessels steaming through the Minch? In a recent two-month period, 450 ships passed through the Minch, of which 25 per cent. passed through improperly, that is, they failed to report in to the Coastguard. Why do we not have a compulsory Coastguard reporting scheme for the Minch?
  Sir George Young: I shall look at the hon. Gentleman's suggestion and see whether we can respond positively to it. We do not propose to include charges for search and rescue under these facilities.
  Mr. Eric Clarke: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way—I know that we may be trying his patience, but it is important that we know whether the ocean-going tugs that are stationed at strategic points around the United Kingdom will be covered by the insurance. There has been talk of some of them being withdrawn because no one can subsidise their provision. Will that be covered in the plan?
  Sir George Young: The position is that, for the past three winters, there have been emergency tugs stationed by the Government in certain key places—on the Dover straits and up at Stornoway and, recently, one was
  38
  introduced on the south-west approach. Those are broadly the priorities that Donaldson recommends. When I spoke a moment ago about what the powers might cover, I said that they could include the standing costs of emergency response and emergency towing, so those could, indeed, be included in the charging regime that I have just touched on.
  There are some other measures in the Bill. The opportunity is being taken to introduce a number of minor changes to merchant shipping legislation. For example, clause 23 provides for the Government to enter into international agreements concerning the protection of wrecks. Recent years have seen dramatic progress in underwater diving techniques and virtually all wrecks are now accessible to commercial salvors if they believe that there is an opportunity for commercial gain. We believe that we should take a reserve power to enable us to control those activities. We would use the power when necessary, to ensure that proper respect is paid to the final resting place of those who perished on a wreck. That would fill a gap left by the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 and the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Would it not be helpful if, in the miscellaneous areas that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in respect of amending earlier merchant shipping Acts, there be added the contents of a private Member's Bill that was moved in the 1975 Session, which provided that where a Secretary of State does not order a public inquiry when lives have been lost, those affected can apply to the High Court, to ensure that the Secretary of State calls such an inquiry? Without that power, should such important matters be left only to a single brain?
  Sir George Young: I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point, which refers back to the Marchioness tragedy. In that case, there was a marine accident investigation branch inquiry and the jury accepted its findings. Despite the hon. Gentleman's powerful case, I am not persuaded that it would be right to have an additional power for a member of the victim's family to ask for a public inquiry in those cases.
  Clause 19 excludes the Royal National Lifeboat Institution from the Coastguard's power to summon vessels to assist other ships that are wrecked, stranded or in distress. That has been done at the RNLI's request, to ensure that it retains control of its vessels at a local level. In addition, RNLI vessels are provided to save lives rather than property, but the existing legislation would allow them to be used for both. The Coastguard does not and would not use those powers in practice and we are happy to rule out the legal possibility. The RNLI and Her Majesty's Coastguard work together closely and the two organisations enjoy excellent relations between officers at all levels. I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to the invaluable contribution that the RNLI makes to safety at sea.
  The Bill contains a package of carefully designed measures, many of which originated from Lord Donaldson's thorough report and which have been the subject of extensive consultation with a wide range of interested parties. I am sure that the House will join me in wishing to see those measures implemented as quickly as possible, and I commend the Bill to the House.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have waited until

  39
  this juncture to raise it, so that I did not interfere with the flow of the debate, as it does not relate to the Bill before us.
  I tabled a parliamentary question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, asking him to supply information in the Library about electoral registration in each constituency, because the new registers come into operation on 16 February. That question was transferred to the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics, and the reply came from the ONS. The reply is that the ONS is preparing a monitor, detailing electors on the 1997 electoral register, by the new parliamentary constituencies. It will be published by early April 1997, and will be placed in the Library on publication date.
  It is highly unacceptable that, although we can readily discover the numbers in our own constituency, we must wait until April—possibly after the general election—to see the national pattern, so that we may find out how many people are in each constituency and compare the number of people who may be missing from local electoral registers with the national figures.
  I seek your assistance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, regarding ways in which the House may have placed before it essential information that will be in the hands of the Office for National Statistics by 16 February, so that it can be published early—for instance, in duplicated form. Thus we would not have to wait until it was printed in the monitor.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for many years. As he points out, the official date is next week. It seems to me that that leaves several days for him to use his considerable ingenuity to ensure that that point, having been raised on the Floor of the House, is dealt with adequately.
  4.36 pm
  Mr. Andrew Smith: This is a vital Bill, and it is no less important for being in many respects uncontentious.
  Lives at sea and the security of our marine environment need better protection. I hope that there is general agreement on that. Further to the remark that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made about the time available for the debate, perhaps we have the answer in the disgraceful sparsity of Conservative Back Benchers. It is a great pity that more Conservative Members are not taking an interest in the debate.
  Labour Members welcome the Bill in principle and in its implementation of many of the recommendations of Lord Donaldson's report. We join the Secretary of State in praising the work of Lord Donaldson and his colleagues. Their report is a work of tremendous authority, which has received international acclaim.
  We know that there is no room for complacency on the action needed to improve both the prevention of shipping accidents and pollution and the procedures for tackling them effectively when they occur. But for extraordinary good fortune, the Braer disaster, which gave rise to the Donaldson inquiry, would have been many times worse. This coming Saturday, 15 February, will be the first
  40
  anniversary of the Sea Empress disaster, in which 72,000 tonnes of crude oil and 360 tonnes of heavy fuel oil were spilt, affecting much marine life, 7,000 birds and miles of the most beautiful coastline in Britain.
  Only three weeks ago, there was a collision in the channel; 9,000 tonnes of unleaded petrol leaked, which caused airborne pollution to rain down on large parts of England. Today, we have had disturbing reports of an illegal discharge from a vessel in the English channel; already, nearly 200 oiled birds have been found near Portsmouth.
  Those disasters are but a part of the wider problem of smaller maritime accidents and spillages. In 1985, there were 366 reported oil spills in United Kingdom waters; by 1995 that figure had increased by one third to 585, with 142 incidents requiring partial or total clean-up operations. The Library brief points out that members of Lord Donaldson's inquiry were kept informed of the more significant maritime incidents, and were moved to remark that they were
  "shocked to discover just how many potentially serious incidents there were."
  With 8,000 miles of coastline, heavily trafficked sea lanes and often hazardous weather conditions, Britain is particularly vulnerable to the dangers that substandard vessels and human error present in an industry in which ferocious international competition is not matched by sufficiently rigorous international enforcement of standards. It is profoundly disturbing that port state control inspections show that 60 per cent. of vessels are deficient in some respect, with 6 per cent. bad enough to warrant detention.
  As both unions and shipowners have repeatedly warned, the high quality provided by the British merchant fleet and its seafarers is undermined by the growth of flagging out and competition from lower-quality carriers. The decline in the British merchant fleet is such that the number of UK-owned vessels registered in the United Kingdom and dependencies has fallen to a quarter of its 1979 level. Then, we were fourth in the world in gross tonnage, with 7 per cent. of the market; now, we are 29th with barely 1 per cent. Jobs and skills have been haemorrhaging from the industry. It is clear that we need not only action on Donaldson, but action to halt and reverse the decline in the British merchant fleet.
  The wider considerations—the importance of the international context and the competitiveness of the British shipping industry—have an important bearing on our consideration of the Bill. They must be reasons for taking the right action, not excuses for inaction. I am confident that the public will overwhelmingly support the measures required to improve prevention and emergency action on shipping accidents and pollution.
  We welcome the main provisions of the Bill. On prevention, we welcome, subject to questions of detail, the proposals on safety standards, inspection and detention of unseaworthy vessels in UK waters, the power to move vessels on, the application of safety standards to fish transhipment ships—the so-called klondykers—and measures to improve port waste facilities. We also welcome the inclusion in the Bill of enabling powers whereby the Government can require compulsory insurance or other security for liabilities.
  We do well to keep in mind the two points that Lord Donaldson made in the other place. First, he said that some form of approved contract of insurance is needed if

  41
  the requirement is not to be worthless in practice. Secondly, he said that, through international agreement if necessary, there should be a means whereby those with claims against a ship can directly enforce them against the insurer, so that a shipowner cannot simply waltz off with the money.
  On the provisions for dealing with emergencies, we support the establishment of exclusion zones on grounds of safety or pollution threat, the proposed stronger powers of intervention where significant pollution may arise, and their extension to the 200-mile limit. However, we have questions on a number of areas, which we will pursue in Committee.
  Clause 13 and schedule 2 provide for charges for maritime functions, including the standing costs of tackling pollution and standard setting. We understand the fears voiced by the shipping industry that unilateral application of such charges could damage the competitiveness of British ports, and we note that Lord Donaldson recommended that the Government should consult their European Union partners and others to establish a common basis for them.
  The principle that the polluter and the potential polluter should pay undoubtedly makes sense, and I understand that the Government support it, but how are we to implement that principle without causing unfair disadvantage to the UK shipping industry, which is already at a fiscal disadvantage compared with many of its competitors? It would be helpful if the Minister would tell us what progress the Government have made in international discussions on this matter. It would also be useful to know whether the Government have agreed that the income from such charges should be dedicated to the maritime services for which they were levied, and by what mechanism. That was another point that Lord Donaldson pressed in the other place.
  Recommendation 59 of the Donaldson report called for the identification of a limited number of marine environmental high risk areas, or MEHRAs, that ships should routinely avoid because of their particular environmental sensitivity. Unless I missed it, I was surprised that the Secretary of State did not refer to that. When the issue was raised in the other place, the Government argued that amendments to the Bill were unnecessary as identification of MEHRAs was in progress and such a measure could be implemented without further legislation. It has been almost three years since the publication of the Donaldson report, and the Government have not yet produced specific proposals. The fact that it has been suggested that Skomer, which is off the Pembrokeshire coast and near the location of the grounding of the Sea Empress, should be identified as a MEHRA clearly shows the relevance of action on this issue.
  The Secretary of State may be aware of the widespread support for the proposals that has been expressed by the general public and by a range of environmental organisations. I was disappointed to read the comments of the Minister in the other place, who said in Committee that agreement on the environmental criteria was still some way off. I should like to press the Minister to confirm whether the Government are committed to the establishment of MEHRAs, and what time scale is envisaged before they are in place.
  42
  Why cannot the identification of MEHRAs complement other, wider, international developments? The International Maritime Organisation's "particularly sensitive sea areas" and the European Union's "marine environmentally sensitive areas" would complement the establishment of MEHRAs. Indeed, the latter could be candidates for the former. I urge the Government to take the lead in the designation and protection of such sites by pressing for faster progress through the IMO and the EC.
  Notwithstanding the reported success of the existing voluntary routing measures, I am sure that, more than four years after the Braer disaster, none of us would want to have to confront, at some time in the future, an environmental catastrophe that could have been averted by quicker and more effective action now.
  I want to press the Minister on emergency towing vessels. As Lord Donaldson said, they are an important part of the precautions that can be taken to rescue and protect vessels in difficulty. It is a cruel irony that a tug was not placed in the western approaches until eight months after the Sea Empress disaster. What is more, Donaldson proposed year-round tug provision in three key areas, and winter-only provision as a purely interim measure. The current winter-only provision is on a trial basis. When does the Minister expect the review of that cover to be complete, and what provision has been made in the public expenditure forecast for cover in future years? Although the weather plays a large part in incidents of ships in difficulty, the problems do not arise solely because of the weather, and hazardous weather is not confined to the winter.
  On the control of emergency salvage operations, we welcome clause 2, which strengthens the Secretary of State's power. The Donaldson report made it clear that the buck stops with the Secretary of State: a point that he stressed in the recent debates in the other place. We note that powers of intervention were not exercised in the case of the Sea Empress. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), whose expertise in these matters is a service to the House as well as to his constituents, has previously pointed out how crucial it is for the right level of expertise to be available to the Secretary of State, to enable him to step in effectively and early enough to safeguard the interests of the public, seafarers and the environment.
  Will the Minister tell us, in response, what the contingency arrangements are, and what specialist advice and command structure stands ready at short notice to ensure the effective exercise of the powers in the Bill? It will be no good having the powers in clause 2 if they cannot be used properly.
  On port waste reception facilities, we welcome the work that has already been done, and to which the Secretary of State referred, to address the problems of waste facilities and discharge requirements. I understand that about a third of the 350 UK ports and harbours have already forwarded their plans to the Marine Safety Agency.
  Regulations as provided for in the Bill, and based on good practice and further consultation, seem the sensible way to proceed. Will the Minister tell us what steps the Government have taken through the EU, and otherwise

  43
  internationally, to ensure that this sensible measure is not a source of competitive disadvantage to our ports, especially bearing in mind the effect on port dues?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am interested in what my hon. Friend says about consultations within the EU. Does he agree that it would not be sensible for the UK to rely for the provision of tugs or air-sea rescue helicopters on the good will of other countries, irrespective of the organisation to which they belong?
  Mr. Smith: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. It would not be sensible to rely on others, but that should not preclude sensible co-operation, which Donaldson specifically recommended.
  The relative level of costs of using port reception facilities involves not just the EU, but the Baltic states and others. I ask the Minister to let us know what progress the Government have made in their international discussions.
  On the provisions in clause 11 for local authority contingency plans for clean-up operations, what timetable does the Minister envisage for consultation with local authorities, and how does he believe compliance with a statutory duty to clean up oil spills is to be paid for? Will he examine, in conjunction with insurers, possible ways in which councils can get better and quicker reimbursement for insurance?
  We should take this opportunity to praise the many coastal authorities throughout Great Britain that are currently carrying out such work on a non-statutory basis. If the Government are to impose the ends, they must say how they intend to provide the means.
  We shall also press the Minister for assurances on the impact of the Bill's enabling powers of charging in clause 13 and schedule 2 on the general lighthouse fund, to which the Secretary of State referred. From the notes on clauses and ministerial responses in another place, it seems that the Government are at best anticipating European legislation, which by all accounts is some way off. As the Minister is aware, fears about the possible wider implications have been expressed in the industry and by Trinity House. He would do well to make the situation clear in his reply.
  We want to examine the effect of the relative level of fines on shipowners and masters, for which clause 7 provides. It raises the magistrates fine that can be levied on each to £250,000. No one would question the need for swingeing penalties for those responsible for the illegal discharge of oil. It is right that the court should take into account the fact that a master holds an extremely responsible position on a ship and has ultimate responsibility for its day-to-day operations, but we should not forget that the master is responsible to the owner, who is his employer and who can bring considerable pressure to bear. If the fine is intended to impose on each an equal measure of responsibility, it is questionable whether the same sum is applicable, as hardly any master could pay the maximum set down in the clause, whereas some owners could. We shall pursue the matter in Committee.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Bowis): Will the hon. Gentleman explore his thinking a little further? The amount of the fine takes into account ability to pay. If the fines were equal, as
  44
  the hon. Gentleman suggests, that would enable owners to hide behind masters. Presumably, he would not want to encourage that.
  Mr. Smith: We do not seek to encourage that. The question is whether it is right that the maximum should be the same in each case, or whether there should be a higher maximum for shipowners, taking account of the ability to pay. The matter is probably best pursued in Committee.
  There is much to welcome in the Bill, as well as questions to be answered and issues that we want to press further. The Bill will be a step forward in maritime environmental protection, and we want it to be on the statute book before the general election. Legislation, however, is only a start. Implementation and effective enforcement will make the difference.
  The British people want better protection from the hazards of marine pollution and the threat to health and the environment that it presents. Through our deliberations on the Bill, and the action that the next Government will take, we are determined to see that the British people get just that.
  4.55 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: When the Secretary of State for Defence came to tell the House about the provision of a new royal yacht, he made a great speech, saying what a maritime nation we were. His ringing words were supported by the previous Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd). We were told what a noble history of maritime involvement we had and how proud we were of it, and that the new royal yacht would demonstrate our tradition and our commitment.
  That is an astonishingly hollow statement from a Government who have presided consistently over the loss of tonnage and the loss of jobs in the maritime industries, which amount to a haemorrhage. It is important to understand that, although the Bill covers many complex areas of legislation, it does not begin to replace those losses.
  Many of my hon. Friends will speak about environmental protection and about aspects such as port state facilities, charging and the development of action at an international level, which is essential if we are to police the seas. Before I deal with the Coastguard, a matter of grave concern to me, I want to make a wider point.
  It is embarrassing for Ministers to say at the Dispatch Box that it is important for us to have cover from tugs and air-sea rescue facilities from air-sea rescue services, without making it clear that because of specific Government policies, we are becoming increasingly dependent on the good will of other nations.
  One must be careful how one phrases one's views in the House of Commons. We are told, "Little Englander—you do not approve of support from any other European nation." In reality, however, the nationality of the helicopter coming to the assistance of someone in the Irish sea off the coast of west Wales may not be of material interest to him, but the time that the helicopter takes to get there and the place where it begins its journey are of enormous importance. It will not do if Belgian helicopters are the only ones available to cover many of our vital sea lanes or to have only Irish helicopters on standby when

  45
  many individuals desperately need assistance. That has happened consistently throughout the past year and is becoming more common.
  More and more people are taking to the seas. As we get rid of our commercial involvement and cease to be a maritime nation—if we have not already done so to all intents and purposes—more and more people turn towards the sea for their leisure activities. They are at risk, and many of them will need assistance. It is therefore bizarre that in areas like west Wales, where RAF Brawdy was closed, the Government found themselves dependent on facilities provided not from Cornwall, as they originally said, but from Ireland and Belgium. I am happy for my grandchildren to be taught English and Welsh at school, but I did not expect them to need to be taught English, Welsh and Flemish. The Government have a direct responsibility and should make their intentions clear.
  In terms of providing both tugs and air-sea rescue, the Government seem to be falling down badly on the job. One reason for that failure is that we are losing coastguards—we are losing nearly one third of the Coastguard service. Under the guise of reorganisation, coastguards are being asked to consider radical changes in the way that they work. Anyone else planning rescue services would not assume that at a time when people were using more maritime facilities, the safeguards offered to them should be cut. But that is what is happening every day.
  The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis)—who is sitting on the Front Bench and who is a most courteous and gentle gentleman—told me that the Government thought it sensible to spend £1,101,768 on accountants who were being used to privatise the six trust ports. I do not know how accountants support the Coastguard service or those who need assistance at sea, or how they help the training of officers or improve facilities for our seamen, but they are being paid more than £1 million. Lawyers are cheap: they cost only £8,817 and other professions cost only £38,295. Yet we are told that there is not enough money to train, expand, or even maintain at its existing level the Coastguard service. In those circumstances, ordinary families and the ordinary constituents of every one of us will pay the price. Only when the facilities are found wanting shall we be told, "We are terribly sorry but unfortunately, owing to reorganisation, it has not been possible to provide the same level of care or cover."
  If the House thinks that I am exaggerating, I should make it clear that what is being proposed will lead to a 30 per cent. change in what are called sector posts, which will downgrade maritime rescue sub-centres. It would not normally be important to talk about nomenclatures, but this is a material change. We are being asked to consider a two-tier system in the Coastguard service.
  Will the Minister tell us exactly how response times will be calculated? It is clear that in the Coastguard service, unlike the ambulance service, response times are calculated in an unusual way—only from when the rescuer receives the information, not from when the call is received. We are being told that there will be a two-tier service that will consist of an initial assessment—a response to an accident—and a second provision: a rescue team. Clear evidence has already been provided from a case in Cornwall. The rescuers arrived on the scene; rescue equipment was not available to them—they had been sent to give an assessment of the situation—and a
  46
  tragic accident occurred in which people lost their lives. That may have happened anyway, but one worries about policy decisions that can put people at risk.
  A Coastguard instant response team may not be supplied with rescue equipment and can only report back to a rescue centre. Is that how the Minister intends to provide care in the future? What happens to response times and the care provided at incidents if a second back-up response team is required? Is the Coastguard method of calculating 999 calls unique to that service? If so, why? How many rescue vehicles are there around the countryside? Is it the Government's intention to downgrade at least four rescue stations at vital points of the United Kingdom that already have a considerable amount of work placed on them and that may be essential to the safety of human life?
  This is a complicated Bill and it is horrifying that no Conservative Member is prepared to speak about it. I have strong views on the provision of insurance and various other aspects of the Bill, particularly the protection of the environment. What is important is that the Government consider the Bill to be so purely technical that it can be dealt with almost as though it were a statutory instrument—a minor matter—instead of legislation to protect every one of our constituents. That demonstrates the Government's despicable set of priorities. I am surprised that the Government are apparently going to get away with it because of the imminent general election.
  The Government's approach to the Bill demonstrates only too clearly that whatever they say, their priority is not the United Kingdom's maritime history and tradition; it is not even the provision of adequate rescue services across our nation. Their priority is something much worse: an interest in how all services that have to be paid for by the taxpayer can be downgraded and how all other facilities take second place to those that can be sold off. It is a sad day and I hope that the House of Commons will take note.
  5.7 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: As the people in Cornwall are all too well aware, oil tanker accidents such as the Braer and the Sea Empress can have a devastating impact on marine wildlife and local economies, whose welfare is intrinsically linked. It is not just accidents: there is clear evidence that much oil enters the sea from deliberate legal and illegal discharges. Harsh experience has taught us that prevention is better than cure. For that reason, the Liberal Democrats broadly welcome the introduction of the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill.
  One of my earliest memories is arriving at the beach at Godrevy, near where my parents live in Cornwall. Instead of holidaymakers and fishermen, the fire brigade and Army were there, clearing thousands of tonnes of oil from the sand and rocks, and dead birds littered the area. The scene was due to the loss of the Torrey Canyon, and I remember the horror of it even now: it was like a depiction of a third world war. I never wanted to see it again. Yet it has recurred around the world, most recently with the Braer and Sea Empress disasters.
  That is why I welcome the Bill as an opportunity further to protect our marine environment and to introduce new safeguards aimed at reducing the risk of shipping-related pollution. It promotes the sustainable

  47
  development of our coastal communities while seeking to enhance the protection of the environment on which they rely. In the light of that, we wish to see the Bill on the statute book this side of an election. However, we also want the Bill's provisions to be tightened in some respects, for the benefit of the environment.
  I should first like to draw the Minister's attention to one of the recommendations in Lord Donaldson's excellent report, "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas", and subsequently mentioned in the other place both by Lord Beaumont—the Liberal Democrats' spokesperson on environmental matters—and by Lord Clinton-Davis. The recommendation is for the designation of marine environmental high risk areas—or MEHRAs, which have already been mentioned in this debate—which are comparatively limited and highly sensitive areas that are also at risk from shipping. The purpose of designating such areas would be to inform owners, masters, insurers and charterers of key significant areas, and it is expected that simply highlighting the areas could lead to changes in behaviour—for example, by vessels taking a wider berth.
  The designation concept has received widespread support among environmental organisations. Sadly, the need for such action has been reinforced by the Sea Empress incident. Although the Donaldson report stated that the European Community and the International Maritime Organisation should be encouraged to act, it considered that individual states were best placed to designate MEHRAs. Therefore, the Donaldson report gives no reason for the UK not to act unilaterally to designate such areas.
  The Government have argued that restrictions on the movement of vessels can be made only through the IMO. That is of course true of action in the pollution zone—out to 200 nautical miles—but it is possible for the United Kingdom to introduce restrictions in its own territorial waters without agreement from the organisation. Such routing measures are only one of several different types of ship management measures that could be implemented within such areas to reduce pollution risks. Use of tugs as escorts, contingency planning and navigation aids are other measures that could be deployed.
  The Government have, moreover, said that they are not waiting for EU proposals on the designation of marine environmentally sensitive areas to come to fruition, which indicates that Ministers accept that the UK could act unilaterally. Would the identification of MEHRAs by the Government not complement rather than conflict with wider international developments? There is no reason why such areas should not subsequently be proposed as particularly sensitive sea areas—PSSAs—to the IMO.
  Rather than succumbing to fears that those areas designated by the UK for environmental protection will be quickly overtaken by international action, as the Government suggest might happen, MEHRAs should be regarded as an opportunity for the UK to take the lead in the designation and protection of such sites and in promoting that concept at the international and European levels.
  The Government's Transport Minister in the other place argued that powers already exist for measures to be taken to protect such areas. However, as we have not yet heard from the Department of Transport about measures that
  48
  might be under consideration or of the sites that might be identified, the House's reservations on the matter are understandable.
  As we are all too well aware, ship routing continues to be reactive rather than proactive. The designation of a MEHRA provides an opportunity for the Government to be one step ahead in protecting our marine wildlife and in safeguarding the livelihoods of our coastal communities. I urge the Minister to consider the Government's position, because he would find it very hard to defend a lack of action if there were an accident in one of those potential designated areas because no action had been taken.
  The second matter I should like to mention is the power to intervene in oil pollution incidents. During the Bill's passage, the Government have implemented an interim recommendation made by the marine accident investigation branch in its investigation into the Sea Empress, and I welcome that action. However, I am still concerned that the Secretary of State's power to intervene in such incidents is limited by the definition of an accident; and I refer particularly to the use of the word "imminent" as a condition of intervention. I contend that when damage is "imminent", it may well be too late to intervene.
  The Government have defended their wording on the basis that removal of the word "imminent" is outside the definition that has been internationally approved. However, as I understand it, we are not obliged in domestic legislation to follow in precisely the same terms the form used in a convention. It seems pointless to implement an international convention designed to protect the marine environment if by so doing we increase the risk of damage to that environment. Let us ensure the effectiveness of any intervention by the removal of the hurdle presented by the current wording.
  The third key issue that I should like to mention is that addressed by clause 5: the planning, provision and use of port waste reception facilities. I feel particularly strongly about that issue because I have seen all too clearly, as I have walked the coast around Cornwall, the problem caused by the lack of sufficient legislation. Although I welcome the Bill's provisions, there is still room to develop further the regulations on the preparation of waste management plans.
  Currently, the Government of each party to the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships of 1973 and its 1978 protocol must undertake themselves to provide, or to require ports to provide, adequate reception facilities for garbage from ships using their ports and terminals. As matters currently stand, it is voluntary for ports to provide waste facilities. I welcome the concept of waste management plans, which, if properly prepared, should lead to facilities that are both adequate and easy to use, and hence cut down on deliberate discharges into the sea—which then go on to litter our coastline. However, I am disappointed that the Bill provides only an enabling power.
  I strongly believe that waste management plans must be mandatory to ensure that those ports and harbours that do not voluntarily draw up plans are required to do so.

  49
  The Department of Transport itself has acknowledged that
  "the provision of"—
  port reception—
  "facilities is haphazard",
  and that
  "researchh by the Marine Safety Agency (MSA) has shown that 'where they exist, they can be hard to find and poorly publicised'."
  The Department also stated that the
  "problems would be addressed by the strict application of a waste management planning process".
  Subsequently, some ports and harbours have been voluntarily producing waste management plans, and the MSA has so far received between 100 and 140 such plans; but that is out of a total of 350 ports and harbours in the UK. Another cause for concern is that the MSA does not propose to assess the adequacy of those plans. It is all too easy to implement wholly inadequate plans, and thus undermine the effectiveness of the initiative. Lord Donaldson himself recognised that concern in his report by recommending the establishment of a certification system to ensure the adequacy of waste reception facilities.
  Although some scrutiny—which is a first, welcome step—is provided by a sub-group of the marine pollution action group, it is not an adequate assessment procedure. The Government argue that current developments in the EC and the IMO might require the alteration of any regulations that might be made, but they are again using potential international action as an excuse not to take any action now. Potential international action does not prevent the UK taking a lead and encouraging good practice.
  The same principle applies to charging for waste reception facilities. Although recognising the need for some flexibility, Liberal Democrats support Lord Donaldson's recommendation that charges should be
  "subsumed into standard port duties"
  in the form of an inclusive fee. I do not believe that any other option can work effectively. Would it not be advantageous for the Secretary of State to have the power to require ports to use the inclusive fee system, if deemed appropriate, as one measure to reduce the deliberate discharge of waste? We should at least reserve the power to take action if it is shown—as I believe it will be—that other options simply are not working.
  Similarly—although not advocating a universal requirement for mandatory discharge of waste from ships—I believe that it could be beneficial to enable MSA inspectors to use such a power in exceptional circumstances, such as when a vessel that is known to have illegally dumped waste before proposes to leave port with full waste tanks. The effectiveness of such a deterrent was acknowledged by Viscount Goschen in a recent letter to Lord Beaumont, which stated:
  "As regards a failure to comply with a requirement to discharge waste, the best deterrent for ship operators is the threat that the ship could be detained in port, and therefore prevented from trading, until the waste has been discharged".
  As both the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Marine Conservation Society have argued, such a measure would not deter responsible ship operators from entering UK ports, and I think that they are right. Rather, such a measure is targeted at those whose operations threaten the UK coastline and our waters and add to the costs of those, such as local authorities, who are responsible for cleaning up.
  50
  Those costs can be considerable. In Cornwall, the county council quotes its expenditure on cleaning non-attributable ship-sourced waste on beaches as at least £20,000 per annum. Moreover, that figure is in addition to expenditure by the six district councils, which spend no less than £30,000 per annum. Even with that level of expenditure, however, many bays are left badly polluted, and an eyesore for both visitors and locals. In practice, unless a beach is regularly used for swimming, it is unlikely that it will receive any attention. However, anyone who enjoys or walks the coastline will see the results of pollution, and, if they come close to it, they will smell the results. We are at present spending literally hundreds of millions of pounds cleaning up the discharges from people who live in Cornwall. They are paying their water bills with considerable discontent, so why should they have to put up with shipowners saving small amounts of money by discharging their waste at sea rather than at port?
  While on the issue of illegal discharges, I shall touch briefly on the proposed penalties. The Bill will allow for higher maximum penalties to be imposed by magistrates for illegal discharges of garbage, oily waste and chemical waste. As I understand it, although the Bill allows the maximum fine for illegal discharges of chemicals or oil to be set at £250,000, it is Government policy to use this maximum for oil while restricting the maximum fine for chemicals to only £25,000. In a letter to my colleague Lord Beaumont, the Minister justified this position on the basis that illegal discharges from chemical tankers are rarer than those from oil tankers and that chemical tankers have lower operating costs than oil tankers. However, the pollution consequences can be at least as bad.
  In view of the potential for a discharge of chemicals seriously to damage the environment, would not it be appropriate for the Government to consider setting the same maximum fine for chemicals—it is only a maximum and does not necessarily have to be employed—at £250,000? I know of no other criminal activity of which it is believed that its rarity means that the punishment should be less. Surely it is a question of how bad the activity is. After all, we would not argue that burglary should be punished more severely than murder simply because burglary is more common.
  Furthermore, I have been advised by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds that aerial surveillance, as currently carried out by the marine pollution control unit, has a poor record in bringing offenders to justice. This is a key issue if we are to curtail irresponsible and environmentally detrimental behaviour. Is not it therefore appropriate that aerial surveillance be supplemented by waste auditing? This could take the form of checks of ship record books and the issuing of receipts for waste discharged in port. I suggest that the approach to waste auditing proposed by the Department of Transport should be more rigorous and that the Government should promote waste auditing in other North sea states.
  Overall, the Bill could be a big step forward in ensuring safety and protecting the environment around our coastline. The Donaldson report has provided a clear way forward, but the Government have left some serious weaknesses in the legislation. I hope that the Government will feel able to reflect our spirit of co-operation by giving

  51
  careful consideration to my suggested improvements. If so, the Bill can achieve full cross-party support, which will be good news for everyone.
  5.22 pm
  Mr. Nick Ainger: I, too, welcome the Bill. Twelve months ago next Saturday, I discovered on my doorstep one of the 20 worst oil pollution incidents to occur since we began using hydrocarbons and transporting them across our oceans. I pay tribute to all the people involved in the initial attempts to salvage the Sea Empress and to those who have been and are still working to clean up the Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire coastline. On Saturday I was in Tenby, where work is still continuing in the harbour to remove the oil that was buried about 6 ft below the sand, to ensure that when the tourists return shortly they will find the wonderful pristine environment that they used to enjoy before the Sea Empress ran aground on 15 February 1996.
  It is worth recording what happened to our marine environment which, as has already been said, is one of the most sensitive and important on the United Kingdom coastline. Seventy thousand tonnes of oil were spilt from the Sea Empress over a period of only three days, although she was in serious difficulty for about six or seven days. The incident halted the inshore fishing industry for six months and cost the Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire tourist industry millions of pounds and possibly as many as 1,400 jobs in the tourist season. It radically affected or killed 7,000 sea birds and devastated particular marine habitats. A rare starfish called asterina phylactica was virtually wiped out. It is found in only seven places in the world, one of which is West Angle bay, where it was first discovered and identified. The starfish's habitat was wrecked, although it is believed that two or three surviving examples have been found.
  In other words, the impact of the Sea Empress incident was devastating. It has cost millions of pounds to clean up—the process continues—and compensation claims for the fishing and tourist industries are still being made. I therefore welcome anything that will prevent such an incident from happening again, not just in my constituency but around the UK coastline or anywhere in the world.
  I welcome the Bill, although I have certain criticisms of it. It does not go far enough in some respects and I shall say why later, but it is worth examining some key aspects that could be tightened in Committee.
  From what we now know, it is clear that there were serious command and control problems during the salvage operation of the Sea Empress. The initial grounding was caused by human error but, from then on, there were serious problems with the salvage operation. Those issues are dealt with in clause 2. I shall quickly go through the events immediately following the vessel grounding to make it clear why we need to look carefully at command and control issues.
  On the night of 15 February, the Sea Empress ran aground with 135,000 tonnes of North sea crude on board. She was refloated within three hours, and then the salvage operation began. She was held in deep water at the entrance to Milford Haven and a strategy was developed by the salvors and representatives of the Department of Transport, Coastguard, the marine pollution control unit and the Admiralty.
  52
  The salvors decided not to accept the offer of tugs, including the Department of Transport's own contracted tug based at Stornoway. Instead, they assembled a collection of tugs almost exclusively from their own fleets. The tug fleet assembled that first weekend by the salvors had a maximum bollard pull of only some 250 tonnes. It now emerges that the vessel itself, in strong tides and currents and with a very deep draught because of the initial grounding, was exercising a bollard pull of some 800 tonnes. As one pilot said to me after the incident, the tugs were not pulling the ship; the ship was pulling the tugs. I am sure that the marine accident investigation branch inquiry is considering that serious point.
  That inability to control the vessel in very difficult circumstances meant that the Sea Empress finally grounded on the evening of 19 February. She had spilt only approximately 2,000 tonnes in the previous four days, but the final grounding on the night of 19 February began the massive pollution. That first night, she lost more than 30,000 tonnes of oil.
  Although I welcome the fact that clause 2 gives the Secretary of State powers to intervene in an accident that could cause significant pollution, I am concerned about how the Secretary of State will exercise them. Under existing legislation, the Secretary of State has enormous powers to intervene anyway. In the case of the Sea Empress, he chose not to take that course of action.
  I had a meeting with the Secretary of State on 20 February after the vessel had run aground for the final time and spilt 30,000 tonnes of oil that night. I asked him, as any constituency Member of Parliament would, why he had not used his powers to intervene. He was very frank, saying that he had been told that the salvor, Smit Tak, was world-class—indeed it is—and that he did not have the expertise to overrule its decisions. I understand that, but if we tell our constituents that we are giving the Secretary of State important powers of intervention, we must ensure that he can exercise the powers sensibly and rationally. Unfortunately, the necessary expertise is not available to the Secretary of State to enable him to take control of a salvage operation, such as that of the Sea Empress, which so tragically went wrong.
  It is clear from what the Secretary of State told me that morning that he did not know where to find the expertise. If clause 2 is to have a meaningful effect, the Government must either employ salvage experts directly or contract that expertise. When there is a significant possibility of pollution, the expertise should be immediately available to the Secretary of State to enable him to make a judgment on whether the salvors are the right people. A deal could be signed with the owners of a passing tug, who might not be suitable for a major salvage operation. Alternatively, the salvors may be world-class but, because of financial or commercial pressures, they may make decisions that do not benefit the environment, which everyone wants protected.
  Clause 12 and schedule 2 refer to the possibility of the Secretary of State introducing a levy on the shipping industry to fund preventive measures. That should include not only the work of the marine pollution control unit but, most important, the cost of emergency towing vessels. We already have a levy on oil movements in 68 nations—the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund levy—which operates well. However, it seems illogical that that system works only when pollution has occurred. It is a

  53
  case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. We do not have a levy to fund the stationing of powerful emergency towing vessels around the coast of the United Kingdom and elsewhere. That is clearly what Donaldson advocates in recommendation 96. I appreciate that the best way forward would be a European or worldwide levy, but I have a feeling that we shall have to wait a long time for that. Lord Donaldson clearly considered the issue a priority. The Government should consider a unilateral levy.
  Lord Donaldson's view was that, with the emergency towing vessels that would be required in key areas and the extra equipment for the marine pollution control unit, the total annual cost would be £10 million. Considering the amount that this country has received from North sea assets alone and the profits that have been made by the producers—much of the produce does not even touch the United Kingdom coastline, passing on to north America, to Baltic countries that are not part of the European Union, or to other European ports—the cost, even if £10 million is an underestimate, is very small. The Government should not be too concerned that an industry the size of the oil industry might not be able to afford that estimated £10 million. If we can have a fund or levy to ensure adequate clean-up, surely we can have one to ensure adequate prevention.
  Lord Donaldson also made recommendations about emergency towing vessels. In chapter 20, at paragraph 127, he said clearly that he saw three main areas of concern where there should be emergency towing vessels: the Dover straits, for the obvious reason that it is the busiest marine traffic route in the world; north-west Scotland, where the Braer got into difficulty and where there is a great deal of large tanker traffic moving from the North sea down the west coast of Britain to more southern European ports or across the Atlantic to north American ports; and the western approaches. He asked for year-round cover and said that in the interim—from the winter of 1994–95—emergency towing vessels should be based in Dover, Falmouth and Stornoway. That did not happen. Winter-only cover was provided for Dover and north-west Scotland.
  One of the tragedies of the Sea Empress incident is that there was clearly a serious shortage of tug power, as I explained earlier, and there was no emergency towing vessel in the western approaches, as Lord Donaldson had recommended. Such a vessel could have had a significant impact on the outcome of the salvage operation. It is ironic that last week, the vessel that has now been positioned in the western approaches, again for the winter only, paid a courtesy visit to Milford Haven. The vessel arrived on station eight months after the Sea Empress ran aground.
  Having taken on board so many of the Donaldson recommendations, we should address the key issue of year-round emergency towing cover in strategic positions around the coast. It is naive of the Government to believe that, outside the winter period from 1 October to 31 March, vessels do not lose their engines, have problems with steering, suffer from human error, have an explosion or fire on board or get into other difficulties.
  The Rosebay incident in Lyme bay is an example. A large crude carrier was run into by a relatively small fishing vessel and 1,500 tonnes of fuel oil caused serious pollution along the south coast. That happened during the
  54
  summer months. Incidents happen all year round' so it is nonsense to be prepared to provide cover only during the winter months.
  Following Lord Donaldson's recommendations, Coastguard commissioned Captain Belton to look specifically at the issue of emergency towing vessels. His report, published in May 1995, stated clearly that we should definitely have year-round cover in Dover, the western approaches and north-west Scotland. Yet again the Government did not heed the recommendation, and we ended up with winter-only arrangements—and no arrangements in the western approaches, where the Sea Empress ran aground. Many professionals believe that if the tug had been there, as recommended by both Captain Belton and Lord Donaldson, the outcome in that instance might well have been different.
  Clause 12 gives local authorities a duty to maintain contingency plans. That was important at the time when I was on Dyfed county council's public protection committee, given that Dyfed contained one of the busiest ports not only in the United Kingdom, but in Europe and, indeed, the world. The emergency planning department carried out its voluntary responsibilities in relation to contingency plans very well, and a series of exercises took place regularly to test them. I believe that the undoubted success of that clean-up operation resulted from good contingency planning. The department knew what equipment was required, and which contractors were available to provide that specialist equipment; it had carried out practice exercises, and had call-out facilities, rotas and a large body of staff to carry out the work that was required. I can only commend, as I did at the beginning of my speech, the actions taken by local councils, especially as they were on the cusp of reorganisation which made their task rather difficult at times.
  What worries me is that, in giving local authorities a statutory duty to produce contingency plans, we are not giving them the wherewithal with which to implement them. The Government should think seriously about a way of ensuring that authorities are given enough money to carry out preparatory exercises, and also that money is available for emergencies.
  It is four years since the Braer ran aground in January 1993, but Shetland council has received back hardly a penny of the £1.5 million or so that it spent at the time. I believe that nearly £1 million has been paid, through the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund, to local authorities that were involved in the Sea Empress clean-up operation, but a considerable sum is still outstanding. I understand that the cost of the operation to date has been well over £5 million, and the cost is on-going. It is worrying, when local authorities are under huge financial pressures, that they do not have the resources to deal with sudden emergencies. Is there not some way of ensuring that, at such times, funds are made available to them directly?
  Let me say something about illegal—and legal—oil discharges. As other speakers have pointed out, it is often not the major incident that causes many of the problems. Recent incidents in the channel—or off Flamborough head, for example—have had a catastrophic impact, especially on sea birds. Because such incidents have a cumulative effect, however—I am talking about relatively small incidents that are happening week after week—they may not hit the headlines in the same way as major

  55
  disasters. I welcome the moves proposed in the Bill to ensure that ports produce proper plans to tackle the problem of waste reception facilities; I hope that that will radically reduce the number of illegal discharges. I also hope that the carrot-and-stick approach suggested in the Bill will work.
  As the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) suggested—as did I, in an intervention on the Secretary of State—we need to deal with one strange anomaly. Apparently, chemical spillages are for some reason 10 times less serious, or less deserving of severe penalties, than oil spillages. That issue must be clarified in Committee. We also need to ensure that no real financial penalty is imposed on owners of vessels who wish to use port reception facilities, as opposed to those who may wish to start cutting corners. I approve of the idea of including the charge in port dues: if there is an overall charge, people will feel that, as they must pay for the facilities anyway, they may as well use them.
  In my experience, very few of the vessels that use Milford Haven—in fact, none of the oil tankers—call at facilities owned and operated by the port authority; they use private refinery jetties. When we are assessing waste reception facilities, we must not simply expect the competent harbour authority to say, "We have a contingency fund." We must ensure that private owners—mostly jetty owners, throughout the United Kingdom—also provide reception facilities, and that shipping owners are not charged twice, first by the oil refinery and secondly in the form of port dues.
  Much has been said today about the marine environmental highrisk areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) mentioned, one of the MEHRAs that was identified after the Donaldson inquiry was immediately outside Milford Haven, around the Pembrokeshire islands of Skomer, Skokholm and Grassholm. I think that the Government must now start moving much more quickly in designating MEHRAs and ensuring that they are properly protected.
  At the time of the Sea Empress disaster—and the running aground of the Borga a few months earlier, on 29 October—the radar that was supposed to cover the entrance to Milford Haven was not working, and had not been working for some months. It is still not working properly. The point is, however, that, whether it was working or not, the radar cover did not include that MEHRA. Proper protection of high-risk areas does not just mean drawing a line on a chart; it means ensuring that someone is monitoring those areas. The only way of doing that is through radar cover that is linked with either a port or a Coastguard station—and, if that is to be done properly, there will be cost implications.
  I welcome the Bill, and will be pleased to serve on the Committee, for a specific reason: I do not want what happened to my constituency to happen anywhere else.
  5.48 pm
  Sir James Molyneaux: The Bill goes a long way towards attaining the objectives of the Donaldson report. It was considerably amended, and improved, in another place, where debate on it was greatly helped by the expert knowledge of many who participated. Indeed, the same is true of today's debate.
  56
  success will be achieved only when a much higher percentage of ships entering British waters are British-owned and, to a great extent, British-manned.
  The Secretary of State's Department at all levels is only too well aware of the difficulties, for example, in communicating with foreign ships that do not have on the bridge one officer who is capable of understanding English. I concede that the Department is to a great extent denied the power to change that position in regard both to ownership and to manning, but power does lie elsewhere.
  The Capital Allowances Act 1990 contains provisions concerning what is called "first year allowance". All that is now required is a new provision establishing a 100 per cent. first year allowance for expenditure in regard to investment in ships. That modest change would begin to reverse the current position, in which more than 80 per cent. of ships entering British waters are foreign-owned. Their owners not only disregard the rule book, but do not even bother to read it. There is widespread support for such an amendment to the Finance Bill, giving effect to that modest concession in the present Parliament, and then we can get on with it.
  While such a change is taking effect, safety at sea could be enhanced by the compulsory provision of transponders on all ships entering British waters. Something of that nature was suggested in the Donaldson report. It is reflected in the Department's thinking.
  There is reference in Donaldson, I think, to large identification signs. I cannot believe that they were seriously meant to give 24-hour coverage, given the hours of darkness and inclement weather, with which my honourable colleague, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), was so concerned, particularly in relation to preserving what is left of the Coastguard organisation. The transponders would be much more effective and much more in line, when we think about it, with aircraft tracking systems, which are accepted nowadays as absolutely essential.
  The provision in clause 1 for placing an exclusion zone around a shipping casualty is to be welcomed. I hope that the exclusion will apply also to the news industry, because the intrusion in a crisis of aircraft, helicopters and non-authorised vessels can and does hamper rescue operations, and, in those circumstances, greatly increases the risk of fire. After all, such exclusion need be only brief, because the news industry usually becomes bored in a short time with any sensation, even one of its own manufacture.
  The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) touched on another Donaldson recommendation—which is included, I think, in clause 12—laying on local authorities certain responsibilities. It is a vague phrase, and I think that the hon. Gentleman and I would like to be clear whether it also involves financial responsibilities. If so, it would seem unfair that a local authority covering a very vulnerable part of our coastline should be saddled with financial responsibility when, for example, another local authority in the midlands would get off scot free; so there is surely a strong case for financial liability to be a national responsibility.
  Clause 10 is an essential element. The Department's powers should not be in doubt. Mention of that gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Transport, his Ministers, his Department, the Marine Safety Agency and the Coastguard for the very effective

  57
  co-operation on the Sea Empress after the two spillages. I also pay tribute to the Department for its sound decisions in regard to the subsequent removal of the seriously damaged vessel—and seriously damaged it undoubtedly was.
  I had the horrifying experience of standing in the dry dock underneath the Sea Empress when she was completely pumped out. It was like looking up into a vast cathedral with nothing obstructing one's view in the way of a hull. The wonder of it is that the ship was able to be moved at all. It is a tribute to the sound judgment—there is more to this than the general public would know—of the Secretary of State and his Ministers, who ensured that there was not a third disaster in connection with the vessel.
  I did not consider it necessary to declare an interest earlier, as mine is a landlocked constituency. That is not mitigated by the constituency taking its name from the River Lagan, which admittedly makes its way to the sea at the point where there are modern docks on one side of the channel and the Harland and Wolff shipyard on the other. The shipyard is still open to do business, and is in a strong position to construct new ships, the demand for which will, I hope, be generated by the Bill.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. David Harris: The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) did not feel it necessary to declare a constituency interest, but I feel it necessary to do just that, for three reasons.
  First, my constituency is almost completely surrounded by sea, sticking out, as it does, into the western approaches. Secondly, I happen to be the president—a paid job, I hasten to add—of the Sea Safety Group. Thirdly, I was also the sponsor of predecessor legislation, the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Act 1994. But perhaps the biggest interest I have to declare is the first one, as my constituency is by the sea and is the site of perhaps the first of the great environmental disasters, the Torrey Canyon, which foundered off the Isles of Scilly in my constituency in 1967.
  I suppose that we have learnt many lessons since then, but, as the experience of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) has shown, perhaps we have not learnt all the lessons from the years between the Torrey Canyon disaster and the foundering of the Sea Empress. During the passage of the Act that I sponsored, Opposition Members somehow had the idea that we could construct measures that would cure the problem for all time, and remove all risk. Of course, sadly, it is not like that.
  We learn from each succeeding disaster, and try to prevent others. We will never, however, achieve a perfect state of legislation. Even if we did, many disasters are the result of human failing, so we can never legislate with compete satisfaction to remove the risk of such disasters. We must, however, continue to do our best, so I welcome the Bill as another attempt to do that, which helps to implement some of the recommendations of Lord Donaldson's weighty report, "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas".
  The Donaldson report describes the geographical position of the Isles of Scilly:
  "The Isles of Scilly are another group of beautiful and ecologically sensitive islands located at a shipping crossroads."
  58
  He referred to the weight of shipping that passes the islands. He went on to say that his committee was
  "not convinced that the TSSs"—
  traffic separation schemes—
  "and ITZs"
  inshore traffic zones—
  "between them provide enough protection for the Isles of Scilly".
  He said that the islands were "an obvious candidate" for marine environmental highrisk area status, and added:
  "The Department of Transport should consider the options."
  It is a matter of great disappointment to me and the islanders, my constituents, that no action has been taken to follow up that recommendation.
  As Lord Donaldson said, the Isles of Scilly need added protection. The council of the isles has for some time urged that there should be some exclusion zone around the islands, to prevent another Torrey Canyon. While the Donaldson committee was deliberating, there was something of a near-miss involving a tanker. Fortunately, it did not result in disaster, but the risk is always there.
  Some hon. Members will know that, ever since I became a Member of Parliament, I have deplored the way in which Coastguard stations have been removed—in fact, I made my maiden speech on the issue. I can claim that I managed to hold on to the last of the visual watch Coastguard stations in the country, which were in my constituency. Alas, they were also removed a few years ago. I was a founder trustee of National Coastwatch, which was set up to put in place on a voluntary basis a number of visual watches around the coastline. Those volunteers are doing excellent work.
  As the hon. Member for Pembroke said, if we are to implement the measures outlined by Lord Donaldson, it is necessary in the areas concerned to have a very close watch by radar, and, I suggest, a visual watch. We cannot afford to allow these accidents to happen, and sometimes they can be prevented when coastguards or volunteers see a vessel literally heading for the rocks. That has happened in the past, and warnings have been given. One of my fears about the removal of visual watches is that we will deny ourselves the opportunity of preventing accidents in that way.
  I also warmly endorse the plea of the hon. Member for Pembroke on the stationing of a deep-water tug in the western approaches all year round. I believe that that is absolutely essential, for the reasons given by Lord Donaldson, and following our experiences with the Sea Empress.
  I welcome the Bill, although I do not think that it is the end of the story. I am sure that our successors in this place will return to the issue over the years—partly, I suspect, because there will be further disasters such as the Braer. I see that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who suffered that disaster, is in the Chamber. The House must do more to close the loopholes which undoubtedly exist. I return to my plea: perhaps we should put the clock back and return to visual watches in those parts of the coastline which are most at risk.
  6.3 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I point out to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) that many Opposition Members

  59
  welcomed the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Act 1994? We have sufficient experience of the fishing industry to know that, occasionally, vessels are overwhelmed in utterly natural circumstances, and we are well aware of the dangers facing our merchant seamen and fishermen.
  I am pleased to see the Bill's emphasis on accident prevention measures, but it is important that, in designating exclusion zones, we do not lose local fishing sites. Damage would be caused if fishermen were to be excluded from traditional fishing grounds, but I am sure that officials will take account of the concerns of fishermen. The Secretary of State is not here, but I readily acknowledge his concern about enhanced safety regulations.
  Will the crews of emergency vessels be equipped with immersion suits—sometimes called survival suits? If they are involved in such work, they should be provided with every piece of safety equipment available, and I think that a survival suit is essential. I have long campaigned for the crews of our fishing vessels to be equipped with survival suits. Sometimes, officials and Ministers think that I am talking about suits for fishermen to wear while they are working on deck, but that is not the case. The kind of survival suit to which I am referring is one which a crew member dons when the ship is foundering.
  Let me give an example. A few years ago, a French stern trawler with a crew of 27 foundered off the coast of St. Kilda. She went down quite quickly, and the men on watch had time to put on their survival suits. Out of a crew of 27, 14 men were on watch and had time to slip on their survival suits. Every one of them survived—despite being in heavy seas off St. Kilda in February—and the men were rescued as a result of the remarkable efficiency and bravery of a helicopter crew from Lossiemouth. The poor crew members who were down in their bunks did not have a chance to put on their survival suits, and they quickly died—as one would expect in northern waters at that time of the year. That is a stark example of what happens when a man goes into the water without a survival suit.
  I make no apology for continuing my campaign, because I do not believe that any UK-registered fishing vessel should be allowed to leave port without a survival suit on board for each member of the crew. I have been criticised by fishermen's associations for that campaign, but the father of a young fisherman who drowned not so long ago after going overboard from a Scottish fishing vessel now says that he wishes his son had been able to don one of those suits.
  I am pleased that, at long last, we will have regulations governing the klondykers—the floating fish-processing plants which play an important role in the Scottish fishing industry. Fishermen anchored in Loch Broom ship their mackerel on to these ships. This work is done mainly at Ullapool, but also takes place in Shetland. As someone who comes from a fishing family and who made his first trip to the Arctic at the age of 11, I must say that I would not sale across the Clyde in some of the vessels seen at Loch Broom. They are a disgrace to the nation under whose flag they fly. I am pleased to note that the Bill will introduce tougher regulations on maritime hygiene and safety.
  60
  On the issue of criminal proceedings against the owners and captains of vessels who infringe the rules, can the Minister confirm that, in the Scottish courts, the local procurator fiscal would refer such cases to the sheriff court? I am sure that the Minister will be keen to answer that question.
  On the question of the Minister and his officials taking note of the concerns of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the Government's measures are welcome. Some would say that the Government's relationship with the Coastguard and the RNLI is somewhat theoretical, but they have made an important gesture to the RNLI. Together with the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), I represent the House on the executive committee of the RNLI, so I welcome those measures.
  I have asked the Secretary of State—I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm the point later—whether the pilot of a ship acts as an adviser and guide to the master of the vessel. When a pilot is taken on board a ship—for example, when a ship enters the firth of Clyde—I understand that the ship is not under his control, and the master remains in command of his vessel at all times, even when the pilot is on board.
  Lord Donaldson dealt at length with the subject of the Minch in his report. Incidentally, Lord Donaldson, as he himself pointed out recently, is not the sole author of his brilliant report. I have long argued that very large vessels—such as very large crude carriers and ultra large crude carriers—should stand to the west of the Western Isles. Lord Donaldson recommends that, in exceptional weather, such ships should be allowed into the Minch.
  I disagree; that is the one criticism I have made of the Donaldson report. Big ships, especially in bad weather, should stand in deep water and not in relatively shallow water, especially waters that are so important to our fishing communities on the west coast of Scotland. There is a deep-water route to the west of the Western Isles—as the Minister knows, because he has heard me complain about the subject before—and that is the way that the largest vessels should take. The route lies to the west of North Uist, Hams and Lewis. It might add three or four hours' steaming time, but that is the vessels' problem and not that of the communities in the beautiful area around the Minch.
  In their report, Lord Donaldson and his colleagues said the deep-water route was
  "the only one in UK waters established for environmental reasons."
  My concerns about the Minch are shared by many people in Scotland. For example, a letter to Members of Parliament from Councillors Michael Foxley, William Fulton and John Munro states:
  "The Highland Council and the Western Isles Islands Council have serious concerns over the current arrangements for managing the movement of tanker traffic transiting the north west of Scotland".
  The letter continues:
  "A recent survey of shipping through the Minch over a two month period saw 456 vessels pass through the Minch, 25 per cent. of which did so improperly."
  By "improperly", the councillors mean that those vessels failed to report their positions to the Coastguard and some of them failed to stick to the designated channels. Such failures might lead to a serious accident in those important fishing areas.

  61
  The councillors continue:
  "Taking into account that less than 20 per cent. of the total number of vessels using the Minch were UK registered and therefore less familiar with the specific dangers of local waters, there are very real concerns that an accident is waiting to happen."
  Those douce highlanders make a good point, and I hope to address it further, if I am fortunate enough to serve on the Committee. I might get the thumbs down from the Whips Office, but I hope not.
  I know a skipper who put a big stern trawler ashore in the Minch, because he thought its turning circle was smaller than it was. It was only 750 gross registered tonnes. What will happen to the tankers and other big ships that carry hazardous materials through that narrow channel? I suggest to the Minister that he pays close attention to some of the proposals made by the two councils. For example, they suggest the introduction of a compulsory Coastguard reporting scheme for all shipping moving through the Minch. It is obvious that the voluntary scheme is ineffective. The letter also contains proposals to
  "sustain the current practice of directing all laden vessels over 10,000 gross tonnage to the deep water route to the west of the Western Isles".
  The councillors also suggest that, if vessels over 10,000 gross tonnage pass through the Minch at times of severe weather, they should do so only under the authority of a qualified pilot. That is a reasonable suggestion. They say that vessels under 10,000 gross tonnage with hazardous cargo should be treated as if they were over 10,000 gross tonnage. We also need, as suggested by the councillors, measures to secure the permanent provision of an emergency towing vessel of sufficient capacity based in Stornoway. One is stationed there in the winter, but, as we know, ships founder in other seasons.
  Clause 18 deals with general lighthouse authorities. It provides that a general lighthouse authority may use any of its assets that have spare capacity, after discharging its functions to manage and maintain all navigational aids, and enter into an agreement, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to exploit that spare capacity. I presume that that means the Secretary of State for Transport, but the Secretary of State of Scotland also has an important role to play.
  For example, the Pharos—the northern lighthouse vessel which was launched from Ferguson's in Port Glasgow and entered service in early 1993—is presumably one of the assets that can be used elsewhere. I suggest that it could be used, as it has been in the past, as a reserve vessel for the Britannia, especially when the royal family visit parts of Scotland, including the Western Isles, in the performance of their duties. Written answers on 31 January 1997 show that the Queen used the royal yacht for a total of 46 days in 1995 and 1996. When the Queen visits the Western Isles and other points of the compass, the Pharos might be used. It is a very fine ship, and I speak as an ex-shipwright. It was built in my constituency to the highest of standards. It is a first-class ship and it could be used by the royal family instead of spending £60 million on a replacement vessel.
  I welcome the Bill. I hope that some amendments will be introduced that will, in my humble view—I am as modest as the hon. Member for St. Ives—improve it. I can think of some at this moment. In terms of enhanced safety and accident prevention measures the Bill ought, however, to he welcomed by everyone present.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I also ought to declare a constituency interest as I live in and represent an area on the south bank of the Forth, in closed waters. When I listened to the powerful and detailed speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) and his description of the Sea Empress, I could not help but feel that there but for the grace of God might we have gone. There was a near accident at Aberdour and, in closed waters, the results would have been catastrophic.
  When I listened to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), it occurred to me to ask why, in the past 30 years since the Torrey Canyon, we seem to have made so little progress. It is not as if British Governments have been run by people who were uninterested in the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) will recollect that the Prime Minister of the time had his holiday house in the Scilly Isles. Indeed, so much did he love those islands that he is buried there. Harold Wilson cared enormously about this issue. His Conservative successor, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), is not exactly uninterested in things maritime. Nevertheless, successive Governments—not only those under the leadership of those two Prime Ministers—have not made the progress that one might have expected.
  The Bill—indeed, any Bill on the subject—is particularly welcome, therefore. I must point out to the Minister, without antagonism, however, that in such a debate Ministers should listen to their parliamentary colleagues when they are saying more or less the same thing. We are saying—the Opposition Front Bench, my colleagues and the hon. Member for St. Ives—that there should be mandatory provisions for port waste reception facilities, with mandatory port waste management plans.
  I should like to hear in the reply to the debate, or in Committee—preferably in the reply—what on earth is the objection to mandatory provisions. When I intervened on the Secretary of State—he will forgive me if I have got him wrong—he said that he was against mandatory legislation. Equally, he seemed to be against mandatory discharge of waste by visiting ships coupled with charging for reception facilities by an inclusive fee system.
  Such mandatory provisions are the considered view of a number of those who know a lot about such things, not least the Marine Conservation Society, of which I am a member. Indeed, I took part in its "Beachwatch 1996" survey and cleaned up a great many plastics and other things under the Forth bridge on that rather cold and windy autumn day.
  Can the Minister tell us what the objection is and why the Government are unwilling to accept mandatory provisions? There must be some objection, but we cannot divine it. Have they been given some legal advice? What is it?
  On 28 January, I asked the Secretary of State
  "what assessment he has made of the impact of the Merchant Shipping Regulations 1988 in reducing marine debris."
  His answer was:
  "Surveys by and on behalf of the Marine Safety Agency have shown that the waste reception facilities provided by harbour authorities pursuant to the Merchant Shipping (Reception Facilities for Garbage) Regulations 1988 are generally adequate."

  63
  Frankly, they are not adequate and they never have been. They were not adequate 30 years ago, when I was a member of the Mikardo committee. My best advice, in preparing for the debate, was that they are still not adequate. The Minister should not have continued:
  "It is therefore difficult to make a specific assessment of the effect of the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Garbage) Regulations 1988 in isolation from other legislation relating to pollution of the marine environment from both shipping and land-based sources."
  I also asked whether the Secretary of State would
  "set up a public register of legal notices, offences and fines relating to pollution of the marine environment from shipping."
  The departmental reply was:
  "The Government already publish details of vessels prosecuted for marine pollution offences and vessels which have been reported to their flag states for suspected pollution offences. We do not intend to introduce a public register."
  That course of action has not been effective and it is not sufficient to say:
  "We do not intend to introduce a public register."—[Official Report, 28 January 1997; Vol. 289, c. 128.]
  There is a good case for such a register. Legal notices and details of offences and fines relating to pollution of the marine environment by shipping should be kept on a public register and so be subject to legitimate public scrutiny. The combination of requiring records to be kept, and the prospect of public scrutiny, would secure greater use of port reception facilities for oil and rubbish by visiting ships. The pollution regulation of the shipping industry would also be brought into line with terrestrial industry in terms of access to environmental information.
  For the register to act as a reliable and effective pollution deterrent, it should be comprehensive, regularly and routinely updated and available for public scrutiny at all reasonable times and at reasonable cost. That is a pretty reasonable proposition. I hope that the Government will reconsider a public register before the Bill goes to the Standing Committee.
  I also hope that the Government will reconsider having garbage record books. There is a lack of prosecutions for the illegal disposal of plastics at sea primarily because the Marine Safety Agency has insufficient evidence to take legal action. Evidence to bring a case to court could be obtained if there was proof that a vessel did not have the appropriate amount of waste on board for its size and the length of time spent at sea. It is for that purpose that the use of garbage record books should be implemented as soon as possible.
  Garbage record books would record each day the volume, description and type of garbage arising from the normal operation of the ship. They would record the date and time, and the volume, description and type of garbage placed into reception facilities at named UK ports. They would also record the date, volume and the method of disposal of any garbage from the ship, by whatever means. Every garbage record book would be made available to the relevant authorities in subsequent ports visited. The books could be inspected and copied on to a public register. Easy access to that register would allow public scrutiny of the environmental practices of ships and ship operators going through UK and other ports. In turn, that would act as a deterrent to bad environmental
  64
  practice, while allowing ships that operated in an environmentally sensitive way the opportunity to profit from the good publicity provided by good environmental practices.
  That is the view of the Marine Conservation Society and others, but it is also my deep, personal conviction. Unlike almost all other hon. Members, I spent two years at sea as a seconded employee of P and 0. Going into ports, and at sea, one sees exactly what happens: crews are casual and take the easy way out; blind eyes are turned; skippers are not all that fussy; and even the most rigorous captains cannot be on top of the situation all the time.
  Something must be done if we are to be at all effective. As my hon. Friends have said, it costs a great deal less to nip the problem in the bud than to clean up the beaches afterwards. I emphasise the importance of easy-to-use reception facilities. Waste management plans should be introduced as primary legislation in the Bill and not in the form of its current enabling powers, to ensure that all ports prepare adequate plans without further delay.
  The Department has stated that the problems would be addressed by the strict application of a waste management planning process. In Committee, we should like to hear more details of precisely what the Department has in mind for that process. The initiative is a welcome first step, but the Bill does not deliver the system of certification of all waste reception facilities that was called for in recommendation 27 of the Donaldson report. People in the Marine Conservation Society who have considered the matter would be keen for the Environment Agency to be given the responsibility for reviewing and deeming adequate those waste management plans.
  I mentioned the inclusive fee during the Secretary of State's speech; he was most courteous about giving way. While the inclusive fee system is probably most appropriate for garbage and non-cargo oily waste, such as bilge water, oily waste from cargo tanks is likely to be more voluminous and specialised and therefore to cost more than an inclusive fee system could easily cope with. However, the need for an inclusive fee system is highlighted by Lord Donaldson in recommendation 27(e), and it is clear that a shipowner or master is more likely to use the facilities for which a fee has already been paid. That is human nature.
  I hope that something will be said in Committee about the impact on wildlife. The full impact of marine debris on marine species is difficult to assess because of the limited research and the fact that sampling is largely confined to land-based observations. Research so far has primarily measured frequency of interaction rather than assessing the proportion of a species that is affected.
  Marine debris can directly harm wildlife as a result of entanglement and ingestion. It is estimated that more than 1 million birds and 100,000 marine mammals and sea turtles die each year from entanglement in, or ingestion of, plastics. Of the 115 species of marine mammal, 47 are known to become entangled in or to ingest marine debris. In Committee, we can discuss the various hazards presented to marine life by such debris.
  I hope that, whatever else the Minister leaves to be dealt with in Committee, he will explain to the House what on earth the objection is to introducing mandatory provisions for the crucial reception facilities at our ports. He owes us that explanation this evening.
  6.34 pm
  Ms Glenda Jackson: As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) said, the Bill is vital and welcome, and the Labour party supports its measures.
  We regret the fact that it has taken not one but two serious marine pollution disasters finally to convince the Government of the need for the legislation; a need underlined yet again today by the incident in the English channel that was referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Oxford, East and for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
  We also regret the fact that it has taken the Government almost three years to bring before the House Lord Donaldson's highly praised and respected inquiry into the first of those disasters. We accept that, despite the apparent complacency and the delays that have preceded its publication, the Bill will go at least part of the way towards creating the safer ships and cleaner seas that were the aim of Lord Donaldson's recommendations.
  However, many aspects of the Bill still require further explanation from Ministers, who will also have to justify a number of omissions. Many of those aspects and omissions were highlighted not only by my hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich, for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux).
  In addition, many informed and probing interventions from my hon. Friends were courteously allowed by the Secretary of State, in the most marked contrast with the fact that, with the exception of those on the Front Bench and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), no Conservative Member has been present to hear, let alone contribute to, this evening's important debate.
  The Bill was a golden opportunity for the Government at least to begin to address the appalling decline in Britain's merchant fleet that has characterised their 18 years in office. The figures have been well rehearsed, but they are none the less staggering.
  Since 1979, the United Kingdom merchant fleet has declined by 24 million tonnes, or approximately 65 per cent. of its former size. According to Lloyd's, Britain now ranks 22nd in the table of world trading fleets, behind nations such as Malta, Turkey, Italy and St. Vincent. Under the present Government, more merchant tonnage has been lost from the British fleet than was lost by all the allied forces in all theatres in the second world war.
  The figures are damning in themselves, but they are also directly related to the issues that we have been debating today, because the dramatic decline in the United Kingdom register has been matched by an equally dramatic increase in the use of flags of convenience.
  Opposition Members are proud to acknowledge that British shipping has one of the best safety records in the world, but as more and more of our vessels are forced to flag out and more and more of our goods are transported by vessels over which we have only limited jurisdiction, that safety record is undermined and the threat to our coastline increases.
  The decline of our merchant fleet also has serious economic implications. According to the Chamber of Shipping, since 1979, the gross earnings of the British
  66
  merchant fleet have declined from £9.8 billion to £4.7 billion per annum. In 1975, the sea transport account of the UK balance of payments was in surplus. Under the present Government, that surplus has been allowed to slip into deficit. That decline in earnings represents lost investment not only to the nation but to the maritime industry, which could have a serious knock-on effect in terms of pollution and safety.
  It has been well documented that the majority of maritime casualties involve vessels of 14 years or older, with more than 90 per cent. of vessels lost at sea being 15 years or older. Similarly, poor maintenance of vessels is widely agreed to be a major contributory factor to shipping accidents. The 1995 European port state control report states:
  "Most of the defects discovered could have been avoided if proper maintenance had been carried out."
  The decline under the Government of Britain's merchant fleet and the ascendancy of flags of convenience that has accompanied it cannot be divorced from maritime safety and pollution. Those issues constitute an omission from the Bill that we intend to address both in Committee and on Report. Equally worrying is the Government's reluctance to confront crewing and crew training. The Donaldson report concluded that human factors are responsible for almost 80 per cent. of maritime casualties. Similarly, the 1992 National Audit Office study concluded:
  "Operational failure and human error are the main cause of the majority of accidents to ships".
  Despite the importance of highly trained seafarers to securing high standards of maritime safety, British shipping faces a manpower crisis. The number of British officers employed by British shipping companies has declined by 75 per cent. since 1979. According to the Chamber of Shipping, it is set to decline by a further 30 per cent. over the next decade. Despite warnings about the disastrous impact of falling numbers of seafarers and seafarer cadets, the Government spend less on support for seafarer training than on their ministerial car fleet. We believe that it is impossible to confront the issue of maritime safety without examining crewing. Again, we shall press the Government on that in Committee and on Report.
  The Bill's measures to protect the environment and tackle pollution are welcome, but we have several concerns about pollution prevention matters. It is disappointing that there appears to be nothing in the Bill to address the problems surrounding the detection of vessels responsible for pollution. According to the latest figures that I have been able to obtain, which relate to a survey conducted by the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers between June and September 1995, in the 139 oil pollution incidents reported around the UK, only three of the offending ships were detected. Similarly in 1995, only 37 vessels were detained in UK ports on suspicion of involvement in illegal discharges of oil and hazardous chemicals; of those, only 11 cases were referred to the Treasury Solicitor for possible prosecution, while 19 were reported to their flag state.
  While we accept that unilateral action on the inspection and detention of foreign-flagged vessels is difficult because of the impact on competitiveness and on British seafarers forced by the decline of the British fleet to serve

  67
  on such vessels, what action is being taken at European and international level to agree tighter regulations for the frequency and thoroughness of port state control inspections?
  Equally, we believe that the Government should take a strong stance to protect Britain's fishing grounds from the problems of fish transhipment in the form of the so-called klondykers. We welcome the Government's proposed measures to tackle the problem and the Secretary of State's reference to it. However, we are not yet convinced that those measures go far enough and we shall explore the matter in Committee and on Report.
  As I said, many of the Bill's measures respond to Lord Donaldson's report, which was itself a response to the Braer grounding of January 1993. Since then, the Government have been somewhat overtaken by events. We welcome the fact that Ministers have been flexible enough to insert several measures that clearly respond to the Sea Empress disaster. The details of that, and the continuing concerns, were graphically described by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke. We welcome the measures as far as they go, but we seek further assurances from Ministers. In particular, we want an assurance that the process of salvage by committee which allowed an accident to turn into farce and then disaster will never be repeated. We shall certainly seek assurances that Ministers will never again place responsibility for the co-ordination of a major maritime rescue operation in the hands of a chef from a local Chinese takeaway restaurant.
  I reiterate the request of my hon. Friends the Members for Oxford, East, for Pembroke, for Greenock and Port Glasgow and for Crewe and Nantwich that the Minister here and now confirm or deny reports that the Government are considering the removal of winter tug cover from our coastline. He could also explain how they can afford to spend £60 million of taxpayers' money on a royal yacht to safeguard the leadership ambitions of the Secretary of State for Defence, but cannot afford the £3 million a year that it costs to protect Britain's coastline.
  We welcome the Bill as far as it goes, but there are many issues that must still be addressed and many questions to which Ministers must find satisfactory answers. We intend to tackle those issues both in Committee and on Report and to ensure that this legislation goes as far as it can to secure Lord Donaldson's ambition of ensuring safer ships and cleaner seas.
  6.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Bowis): To continue where the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) left off, we can join hands across the Chamber in seeking to build on the work of Lord Donaldson. I think she said that she thought this a good Bill. The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) said the same, as did all hon. Members who spoke. That was also the view of all parties in the other place. Lord Clinton-Davis wished the Bill well and described it as good. I am happy to accept that accolade as we take it into this House.
  Several hon. Members mentioned personal experiences. As the Member of Parliament for the landlocked constituency of Battersea, my memories reflect the
  68
  Marchioness tragedy, after which I introduced a Bill to improve river safety. Many ideas have been flagged up for the Committee and we shall no doubt enjoy discussing them in detail.
  I pay special tribute to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) who, from the days when he had to cope with the impact of the Sea Empress incident on his constituents, drew a vivid picture of why the Bill is important. His picture was endorsed and reinforced by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux), who described standing beneath the Sea Empress in dry dock and seeing a gaping hole. I must be careful not to prejudge the marine accident investigation branch investigation and inquiry, but the interim recommendation to extend the power to issue a direction to harbour authorities, harbour masters and pilots has been accepted, as has the statutory basis for the national contingency plan. Both are dealt with by the Bill.
  The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley was kind enough to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Ministers. I pass that accolade swiftly to my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping. He and my right hon. Friend are grateful for that tribute. It is in tribute, above all, to the work of Lord Donaldson that we introduce the Bill.
  Many of the matters that have been discussed will come up in Committee, for which we have had many volunteers. I shall canter through some of the points. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asked about pilots. He is right that the captain retains charge of the vessel, even when the pilot may have conduct of it. I hope that that is a helpful clarification.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the Minches. We have undertaken a radar survey of the traffic there. In bad weather there may be circumstances in which it would be better for vessels to use sheltered waters, otherwise vessels should be in the deep water to the west of the Hebrides. He also referred to survival equipment and survival suits. Our tugs carry the equipment necessary for the conditions in which they operate and we encourage fishermen to make similar provision on board their vessels. I can confirm the Scottish legal process in terms of the procurator fiscal and the sheriff courts. I hope that that, too, puts his mind at ease.
  The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate referred to the problem of klondykers. We are aware of it, and I am grateful to them for their support for the relevant measures in the Bill. No doubt we can examine the issue in some detail in Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) asked particularly about the Scilly Isles. Lord Donaldson mentioned them, as well as Skomer, as possible marine environmental high risk areas—MEHRAs. We have undertaken radar surveys of both locations, the results of which will be published shortly. They are part of our examination of MEHRAs and I want to reassure my hon. Friend that the Scillies are very much in our mind as we consider that issue.
  The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley referred to the importance of a knowledge of English. It may be of some comfort to him to know that we are about to introduce regulations—the minimum standards of safe communication—on which we have already consulted. They require a person on a United Kingdom ship or any

  69
  foreign ship in territorial waters to have on board a person capable of communicating with the shore. That implements in part an EC directive on the training of seamen. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the reasonable costs of the clean-up following an oil incident. They will be met by the intergovernmental oil pollution liability and compensation system. The costs of planning and preparation will be considered as part of the review of the national contingency plan that my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping has announced, and before any regulations are made under clause 12.
  If I may, I shall leave the issue of charging for further discussion in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) raised a number of points, including some that suggested a degree of gunboat diplomacy in Liberal policy. I must tell him that the United Nations convention on the law of the sea prohibits measures that hamper innocent passage in the territorial sea or other measures on the regulation of maritime traffic that do not conform to international law. We cannot take unilateral action, which he urged, that is mandatory on ships. We can take advisory measures, but mandatory action needs prior approval by the IMO.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Pembroke will understand that I cannot comment on some of his remarks relating to the Sea Empress because they are a matter for the investigation. I have already mentioned the review of the national contingency plan to which he referred. The powers of the Secretary of State to intervene will be discussed in Committee.
  The example of the Sea Empress occupies our mind, and the hon. Gentleman referred to compensation claims being dealt with too slowly. We are conscious that we need to look carefully at that matter. At the moment, we have no evidence to suggest that there have been any significant delays in the payments of claims, although that may not be the impression of the person who is waiting. The International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund is required by its establishing convention and rules of procedure to seek documentary evidence of the validity of claims. In some cases, payment can be delayed if that evidence is not provided by the claimant. There is no evidence to suggest that many are suffering financial hardship. There are procedures for claiming hardship payments but, as I understand it, so far, just five people have applied for them.
  Various issues were raised about the Marchioness and public inquiries. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State responded to those queries during his speech, but perhaps we will discuss the matter again in Committee. In broad terms, the Secretary of State has discretion to hold public inquiries that are known as formal investigations. We need to judge the circumstances of each incident when deciding how to proceed.
  The issue of MEHRAs is a matter of considerable interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Some concern was expressed that progress has not been made on them, but I can assure the House that we are currently developing the criteria for environmentally sensitive areas in conjunction with the joint nature conservancy councils, which are the Government's statutory advisers on conservation issues. When the areas are identified, we will look in detail at the shipping patterns in them. I hope that, before too long, we shall be able to consult other interested bodies—certainly later this year.
  70
  The European Commission's proposal for marine environmentally sensitive areas—MESAs—was also raised. We need to be clear that we are not duplicating ideas, or proposing conflicting ones. We undertake to consider that matter carefully.
  Mr. Dalyell: Does the Minister recall that, in Committee on what became the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, we inserted into the Bill, with the agreement of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, the concept of marine nature reserves? Progress has been abysmally slow. Eventually, a decision was made on Lundy and Scilly, but little progress has been made on Skomer—my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) will correct me if I am wrong. Nothing has been done about some places in the Outer Hebrides and Loch Sween. Why is it so difficult to make progress?
  Mr. Bowis: The best thing would be to discuss that further at a later stage. We are hastening to try to reach agreement with the statutory advisers so that we can bring forward proposals for regulation.
  Tugs have been mentioned. It was decided that emergency towing vessels should be stationed on a trial basis at the three locations highlighted by the Donaldson report and the Belton report as having a significantly higher risk factor than other areas—the Dover straits, the Minches and the south-west approaches. The problem of the seasons has been referred to. Weather conditions in the winter can, of course, generally be expected to be the worst. When the trial ends at the end of March, we will consider carefully the long-term future of those vessels.
  I hope that I can put the mind of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) at rest when I say that it is the Government's intention to introduce the mandatory aspects of the waste management plans. Following the passage of the Bill we will bring forward regulations for consultation to achieve just that. There may be some confusion, because we are also seeking to lead internationally and to encourage wider agreement within the IMO. The European Commission is also interested in supporting such measures.
  Mr. Dalyell: If I have understood it right, it would be churlish not to thank the Minister for doing that. Can we take it that Government amendments will be tabled to introduce mandatory provisions on port waste facilities?
  Mr. Bowis: I think that that is not necessary, because the Bill enables regulations to be laid. The intention is to consult following the passage of the Bill on the regulations that would achieve that aim. We can pursue that point further in Committee.
  The detection of polluters at sea, which was mentioned by several hon. Members, and the issue of plastics, which was raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, are important matters. The maximum fine was also mentioned: £25,000 in respect of non-oil pollution—chemicals, gases and so on—is, of course, relevant only to magistrates courts. Spillages of that nature, given their rarity, might be referred to the Crown court which has no limitation on the fines it can impose.
  Some of the measures in the Bill are sufficiently up to date to be relevant to the most recent spillage, which was of oil. We are taking the lead internationally in developing

  71
  a workable system of automatic ship identification transponders, which would remove ships' anonymity and allow a polluting ship to be identified even at night or in fog. We have some interesting times ahead in Committee and, for the time being, I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  MERCHANT SHIPPING AND MARITIME SECURITY BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill [Lords] it is expedient to authorize—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any sums required by the Secretary of State for making any payment in respect of an indemnity given by virtue of the Act to a person taking measures with respect to marine pollution;

  (b) any other expenses of a Minister of the Crown attributable to the provisions of the Act; and

  (c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other enactment are payable out of money so provided; and

  (2) the making of payments out of money provided by Parliament into the General Lighthouse Fund.—[Mr. Wells.]

  Question agreed to.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING AND MARITIME SECURITY BILL [LORDS] [WAYS AND MEANS]
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill [Lords] it is expedient to authorize—

  (1) the imposition in accordance with the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea 1996 (or any revision of that Convention) of obligations to contribute to the International Hazardous and Noxious Substances Fund established under the Convention;

  (2) the imposition of charges for the purposes of recovering costs incurred—

  (a) by the Secretary of State, in connection with his maritime functions, or

  (b) by general lighthouse authorities, within the meaning of Part VIII of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, in respect of their functions under that Part;

  (3) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums which would otherwise be payable into the General Lighthouse Fund; and

  (4) the payment of other sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Wells.]

  Question agreed to.

Welsh Development Agency Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
7.1 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I wish to set out the purpose of the Bill; to refer to the success of the agency in its use of the existing financial limit; and to set out my priorities for expenditure within the limit proposed by the Bill.
The purpose of the Bill, as set out in clause 1, is to increase the statutory financial limit for the Welsh Development Agency from the present level of £950 million to £1,350 million. The limit was last raised by the Welsh Development Agency Act 1991. On the basis of current estimates, the present limit will be reached during the 1998–99 financial year. It is necessary to raise the limit to permit continued public expenditure to finance the agency's activities so that it can continue its excellent work for the benefit of Wales and the Welsh economy.
Mr. Alex Carlile rose—
Mr. Hague: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) already wishes to intervene, so I shall give way.
Mr. Carlile: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the proposed increase in funding for the Welsh Development Agency does not contain within it a hidden agenda to abolish the Development Board for Rural Wales? Will he confirm that the Development Board for Rural Wales is still considered to be a valuable part of Welsh economic development and that it would be viewed as a serious mistake if anyone were to propose its abolition, either now or in the near future?
Mr. Hague: I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I see a continuing and important role for the Development Board for Rural Wales. He will be reassured that the Bill has nothing to do with that, but I know that Labour Members—who have designs to abolish the Development Board for Rural Wales—will have taken note of his pertinent point.
Mr. Ron Davies: It never takes long for the Secretary of State to start discussing Labour policies; it would make a pleasant change if he started defending his own record. As it has been suggested that I have designs to abolish the Development Board for Rural Wales, let me make it clear that I have no such designs.
Mr. Hague: The discussion precipitated by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has turned out to be most useful because, after all that we have heard about super-quangos and so on, it turns out that it is not Labour's intention to abolish the board after all. No doubt, as the debate continues, we shall be able to enlighten ourselves about many other aspects of Labour policy as well as about the purpose of the Bill, to which subject I return.
Under section 18 of the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975, the financial limit to which I have referred applies to the total cumulative amount of the sums granted

73
to the agency by the Government. The limit includes: the total of all grant in aid and public dividend capital, less repayments by the agency and excluding administrative expenses; the agency's outstanding borrowings; the third party loans guaranteed by the agency; and any sums issued by the Treasury in consequence of its guaranteeing agency borrowings that have not been repaid to the Treasury.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Secretary of State is outlining the considerable sums that pass to the agency from the Treasury. Today's Western Morning News confirms that several businesses in Cornwall have been approached by organisations using Welsh Development Agency money to encourage them to relocate in Wales. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is not Government policy to allow such development agencies to poach—especially from poor areas such as mine—and will he personally seek to ensure that such poaching is not repeated?
Mr. Hague: I can categorically assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not Government policy to poach companies from elsewhere in the United Kingdom and that it is not the policy of the Welsh Development Agency to do that. I would deprecate very strongly poaching from elsewhere in the United Kingdom. However, companies that are already located somewhere in the United Kingdom sometimes propose an expansion project or have definitely decided to leave their particular location, and that is a different matter. I know that that is not what the hon. Gentleman means by poaching; what I understand him to mean by that is certainly not the policy of the Government, or of the Welsh Development Agency or of the Development Board for Rural Wales.
Mr. Tom King rose—
Mr. David Harris rose—
Mr. Hague: The west country Members are most welcome at this debate on Welsh matters. I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King).
Mr. King: I do not wish further to disrupt my right hon. Friend's speech, but I should like to welcome what he has just said because a firm in my constituency relocated to Wales with the benefit of substantial grants. We recognise the excellent work being done by the Welsh Development Agency and the serious problem of unemployment in Wales, with which the Government's policy has helped so significantly. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance, however, that he will be vigilant in ensuring that firms that have not considered going to Wales are not attracted to do so when they might otherwise continue and expand in parts of the country that contribute through their taxes to the benefits that the Welsh Development Agency is able to offer, but which, despite having their own unemployment problems, do not have any particular inducements to offer?
Mr. Hague: Of course, we want to attract as much new investment to Wales as we possibly can, but that must not be done through poaching or in a way that destroys jobs in other parts of the United Kingdom. That, of course,
74
would not be a proper use of taxpayers' money. I am satisfied that the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales pursue that policy as rigorously as I would intend them to, which is very rigorously. Sometimes, one or two advertisements or statements have been misinterpreted, but I will certainly give the matter every consideration and be as firm in the future as I have been in the past to make sure that we are not poaching from or destroying jobs elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Harris: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the job losses that Cornwall has encountered in the past few weeks. Does he appreciate the anger that is felt in Cornwall when it suffers job losses, and an apparently well-documented example is given in today's Western Morning News of attempts to poach jobs and firms from Cornwall to Wales, and to south Wales in particular? Will he do what the Minister with responsibility for the south-west, our right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), has promised to do, which is to look into specific examples? If he finds that there have been attempts to poach, will he put an immediate end to the practice?
Mr. Hague: I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend says. If there are well-documented examples—[Interruption.] Of course it remains to be seen. I have recently read many things in newspapers that I would not describe as well documented, but if there are well-documented examples, I shall consider them.
There should not be poaching from other parts of the United Kingdom, but I say without apology that where there are new investment projects that could go to anywhere in the United Kingdom, the Welsh Development Agency and the Welsh Office will fight very hard for them to come to Wales.
Some situations are open to misinterpretation. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)—I apologise for mentioning him in his absence, but I had not foreseen this point arising—criticised the agency for securing for Wales several hundred jobs in a company that was previously located in Hull. In fact, the company was closing in Hull anyway and was deciding whether to go to northern France or to Wales. The agency was right to fight for those jobs, but that is different from the poaching to which the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) referred.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I am sure that the Secretary of State will recall that what the deputy leader of the Labour party actually said was that the incident constituted one of the best arguments that he had ever heard for the English regions, including Yorkshire and Humberside, having regional development agencies of their own.
Mr. Hague: We continue to receive clarification of Labour party policy. I believe that the English regional assemblies would be a different matter. I doubt that the company in question, or companies in general, would be more inclined to locate in Hull because there was a regional assembly, just as I have grave doubts that any company would be more inclined to locate in Wales because there was a Welsh Assembly.

75
The Bill provides that future increases of the financial limit shall be made by secondary legislation, using the affirmative resolution procedure. The advantages are clear. It will reduce the burden on future legislative programmes while retaining proper accountability to the House and an opportunity to debate the issue.
The new limit should be sufficient for several years. The increase of the limit carries no implications for spending or policy decisions in future years. Such decisions will be made in the usual way, as part of public expenditure surveys. The revised financial limit will, however, provide the flexibility needed to ensure that the agency is properly resourced to undertake its existing programme of work and to take advantage of new opportunities that may arise.
Dr. Kim Howells: The Secretary of State must know that there can be very few people in Wales who have not congratulated the WDA on its magnificent work in bringing investment into the country, but he must also be aware that many people, especially in my constituency, are deeply worried that some of the WDA's roles, such as land reclamation and urban renewal, have been completely ignored to enable it to make those magnificent achievements and attract inward investment from abroad. What will he do about tip reclamation schemes in places where we need the land very badly for indigenous industry, such as at Coedely and Cilfynydd, or for urban development, such as in Pontypridd?
Mr. Hague: Those urban programmes are not ignored. They remain important programmes and important objectives of the agency. Inward investment has been the agency's highest priority in recent times because there has been an unusual degree of opportunity to attract inward investment—I make no apology for that—but those other programmes are not ignored, and I shall mention them later if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.
In November 1996, I announced a significant increase in the agency's base programme for the current financial year, from £120 million to £157 million. That included an increase of more than 60 per cent. in central Government provision to the agency to enable it to meet its commitments to the LG project and to fund other new inward investment projects throughout Wales.
The agency's budget for the coming year, which I announced in December, will similarly allow it to build on its existing successes and to increase its spending on strategic sites throughout Wales, to which I attach great importance. Central Government provision for the agency for next year will be £84.7 million and grant in aid is 8 per cent. above the equivalent figure for 10 years earlier in real terms. That will enable the agency to fund a base programme of £150 million in the forthcoming year.
The agency has a central role in the economic development of Wales. I should refer briefly to the functions and objectives of the agency as set out in the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975. The agency exists
"to further the economic development of Wales or any part of Wales; to promote industrial efficiency and international competitiveness"
and
"to further the improvement of the environment in Wales".
76
There can be no disputing the excellent results that the WDA has achieved. It has played a significant part in transforming the Welsh economy in line with the Government's priorities. As a result, we have today a more diverse and well-balanced industrial structure. Our manufacturing base, at 28 per cent. of gross domestic product, is one of the most dynamic in the United Kingdom. We have attracted new high-technology industries. Manufacturing output in Wales in the past two years has grown by well over 10 per cent. Production businesses have multiplied by about 46 per cent. since 1979 and indigenous companies—of which I shall say more in a moment—are taking full advantage of the tremendous sourcing opportunity provided by inward investors.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: I am sure that the Secretary of State will say something later about spreading prosperity throughout Wales, but I remind him of figures released by Plaid Cymru last year which show that 80 per cent. of the jobs created by the agency have occurred and, indeed, are predicted to occur within about 10 per cent. of the Welsh land area, and that 60 per cent. of Welsh unemployed people live outside the region specified for anticipated success. Does not that require pretty fundamental reconsideration of the WDA's strategy and is such reconsideration now afoot?
Mr. Hague: I shall come to that point. Indeed, I intend to announce a policy change on that matter, which I believe the hon. Gentleman will be able to welcome.
I was describing the agency's achievements. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives and the hon. Member for Truro will be pleased to note that since taking responsibility for inward investment in 1983, the agency has recorded an enormous number of inward investment projects—about 855—from overseas. Such projects have promised the creation or safeguarding of more than 100,000 jobs, and in the past calendar year alone, the agency has played its part in attracting £2.3 billion of investment and 15,000 jobs through 150 projects new to Wales—a record-breaking achievement. We have made an excellent start to 1997 and more good news is in the pipeline.
The consequence of those achievements is that unemployment has been reduced to 93,000. For the past six months, it has been falling by 18,000 a month. The news on long-term unemployment is also good. With the jobs come the wages that bolster local economies.
Securing the LG project is a tremendous achievement in terms of employment and investment, as has been acknowledged by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is the most significant project that Wales has ever seen and the largest inward investment project in Europe. It will bring with it about 6,100 direct jobs and thousands of indirect jobs, and it can benefit the whole of Wales. I congratulate all involved on that magnificent achievement.
The benefits of LG should not be confined to south-east Wales, and we are all working to ensure that they are spread throughout Wales. Immediately after the announcement, we moved quickly to set up a group comprising the many parts of the Welsh Office with an interest, the WDA, the training and enterprise councils,

77
the Employment Service and many local authorities, to ensure that Wales as a whole benefits from the LG investment.
Mr. Barry Jones: How does the Secretary of State, alongside the Welsh Development Agency, intend to tackle large-scale youth unemployment and long-term unemployment in constituencies such as mine? Is there a joint plan to tackle those problems in the constituency of Alyn and Deeside?
Mr. Hague: Yes, the plan is to continue the success in reducing unemployment—including in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—that we have achieved in recent months. We started this year with the announcement that British Aerospace in his constituency is to create another 100 jobs. That was good news for his constituency, and I hope that it will receive more good news in the future. Long-term and youth unemployment is falling, as is unemployment as a whole.
On the LG project, wider issues are being considered, such as training skills, transport and component suppliers. Companies anywhere in Wales can do business with LG if they are able to meet the company's requirements. More and more companies are reinvesting in Wales, which shows their satisfaction with the Welsh work force and the confidence that they have in the strengths of the Welsh economy, and reinforces the successful image of Wales for prospective investors.
A number of very good announcements have recently been made: Sony is one and Bertrand Faure at Tredegar is another. However, it is essential that the role of indigenous companies is recognised in the same way as that of inward investors. Between January 1994 and December 1996, 141 foreign and 567 UK-owned companies received regional selective assistance payments towards projects in Wales. In the 10-year period to March 1996, almost 1,500 offers of regional selective assistance were accepted by UK-owned companies for projects in Wales, whereas fewer than 300 offers were accepted by foreign-owned businesses. During the same period, RSA totalling almost £215 million was paid to UK-owned companies, and nearly £213 million to foreign-owned concerns. It is clear that home-grown companies have received far more assistance than is commonly supposed.
Encouraging indigenous small firms to supply inward investors is part of the range of services that is now marketed under the Business Connect banner. In this financial year, Source Wales has helped 537 Welsh companies, and 112 deals have been won for those companies. The Source Wales database of 2,000 Welsh small and medium-sized enterprises assists in identifying supply opportunities to major manufacturing companies, not only in Wales but throughout the United Kingdom and Europe. The recent announcement about Halla's sourcing in north Wales—£1 million-worth of business—is a prime example of the benefits that the Source Wales programme brings to indigenous companies, and shows that major investments can benefit the whole of Wales rather than just the immediate vicinity.
Mr. Dais: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hague: I may give way again later in my speech, but in fairness to other hon. Members I should proceed.
78
Other agency initiatives to encourage indigenous firms include technology development and transfer. Under the regional technology action plan, the WDA is working with a large number of organisations to strengthen the Welsh innovation culture and to develop further the technological infrastructure in Wales, including Wales-wide telecoms cabling. Through the technology transfer initiative, more than 400 Welsh companies have been audited to establish the adequacy of their approach to innovation and technology. If the audits identify opportunities to improve competitiveness, European grants are available through the WDA to introduce technological solutions. In that way, companies throughout Wales have ready access to the best available expertise.
On finance for growth generally, the agency has moved from being a major investor in its own right to working in conjunction with the private sector to improve the availability of venture capital. In particular, it is now seeking to establish a network of "business angels", and has recently expanded its Eurolink scheme to operate worldwide, called Globalink, to establish for Welsh companies strong collaborative links with overseas business partners.
Thanks to those and other initiatives, and to the exceptionally favourable circumstances of the United Kingdom economy, business optimism remains positive in Wales, which shows that the Welsh economy is on a sound footing and that we can all have confidence in the future. Some recent surveys have shown Welsh business optimism to be the best in the United Kingdom.
Since 1979, the WDA has spent more than £820 million on property development, which has provided more that 20 million sq ft of floorspace. It has developed a network of new business parks across north and south and south-west Wales, taking full advantage of the A55 and M4 corridors, and has also pushed development into less accessible areas, a fine example of which is the Cleddau Bridge business park at Pembroke dock. A business park is also to be developed at Parc Pensarn, Carmarthen. The agency has placed ever-increasing emphasis on joint development projects with private sector partners.
After strong growth in auto-components jobs last year, the WDA has announced today that it will press ahead with a new business park in the Neath valley, which is designed specifically for automotive suppliers. It has awarded a £440,000 contract to install road and other services at the Neath Vale supplier park, which should be ready by May. Interest from potential tenants is high and the agency is talking to at least six companies, which together could bring 300 jobs to the area.
The agency's achievements do not end with job creation: that is the point made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). It has also provided a better environment in which Welsh people can live and work. The agency's land reclamation programme has been huge. Since 1979, it has reclaimed 6,500 hectares of derelict land at more than 920 locations. Despite the pressures on spending and the priority rightly given to inward investment, the agency currently has almost 3,500 acres in the process of being reclaimed and, on current plans, some 1,850 acres will be completed in the next two years. That remains a massive programme by any standards, even though we must give higher priority to other areas.

79
In rural areas, under the agency's rural prosperity programme, £2.6 million has been invested in 248 projects selected by individual communities.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hague: I shall give way, but then I really must get on.
Mr. Rowlands: Does the acreage of land reclamation to which the right hon. Gentleman referred include the sites that are currently on hold as a result of the halt in budget development for the land reclamation programme?
Mr. Hague: The 3,500 acres include all projects, some of which are waiting for further attention, but the 1,850 acres to be completed in the next two years relate to projects that are either proceeding now or are certain to proceed in that period.
The rural programme to which I referred is part of the agency's wider development programme in rural areas which, in the period from 1991 to 1996, totalled some £34 million. Although £5.5 million of funding for small rural schemes will be transferred from the WDA to rural local authorities on 1 April this year, the agency will continue to play a significant role in rural areas. Indeed, £650,000 of rural funding will be retained by the agency to continue to fund LEADER and Interreg groups in the coming year, and a further £750,000 will be used to fulfil its commitment to the Welsh national botanical garden at Middleton. The agency is currently developing a strategy for rural economic development based on a package of services and capital projects, in conjunction with local authorities.
Despite those numerous successes, we know that there is more to do. We will continue to help to create jobs across a broad range of businesses. In addition to manufacturing, which remains a cornerstone of our economy, we want to see stronger services, with even more financial services and research and technology-based businesses in Wales—all of which, of course, offer above-average wages. In all those areas, the WDA will continue to play an active role.
Mr. Nick Ainger: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hague: I must get on because I have given way a lot. If I have a little time in the next few minutes, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I must proceed with my speech.
We need to ensure that industry and commerce have the right supply of qualified, well-motivated people. That is why I have published the updates to two important Government programmes: "People and Prosperity: Building on Success", which I launched today and which concerns our agenda for action on training; and the initiative, "Bright Future: Beating our Previous Best", which I launched last week.
I have set the agency challenging targets to ensure that it directs its efforts towards what I believe to be the priorities for Wales. The agency has performed well
80
against its targets—we have not yet reached the end of the current financial year, yet a number of them have been exceeded. For the current year, I set a target of £650 million of private sector investment to be levered in. So far, the agency has reached £1,986 million. My target of 12,500 jobs to be created or safeguarded has been exceeded, with 13,860 jobs to date.
Wales and the WDA can be justifiably proud of that record and I want the WDA to continue doing what it does best—helping to create new jobs for all parts of Wales. I want more investment and more jobs in those parts of Wales that are still affected by the highest unemployment: parts of the west, north-west and valleys.
We are already doing a great deal to spread the benefits of the investment that has already been made: the Source Wales programme; encouragement to suppliers across Wales to link up with inward investors; ensuring that inward investors look at sites across Wales before they invest; and setting targets for the numbers of jobs outside the eastern M4 and A55 corridors.
The WDA has so far this financial year exceeded its target of 20 per cent. outside those eastern corridors by creating more than 32 per cent. of its jobs outside those areas. I have decided that it is now time to take further steps to ensure that areas that have so far not been the principal beneficiaries of inward investment can share in the growing success of Wales.
First, I will set new and more demanding targets for inward investment outside the eastern M4 and A55 corridors. Although the precise level of those targets remains for discussion, they will be significantly more demanding than the current target.
Secondly, I am asking the WDA, within agreed UK and European limits, to recognise the extra costs of locating in some areas by giving more assistance to companies locating in those areas than to equivalent projects elsewhere. Ultimately, of course, the choice of a location is for the company but, we should make no mistake—it is no accident that companies are coming to Wales. I intend to ensure that companies keep coming and that they come to all parts of Wales. The two initiatives will form part of the policy guidance and direction that I intend to give the agency in the future.
Mr. Donald Anderson rose—
Mr. Ainger rose—
Mr. Hague: I am spoilt for choice; two hon. Members want to intervene.
Mr. Anderson: The initiatives are certainly welcome. The Secretary of State's guidance is for the future and critics will say that it is guidance in the very dying days of this Parliament. Even in December, the agency killed a £3 million project for a science and technology centre at Penllergaer, near Swansea. People will ask why. The guidance is welcome, but why is it so belated? The facts have been apparent for years.
Mr. Hague: There is no need to apologise for the way in which the agency has approached such matters in recent years. It has been extremely important to bring large investments into any part of Wales for which they can be secured. Of course, the company plays a large role in choosing the location.

81
Now that we have had spectacular success in some areas, it is right to say that we would be prepared to pay more for any given project to go to a new area than to go to an area where a large project had already been established. It would have been wrong to say that in the past, but now it is fair. We should concentrate resources to a somewhat greater extent on areas that have not been the principal beneficiaries of large-scale inward investment.
Mr. Ainger: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hague: This will have to be the last time that I give way.
Mr. Ainger: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. May I, with my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), say that the investment is belated but welcome? The Welsh Office has been advised by the WDA that in areas of high unemployment—especially those in my constituency, in south-west Wales and in north-west Wales, such as the Holyhead travel-to-work area—enterprise zones should be re-established as a key marketing ploy. Can the Secretary of State explain why that recommendation has been rejected by the Welsh Office?
Mr. Hague: We have been over that ground before. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government's view is that enterprise zones are of assistance mainly where there has been a failure in the private sector property market. They can help in some cases, but not in others. We had little or no evidence that enterprise zones would be of direct help in those cases. As he knows, a great deal of other assistance is available to his constituency and to other parts of west Wales. Greater assistance may be available after what I have said this evening.
The priorities for the future of the agency are clear. I expect it to focus particularly on inward investment and indigenous business growth. Safeguarding and creating jobs in Wales is paramount, although the agency has other responsibilities as well. I shall continue to press on the WDA the points to which I referred this evening, when we meet later this month.
I know that Opposition Members have criticised the budget for the coming year, although at £150 million of gross expenditure and £85 million of Government grant, it is a very large programme. In recent weeks, Opposition Front Benchers have committed themselves to the existing spending ceilings of the Welsh Office for the next two years, while also increasing local government spending and setting up an assembly. Against such a background, they would have little hope of providing the level of resources that I am providing, let alone increasing it. If they can work out how they would provide such an increase, we would be interested to hear about it tonight.
We can all agree on the need to make the most of the agency's success. The chairman, David Rowe-Beddoe, and his team have worked hard to ensure that the agency adheres to the principles of compliance, openness and financial regularity that we expect from public bodies in Wales. They have worked hard at presenting the agency and a successful Wales to the world. The agency deserves the support of all of us in that. It is concentrating on what it excels at—winning jobs and investment for Wales.
82
I want the agency to build on those foundations and to achieve even greater success. With this Government, it has a secure future in further developing the increasing prosperity of Wales.
7.36 pm
Mr. Ron Davies: I begin on a note of agreement and join the Secretary of State in expressing my congratulations to the chairman, the board and all the staff of the Welsh Development Agency on having served the agency and the people of Wales well over the years. I especially congratulate the chairman, who had a difficult inheritance. Perhaps I shall return to that.
Although the Bill is specific, the debate has been wide ranging. The Secretary of State reviewed events over the past 20 years. I shall touch on some of those, as history can be interpreted in more than one way.
A number of initiatives were announced by the Secretary of State this evening. I broadly welcome them, as far as I understand them. I shall examine them in detail and apply the critical test by asking what resources will be available to ensure that those initiatives are carried through.
I was particularly interested in the Secretary of State's statement about ensuring that future developments take place outwith the hot area along the M4 corridor between Newport and Bridgend.
At present there is little evidence that the WDA or the Welsh Office has succeeded in getting investment out of that area, or that either of them understands the problems that are already developing, especially in the Newport area, as a result of the skills shortages stemming largely from the failure of the Welsh Office to offer a co-ordinated programme to provide skills or to provide adequate resources for the training and enterprise councils.
The Bill is a technical measure and is largely non-controversial. I put on record my broad support for it. We will assist its passage through the various parliamentary procedures.
There are two elements to the Bill: first, the increase in the statutory financial limit, which we would obviously support. The Government presumably regard it as particularly important in the light of the spending commitments that they have entered into in respect of the LG development at Newport.
Secondly, the Bill provides for future increases in the statutory financial limit to be made by means of secondary legislation—an interesting and novel proposition. It fits very well with our proposals for the introduction of a Welsh Assembly—secondary legislation could then be dealt with by that assembly. I know that there is an argument against using secondary legislation to introduce the increases—it is claimed that those increases should be subject to debate and scrutiny in Parliament. But the Welsh Assembly will provide the ideal opportunity for proper public debate.
Mr. Rod Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman and I shall tell him why. He has been a Member of the House since 1992—almost five years—

83
including a brief and relatively undistinguished career on the Government Front Bench. In that five years he has shown no understanding of the normal courtesies of Parliament. Until he does, I have no intention of giving way to him on this or any other occasion.
The debate about the provision of secondary legislation is interesting and it may well be pursued in Committee. It is an interesting comment on the legislative arrangements in the House that, when dealing with a Bill such as this—involving a minor technical matter on which there is broad agreement—the Government have to suspend the Standing Orders of the House, as they did last Friday, to take away from the majority of Welsh Members of Parliament their existing rights, under Standing Order No. 86, to sit on the Committee that will deal with the legislation.
Last year was the 20th birthday of the Welsh Development Agency and I took the opportunity over the weekend to read with interest the debate that took place on the Second Reading of the Welsh Development Agency Bill. The debate was initiated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who has taken a great interest in the proceedings and developments of the agency ever since. During the Second Reading debate, the WDA was vigorously opposed by the then Conservative Front-Bench team. The then hon. Member for Pembroke, Mr. Edwards, addressing my right hon. and learned Friend, said:
"He seeks to interfere where he should leave alone. He seeks to dictate where he should give freedom … He persists with policies that will destroy confidence."
He then asked the House to reject the Bill establishing the Welsh Development Agency.
It is interesting that the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) is in his place. At the time—and I believe subsequently—he was one of the strongest opponents of the WDA. He said:
"For the Government to become involved themselves in industry is an admission of failure. We may be sure that where private industry cannot succeed the Government will almost certainly fail."—[Official Report, 26 June 1975; Vol. 894, c. 712, 790]
He and all other Conservative Members of Parliament voted against the creation of the WDA.
Since then, and especially since 1979, the Conservative party and successive Conservative Secretaries of State have been consistent about only two matters. I hope that the present Secretary of State, who has a few weeks left in the job, will pay attention to these important matters. I understand that he was a 16-year-old at the time, causing great embarrassment to himself and the Conservative party with a speech in which he called on the Conservatives to roll back the frontiers of the state. Perhaps these are the frontiers of the state that he wanted to roll back.
Successive Conservative Secretaries of State have been consistent about only two things. First, they have never reconciled themselves to the agency or to the concept of partnership. Secondly, they have been consistent in their determination to use the agency's successes for their own party political purposes.
Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten to mention that when my right hon. and noble
84
Friend Lord Crickhowell and I came into office, we decided to retain the agency and placed it on a new and reformed basis so that it has succeeded in avoiding many of the pitfalls that we envisaged for it at the time.
Mr. Davies: There has been no change in the agency's statutory basis. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has used that argument before, but there has been no change in the agency's statutory basis, and he and his colleagues opposed its creation. The right hon. Gentleman has loyally served several Secretaries of State who have done their very best since 1979 to undermine not only the integrity, but the existence of the WDA.
I remind the present Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State of the regime that existed under Dr. Gwyn Jones, the former disgraced chairman of the agency and a pal of Lord Walker. I shall remind the Secretary of State of what the Public Accounts Committee said of the regime under the then Secretary of State and Dr. Gwyn Jones. It said in paragraph 3.(xviii) of its 47th report on the WDA's accounts for 1991–92 that it was
"unacceptable that the Welsh Office took no action against anyone in the top echelons of the Agency who presided over a catalogue of serious and inexcusable breaches of expected standards of control and accountability."
The Secretary of State's predecessor, the free market anti-Welsh Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), cut the WDA's budget—its grant in aid—by two thirds. He enforced on the WDA a policy of property sales that wreaked havoc in 1995–96. The agency's ability to prepare on the basis of stability and sustainability has still not been restored. Peter Walker, now Lord Walker, attempted covert privatisation with Operation Wizard. The right hon. Member for Wokingham was less subtle; he preferred to emasculate the agency by imposing ferocious cuts in its budget.
I want to press three charges against the present Secretary of State. First, he has ruthlessly suppressed the findings enclosed in the WDA's corporate plan submitted to the Welsh Office in August. That plan for the forthcoming financial year reveals a number of interesting figures about the state of the Welsh economy.
First, the plan reveals that Welsh gross domestic product is 16 per cent. below the UK average. It reveals that Welsh household income is 77 per cent. of the UK average. It reveals that between 1990–95, real GDP in Wales rose by 3.3 per cent., whereas real GDP in the UK as a whole rose by 5.4 per cent. It reveals that real services GDP in Wales rose by 5.6 per cent., whereas in the UK as a whole it rose by 8.5 per cent. No amount of propaganda can disguise the true impact of those figures on our Welsh communities. We have now had 18 years of Conservative government and the relative position of the Welsh economy is no better than it was in 1979 when the Conservatives took office. Today we have 200,000 fewer people in work than when the present Prime Minister took office in 1990.
Secondly, the present Secretary of State has denied the WDA the funds required for long-term stability even though he claims that it is his protected and favoured expenditure programme. To do what little he has, he has—as he announced to me last Monday in a parliamentary answer—cut the budgets of the agriculture, training, roads, housing, environmental services and

85
education programmes. Those cuts have been imposed to pay for the small increase in his economic development programme.
In the current financial year—in November 1996—to avert the crisis of his own making, the Secretary of State had to inject an emergency package of £25 million into the agency. Even with that experience of the damage caused by underfunding, the base programme for the next financial year, at £150 million, will be a lot less than required.
The agency itself—on page 17 of its corporate plan, which it submitted on 26 July 1996 to the Welsh Office—called for base expenditure of £178 million, plus European funding. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) are particularly concerned about cuts in the land reclamation programme. The information that I am about to provide will very clearly explain to them why those cuts are about to be implemented.
Mr. Hague: Would the hon. Gentleman increase the agency's programme for the coming year?
Mr. Davies: Let us deal with the current budget. As soon as the Secretary of State and the Government can pluck up the courage to face the electorate, we will have an election. As soon as we have a new Government, that Government will set about delivering their own programmes. I am now telling the Secretary of State of the consequences of the guidance that he gave to the Welsh Development Agency and of the—I believe dishonest—failure on his part to provide it with funds to perform those actions that he has publicly required it to do.
On page 17 of the corporate plan, which was submitted to the Secretary of State last July, the agency called for £178 million base expenditure, plus European funding. It stated:
"This would enable the Agency to achieve its objectives and the targets set out in the strategic guidance letter"—
which is the public guidance that the Secretary of State provides to the agency for the forthcoming year. The agency told the Secretary of State that that amount would be required to meet his own, publicly stated guidance.
The report went on to state:
"Whilst funding at this level would not be sufficient for the agency to secure the very large inward investment projects, this would enable it to deliver a range of programmes consistent with its short, medium and long-term strategies for development and job creation in Wales.
Activity would be centred on converting existing projects, providing the base for future investment, re-establishing the land reclamation programme towards previous millennium targets and maintaining the infrastructure projects at broadly current levels."
Therefore, to stand still, next year the agency will require £180 million-plus, whereas its budget is £150 million, which is £30 million less than it told the Secretary of State it requires to meet his targets. Of that £150 million, some £25 million is already earmarked for the LG development at Newport. The reality is that there will be savage cuts in the agency's programme, and the effective end of any more major inward investment projects. Quite simply, the agency does not have the
86
money to perform those tasks that, 10 or 15 minutes ago, the Secretary of State told the House that it intended to perform.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Does not that put in context the two new pledges made by the Secretary of State on increasing investment in west Wales? If the resources are not there, they will not happen.
Mr. Davies: That is exactly the case. It is also true that the Secretary of State said in this debate, in reply to an intervention, that, in the next two years, there would be a guaranteed land reclamation programme. To my knowledge, no such announcement has been made by the Welsh Development Agency, and no financial provision is being made to allow such land reclamation work to proceed. I look forward with great interest to hearing some clarification on those matters, perhaps in the Minister's reply to this debate. If he cannot clarify the matter today, perhaps the Secretary of State will write to me and tell me when those decisions were taken, when they will be made public, what financial provision is being made and when he intends to tell local authorities about the decisions that he has apparently made.
Dr. Howells: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was very unsatisfactory that the Secretary of State refused to name the big schemes included in those 3,000-odd acres, and that some reclamation schemes are a good deal less expensive to implement than others? If one has to detoxify land and cart away thousands of tonnes of toxic material from sites, it will bite into any agency's budget. To learn now that those projects are in doubt for the immediate future will do nothing for the confidence of the communities that will have to put up with that stuff for generations.
Mr. Davies: I know very well the site referred to by my hon. Friend, and the site at Treharris, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. From my own experience—if I may be a constituency Member of Parliament for a moment—I am also very familiar with the situation at Bargoed, which provides the clearest testament of the WDA's failure to possess a sustainable budget. Work finished two years ago at the Bargoed colliery tip. Half the tip was removed, but the other half is still in place, dominating the entire central part of the Rhymney valley. All my hon. Friends who represent former mining constituencies are well aware of the inadequacies of this budget and of the WDA's inability to sustain a land reclamation programme.
The third charge I make against the Secretary of State is that, whereas he has been more than anxious to try to take party political credit for the WDA's endeavours—especially for the LG investment—he has been singularly uninterested in developing an analysis of the various needs of Wales's economic regions, and especially of the hard-pressed west. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) was very anxious to speak in this debate, but he has had to leave the Chamber because representatives from his constituency are visiting.
The Secretary of State has also not shown any interest in the case for developing our indigenous industries. Barry Hartop was a very successful chief executive, and he played a crucial role in attracting LG to Newport. He could have played an equally important role in ensuring

87
maximum spin-off benefit from that investment. I would have been the first to congratulate him and to wish him well had he found other opportunities to use his skills. However, I think that the Secretary of State's connivance—a word which I use advisedly—in releasing Mr. Hartop on a "sale-or-return" basis to the Conservative party's pet project, the Greenwich millennium dome, was not only insulting to Wales but, by leaving the agency without a chief executive at this crucial time, likely to prejudice the chances of our getting maximum benefit from LG.
The coming general election will be important for the Welsh Development Agency, and I have been open about our intentions for the agency. I want it to operate within a new democratic framework, and to retain its operational independence. I believe that it can continue to play a crucial role, and I want to see its funding put on a more secure and sustainable basis. I also want it to develop a closer working relationship with the other development agencies, and specifically with providers of education and training.
The conflicting pressures within the Conservative party are now clear for all to see. We had a graphic demonstration of those pressures at the start of this debate. Conservative Members cannot agree on their own devolution policy, and they cannot agree on their policies for regional economic development. For us, the Welsh Development Agency is an essential instrument for economic development. For the Conservatives, it is increasingly becoming an unwanted, unacceptable and expensive mechanism which interferes in the operation of the free market. Many in the Cabinet—such as the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury—would be happy to see the end of the agency and the Welsh Office's ability to make independent bids for inward investment.
I should be happy for the Bill to secure a speedy passage through Parliament. I would be happier still, and I believe that the nation would also be happier, if the Government were to have a speedy passage from office. They show no real understanding of the problems of Wales; therefore, they have no long-term strategy to deal with them.
7.58 pm
Sir Wyn Roberts: I must begin by nailing the travesty of the truth perpetrated by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). As I remember his speech, he said that, over the past 18 years, the Government appear to have attempted to undermine the efforts of the Welsh Development Agency. That bit of rewriting history really does equate with some of the worst rewrites in the history of modern Europe.
We all know that the WDA is and has been one of the most important engines in the transformation of the Welsh economy that we have seen over the past 18 years. Its achievements have been astonishing, and astonishingly good for Wales; and we should not forget them. As the hon. Member for Caerphilly implied, they were summed up in the concise document published last year on the occasion of the WDA's 20th anniversary. The document was entitled "Twenty Reasons To Celebrate", and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has updated those achievements today.
88
The agency has helped to bring hundreds of new international companies and tens of thousands of new manufacturing jobs to Wales, and it is still doing so—one need look only at the enormous current investment in Newport by the Korean company LG, and the 6,100 jobs in the pipeline. I am sure that, even as I speak, the agency is in touch with other potential investors in Wales from all over the world. I am sure that we all hope that its efforts will continue, and will result in further successes.
Compared with the billions of pounds of investment secured for Wales—I believe that it had reached £6.7 billion last year; that is only since 1983, and my right hon. Friend has updated that figure by a couple of billion pounds yet again today—the WDA's total funding, even with the enhanced limit set out in the Bill, almost pales into insignificance.
Inward investment, however, is only one aspect of the WDA's activities. It has literally prepared the ground and provided well-infrastructured land and buildings, not only for inward investors but for developing local businesses, and it has sought to improve and assist them by a variety of means, including the Source Wales programme, Eurolink and now Globalink. The Source Wales programme has helped to secure international orders for some 500 Welsh businesses.
The agency's flexibility, entrepreneurial thrust and expertise has, on the whole, been a great asset in many areas, and has helped to loosen some long-standing logjams in development, sometimes not without risk to its own reputation.
The agency's work in land reclamation has already been mentioned. I regard it as a triumph of persistence, and the face of Wales looks much better as a consequence. Last year, when the agency celebrated its 20th anniversary, 15,000 acres—the equivalent of 4,000 rugby pitches—had been reclaimed, providing land for 180 industrial sites and factory premises employing 25,000 people, as well as land for homes, hospitals, schools and parks.
There is hardly a significant town in Wales that does not have a WDA presence. I regard urban regeneration as an extension of the land reclamation policy. Some 40 towns in Wales are earmarked for economic and environmental renewal, with some £120 million of agency money generating about £200 million of private investment.
I have only touched on some of the agency's considerable achievements of the past few years, but I think I have said enough to justify my belief that the agency has given extremely good value for money to Wales and the British taxpayer—long may it continue to do so.
I am sure it is only through the agency and the allied efforts that we are going to get good-quality jobs, raise average incomes in Wales and bring work to our westernmost areas and outside the M4 and A55 corridors, where the unemployment percentages are very high in some places, although the actual numbers involved are small compared with the industrialised areas of east Wales. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced his new policy guidelines to be given to the agency, to extend its efforts in the most rural western areas.
The Government's financial strategy of requiring the agency to generate a substantial proportion of its base programme costs is, I agree, challenging, but it is surely

89
right—we do not want the agency sitting back and playing landlord on an ever-increasing industrial property estate. That would be bad for the agency, and might skew, if not emasculate, its entrepreneurial thrust. Enabling investors to purchase gives them a bigger stake in their success on site, wherever they have settled, and spreads any risk to the taxpayer's investment.
The European connection is also looming large in importance. The WDA acted as a focus for Welsh representation in Brussels, and has extended its office there from the public to the private sector. Wales is one of the first regions to have received European Commission funding for a regional technology plan, designed to promote investment in innovation and technology. That is a very important step forward, full of promise for the development of the Welsh economy.
I pay tribute to the agency for its active support of the Welsh link with the four motor regions—the most advanced regions in Europe—which enabled many companies in Wales to develop links with those markets, something that they would not otherwise have been able to do.
Not unexpectedly, the agency's life has not been without its troubles. It is a measure of the stature of the present chairman, David Rowe-Beddoe, that he has been able not only to deal with the mistakes of the past but to keep the agency's eyes fixed on achieving its targets for the present and the future.
I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for Caerphilly pay tribute to the chairman and his team, as he does deserve our thanks for restoring the agency's good name and reputation. He certainly has my admiration, and I have no doubt that he is probably the best chairman the agency has ever had. Praise in the Chamber for anyone outside is such a rare delicacy that I should perhaps say immediately that I have no interest to declare, and that my paean is beyond suspicion.
What is to be the future of the agency which the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), whom I am glad to see in his place, had the foresight to establish, and which we had the wisdom to reform and retain on a new basis, in spite of our earlier critical opposition? Perhaps none of us at that time foresaw just how much we would need the agency and how much success it would achieve for Wales—140,000 jobs created or safeguarded since 1983 alone, which is certainly no mean achievement.
It has never been clear what future the Opposition have in mind for the agency, other than that it would be responsible to the proposed assembly. I hope that that does not lead to internal meddling and parochialism, but I have to say that I suspect the worst.
I read the article in The Western Mail this morning by the hon. Member for Caerphilly, and was more confused than enlightened by it. My impression was that other hands were involved in the writing of it, but I do not know whether I am right. The hon. Gentleman was happy to acknowledge Labour's parentage of the Welsh Development Agency, but he was also prepared to damn with faint praise its other offspring—the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Land Authority for Wales. He almost implied that they were surplus to requirements. He said:
"It is wasteful and bureaucratic to have the WDA, the Development Board for Rural Wales, the Welsh Office Industry Department, the Land Authority for Wales and Local Enterprise Agencies.
90
I believe these bodies should be streamlined to achieve substantial cost savings".
Mr. Ron Davies indicated assent.
Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is nodding. We normally understand the word "streamlining" in that context as meaning being steamrollered. I suspect that that is what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. If the Development Board for Rural Wales is included in that threat of streamlining, I am sure that his ideas will go down like a lead balloon in mid-Wales. Putting the land authority under threat will fall like a ton of bricks on the construction industry.
It is becoming clear from the hon. Gentleman's article and his comments this evening about the agency's need for additional funds where he will get those funds. The streamlining of the agencies will provide funding not just for the WDA, but for the new Welsh Assembly. Eliminating those valuable bodies that have done worthwhile work for Wales may be one way of funding the assembly.
Mr. Davies: I did not say that
Sir Wyn Roberts: Even if the hon. Gentleman did not say it, he wrote it.
Mr. Davies: I did not.
Sir Wyn Roberts: The words are staring us in the face. We know what he means by "streamlining" the operations. Whatever happens, I hope, for the sake of the people of Wales, that the agency will not be diverted from its main tasks, which it has performed with great distinction.
8.12 pm
Mr. John Morris: I welcome the opportunity to debate the Welsh Development Agency. More than 20 years ago, I had the privilege of introducing the Second Reading debate, as we have been reminded this evening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) looks to the future of the WDA. I read his article in The Western Mail, and I did not get the impression formed by the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts). Streamlining is a bogeyman—a windmill that the right hon. Gentleman has erected to have it knocked down. Nobody else in his right senses—I do not mean to be unduly disparaging about the right hon. Gentleman, whom I have known for a long time and whom I regard with great friendship—would come to that conclusion.
My understanding of what my hon. Friend was saying is that, first, we need to examine the role of the WDA after 20 years. Surely that must be right. Secondly, we must examine how it fits in with the other economic agencies in Wales. Thirdly, we must reform where necessary. Is there anything wrong with that? I should have thought that Conservative Members would grasp the opportunity with both hands.
I had the privilege of setting up three bodies in Wales that have survived 18 years of Tory rule. They have survived because the Conservative party could not think of anything better. Over that time, the economic problems have increased.

91
I shall remind the House why the WDA, the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Land Authority for Wales were set up. Contrary to the expectations of my officials, we got two major economic Bills on the legislative programme, and a large part of a third. The WDA was parallel to the Scottish Development Agency. Through the good offices of Lord Callaghan, who took a great interest, we got the measure through because of that parallel.
The measure's primary purpose was to deal with the inevitable rundown of the steel, coal and slate industries. The Conservatives did their damnedest to oppose the measure. They tried to delay it, they voted against it on Second Reading—the right hon. Member for Conwy is the only Welsh Tory left in the House of the 158 Conservatives who voted against—and, in Committee, they opposed some of the powers of the agency that they have since clutched to their bosoms.
I made a personal pledge on the DBRW many years before I came to the House. The aim was to bring together and put on a statutory basis all the non-statutory bodies in mid-Wales, in fulfilment of Huw T. Edwards' council for Wales report. I believed that the fine touch of the paintbrush that the DBRW could bring would be able to deal with the small problems in many areas that the WDA could not manage because it would be immersed in the huge problems of the major industries.
The Land Authority for Wales is unique. It has done very well from the time of its first chairman, Baroness White of Rhymney. I commend it for bringing together parcels of land, including in my constituency. There is nothing like it in the rest of the United Kingdom. John Silkin introduced the Bill and I had the privilege of winding up on it. He told me that he wished that he could have done the same in England. Regrettably, there was no regional parallel, and perhaps the regions of England lacked the political will to set up such a body.
I praise the Government for having allowed the three bodies to survive. Each has done a great deal of work. My only wish is that they had had more resources.
I regret the short, unhappy period that the WDA has been through. The choice of people to run it—a political decision—and the lack of Welsh Office control reflect badly on the Welsh Office, particularly its administrators. Enough has been said and written, and I shall not repeat it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly will shortly have control of the WDA. When I set the agency up, in accordance with the terms of the Act I had the privilege of choosing the first chief executive. Now that is a matter for the board. I do not think that we have yet been told who the new chief executive is to be—I am sorry that I missed the first few minutes of the Secretary of State's speech. When shall we be told?
That is an important issue, and we should know at the earliest opportunity. The job is too big to be left fallow, being carried out on an acting basis, however estimable the people concerned, who are trying their best. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly may well have to keep an eye on that when he becomes Secretary of State.
I do not know what the current pattern is. The Secretary of State may have improved on what happened when I was involved. I had monthly meetings with the
92
chairman and the chief executive. We considered what had happened during the past month and what was going to happen in the next month, perhaps looking further ahead. There were guidelines. Perhaps they are still there. Perhaps the machinery has been improved. I hope so, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The period when the WDA went out of control—the DBRW went a little out of control as well—showed how palsied the grasp of the Welsh Office was on these important agencies.
There is always a danger that such a body, like a nationalised industry, will create its own momentum and get out of the control of the Government Department, adopting its own self-defence mechanism and its own machinery of secrecy. I had to deal with that as a very young man, with the National Coal Board and, later, the railways. Indeed, I had to help to remove the chairman of the British Railways Board. That had never been done before. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly was right to say that there must be clear lines of political responsibility and accountability—lines that were lacking during that difficult period.
Let me deal briefly with the power to spend. In today's The Western Mail, my hon. Friend said:
"Expenditure is set to be cut by £10m in real terms this year, and in the past few years the Welsh Office grant was first slashed to £25m and now restored to its previous level of £85m. Such arbitrary decisions are a handicap to long-term planning."
My hon. Friend underplayed it. Whatever the amount at the WDA's disposal, what is needed is some assurance for the future, along with some consistency. The decisions to which my hon. Friend referred are not a "handicap", but the antithesis of long-term planning—if he was right in what he said.
I commend what has been done by successive Secretaries of State, and by the WDA, about inward investment; but it is bananas to suggest, as some industrial commentator suggested the other day, that it all began in 1983. It began long before my time, or my predecessor's. Members of the development corporation, including Douglas Badham and Meirion Lewis, all played their part.
Like the Secretary of State, no doubt, I have spent long, weary hours, day after day, talking to banks and other financial institutions in various countries—Japan, in particular—not knowing, because the people were so courteous, whether I was making any impact. When I arrived in the Welsh Office, Sony employed 200 people, and National Panasonic had not yet come to Wales. Ford has come in our time, and a host of other expansions has taken place.
It takes years for decisions about inward investment to be made. I commend what has been done with regard to LG, but I should like to know how long the campaign has taken. I know that it will continue long after the Secretary of State has gone to other pastures—it is a continuous process—but we should be glad of the results, wherever they come from, as long as the impetus is there and the good work goes on.
Along with a number of my colleagues representing West Glamorgan and counties further west, such as Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire, I went to see the Secretary of State, who is always extremely courteous and willing to see hon. Members. We drew attention to our difficulties.
As I have said, I welcome what has happened with LG—or will happen—but we were anxious about the fact that we had not received our share of the cake.

93
The Secretary of State spelled out today what he indicated to us then. He has not much time to fulfil his pledge—this was a deathbed repentance—but I welcome it, none the less. He said that he would tilt the balance, in regard to financial and other incentives, in favour of areas that had not gained in the past. That is good news, although it has come late in the day.
On 28 January, the Secretary of State kindly answered a question that I had asked. I asked how many new industries had made inward investments in the past five years, and was told that there had been additions to some existing industries. I was pleased to hear about Sumitomo, and offer my congratulations. Nevertheless, against the background of the jobs—at least 10,000—that have been lost in my local steel industry, the Sumitomo investment will not mean many jobs. If there has been only one new overseas investor in five years, something must be wrong.
We have great expectations of the WDA and BP Chemicals Ltd., which have joined forces to plan an energy park. New industries may well come to that park: I hope so. I believe that the chairman of the WDA went to the area last May. It is high time that the promise made then was kept, and a start made on the infrastructure, roads and amenities to attract visiting industrialists. I hope that the work will start before too long.
Believe it or not, Wales is not lushly provided with large industrial areas likely to attract incoming industry, and we should therefore maximise those that we have. We should not split them up into penny packets, and when we have them we should market them as hard as we can. I wish the WDA well, and hope that my area sees some fruits from the endeavours of inward investors before long. I also wish my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly well in his task of piloting the WDA in the near future.
8.25 pm
Mr. Rod Richards: Judging by his speech, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) learnt his economics at TUC conference fringe meetings. He turned down my attempt to intervene on him when he raised the issue of a Welsh Assembly; I shall say to him now what I wanted to say earlier. He has written a letter putting the case—as he sees it—for a Welsh Assembly, which has been circulated by local authorities. I should like to know who paid for them to circulate it. Public funds may have been used to promote party propaganda.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have rightly congratulated the WDA on the successes that it has achieved over many years, but others have been involved in those successes. Attention should be drawn to the considerable role played by the Department in the achievements of which we continually read. Nor, so far, have we heard about the economic context in which the WDA and the Welsh Office have been operating. Ultimately, whether people invest from outside—or reinvest from inside—depends on their confidence in the country's economy: for any investor, the bottom line is the return that he expects to receive.
The macro-economic context in which the WDA has achieved its successes is unparalleled in western Europe, certainly nowadays. We live in a time of historically low inflation and interest rates, and a stable and strong currency. One of the most important factors, which certainly did not exist 20 years ago, is our flexible work
94
force. Inward investors are always comparing the current flexibility with the position 15 or 20 years ago. At that time, Britain was known as the sick man of Europe because of its poor industrial relations, whereas today it is widely recognised as the enterprise centre of Europe.
Such confidence and stability as we now enjoy could be undermined by our European partners' policies, which they would have us implement, in particular the working time directive, which would damage jobs and prospects of inward investment, and a minimum wage. Again, for anyone selling the economy and the prospect of investing in this country, those policies would be to the detriment of future investment. Another reason—which people seldom recognise publicly—why people from abroad invest in Wales and Great Britain is that we are an English-speaking nation.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned changes in policy or in the modus operandi of the Welsh Development Agency. Many of us who represent seats in north Wales, mid-Wales or west Wales would welcome that greatly. He said that greater emphasis would now be placed on the parts of Wales with high unemployment, which, by and large, are perceived by many who live in those regions to have been disadvantaged, so his statement is timely.
Opposition Members will recognise that, these days, unemployment in their constituencies, which traditionally has been high, is very low compared with before. That reflects the success of the Government's macro-economic policy and of the WDA's policy.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), a near neighbour of mine, mention unemployment in his constituency. Judging by the House of Commons Library publication on unemployment by constituency, unemployment in Alyn and Deeside stands at some 4.8 per cent., but the Welsh average is 7.4 per cent. I see many Opposition Members who I am sure are delighted at the much lower unemployment in their constituencies. For example, in Islwyn, the level is 5.4 per cent., in Delyn it is 5.6 per cent., in Pontypridd it is 5.6 per cent, in Bridgend it is 5.7 per cent. and in Wrexham it is 5.8 per cent. All those unemployment levels are much lower than they have been and reflect the Government's success.
At the top end of the scale of unemployment levels, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State addressed in his speech, we have Caernarfon at 11.1 per cent., Pembroke at 10.8 per cent.—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Although this is a Second Reading debate and therefore, by definition, reasonably broad, the hon. Gentleman is stretching the case. May I ask him to return to the substance of the Bill?
Mr. Richards: I was welcoming my right hon. Friend's remarks that the Welsh Development Agency will be addressing the regions with much higher unemployment, which are to the north and west of Wales. The unemployment level in regions where it has been traditionally high is far more acceptable—if unemployment is ever acceptable—than it might otherwise have been.
I should like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, when he replies to the debate, to address one or two questions, although he may not have the opportunity to comment on

95
them then; I hope, however, that he will find time to write to me about them. The first is on the distribution of the Welsh Development Agency budget. One of the concerns that we have in the north and rural parts of Wales involves forward commitments, within the properties budget, in different regions. It appears that the forward commitments, certainly in south Wales, are a high proportion of the budget allocated to that region, whereas the forward commitments elsewhere tend to be lower.
That creates a certain inflexibility in relation to future investment. What tends to happen is that, because of the high propensity towards forward commitments, moneys are moved from the regions that appear to have funds to spare and are transferred from one region to another. That means that in, for example, parts of north Wales, funds are not always available—this, I believe, is the position at present—to acquire land or to bring about the infrastructure changes that are necessary to attract investors, be they indigenous or from overseas. That critically affects forward planning in—in my case—north Wales, so the question to my hon. Friend the Minister is: what is the distribution of capital investment by geographic region and how does he expect that to be addressed?
The other point is the cost per job. Clearly, as I mentioned, investment is a matter of confidence in the economy, but confidence varies from region to region. I mentioned unemployment levels in parts of south Wales. Business and economic confidence in those parts would clearly be greater than, say, in Ynys Môn or in parts of Pembroke, where unemployment is high. Therefore, the case must be put—I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State addressed this in his speech—that the cost per job should be greater, or should be allowed to be greater, in regions where unemployment is very high.
We have all heard about the impact that 6,000 jobs from LG will have on Newport's economy, but the equivalent in a place such as Holyhead would be 50 jobs. There needs to be a greater allowance, to attract jobs to the parts of Wales that are perceived as economically unattractive. Therefore, it would greatly benefit us in north Wales to know precisely what the cost per job has been historically, and what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is prepared to allow the Welsh Development Agency to spend in future.
I take my hat off, as did the hon. Member for Caerphilly, not just to the chairman and board of the Welsh Development Agency, but obviously to all the staff who work there, as well as to officials in my right hon. Friend's Department who have contributed. In some cases, local authorities have also made a significant contribution towards attracting investment from many parts of the world.
8.38 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: I am sure that it will not have escaped your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, that, as the debate was starting, there were two interventions from hon. Members representing constituencies in Cornwall—one of them my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor). Those interventions told their own story, that the Welsh Development Agency
96
and indeed the Development Board for Rural Wales have been considerable successes, that they are envied in other parts of Britain and that Wales's attractions, which have no need of poaching but which are facilitated by Wales's economic development agencies, give us in Wales a significant advantage in trying to obtain the jobs that are capable of coming from elsewhere. The successes of the WDA and the DBRW tell us that others should perhaps be given the opportunity of setting up development agencies of their own where they do not exist, for they, too, could benefit from the disciplines that can be applied by those agencies.
I wish to pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). In the 14 years that I have represented Montgomeryshire, I have seen the fruit of the vision that he had when he created the Development Board for Rural Wales. When he created the DBRW, he had a clear and close understanding of rural, mid and west Wales. The board has worked extremely well. I am sure that he acknowledges that change is necessary as the years go by, and that the way in which the organisations function must change from time to time.
In my view, the linkage provided by Mr. Rowe-Beddoe during his chairmanship of both organisations has been valuable for two reasons. First, both the WDA and the DBRW went through short periods of which they cannot be proud, and there was good reason for ensuring that the management disciplines that were applied were extremely rigorous. Mr. Rowe-Beddoe applies rigorous management disciplines, and the performance of the senior executives in both organisations is evidence of that.
Secondly, the linkage has been useful because it has enabled the two organisations not merely to work closely together, but to learn more of each other's differing disciplines. However, it would be a disastrous mistake if any member of any political party or any Government were to take the view that there was now no need to distinguish between the way in which economic development should be managed in rural, mid and west Wales and the way in which it should be managed in the rest of Wales. The problems remain as different now as they were when the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon set up the two organisations. They were set up quite deliberately, as he said in his speech, to represent separate requirements and needs.
The farming community upon which mid-Wales depends is different in every possible way from the former mining or steel communities of south and north Wales, not just in its job patterns, but in its structure. The continuing threat to what is still Wales's largest industry, agriculture, and the fortunately gradual, rather than sudden, decline in the number of jobs in that industry, require the continuing care of an organisation that is different from the WDA, an organisation that can take a more gradual approach.
If I wish to pay particular tribute to the work that has been done by the DBRW in the past two or three years, I can do so merely by pointing to the small new factories that are springing up, for example, just outside Welshpool, which has not had its full share of development. Also, more is happening west of the Newtown area which, at one time, had the concentration of development. I hope that the linkage between a better resourced WDA, as provided for by the Bill, and the DBRW will continue for a long time.

97
I wish to repeat a plea that I made recently in the Welsh Grand Committee, for a particular focus to be given in the future to the indigenous industries of Wales. It is wonderful for the Newport area to have the LG development, and any major incoming investment must be greeted with open arms. However, the DBRW has not always been the most popular organisation in mid-Wales, as it is said that sometimes, but not always, it gives the impression that it gives its all to outside investment coming in—particularly when a Japanese, German or Korean name is attached to it—but pays little attention to indigenous development.
That is not true, and it is not an accusation that I make. However, in my view, more can be done to develop indigenous industries within Wales. The Source Wales scheme is but an example of what can be done. But more can be achieved, particularly by focusing small-scale help on the development of new skills in Welsh factories—especially in the remoter parts of Wales.
In a recent Welsh Grand Committee debate, I made a particular plea for a part of the service industry in Newtown, in mid-Wales. The DBRW was, at the time, refusing to sell buildings to a successful business based in Newtown, called Charlie's Stores Ltd., which has grown from a street stall to a company with a turnover in excess of £10 million a year. The flexibility of Mr. Rowe-Beddoe was demonstrated to me today, when I received a letter from him informing me that an agreement had been reached to sell the premises to Charlie's Stores Ltd. Such a change in attitude towards indigenous industry will, I hope, be developed by the WDA and the DBRW.
It is often said—although I do not believe it to be the case—that the cleverest people in Wales become Members of this House, civil servants, schoolteachers, doctors and, dare I say, lawyers, but that they are bad at becoming entrepreneurs. I do not believe that to be the case at all, as there are examples of good Welsh entrepreneurs. They may not be directors of Tesco, but they are evident in other spheres.
I hope very much that the WDA—in spending whatever extra money is made available to it as a result of the Bill—will go out and look for Welsh winners for Welsh industry, to help the development of the industry of the future. We want to see a long perspective in the process. Above all, we should be looking for an evolution in Welsh industry that will lead not only to foreign companies coming into Wales, but to Welsh-grown companies—as Laura Ashley did in years gone by, and as Control Techniques from my constituency has done successfully—going to other countries and other continents to open Welsh companies. In doing so, they will show that Wales not just receives the crumbs from the rich man's table, but can be the rich man, too.
8.46 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: The Bill has been welcomed enthusiastically on both sides of the House, and I, too, pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who piloted the original legislation through the House. We should also remember that the original Welsh Development Agency Act was passed in 1975 by a Government who believed that Governments should intervene in the economy; who believed that Governments should intervene positively to
98
reduce disparities—in this case regional disparities—within the United Kingdom; and who believed that Governments can make a difference.
That is an old-fashioned view and, in some ways, this is an old-fashioned Bill. It is a kind of old Labour-ish Bill, as it increases borrowing and financial limits. The Welsh Development Agency is the only agency left in Britain which can intervene economically. Scotland does not have its development agency any more—it has gone, and is now called something else. It is with some pleasure that I notice that, despite all the fashion for global markets, the ideology of small government, the jargon about partnerships and the philosophy of communautarianism, we are all here this evening extolling the virtues of central Government using taxpayers' money to intervene in the economy. Perhaps there is still hope for that somewhat tarnished, old-fashioned view.
I read in the excellent briefing paper produced at the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) by the Secretary of State that there will be substantial increases in Government expenditure. There are problems, and the bottom line may not be as good as the figures I shall mention, but for 1996–97 the original figure was £40 million and the outturn—that lovely Treasury word—will be £65 million, an increase of 60 per cent. I must applaud a Government who increase public expenditure in a year by 60 per cent. The following year, the figure is up to £84.7 million, a further increase of 30 per cent. We can congratulate the Government on that at least. In a world of low taxation and balanced budgets, the increase is refreshing.
Despite its ups and downs, the WDA has made a difference. No institution is perfect, and every organisation has its problems occasionally. Sadly, despite the difference it has made, Wales is now the poorest region in Britain. Wales has the lowest gross domestic product per head of population. The other day, I was reading the budget put out by the Welsh Office. It is difficult to have regional budgets in a centralised economy and state such as Britain. It tells a horrendous story. It tells of a massive difference between the money that is raised in Wales through taxation and the money that Wales receives—properly—by way of public expenditure.
The difference can be illustrated by considering the financial deficit figure, or borrowing requirement. The budget is now two or three years old, but as of today the Welsh financial deficit in the United Kingdom economy is about 15 per cent. The budget mentions 20 per cent., but that is the figure from two years ago. Despite the difference made by the WDA, the Welsh economy still has a financial deficit of about 15 per cent. France and Germany are having trouble reducing their deficits from 4 per cent. to 3 per cent. to meet the Maastricht treaty conditions. The scale of a 15 per cent. deficit demonstrates the still sad state of the Welsh economy after 18 years of Conservative government.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have made the point that, in the quest for major inward investment in manufacturing industry, the WDA and the Welsh Office have, in the past 17 years, neglected an area that I describe as industrial west Wales. Industrial west Wales extends from the west of Bridgend to the western end of my constituency of Llanelli. I may be being slightly churlish because, as the Minister may point out if he has time when he winds up, Llanelli has received large sums from the

99
WDA for land reclamation, environmental works and the regeneration of its town centre. I accept that and I welcome it. Those projects have improved the environment and generated some, but not much, economic activity. However, the money has not created the sort of wealth that is required. In industrial west Wales and in Llanelli, we still have a problem of high unemployment, especially among young people, low activity rates and low income per head.
About 30 per cent. of those who are employed in my constituency still work in production, mainly manufacturing and engineering. That figure is probably somewhat higher than the average for industrial west Wales. We have some excellent companies, as do other nearby constituencies. Many of the companies are car component firms. We have five or six that can, and do, compete with the best in the world; the same is true of some of the factories in my hon. Friends' constituencies in industrial west Wales. The area needs major inward investment in manufacturing engineering, as it is now described. Because of the car component plants, I believe that the area could now support a major car assembly plant.
I welcome the Secretary of State's statement that the emphasis may change, but I hope that the guidelines permeate down to the WDA in Swansea and the so-called Swansea bay partnership. A deliberate decision has been made in the past not to go for inward investment, but to support and nurture existing industry. That is fine, and I do not decry it, but we miss out on major inward investment.
Some time ago, the Mercedes car company announced that it was to build a small car, the Swatch, outside Germany. It is to be built just on the French side of the Franco-German border. At the time of the announcement, I tried to discover how a constituency such as Llanelli could attract that investment. I found it difficult to penetrate the bureaucracies, especially that of the WDA, to find out what was going on. I was told that Mercedes had employed a firm of management consultants in Boston and that nobody except Government agencies was allowed to talk to it.
Finally, I was able to obtain—unofficially—a list of Mercedes' seven requirements. My constituency fitted all of them, as did those of my hon. Friends in industrial west Wales. There was not one requirement that we could not have fulfilled. One of the main requirements was for clean air and for the site not to be too close to factories that pollute the air. That would be possible in Llanelli.
The problem was not one of resources. We are close enough to major highways, ports and an airport to satisfy all the requirements. I pointed that out to various people and was told that Mercedes was interested only in the north-east of England. I never got that in writing, and I do not know who made the decision. I was never told that by Mercedes. I suspect that the decision was made by the Department of Trade and Industry— I suspect that it was the Invest in Britain Bureau. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) is not here, but he set that bureau up in 1974. It has become the "Invest in England" bureau. I do not decry that. England has to have that sort of investment arm, serviced by the Department of Trade and Industry, but I suspect that all
100
this nonsense about Mercedes not being prepared to go anywhere in Britain but the north-east of England came from that bureau.
Mr. Roy Hughes: My right hon. Friend must appreciate that this is merely a case of history repeating itself. Lord Walker's autobiography—as Peter Walker, he was Secretary of State for Wales—clearly states that the Toyota motor company was to build its manufacturing plant in Newport. As a result of the intervention of the Prime Minister of the day, Lady Thatcher, it was sent to more marginal political territory in Derby.
Mr. Davies: Unlike my hon. Friend, I have not had the pleasure of reading Lord Walker's autobiography. Perhaps one of these days I shall. I do not know, but I suspect that the Invest in Britain Bureau exists to attract industry to England, and we must be sure that we get our fair share.
There should be a change in policy for industrial west Wales. We are ready for a major car assembly plant. Such plants do not grow on trees. I understand the problems, but as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon said, preparatory work has to be done for many years. That work has to start now, and it is to be hoped that it will bear fruit in a few years.
8.59 pm
Mr. Ted Rowlands: My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) described this as an old-fashioned Bill. Indeed it is, and thank God for it.
Not only is this an old-fashioned Bill, but the agency ought to be fulfilling a couple of old-fashioned functions. It is worth reminding ourselves what its early functions, both of which it inherited, were. The first was industrial estate development; the second was the derelict land reclamation programme. The first function had previously been conducted by the estates corporations; the second by the Welsh Office, particularly after the Aberfan disaster.
The first function was nothing new. Indeed, in some ways the agency continues a great tradition. In the early days, the Government discovered that investment was necessary to deal with the problems of large-scale unemployment in particular areas. The first industrial estate in Wales was a result of the first U-turn by the then National Conservative Government of 1935. Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Chamberlain, who had raised to a fine art the principle of non-intervention—to the point that they tried to transfer large populations out of our communities—were driven by the threat of an election in 1935 to announce that they were willing to finance the Treforest industrial estate. It was the instrument by which the first major inward investors came into Wales. It is interesting that, of the 70-odd companies that came to Wales in the late 1930s, 49 were a result of Jewish immigration from central and eastern Europe. They were the first inward investors into the south Wales economy as we know it today.
I draw attention to the history of industrial development because, after the war, Government power and the investment of Government money brought small industrial developments into mining communities and mining villages, which created new manufacturing opportunities where only the coal and iron industries had

101
offered employment. The development of those small industrial estates and groups of factories helped us to diversify, and created the post-war south Wales economy.
One of the worrying aspects of the drift in the Welsh Development Agency budget is the way in which smaller industrial estates are being sacrificed for large inward investments. I must plead with Ministers, and especially with my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) when he assumes ministerial responsibility in the coming months, for the traditional role of the WDA in developing small industrial estates in communities that cannot attract or physically fit the large inward investment developments that we have seen in recent years. Those small developments should be just as much of a priority. They should be part of any WDA strategy or budget.
I was at the meeting of the heads of the valleys standing conference last Monday, when the Secretary of State was presented with a list of the smaller industrial estate developments that could take place, but which seem to have been put on stop because of the WDA's budgetary problems.
The second function that the Welsh Development Agency inherited was land reclamation. The agency assumed what had previously been the direct responsibility of the Welsh Office. Indeed, had it not been for the Welsh Office decision to clear the land at Pentrebach in 1975, there would not have been a site to attract the first Korean inward investment that was announced only a few months ago.
The Halla Engineering scheme was brought to a site that was cleared under a land reclamation programme as early as 1976–77. That programme has played an enormous and vital part in the regeneration of our mining communities. The Secretary of State told us that the amount of land reclaimed could have filled X thousand football pitches; ironically, in many cases—certainly in my community—it is football pitches that people want to develop in the reclamation programmes, to create a balanced recreational facility in a community in which tips and waste once lay.
There is great bitterness in communities such as Treharris, Trelewis and Bedlinog that have watched the vandalism of the accelerated pit closure programme. They were left with all the problems, and now we are told that the WDA does not have the money to, develop those sites and clear the waste land, offering new opportunities and a new environment to the villages. The Minister came and saw for himself, and he will have understood and appreciated the strength of feeling about the delays—indeed, the stop—to land reclamation programmes as a result of the WDA's current budgetary problems.
The Secretary of State kept on referring to the targets that he intends to set. Some are like Soviet grain targets; a figure that has been plucked out and which it is assumed will be reached. There was a specific target that we took seriously: that for land reclamation by 2000. That objective was set by Welsh Office Ministers and should be met, but on present budgetary plans, and certainly on present WDA performance, it will not be.
We are all, understandably, fighting over funds for millennium projects of one kind or another. That target was something to aim at for the millennium, but unless there is a significant change of heart and improvement in the WDA's land reclamation budget, it will not be met.
102
My strong plea is not necessarily made to my hon. Friends the incoming Ministers, because I hope that in the last few weeks of this Administration we can have an announcement of some unlocking of money to restart some of our land reclamation schemes. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly knows all too well that there are constituency as well as national problems, and I hope that he, too, will regard restarting the programmes as a major priority, to remove the embittered feeling in many of our communities caused by the fact that lots of development is being carried out not too far away, while the much-needed and well-deserved changes that people expected in their immediate environment are not happening.
That brings me to a third function that the WDA, with its added financial capacity, should take up the challenge of assuming. In many of our small mining communities, alongside the bigger developments such as LG in Newport, Halla Engineering or the significant developments along the heads of the valleys road, there is a growing dereliction. Shops and houses that cannot be sold have been boarded up. The image of dereliction in many small mining villages is in sharp contrast to the glitzy sex appeal of international inward investment.
Mr. Allan Rogers: And Cardiff bay.
Mr. Rowlands: As my hon. Friend says, that also applies to Cardiff bay. We spent many months making that case.
Along with chasing great international inward investments, and the excitement and adrenaline that doubtless runs in the veins of those who go in search of it, let us have some energy, innovation and imagination put in to support community enterprise and local regeneration. We need to ensure that the planning is right.
The closure of sub-post offices and chemists is the deadly sign of the loss of community in our mining villages. With it comes the boarding up of properties. Let us have local joint ventures of the sort that we have seen on the grander scale; let us have assisted development of the sort from which Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney has benefited in recent years. Alongside the bigger, wider programme, let us have community enterprise development and an agency that can combine with local authorities and the Welsh Office to regenerate our communities at local level.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the LG investment in Newport is not negative from the point of view of the valleys? I come from the valleys, but I have found that people from there flock in their hundreds and thousands to work in Newport and Cardiff. That will happen again.
Mr. Rowlands: I hope that I have not suggested that I in any way oppose LG. The opposite is true. I am not so parochial that I do not realise the major role that LG will play in employment opportunities throughout the communities that surround the site near Newport, but let us also have some imagination and effort put into community development through joint venture schemes. The WDA has undertaken big, urban, commercial renewals, but it has not carried the same principles, efforts, energy and imagination down into our local communities. The partnerships and joint venture schemes that exist at one level should be delivered at another.

103
I have pleaded for more public money. I will be accused by the Government, and perhaps by my Front Bench, of breaking the Government-Brown diktats on public expenditure. We are talking about small sums of money. The Secretary of State was suddenly able to find £25 million to increase the WDA's budget. I did not notice taxes go up or public borrowing explode as a result. For the life of me, I cannot understand why, in the Welsh Office's £6.8 billion budget, we cannot find an additional £25 million. It should not be beyond the ingenuity of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly to go through the budget after the general election and find such a sum.
A Welsh Office budget of £6.7 billion was forecast for 1995–96, yet the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), forecast a budget of £6.890 billion—£190 million more. Such changes between forecasts and outturn must be noted. The right hon. Member for Wokingham, whom I never took to be a great lover of public expenditure, forecast a budget for the Welsh Office for 1996–97 of £7 billion. That was his forecast.
Given the large sums of money involved, the planning, the outturns and estimates, all we are saying is that an extra £25 million should be found on top of the current planned expenditure to unlock the WDA's land reclamation budget and restore some of the financing that is necessary for it to carry out the core functions for which it has been responsible since its creation.
9.14 pm
Mr. Barry Jones: This debate has latched on to the central issues as they affect our country, Wales. I thought that the Secretary of State made an emollient and typically courteous speech. I thought that my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State gave the speech of a man savouring the prospect of office within weeks.
Two essential points have been made in the debate. First, right hon. and hon. Members very much hope to see more investment from indigenous companies, notwithstanding their welcome for overseas investment. Secondly, we would like to emphasise our wish that the WDA should offer even-handed treatment across Wales. Right hon. and hon. Members have expressed some anxiety that that may not be happening. I do not wish to be controversial, but that is an important point to bear in mind in the years ahead.
Hon. Members have tried to emphasise the context in which the WDA is being debated. There is a historical context that can be understood by consideration of Ben Pimlott's biography of Hugh Dalton and the autobiography of the late Douglas Jay. Those books offer a history of the germ of regional policy. They reveal how those two great figures of the Labour movement, who worked as civil servants in the second world war, were responsible for the first conscious acts to prepare regional policy. From memory, I believe that Douglas Jay recounts how he encouraged, with the help of some Welshmen, the development of the first planned industrial estate, which was located in Bridgend. It was followed by others in central Scotland.
Mr. Roy Hughes: The first was Nylon Spinners.
Mr. Jones: Yes, my hon. Friend is right.
104
I see this debate as an anniversary of the debate on the creation of the WDA. I should like to emphasise the major role that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) played in its creation. I remember the day when he opened the Second Reading of the Bill in which the agency was proposed to this honourable House. I had the honour of winding up for the Government. I recollect how the then Nicholas Edwards, who represented Her Majesty's Opposition, gave an unwelcoming, carping and grudging response to Labour Ministers' proposals in the middle of the 1970s. At the conclusion of the debate, the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) wound up for the Opposition and he, too, offered the same regretful, unwelcoming and carping response to my right hon. and learned Friend's creation of the WDA. That approach continued in the Standing Committee, in which I piloted the Bill alongside my late colleague, Alec Jones.
I also remember from that Second Reading that Peter Walker, now Lord Walker, made a grudging intervention in which he claimed the credit that he seemed to think he should be given for the idea of the WDA.
Nicholas Edwards, who later became Secretary of State and who is now in another place, would not have been able to survive as a Cabinet Minister without the instruments of economic power that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon had bequeathed him. There was a time, in the early 1980s, when unemployment in Wales according to the official figures exceeded 180,000—indeed, the number of unemployed people in Wales edged close to 200,000. Having said that, under successive Secretaries of State, the agency has been a great success. It had to be, because, in the early 1980s, there were major disasters in manufacturing industry in Wales, not least the colossal losses in man-made fibre jobs, brickmaking jobs and steelmaking jobs, as at Shotton steelworks in my constituency. In this debate, however, we must acknowledge the agency's successes throughout the 1980s and 1990s.
I have an agenda concerning my own constituency that I want to put to the Secretary of State. I shall first mention townships such as Connah's Quay, Shotton, Queensferry, and Buckley: to some extent, the agency has invested in Deeside and in those communities, but it is the wish of Flintshire county council and of my constituents that there be more investment. I give as an example the township of Queensferry where many of the shop fronts are now boarded up and are not operating in the interests of the citizens of that locality. To some extent, the same may be said of the township of Shotton. We have suffered considerably from man-made fibre plant closures, from steelmaking job losses and from cyclical redundancies in the aerospace industry, in addition to redundancies in the cement industry and in brickmaking. In all this, we have instanced the need for the agency to back us fully and to give us every possible help.
Mention has been made of Mr. Rowe-Beddoe and his chairmanship of the agency. Through my observation of the agency's leadership over many years, I know that he has been a success of a particular kind. His discipline over his executives and employees is severe—some of his detractors say that he is something of an Attila the Hun, but if he is and if he has made the agency more leak-proof and disciplined, so be it. In all my remarks, my hope has been to see the agency as being the means and the instrument by which my constituency might suffer less unemployment.

105
The agency has made the Deeside industrial park one of the finest in western Europe. Nevertheless, there are some requirements: we want the industrial park to be given a railway station of its own on the Wrexham-Birkenhead line and I would ask the Government to consider how that objective might be achieved. Likewise, there is a disused railway line from the industrial park to the city of Chester and it is our wish that the line might become a dedicated road, which would help to lessen traffic jams and the consequent pollution on Deeside. The agency may be of help to us in bringing that scheme to fruition. I very much hope that Ministers will respond positively on those two points.
Bearing in mind the pressures on time, and bearing in mind the fact that I had the chance to catch your eye last week, Madam Speaker, I resume my seat.
9.24 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: We are having this debate on the Welsh Development Agency in the last few weeks of this Parliament. Opening the debate, the Secretary of State said that he at last recognised that various distortions had arisen in Wales that had not been corrected and that he proposed to tilt the agency's balance of policy more in the direction of west Wales and north-west Wales, which have not so far benefited. The difficulty is that it is the end of the Parliament so, when we urge the facts, which do need remedy, really we are preaching to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and urging him to take up that challenge, because we will be unable to see the fruit of the apparent and intended change of policy.
There has been a marked degree of consensus about the value of the agency's role. My city, Swansea, has benefited substantially from joint ventures with the agency, especially in Swansea vale and Castle quays, but the record on inward investment is not good on the whole. For example, there has been no major investment in Swansea bay or in the area that includes Llanelli during the existence of the Welsh Development Agency.
There is an increasing perception in political and business circles in south-west Wales that the agency—and the Welsh Office, which presides over it—are countenancing a widening gap between the economic performance of south-east and south-west Wales. Yes, the division of the agency's responsibilities into three regions is important, but Bridgend is included in the south-west Wales region, and that masks the problems that have showed themselves further west, so a misleading impression is given of the performance west of Bridgend.
I hope that what the Secretary of State said will be taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly, but much damage has been done in the past, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) showed clearly, by what the Government may call working with the grain, which in effect negates the key aim of regional policy to reduce internal imbalances as well as imbalances between England and Wales.
There have been specific examples of diversion of investment projects from west Wales to Cardiff bay, such as one from Baglan, in the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon. Much damage was done by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) in reducing the grant in aid
106
for the agency to £25 million at a time when the Cardiff Bay development corporation was receiving slightly more than twice that amount in grant in aid. I understand the concept of making a flagship of the capital city, but it is now generally recognised in Wales that the Government have gone too far in that direction to the detriment of balanced development throughout Wales.
The West Wales chamber of commerce has sent a questionnaire to its members, the results of which are to be returned today, on precisely that theme. As the Secretary of State should know, there has been considerable disquiet in south-west Wales on that subject. Yes, we all rejoice that LG has gone to Newport, but there is now a major site, for which planning procedures are almost completed, at Velindre in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell). That would have a major impact on the economy of south-west Wales, and it is there that the present Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly, his successor, should exert their energies to try to get a major investment at Velindre to match that at LG in Newport.
We need greater commitment and positive action to reduce the growing divide between east and west Wales. Given what the Secretary of State has said today, I concede that I may be pushing at a door that has opened, but that will never stop a politician pressing harder and harder. I hope that the lesson will be learnt. The facts of the current disparities are clear, and have been clear for a long time. At last, this Secretary of State seems to have recognised those disparities. I look forward to his successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly, making a positive commitment to ending the disparities that have grown so alarmingly in the past years.
9.29 pm
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The debate has ranged far and wide, although it is about the financial limits of the Welsh Development Agency. Those limits are relevant to the WDA's activities and how quickly it exhausts the limits previously set. The key question that has emerged from this wide-ranging debate—this seemed to scandalise Welsh Office Ministers and former Ministers, such as the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts)—is whether it is right for us to accuse the Conservative Government, who are now reaching their fag end, of having an ambivalent attitude towards the WDA, even since its inception in 1975. Although they have found the agency convenient from time to time, they have caused it to exist on a diet of feast and famine, so that it has never known quite where it stood with the Government.
The right hon. Member for Conwy accused my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) of a travesty of the truth in making that accusation against the Government. This matter is at the heart of the debate. The Secretary of State—unintentionally, I am sure—misled the House when he said that the amount that the WDA will receive next year in accordance with the financial limit set by the Bill will be greater in real terms than the amount that it received 10 years ago. He is right if one uses that comparison, but one can always pick out a year here and a year there to substantiate any claim. We should use the average figures for central Government financing of the WDA.
For the first 10 years of the WDA—from 1976 to 1985, half of which was under Labour, and just over half under the Conservatives—the amount of grant in aid and the

107
other relevant finance for the purposes of the Bill averaged £90 million a year. For each of the next 10 years—from 1986 to 1995, all of which were under the Conservatives—the amount was lower, but it was still fairly healthy at an average of £60 million a year. That is at today's prices.
Then along came the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), and all of a sudden, instead of £90 million a year on average for the first decade and £60 million a year on average for the second decade, the relevant figure—the amount of additional finance that the WDA received—suddenly dropped to £13 million, which was the second lowest figure in the history of the WDA in cash terms, let alone in real terms. That was the amount that the right hon. Member for Wokingham gave it in 1995–96, which was his first year as Secretary of State. Only in its first year, when it received £9 million—it was a new body and had not had time to set up its machinery—did the agency receive less grant in aid or have less borrowing power.
Then we had the first year of the present Secretary of State. Until the change in the budget last November, he was going to give the WDA only £17 million, which would have been the second lowest amount. That figure has shot up to £42 million, because of the extra £25 million that was supplied halfway through this financial year. The figure now looks respectable, but the Secretary of State's original intention was that it should be only £17 million. In those two successive years, the figures were £13 million, given by the right hon. Member for Wokingham, and £17 million, given by the present Secretary of State. That is a true measure.
The Secretary of State has now learnt his lesson, and has realised that being Secretary of State for Wales with the WDA at his disposal can bring him kudos. When he realised last summer that LG had signed on the dotted line, he thought, "I might become a bit higher profile as Secretary of State for Wales. I can become a slightly more important person and rise up the pecking order of the present Cabinet, and even more so of the future shadow Cabinet, if I am seen as the man who helped to bring LG to Wales."
All of a sudden, instead of the WDA being on a famine diet of only £17 million—the second lowest budget, barring its first year and the previous year under the right hon. Member for Wokingham—the Secretary of State decides to give it more money. Suddenly it is feast time again, at least to a moderate degree, and the amount of relevant finance is £42 million, which is still well below the average of the previous decade, but it is respectable. It looks as though the amount will go up to £65 million next year under the terms of the Bill, so the WDA will get a sum which is about the average of the past 10 years. That will be the time when the LG industrial development must be financed.
All that makes one wonder whether our charge that the Government are ambivalent about the WDA—making it exist on a diet of feast or famine—is not the bullseye. They have always had a problem with the WDA. That was apparent in the case of the Scottish Development Agency when it first started. The Government still do not know how they want to give the WDA the operational freedom to bring in large new inward investment and to
108
use those big investments from outside to stimulate indigenous business in Wales to act as suppliers to the new industries.
Everyone now agrees about the farcical period of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, nominally the Secretary of State for Wales, but in practice the Secretary of State for Wokingham and the Tory right-wing think tanks. He was the one who crippled the WDA's operational abilities by causing it to privatise itself from the inside by selling all its major assets, which meant that it then did not have the monthly cash flow, and every time a large investor came in, the WDA had to go back to the Welsh Office for special finance. Luckily, in the case of LG, it did so successfully.
There was an American fifth cavalry charge coming over the top of the hill in November last year with an extra £25 million, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) referred. We warmly welcomed that, but it should have been a lesson to the Secretary of State that he should not continue in the tradition of the right hon. Member for Wokingham, who disgraced himself so much in his period as Secretary of State for Wales, through his attitude to the WDA, single mothers and many other issues.
The structure of the Bill is noteworthy. It will be the last measure of its kind. Henceforth, any increase in borrowing powers will be made by secondary legislation—by order. It is an unprecedented measure in the extent of its delegation to secondary legislation. It is what is known as a Henry VIII power: there is no limit on the ability by secondary legislation—
Mr. Hague indicated dissent.
Mr. Morgan: The Secretary of State seems to be shaking his head. Let me read from a note that I received from one of the Clerks of the House. He states:
"What is unusual about the WDA Bill, and, as far as we can discover, unprecedented, is not to impose any ceiling at all on the amount to which a limit may be raised by order. I say that cautiously because it is never easy to prove a negative."
Mr. Hague: I was shaking my head because the Bill requires affirmative resolution to raise the limit in future. That is by no means what anyone would understand as a Henry VIII power.
Mr. Morgan: The Secretary of State seems not to understand that a power has never been given by statutory instrument before, with no capping limit on it. That has never been done before. That is the view of a senior Clerk of the House. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has a different view. We know that he was something of a wunderkind 20 years ago, and had hardly sprung from the womb when he made his famous speech in the very year that the WDA was founded. We all remember that. Perhaps the Secretary of State still thinks that he is a wunderkind and knows more about such matters than the Clerks of the House. There will be others who do not agree with him about that, but we shall have to see who is right. There is no precedent for extending the secondary legislative power in this way—the Secretary of State may be proud of that and he may think that he is Henry VIII. I am not sure, but the Clerks of the House clearly believe that the procedure is unprecedented.

109
It is odd that the power, as it related to the Scottish Development Agency, was passed through secondary legislation in 1990, but the next measure extending the financial limits of that agency's successor body will have to go through primary legislation because it has exhausted its secondary legislative powers. That reveals the confusion at the heart of the Government's attitude towards the Scottish Development Agency and its successor bodies and the Welsh Development Agency.
Mr. Rowlands: From the gist of what my hon. Friend is saying, am I to understand that he will support our amendment to remove that provision?
Mr. Morgan: I have not seen any such amendment. Has an amendment been tabled? The issue will no doubt be raised in Committee and we can see whether the Government are right. Given our proposals for a Welsh Assembly, what the Government have done is highly convenient. It would allow the democratic control, which the Government now seem anxious to take away from the Floor of the House. If there were a Welsh Assembly, I would support the Government's move. It represents an important development if the Government are trying to give us favours in terms of our future proposals for a Welsh Assembly. The Secretary of State for Health was also helpful on that front today when he introduced more confusion.
Sir Wyn Roberts: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if the power were to be transferred to the proposed Welsh Assembly, there would be no limit on the assembly's power to increase the amount, as specified in the Bill?
Mr. Morgan: It does not cause additional expenditure; it permits it—as the Secretary of State's briefing note rightly said. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Conwy, as a former Minister, would agree with that. It is a question of the loss of parliamentary control. We keep hearing about the West Lothian question, but the Government are happy to get their Members to vote for a loss of parliamentary control—I think that that was the point being made by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. There is not the same degree of parliamentary control simply because the measure cannot be amended. That is at the crux of the matter—that is why measures are being transferred to secondary legislation.
The Secretary of State is asking the House to approve the removal of the right to amend a measure by passing it over to secondary legislation, with no ultimate capping limit—that is unprecedented. The Secretary of State should have explained why he was doing that. His only explanation is that he did not realise that he was doing it. Obviously, he has not received the same briefing as I did from the Clerks of the House.
The issues involving the WDA concern all of us who represent Welsh constituencies. How do we get the balance right between east and west, between inward investors and indigenous firms? How do we ensure that when, for the first time in 20 years, the WDA hits a big inward investor such as LG, that does not absorb all its finances so that it is unable to capitalise on firms that could become suppliers? Those firms could be indigenous or they could have moved into the area. They may be on a smaller scale and it may be appropriate for them to set
110
up in places that do not attract large numbers of commuters such as we have in south-east Wales and the Swansea area. Getting the balance right between east and west, between large and small, and between inward investors and indigenous investors is what lies at the heart of the topics raised by hon. Members today.
We have heard many comments from those who are concerned that, because the Government cannot give a sustainable commitment to fund the WDA for a two, three or four-year period and keep failing in their primary duty to provide a framework for the agency's financing, the agency does not know where it is. If the LG development proceeds in Wales, will it exhaust the agency's financial capabilities to sustain supplier industries that might be able to feed off LG, and thereby prevent building up a much stronger indigenous sector?
The final measure of whether the WDA is a success and of whether Welsh Office Ministers have looked after the WDA—although their predecessors opposed its creation—is the state of the Welsh economy. People have said that the Welsh economy is a brilliant success, because one or two big names have moved in. LG is the first mega-development for 20 years, but—for the purposes of those of us representing Welsh constituencies—the state of the Welsh economy is not explained by listing the big names and saying that LG is a great success or that JCB's expansion in north Wales is a great success. There are other great successes—such as Ocean Technical Glass moving to Cardiff, Newport Waferfad, and Halla moving into Merthyr—but the bottom line is the state of the Welsh economy.
While the gross domestic product per head in Wales remains 16 per cent. below that of the United Kingdom, it will remain true that Wales will continue to require an interventionist economic agency. The Government have never been able to make up their minds about the WDA; they remain ambivalent about it; and they would much prefer to close it down completely.
9.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): It has been very good to have such a good-natured debate on the Bill—until the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). However, I readily agree with his conjecture that one can always find a couple of figures to try to support the argument that one is inventing, because he proceeded to do precisely that in his 15 minutes. I offer him my sympathy because, judging by Opposition Members' interventions, I suspect that he will have trouble from Labour Back Benchers in Committee.
Mr. Morgan: What was I inventing? Will the Minister quote it, chapter and verse, or withdraw his comment?
Mr. Jones: I think that Hansard will demonstrate that very clearly tomorrow morning. I invite the hon. Gentleman to read it, to see whether he can repeat the statements a second time. However, he does not need to worry, because I have great confidence that he will not have to worry about the Welsh affairs portfolio for much longer.
This was a good-natured debate, and why not? It was about the success story of the way in which we have nurtured and developed the Welsh Development Agency.

111
It was good to hear speeches from the more senior Labour Members—if I may so call them—as they are those rare commodities on Opposition Benches: hon. Members with ministerial experience. It was good to hear from the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and from the hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones).
It was especially good to hear from the two "originators"—those who took part in the original debate on setting up the WDA, my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) and the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). My right hon. Friend very effectively nailed the claims made by Opposition Members about the way in which he and successive Secretaries of State have maintained the WDA.
I am a little surprised at the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon. Initially we knew what he wanted to say, but I always thought that he never made a more pertinent observation than, "You cannot ignore an elephant when you find it on your doorstep," which was a reference to the result of the 1979 referendum on a Welsh Assembly. He attempted to recreate the first fumbling footsteps of the child who has now been honed into the superb contributor to team Wales, which he so ably captains. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has very knowing warnings about his party going back to the old, failed policies of the past. It is very likely that the phrase in his mind will be, "It will all end in tears"—which harks back to 1979.
This debate is about a success story—about how we have used the WDA as a key part of team Wales. We are determined to make the agency even more successful in the next Parliament. I feel that that objective is very much in line with the detailed analysis presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards). He was absolutely right to stress the necessity of confidence in the Welsh economy. I was glad to have his welcome and that of the hon. Members for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement earlier tonight, on what we want the WDA to do, in being even more ambitious outside the eastern corridors of the A55 in north Wales and the M4 in the south.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) welcomed the same announcement, although he spoilt his welcome by claiming that nothing was being done and that we did not understand the necessity of doing something. He did not listen to what my right hon. Friend said. Immediately before making that point, he reminded the House that the WDA already had a target of creating 20 per cent. of its jobs outside those two corridors. Already this year, the agency has done better than that and reached a target of 32 per cent. If we do not have any understanding of the desirability of doing even more in that area, why are we setting targets to improve and extend the existing aims? Of course, the criticism comes from the hon. Gentleman who would give us lessons in civility.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli and the hon. Member for Swansea, East were understandably concerned about what the agency had already done to the west of the corridor in the south. I remind them that, since 1983, the agency has been involved in 111 inward
112
investment projects in west Wales, which have created or safeguarded more than 12,000 jobs. It has entered into numerous joint venture agreements with local authorities and the private sector to achieve significant regeneration in the west.
Two fine examples of the agency working with local authorities and the private sector are Swansea vale, where the joint venture aims to attract 3,500 jobs and about £160 million of direct private sector investment, and Llanelli, where construction work has begun on the town centre shopping complex, which will provide 130,000 sq ft of much-needed new retail space. I am glad that the hon. Member for Swansea, East acknowledged that the agency has recently completed demolition and clearance work on the 200-acre former steelworks site at Felindre. That is a key strategic inward investment site, and the next stage will be the reclamation and infrastructure works.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly appeared to criticise the suspension of Standing Order No. 56. I want, through him, to—
Mr. Ron Davies: No. 86.
Mr. Jones: I thank the hon. Gentleman. It went through on the nod on Friday afternoon, and I thought that I needed, through him, to thank the Opposition for their ready agreement to proceed in that way. He peculiarly claimed that this form of legislation meant that a Welsh Assembly would be the perfect body to scrutinise it. Surely, it is a very backhanded compliment to Opposition Members to suggest that their ineffectiveness can be overcome only by a toothless talking shop filled by those who failed to enter this House. What does that say about Labour Back Benchers?
The hon. Member for Caerphilly could not answer when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State understandably asked whether he would give the agency extra funds. The hon. Gentleman went on at length and identified what he called a £30 million shortfall, but could not follow through the logic of his own argument, a point not lost on his hon. Friends, most obviously the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.
My right hon. Friend has already confirmed that the agency still has a significant land reclamation programme in its proposals for its next business plan. It has almost 3,500 acres in the process of being reclaimed and, on current plans, some 1,850 acres will be completed in the next two years. Some concern has been expressed about projects that have been delayed, but this year the agency has already responded to some of that concern. It has increased its budget by 25 per cent., to £17.5 million, which will allow the next phases of various projects to proceed. It has been necessary to review plans and commitments, but contractual commitments are being honoured.
Support for some projects is being deferred, but none will be lost. My right hon. Friend will shortly be discussing the agency's business plan with its board. He will be keen to ensure that its commitment to the 1,850 acres will be retained, although the individual projects that total it are wholly a matter for the agency.
I acknowledge what the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said about Trelewis. I was grateful for the invitation to visit it with him in September.

113
I understand the depth of local feeling even better as a result of that visit. As I have already assured him, I have placed the issue before the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency.
Mr. Rowlands: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me a brief intervention. Does the target of clearing all derelict land by 2000 still stand?
Mr. Jones: I believe that the agency is confident of proceeding towards the target that it has set for land reclamation. The exact phasing and completion remain to be achieved, but I have confidence about the agency's progress.
Concern has also been expressed about progress at Coed Ely. I understand that the delay in that land reclamation scheme is not solely financial, but is primarily because of problems with the contractors and the complex nature of the project. The agency will do what it can to take the project forward as soon as possible.
In the strategic guidance for the current financial year, we have clearly set out our policies for the agency, for it to continue concentrating on the creation and safeguarding of jobs through inward investment and company development. We also attach priority to land reclamation. I fully support the emphasis that continues to be given to those programmes for the coming year, which are fundamental to the continuing success of the Welsh economy. We have also set the agency a number of key strategic targets. I am pleased that it met most of its targets in 1995–96 and even exceeded some of them. I look forward to another excellent set of results in 1996–97.
The agency's aim is to
"help create a successful and dynamic economy—promoting the best business climate in Europe by assisting the growth of quality jobs and competitive industry for the benefit of people throughout Wales."
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned earlier, in line with that, the agency's programme over the next few years will focus on all parts of Wales, promoting indigenous business growth throughout Wales and creating the right climate for all the growing firms.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy, I noticed the article in The Western Mail this morning. I felt that it was a travesty until I heard my right hon. Friend suggest that there might be another hand in its authorship—perhaps that of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West. Is an article entitled "Why the WDA needs to be reformed" what we should expect from someone who sincerely hopes to be representing Wales in the Cabinet by May? He refers to our failing economy, calling it stagnant at best and a disgrace at worst. He tries in every way to present Wales in the worst possible light, blithely ignoring the reality. Since the general election four years
114
ago, unemployment in Wales has fallen by more than 30 per cent.—a drop of 40,700, to the current figure of 93,000. At the same time, employment is rising.
Going back a little further, we see that, over the past 10 years, manufacturing has increased by 7.1 per cent. In the rest of the United Kingdom, it has, I am afraid to say, fallen by 26 per cent. Over the same 10-year period, construction has increased by 10 per cent. in Wales—more than three times better than the figures for Britain as a whole.
Mr. Richards: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Jones: No. I am sorry, but I do not have the time to give way any more.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly ignores LG and the realities of its inward investment to the Cardiff and Newport area. In his blithe ignorance of what is going on, he does a cruel injustice to Wales. What of everybody who is working so hard in team Wales? They are faced with his alternative of wanting to centralise. He did not make it clear what he would do, but there were references again to the super-quango, bringing together the DBRW, the industry department, the Land Authority for Wales and the local enterprise agencies. The hon. Gentleman is an anti-devolutionist at heart. He would centralise and create a lumbering carthorse again, taking the WDA further back than it was when the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon set it up.
There is another Welshman who had the right words to describe the Opposition Front Bench—the former right hon. Member for Islwyn, Mr. Kinnock. His comment is the comment of all of us: Wales deserves better than the Labour party.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

WELSH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Welsh Development Agency Bill, it is expedient to authorize—

(a) any increase in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament or out of the National Loans Fund or charged on and issued out of the Consolidated Fund; and

(b) any increase in the sums payable into either of those Funds,

which is attributable to provisions of the Act increasing to £1,350 million, with power to increase further by order, the limit in section 18(3) of the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975.—[Mr. Anthony Coombs.]
Question agreed to.

Multiple Sclerosis
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Anthony Coombs.]
9.59 pm
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me a second opportunity to raise an issue that is of great importance to all who are interested in the treatment of multiple sclerosis—those who suffer from it, and those who do not.
I want to highlight two main issues. First, there is great inequality throughout the United Kingdom in access to treatment; secondly, there is a lack of understanding of the special needs of those with the disease among some NHS purchasers and providers. Many of the surrounding questions were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) in his debate on neurological disorders on 29 January.
For too long, multiple sclerosis has been regarded as a Cinderella condition. The disease was first identified in the 1860s—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Anthony Coombs.]
Mr. Prentice: I did not fully understand that procedure, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Let me inform the hon. Gentleman and the House that it was not quite 10 pm when the debate began, and the motion for the Adjournment therefore had to be moved again at 10 pm. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly in order.
Mr. Prentice: I know exactly where I left off, Madam Speaker.
The disease was first identified in the 1860s by a French doctor. Until recently, it was regarded as untreatable, and no thought was given to how those suffering from it could be helped, advised and supported as its course progressed. I say "progressed", for, although the disease is at present incurable, many people are affected only marginally, if at all.
A quarter of those diagnosed as having MS are affected only mildly 15 years after the onset of the disease—they may have pins and needles in their fingers or toes—while a further quarter, tragically, end up in wheelchairs. The remaining 50 per cent. have the varied symptoms that characterise MS, which can include impaired co-ordination, problems with vision, loss of sensation and fatigue. One recently diagnosed constituent of mine told me that her arm sometimes felt as if it were full of molten metal. One in 15 people with MS will eventually become severely disabled.
MS typically affects more women than men, in the ratio 3:2, and strikes the young. That is what interested me in the condition in the first place. It hits people in the prime of life, often between the ages of 20 and 40. They have everything to look forward to; then comes the diagnosis that can change everything.
MS is common—it affects roughly one in every 1,000 people—but what causes it is still a mystery. No one knows why there are MS "clusters" in certain parts of the
116
country, or why it increases according to latitude. It affects 99 people in every 100,000 in the south of England, but 178 per 100,000 in north-east Scotland. It used to be thought of as a disease that affected only Caucasians—and, curiously, non-white people who have settled here do not increase their chance of getting it, but their children acquire the risk faced by the general population. Many aspects of the disease are observed, but not understood.
Nevertheless, all is not gloom and despair. Things changed dramatically recently with the advent of new drugs that, it was claimed, would alter the course of the disease for those with relapsing-remitting MS, in which a person is free of the symptoms for a while but they often return with a vengeance. Peter Cardy, chief executive of the Multiple Sclerosis Society, wrote only a few months ago, in an article published in The House Magazine:
"For those who suffer severe relapses, the experience is like being dragged repeatedly to the jaws of death; blind, in pain and paralysed."
Therefore, it is not surprising that the prospect of a drug that would deal with those dreadful symptoms has excited such interest.
Beta interferon helps people with remitting and relapsing MS—about 45 per cent. of the total number. The drug was given a product licence in December 1995, allowing it to be used not just in the UK, but throughout the European Union. In November 1995, the Department of Health issued guidelines on how it should be prescribed. I have read those guidelines cover to cover, and they put the frighteners on purchasers and on the consultant neurologist to whom would fall the clinical decision of whether beta interferon should be prescribed. The result of all that has been an enormous difference throughout the UK in the drug's availability.
The NHS guidance did not state categorically that all patients judged likely to benefit from the drug must receive it; the advice was much more circumspect. Providers—hospitals and so on—were asked to think about the resource implications of using beta interferon. It is expensive—£10,000 per patient per year—but we must set that against the annual cost to the economy of MS, which is about £1.2 billion in terms of lost taxes, increased benefits and so on.
Hospitals were told
"to consider workload and manpower implications for hospital neurologists and out patient departments."
The guidance asks providers to consider the impact of providing the drug on waiting times, on consultant availability, on magnetic resonance imaging scans, on nursing and other support and, finally, on the hospital drugs budget. Couched in such a stern way, that advice clearly had an effect. In some parts of the UK, there was no access at all to beta interferon. On 10 December, I asked the Minister about the availability of beta interferon, and was told that that information was not collected centrally.
A survey was conducted by the manufacturer of the drug, Schering Pharmaceutical. It has a clear and obvious interest, but the figures it has provided to me are not necessarily tainted for that reason. The data relate to the period up to and including October 1996, almost a year after the initial guidance was issued, and just about the time that the latest and more positive advice went out from Dr. Winyard, medical director at the NHS executive.

117
The figures show the number of remitting-relapsing MS patients in each region and the percentage of purchasers—the health authorities—funding beta interferon in each region. In my constituency in the north-west, all health authorities make provision for beta interferon, which is good. Of course, there is a second hurdle. The consultant neurologist has to decide whether to prescribe it, but the health authorities have made a decision whether to provide the money to purchase beta interferon, so someone in Manchester with relapsing or remitting MS would be all right, but someone in Edinburgh or in Dundee would not. In Scotland, only 35 per cent. of health authorities make provision; in Wales, only 5 per cent. do so; and in the English regions, only 5 per cent. do so in the northern and Yorkshire region.
Mr. William O'Brien: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene. My hon. Friend refers to North Yorkshire, but may I refer him to West Yorkshire, where I have constituents who need beta interferon?
Wakefield health authority is in financial difficulties, so, although the drug is prescribed for patients, because resources are not there, my constituents cannot receive that treatment. That is diabolical. People are suffering because of the lack of resources. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to include West Yorkshire in his diagnosis of the lack of resources in various regions.
Mr. Prentice: The Minister heard those remarks and will reply in due course. If I run through the English regions, I can put it all in perspective.
Mr. Allan Rogers: My hon. Friend said that the incidence of prescription among authorities in Wales was only 5 per cent. What does he mean by that?
Mr. Prentice: It is the percentage of health authorities that make a decision to allocate in their budgets for the purchase of beta interferon. Only 5 per cent. of the health authorities in Wales have done so.
The figures for England are: 5 per cent. in the Northern and Yorkshire region, with 14 health authorities; 10 per cent. in Trent; 50 per cent. in the South and West area; 56 per cent. in the Anglia and Oxford region; 80 per cent. in the North Thames area; and 92 per cent. in the South Thames region. Someone is okay if they live in Northern Ireland, because the figure there is 100 per cent., but those in the West Midlands area are in dire straits, because not a single health authority in that region has decided to purchase beta interferon.
A letter from the chief executive of the MS Society, dated 6 January, to my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) says:
"A year after the licensing of the product (Beta Interferon 1 B) there are still very few MS patients who are receiving the drug in the West Midlands. There seems to be a gap between policy and practice here".
There is indeed a yawning gap. As of the middle of last year, only 160 patients nationally were being prescribed beta interferon.
Mr. Cardy said in his article in The House Magazine:
"It is frankly scandalous that whether you are treated for MS depends on where you live."
That must be true.
118
Clearly, we do not want to go through this performance each time a new drug for MS is licensed. Other drugs are coming along which are available elsewhere, but not here in the United Kingdom. The licensing procedure should guarantee the effectiveness and the efficacy of the drug in question. In the case of beta interferon, that seems to be beyond doubt. It stretches the time between relapses by up to one third, and that is what people with MS care about. It does not necessarily stop the progress of the disease towards disability, but it does influence relapses.
Dr. Winyard wrote in the letter that was circulated to health authorities in October that no date had been set for the national trial, and I would like the Minister to comment on that. Why has a national trial to assess the impact of the drug on disability been pigeonholed? That is not good enough.
There are one or two other issues that I want to highlight in the time available to me. For example, there are not enough neurologists in the country. In a debate a few weeks ago instigated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, the Under-Secretary said that there are 260 consultant neurologists in England and Wales, and added that the number had increased by 4.3 per cent. over the past five years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Simon Burns): That is 4.3 per cent. in each year.
Mr. Prentice: That is magnificent news, but clearly it is not enough.
When I intervened in that debate, I referred the Minister to a study produced by the Preston NHS trust, which has a neurology unit. The document, which is hot off the press, states that, if one is unfortunate enough to live in Lancaster, it can take six months to get an appointment or a referral to a neurologist. That needs to be seriously addressed. Waiting lists at clinics are simply far too long, as the maximum time—the MS Society tells me—should be one month. I think that that is reasonable, and the Minister should comment on the fact that it has been overshot so massively.
The second key area concerns the interface between the NHS and social services and the other support systems. That issue was also covered in the debate in January on neurological conditions.
The Multiple Sclerosis Society has drawn up a draft standard of care for purchasers and providers treating people with MS. It recommends how the illness should be handled at each stage of development, from the initial diagnosis, through the moderate disability stage, to the severe disability stage, for cases that tragically progress that far. The society's suggestion is already followed for other conditions for which standards of care are prescriptive. There is a standard of care if a person is suffering from diabetes, asthma, haemophilia or eczema, but not for MS or other neurological conditions.
It is an absolute disgrace that the Government have been so reluctant to fund properly research into multiple sclerosis. The Multiple Sclerosis Society has spent £30 million since it was set up in the 1950s on research into the disease. It is currently spending £8 million to fund 50 research projects. What have the Government allocated? Last year, they spent £216,000, the year before £207,000, and in 1993–94 £154,000. Those are sizeable

119
sums of money, but they pale into insignificance when one considers the money spent by the society—a charity. The society says that it faces demands on its resources, and that it cannot be expected to carry the burden alone. It is looking for the Government to take a larger share.
I mentioned that other drugs are in the pipeline, including co-polymer 1, which was trialled in United States in 1994. It has had encouraging results. Another is cannabis. Every time I mention cannabis, my local press go berserk, as if I am being soft on drugs. However, masses of anecdotal evidence from people who suffer from MS suggests that cannabis helps them.
It was, of course, legal for cannabis to be prescribed by medically qualified doctors before the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and it was prescribed in tincture form. Under section 7 of the Act, it is now unlawful for a doctor to prescribe cannabis, yet heroin can be prescribed and is used in hospitals all the time for the relief of pain. I have also found out from the Minister for Health that an active ingredient derived from cannabis—dronabinol—has recently been rescheduled and can now be used, because it has been discovered that it could treat nausea in patients undergoing chemotherapy treatment for cancer.
I welcome the initiative that the Government have taken. I know that the Minister for Health has met the Multiple Sclerosis Society and is sympathetic, but more needs to be done. It need not cost a fortune to make services for people with MS seamless across the NHS and into the community. Wherever people live in the United Kingdom, they should have equal access to the treatment they need when they need it. At present, we have a national lottery, with too many losers.
10.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under—Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Simon Burns): I should like to thank the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) for raising this important topic. As he said, multiple sclerosis is a complex and distressing condition, which is estimated to affect more than 80,000 people in the UK, often starting in early adulthood. It places a major burden on health and social services, and, most significantly, on the individuals who suffer from it and their carers, who play such a vital role in looking after family members or friends who, sadly, are afflicted with this condition.
My ministerial colleagues and I are committed to doing all we can to help the health service alleviate the symptoms of people with multiple sclerosis, so that they can get on with their lives, because unfortunately there is as yet no cure. That is why the Government are funding—through the Medical Research Council and the Department of Health—research designed to investigate the causes of multiple sclerosis and the effectiveness of new treatments, as well as research in the two broader areas of auto-immune diseases and diseases of the central nervous system, which both underpin MS research.
With respect, the hon. Gentleman was a little churlish when he talked about the Government funding of research for MS and other related problems. In the past six years, Department of Health and Medical Research Council funding for MS has amounted to more than £2 million. As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, the Multiple Sclerosis Society has made an application for section 64 funding,
120
which is being considered by the Department. I hope that it will be able to decide and make an announcement in the not too distant future. The MRC is also funding research into auto-immune diseases. We are committed to providing resources from central Government to help with that research
I applaud the work that is being done by the Multiple Sclerosis Society, both in providing information, support and advice to people with MS and their families, who need this assistance now, and in looking to the future by funding a major programme of research. Its "Manifesto for Multiple Sclerosis" highlights the critical importance of co-ordinated care and of planning services to enable funding to be used more effectively, and that is a message that I wholeheartedly support. It is relevant to all NHS services, not just to those for people with MS, and it is at the heart of the purpose of the NHS:
"To secure through the resources available the greatest possible improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of England."
We are gradually witnessing the emergence of new therapies for multiple sclerosis. In the past year or so, there has been particular interest in the development of the group of drugs known as beta interferons, as the hon. Gentleman said.
So far, only one beta interferon drug—a beta interferon 1b drug known as Betaferon—has been licensed for prescription in the United Kingdom. This drug received a European marketing authorisation in December 1995 and is licensed for use by certain people who suffer from the relapsing-remitting form of multiple sclerosis.
The drug is not a cure. It is not suitable for all those with MS. So far, our experience of it has been limited. However, it has been described as a "promising newcomer", and, in line with the Government's commitment to ensuring that patients receive treatments that doctors judge to be clinically necessary, it has been available under the NHS since it was licensed.
Mr. William O'Brien rose—
Mr. Burns: I am sorry, I do not have the time to give way.
In 1995, following requests by a number of bodies that information about beta interferon would be helpful, the NHS executive issued circular EL(95)97 and clinical advice from the Standing Medical Advisory Committee to help the NHS plan for and manage the introduction of this new treatment. The guidance—a central framework to help the NHS reach decisions at local level—was developed with a number of key bodies, including the Association of British Neurologists, general practitioner representative bodies and the Multiple Sclerosis Society.
Briefly, the guidance suggested that, because of clinical considerations—that is, because beta interferon 1b was a new treatment—to ensure that it was targeted at those people who were most likely to benefit from it and to help monitor and evaluate its effectiveness, the treatment should be prescribed only by hospital neurologists where it was judged to be clinically appropriate, and within local agreements between health authorities and hospitals.
Arrangements are in place for assessing patients and, where appropriate, prescribing treatment. More than 300 patients in England are receiving beta interferon

121
1b through hospitals. That includes approximately 30 patients in East Lancashire health authority, which covers the constituency of the hon. Member for Pendle.
I am not aware of any health authority which is refusing to purchase or prescribe beta interferon. However, as with any procedure—but particularly when the procedure is new and still relatively untested—there is no single view within the NHS about the precise circumstances in which the treatment should be available. Consequently, prescribing across the country will not necessarily follow a uniform pattern. That is consistent with the arrangements for setting priorities and reaching decisions within the NHS.
It has been suggested that the Government should spell out at a national level precisely what treatments the NHS should provide. We do not think that that would be right. No list of treatments could ever hope to accommodate the range and complexity of the different cases that individual clinicians face all the time. Such a course would be too inflexible to take account of the different needs of individual patients, and would prevent clinicians and managers from carrying out different alternative approaches that could be of benefit to patients.
The Government have, however, made it clear that health authorities should not, as a matter of principle, decide not to use any clinically effective treatment. Even when the effectiveness of a procedure is not in general judged to be high, it might be both effective and appropriate in certain circumstances for an individual patient. That message was repeated in our recent White Paper, "The National Health Service—a Service with Ambitions".
I shall deal briefly with the point about the therapeutic use of cannabis. I shall write to the hon. Member for Pendle in the next few days about the issues with which I am unable to deal because of the time. My ministerial colleagues and I are aware of, and concerned about, the distress experienced by people suffering from multiple sclerosis, and we have carefully considered the representations made to us that cannabis should be made available for medicinal use.
The therapeutic use of cannabis is a complex issue, and it may be helpful if I address some of the most important considerations. Under section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, cannabis and certain other drugs are controlled, because it is in the public interest for their production, supply and possession to be either wholly unlawful, or unlawful except for the purpose of research or other special purposes; or for it to be unlawful for doctors to supply them except under licence from the Home Office. The controls imposed by the Act conform with the international restrictions covering those drugs.
We are committed to ensuring that patients receive the drugs they need to treat their clinical conditions. Before a cannabis-based medicine could be prescribed, a company seeking a licence would have to present the supporting data—which would have to demonstrate the medicine's safety, efficacy and quality—to the Medicines Control Agency, in the normal way. The MCA would then evaluate it, and, if it were able to approve it, notify the Home Office.
122
We understand the desire of people with multiple sclerosis to explore every avenue to seek relief. It would, however, not benefit those people if we were to disregard the procedures that have been set up to ensure the safety, efficacy and quality of prescribed drugs. We have to take account of all the considerations, including the potential risks associated with short and long-term use of cannabis, and consider whether any benefits—which must have been proven scientifically—outweigh those risks. We already know that there are side effects from the use of cannabis.
We have received a wealth of anecdotal evidence of the efficacy of cannabis in treating some of the symptoms of multiple sclerosis. A matter as important as people's health, however, should not be taken lightly, and hard, scientific, research-based evidence is required. The conclusions of available research are not very convincing, due to the limited scope of the projects, the use of small cohort groups, or the lack of suitable scientific methodology.
I understand that the Multiple Sclerosis Society has taken positive steps to encourage trials, by offering support to researchers. The main agency through which the Government sponsor medical research is, of course, the Medical Research Council, which is always willing to consider scientifically sound proposals.
Current legislation does not prevent research into the medicinal use of cannabis, provided that a Home Office licence has been obtained for that purpose. For the purposes of a clinical trial, which involves sale or supply of medicinal products and various other specified activities, a clinical trial certificate or clinical trial certificate exemption would also have to be obtained from the Medicines Control Agency.
We are therefore not in a position to allow the therapeutic use of cannabis. It is up to researchers and companies wishing to market a cannabis-based product to supply the necessary scientific evidence of its therapeutic value, if any, in the first instance. They would also have to consider the form in which cannabis could be made available for use as a medicinal product in a controlled dose. As long as we have no evidence, on the grounds that I have just outlined, it is not possible to allow the therapeutic use of cannabis.
Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Pendle. I appreciate, as he will know, that I have not dealt with every issue because of the shortness of time.
Mr. William O'Brien: Hear, hear.
Mr. Burns: There is no point in the hon. Gentleman saying, "Hear, hear," because it is not his debate; I was concentrating on the speech of the hon. Member for Pendle, because I appreciate the sincerity of his concerns about those who suffer from MS. The Government are equally concerned, and we are all determined to do all we can to alleviate the suffering that they sadly have to go through.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Radio Spectrum
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made in releasing two bands of 5 MHz in the 410–430 MHz band for civilian use; and if he will make a statement. [14344]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 14 October 1996,Official Report, column 782, which should have made it clear that discussions between MOD and the Radiocommunications Agency, DTI identified channels on two bands of 5 MHz in the 410–430 MHz band that can be made available for civilian use by 1997. A large number of channels in the 410–430 MHz band have been released by MOD.

  As recognised in the radio spectrum review stage 3 report, there are military systems in the band 410–430 MHz, which cannot be given up or whose frequencies cannot readily be changed. This being the case there is no possibility, at present, of the complete release of all channels within two bands of 5 MHz in the 410–430 MHz band.

  Royal Yacht
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the basic elements of specification, with special reference to length, breadth, draught, gross tonnage and propulsion, of the proposed replacement for the royal yacht Britannia. [14421]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The outline specification for the new yacht is currently being drawn up. We expect this process to take about a year, following which an invitation to tender, specifying the detailed requirement, will be issued.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many miles members of the royal family have travelled(a) in the royal yacht Britannia and (b) by other modes of transport supported by public funds in each of the past five years. [14638]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 6 February 1997]: The information for royal travel is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the benefits to the United Kingdom of the attendance of the royal yacht Britannia at Cowes; how many days the yacht has attended Cowes in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [14509]
  2
  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 10 February 1997]: In the last 10 years Britannia has spent the following number of days at Cowes:

  Year

  Number of days

  1987

  0

  1988

  6

  1989

  7

  1990

  6

  1991

  7

  1992

  8

  1993

  7

  1994

  9

  1995

  8

  1996

  8

  Britannia's attendance at Cowes has continued the traditional royal patronage of this event, and contributed to the growth of this prestigious international regatta. This in turn benefits the local community around Cowes, in addition to the yachting industry.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the places where the royal yacht has been used to promote British exports and to attract inward investment since 1989, indicating the number of days and dates at each place. [14642]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 6 February 1997]: The information requested is as follows:

  Date

  City

  Country

  Organisation involved/event

  1989

  9 March

  London

  UK

  British Invisible Exports Council (BIEC)

  5 October

  Port Klang

  Malaysia

  BIEC

  1990

  30 October

  Rio de Janeiro

  Brazil

  BIEC

  11 December

  London

  UK

  General Council of British Shipping

  12 December

  London

  UK

  General Council of British Shipping

  1991

  26–27 April

  Belem

  Brazil

  Environmental Seminar hosted by HRH The Prince of Wales

  16 May

  Miami

  USA

  The Motor Industry in Britain

  21 May

  Tampa

  USA

  Anglo-American Aerospace Summit (Non-military)

  13 June

  Lisbon

  Portugal

  Scottish Financial Enterprise/Locate in Scotland

  25 September

  London

  UK

  BIEC

  1992

  2 June

  Civitavecchia

  Italy

  BIEC

  26 June

  Leith

  UK

  Scottish Financial Enterpise/Locate in Scotland

  21 October

  Stockholm

  Sweden

  BIEC

  1993

  25–26 March

  Palm Beach

  USA, Martinique/St. Lucia

  Locate in Scotland/Scottish Office CARITAG— British Overseas Trade Board

  12 May

  London

  UK

  London Forum

  3

  Date

  City

  Country

  Organisation involved/event

  8 October

  Istanbul

  Turkey

  BIEC

  12 October

  Piraeus

  Greece

  Anglo Hellenic Chamber of Commerce

  10 November

  Abu Dhabi

  UAE

  Energy Seminar

  16 November

  Bombay

  India

  Sea Day—Indo British Partnership Initiative

  17 November

  Bombay

  India

  Sea Day—Indo British Partnership Initiative

  17 November

  Bombay

  India

  Seminar

  18 November

  Bombay

  India

  Sea Day—Indo British Partnership Initiative

  18 November

  Bombay

  India

  Seminar; 5 commerical (DTI/FCO) receptions; contract signing ceremonies

  1994

  10–16 February

  New York

  USA

  British Invisibles Sea Day Scotch Whisky Museum of Scotland Reception

  9 May

  Southampton

  UK

  DOT Agency Launch

  23 May

  Pembroke Dock

  UK

  Commercial Reception

  24 May

  Swansea

  UK

  Commercial Reception

  21 June

  Helsinki

  Finland

  British Invisibles Seminar British Invisibles Reception

  22 June

  Helsinki

  Finland

  Trade Reception

  28 June

  London

  UK

  London Dockland Development Corporation

  29 June

  London

  UK

  Lord Mayor Reception KGFS Reception

  18 October

  St. Petersburg

  Russia

  British Invisibles Seminar British Invisibles Reception

  1995

  7 March

  Abidjan

  Ivory Coast

  DTI

  14 March

  Walvis Bay

  Namibia

  FCO

  28 March

  Cape Town

  South Africa

  DTI/British Invisibles/South African British Trade Association

  29 March

  Cape Town

  South Africa

  DTI/Institute of Education

  30 March

  Cape Town

  South Africa

  DTI Seminar

  31 March

  Cape Town

  South Africa

  Africa 95

  20 April

  Tema

  Ghana

  Overseas Development Agency

  21 April

  Tema

  Ghana

  DTI

  25 April

  Dakar

  Senegal

  DTI

  27 June

  Dundee

  UK

  Locate in Scotland

  17 August

  London

  UK

  British Invisibles

  4 October

  Piraeus

  Greece

  British Invisibles

  7 October

  Piraeus

  Greece

  British Hellenic Chamber of Commerce

  8 October

  Piraeus

  Greece

  Britain in Greece Festival

  25 October

  Lisbon

  Portugal

  DTI and FCO

  1996

  19 March

  Savannah

  USA

  Northern Ireland Office

  19 March

  Savannah

  USA

  British Olympic Committee

  1 April

  Boston

  USA

  BBC, Public Radio International and Public Broadcasting WGBH

  1 April

  Boston

  USA

  British Olympic Association

  2 April

  Boston

  USA

  Welsh Tourist Board/British Tourist Authority

  3 April

  Boston

  USA

  British American Business Council

  4

  Date

  City

  Country

  Organisation involved/event

  3 April

  Boston

  USA

  Welsh Development Agency

  15 April

  Toronto

  Canada

  British Invisibles

  16 April

  Toronto

  Canada

  Lieutenant Governor of Ontario Commercial Reception

  17 April

  Toronto

  Canada

  British Canadian Chamber of Trade and Commerce

  18 April

  Toronto

  Canada

  Locate in Scotland

  11 July

  Amsterdam

  The Netherlands

  British Invisibles

  12 July

  Amsterdam

  The Netherlands

  Lunchtime Reception hosted by Her Majesty's Ambassador for winners of the Queen's Awards for Exports.

  Britannia's programme for 1997 includes commercial events between mid-January and August in Malta, Dubai, Doha, Karachi, Bombay, Madras, Malaysia, Singapore, Bangkok, Manila, Nagoya, Kobe, Korea and Gibraltar.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many events on the royal yacht Britannia have been sponsored by outside bodies in each of the last five years; if he will list the sponsoring bodies, categorised as in(a) commercial, (b) charitable and (c) other organisations; and if he will make a statement. [14510]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 6 February 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave today to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) for the list of sponsored events held aboard Britannia since 1989. Due to the wide variety of organisations represented during individual engagements, it is not possible to categorise the list by groupings.

  Biological Warfare Germs (Southampton)
  Sir James Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the dates in 1977 of the germ warfare tests which involved spraying the city of Southampton with simulants chosen to mimic biological warfare germs; and if he will make a statement. [14599]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Sir James Hill, dated 10 February 1997:

  I have been asked to reply to your question about dates in 1977 when biological defence studies were carried out in Southampton. The chemical Biological Defence Sector (CBD) at Potion Down is now part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) for which I am responsible as Chief Executive.

  No studies were carried out in Southampton in 1977. Between 1965 and 1966 a series of experiments were conducted at various locations around the Southampton area using the harmless strains of the E.coli MRE 162 organism. These were immobilised on microthreads and contained within boxes which were then exposed to the atmosphere at various locations. No material was released in these experiments. The studies were carried out to determine the survivability of organisms when exposed to the atmosphere and those around Southampton particularly addressed survivability in or near built up city areas.
  5
  The technique for the immobilisation of the organisms was published in the scientific press in 1968 under the title 'A Microthread Technique for Studying the Viability of Microbes in a Simulated Airborne State' K. R. May and H. A. Druett. Journal of General Microbiology (1968) Vol. 51 pages 353–366.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints about low flying incidents were received by the Royal Air Force centre at Welshpool in each year since 1992. [14848]

  Mr. Soames
  The numbers of complaints about military low flying received by the RAF community relations office (Wales) in each year since August 1993, when the post was established, are as follows:

  Number

  19931

  14

  1994

  169

  1995

  225

  1996

  216

  1 August to December.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the effects of budget constraints on the operational effectiveness of the Territorial Army. [14918]

  Mr. Soames
  The Territorial Army continues to make an important contribution to the operational effectiveness of our fighting forces. We are confident that the funding it receives is commensurate with the tasks placed upon it.

  Publicity Material (Languages)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many items and what percentage of armed forces recruitment publicity material is published in the Welsh language; and if he will make a statement. [14849]

  Mr. Soames
  The naval service and the Army produce one general information publication in a number of languages, including Welsh, aimed at parents, teachers and opinion formers. In addition, a Welsh language leaflet is produced for the Welsh Guards. Army advertising in regional newspapers and on local radio is also carried out in Welsh. Certain Welsh regiments produce recruiting material in Welsh. Percentage figures are not available and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of armed forces recruitment and publicity material is printed in the Urdu language. [14851]

  Mr. Soames
  Each service produces one general information publication in a number of Asian languages, including Urdu, aimed at parents, teachers and opinion formers. Percentage figures are not available and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Gulf War Veterans
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the referrals of the Gulf war veterans to Dr. Kocen at Queen's Square hospital for nervous disorders. [14157]

  Mr. Soames
  Following the disclosure that organophosphate pesticides had been used more widely in the Gulf than previously thought, 10 patients whose case histories suggested that they could have, or had, been exposed to pesticides were invited to return to the medical assessment programme—MAP—for a further assessment and a subsequent examination by Dr. Kocen at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery.

  Six of these patients have either declined the invitation or failed to attend the MAP; all of these have been offered second appointments. Two patients have been seen by the MAP and by Dr. Kocen. One patient has been seen by the MAP and referred to Dr. Kocen; this patient did not attend for his first appointment with Dr. Kocen and cancelled his second appointment. The remaining patient has been given an appointment for the MAP on 10 February.

  Another 44 veterans, who display certain symptoms which could be consistent with OP pesticide exposure but where there is no indication of exposure, have also been invited to re-attend the MAP, and if clinically appropriate, they will be referred to Dr. Kocen. These patients have all been offered appointments in February or March, except for two patients who have been given appointments in April at their request. Three patients have already been seen by the MAP and one has been referred to Dr. Kocen; the other two did not require further neurological referral.

  Air Incident (Inverness)
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the investigation into the alleged air near-miss incident over Inverness airport on 29 January involving a Tornado jet; and if he will make a statement. [15186]

  Mr. Soames
  This incident is under investigation and a report will be published by the Civil Aviation Authority in due course. Copies of such reports are routinely placed in the Library of the House.

  Army Base Repair Organisation
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the key targets for 1997–98 for the chief executive of the Army Base Repair Organisation. [15412]

  Mr. Soames
  The chief executive of the Army Base Repair Organisation has been set the following key targets for 1997–98:

  1. To deliver a responsive repair service, which matches the needs of the customer both in peace and for operations to the agreed timeliness, quantity and quality criteria and offers value for money.

  2. To remain with ABRO's allocated budget.

  3. To maintain the 1997–98 ratio of labour costs to hours of production at 23 per cent. below the rate of agency launch.

  4. To prepare full and cash costs for the significant base repair programmes by 31 March 1998.

  5. To Include in ABRO accounts, closing balances as at 31 March 1998 for the cost of spare parts held by the agency.

  7

  6. To implement the ABRO system for handling customer feedback and conduct a customer survey.

  7. To achieve ABRO land command support market test vesting day within nine months of final ministerial announcement.

  8. To evaluate and recommend the CFQ strategy for ABRO Donnington to DGES(A) by 30 April 1997.

  Royal Naval College
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the list of those who will serve on Sir Angus Stirling's committee which is to consider the future of the Royal Naval college, Greenwich; and if he will make a statement. [15462]

  Mr. Soames
  The Government decided last September to create a charitable trust to take over the responsibility for protecting the Royal Naval college, Greenwich, ensuring that it will be used in a fitting way to reflect the importance of the college to the nation's heritage and enhancing public access and enjoyment. It subsequently announced that Sir Angus Stirling would be the chairman of the trust.

  We have now agreed that the body known as the Greenwich Foundation for the Royal Naval college should be registered as a charitable company limited by guarantee, with its stated objective as
  "to preserve for the benefit of the nation the Royal Naval College site, buildings and monuments as being of historical, architectural, and artistic importance, and to educate the public thereon".

  Registration is in hand.

  I am also pleased to announce the names of those who have undertaken to serve as trustees of the foundation. They are: Sir Benjamin Bathurst, who retired as First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff in 1995, Sir David Cooksey, Richard MacCormac, Margaret Richardson, Christopher Swinson, Professor Thomas Kempner, Councillor Len Duvall, leader of the London borough of Greenwich, and Sir Franklin Berman. They will bring a wealth of local, naval, business, financial, heritage, architectural and educational expertise to the foundation.

  The foundation is working closely with Greenwich hospital and with the Royal Navy to achieve a smooth handover of the site. Further to the recommendations of the advisory group, chaired by Dame Jennifer Jenkins, Sir Angus Stirling has already been exploring with the university of Greenwich, the National Maritime museum and other interested parties, the options for the future use of the site in a manner worthy of its historic and architectural status.

HEALTH

  Dental Services
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dentists derive(a) more than 75 per cent. and (b) more than 90 per cent. of their fee income from orthodontic work. [12379]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is not available centrally.
  8
  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 28 January,Official Report, column 161, how many dentists were attached to the dental reference service in each year since 1990. [15137]

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

  Date

  Number of dental reference service dental officers

  31 March 1990

  31

  31 March 1991

  26

  31 March 1992

  29

  31 March 1993

  30

  31 March 1994

  34

  31 March 1995

  37

  31 March 1996

  38

  31 March 1997

  158

  1 Estimate.

  Personal Social Services Records
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information has been obtained by his Department about the policy and procedures adopted by local authorities in respect of access to pre-1989 personal social services records; [13507]

  (2) if he will make a statement on access to pre-1989 personal social services records in respect of each local authority for which information is available. [13502]

  Mr. Burns
  Legislation made in 1987 and 1989 gives people specific rights of access to, respectively, computerised and manual records held on them by social services departments, subject to some exemptions. While there is no statutory right of access to information compiled before these dates, the Department's general policy set out in various guidance from 1987 onwards is that authorities should give access to as much personal information as possible.

  It is the responsibility of each local authority to implement the Department's policy on access to personal social services records and information on practices of individual authorities is not held centrally.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance his Department has given local authorities concerning access to personal records subsequent to, and in the light of, the Graham Gaskin case; [13505]

  (2) what is his Department's policy on access to pre-1989 personal social services records; and how that policy has changed since the 1989 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Graham Gaskin case. [13504]

  Mr. Burns
  Legislation made in 1987 and 1989 gives people specific rights of access to, respectively, computerised and manual records held on them by social services departments, subject to some exemptions. The Department's general policy set out in various guidance from 1987 onwards is that authorities should give access to as much personal information as possible.
  9
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what obligations there are on local authorities to make public their policies and procedures on access to personal records; and how such matters are monitored by his Department. [13501]

  Mr. Burns
  Guidance to local authorities on access to personal records—local authority circular (89)2—says that authorities should publicise the fact that individuals have the right to information subject to certain safeguards and tell people how to apply for access. Authorities should also consider whether special publicity is needed for people unable to speak English. It is the responsibility of each local authority to implement the Department's policy on access to personal social services records and information on practices of individual authorities is not held centrally.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he or his officials will seek to obtain the views on access to pre-1989 personal social services records of persons currently seeking access to such records. [13503]

  Mr. Burns
  No. We have asked all local authorities to implement the Department's guidance on access to social services records.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what work his Department has undertaken in respect of compliance measures following the judgment in Graham Gaskin's case; what were the number and level of officials involved; what time scale was imposed by Ministers for the work; and what steps have been taken by Ministers in consequence of the work. [13506]

  Mr. Burns
  In their White Paper on open government, the Government proposed to create new rights of access to personal information held by Government and other public sector organisations, and to establish an independent review body to consider any cases where access is refused. This would meet the issues raised by the European Court of Human Rights' judgment in the Gaskin case. The Government are still committed to introducing legislation to implement these proposals as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the hospitality budget for(a) his Department and (b) the NHS management executive for each year since 1989. [13755]

  Mr. Horam
  There is no hospitality budget for the Department and its agencies or the national health service executive, which is part of the Department.

  Casualty Units
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many casualty units there were in each year since 1989. [13648]

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

  Casualty unit is not a term used in the national health service. It is a colloquialism which could cover anything from minor injuries unit to a full trauma centre.
  10
  The figures for trusts and directly managed units in England with an accident and emergency department intended to be open 168 hours a week and with medical staff on site are shown in the table. A trust or directly managed unit may consist of a number of hospitals each with its own accident and emergency department.

  Year

  Number

  1991–92

  238

  1992–93

  226

  1993–94

  218

  1994–95

  216

  1995–96

  211

  Before 1991–92 information was collected on an individual site basis. Comparable information for earlier years is not therefore available.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if there is compulsory competitive tendering in the national health service. [14346]

  Mr. Horam
  Since 1983 there has been a requirement to market test cleaning, catering and laundry services, at regular intervals, through a competitive tendering process.

  Prostate Brachytherapy
  Sir Julian Critchley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to extend the practice of prostate brachytherapy within the NHS. [14356]

  Mr. Horam
  None. The practice of prostate brachytherapy is a matter for clinical decision in discussion with the patient.

  NHS Trusts
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what instructions he gives to health trusts regarding visits to(a) hospitals and (b) other medical centres, with special reference to when the closure of the hospital or centre is being considered; [14673]

  (2) what steps he proposes to take (a) to make the proceedings of health trusts more accessible to members of the public and (b) to ensure better consultation about the work of health trusts. [14826]

  Mr. Horam
  Visits to trust premises are a matter for local management. Health authorities are however required to consult local interests over any proposal substantially to change services.

  The code of practice on openness states:
  "NHS trusts must hold at least one public meeting a year. An agenda, papers, the accounts and the annual report must be publicly available at least seven days in advance of the meeting. Provision must be made for questions and comments to be put by the public. Public meetings must be held in readily accessible venues and at times when the public are able to attend. Providing the public with access to more frequent general meetings or board meetings is good practice already followed by an increasing number of trusts."

  Health Services (Norfolk)
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons hospital beds in Norfolk are currently being closed. [14824]

  Mr. Horam
  It is for health authorities and trusts locally to calculate the number of beds needed to respond to the needs of patients, taking account of a wide range of factors. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. John Alston, CBE, chairman of East Norfolk health authority and Mr. John Durance, chairman of North-West Anglia authority, for details of changes in bed provision for that area.

  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations have been postponed in Norfolk in the last year for which figures are available. [14825]

  Mr. Horam
  The number of operations cancelled in Norfolk can be found in "Information on Cancelled Operations and Breaches of the Patient's Charter Standard". Copies of this document are available in the Library.

  Cancelled Operations (Trent Region)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the annual change in the number of patients in the Trent region who have had operations cancelled(a) on the day they were due to go into hospital and (b) after admission since 1994–95. [15017]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on operations cancelled for non-medical reasons on the day a patient is due to be admitted, or after admission, is available in the Library.

  Deaths at Rotherham District General Hospital, by day and by age

  11995

  Age group

  Monday

  Tuesday

  Wednesday

  Thursday

  Friday

  Saturday

  Sunday

  1

  1

  1

  1

  3

  —

  4

  4

  1–19

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20–39

  2

  —

  3

  5

  4

  4

  1

  40–59

  18

  12

  13

  15

  15

  14

  9

  60–64

  7

  14

  12

  10

  17

  19

  17

  65–69

  22

  16

  22

  22

  21

  20

  15

  70–74

  30

  33

  33

  39

  34

  32

  32

  75–79

  35

  26

  32

  38

  30

  34

  40

  80–84

  33

  30

  45

  30

  38

  27

  30

  85 and over

  39

  33

  33

  36

  45

  27

  25

  All ages

  187

  165

  196

  198

  204

  181

  173

  1 In 1995, there were 53 Sundays and 52 occurrences of each other weekday.

  11996

  Age group

  Monday

  Tuesday

  Wednesday

  Thursday

  Friday

  Saturday

  Sunday

  1

  —

  —

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1–19

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  20–39

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  40–59

  8

  1

  4

  3

  10

  3

  4

  60–64

  9

  3

  1

  6

  2

  4

  4

  65–69

  16

  13

  5

  7

  10

  6

  9

  70–74

  10

  18

  23

  14

  21

  12

  15

  75–79

  21

  18

  9

  17

  19

  24

  12

  80–84

  23

  21

  21

  23

  15

  27

  19

  85 and over

  19

  14

  19

  28

  17

  17

  20

  All ages

  108

  89

  84

  100

  97

  95

  84

  1 During the period covered in this table (January to June), each weekday had 26 occurrences.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department ceased collecting and holding centrally details of total numbers of hospital closures; what is the latest period since 1979 for which such figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [15170]

  Mr. Horam
  Information was collected on hospital closures until 1991. From that time responsibility for local closures has been devolved to health authorities and trusts, taking into account local priorities. A list of those substantial variations in services that have been contested by community health councils is available in the Library.

  Rotherham General Hospital (Deaths)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by age, the number of deaths occurring at Rotherham district general hospital in 1995 and 1996 on(a) Monday, (b) Tuesday, (c) Wednesday, (d) Thursday, (e) Friday, (f) Saturday and (g) Sunday. [14278]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from John Fox to Mr. Denis MacShane, dated 10 February 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked the Director of the Office for National Statistics to reply to your recent question on deaths at Rotherham District General Hospital. The Director has asked me to reply in his absence.
  The data are shown in the attached tables. Figures for 1996 are provisional and relate only to the first two quarters of 1996.

  Perinatal Mortality
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those EU countries with lower perinatal mortality rates than the United Kingdom. [12035]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Chris Smith, dated 10 February 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on the European Union (EU) countries which have a lower perinatal mortality rate than the United Kingdom.
  The figures are shown in the attached tables. On 1 October 1992 the legal definition of a stillbirth was altered from a baby born dead after 28 or more completed weeks gestation to one born dead after 24 or more completed weeks gestation. This had the effect of raising the United Kingdom perinatal mortality rate in 1993.
  Within the EU, differences of definition lead to variations in the measurement of perinatal mortality. It includes stillbirths with a minimum gestation period ranging from 22 to 28 weeks according to country.

  Perinatal mortality rates1 (1992)

  Number

  United Kingdom

  7.7

  Spain

  7.3

  Austria

  6.8

  Finland

  5.9

  Denmark

  5.8

  Sweden

  5.8

  Source:

  Eurostat—Demographic statistics 1996.

  Note:

  1 Stillbirths and deaths within the first week of life per 1,000 live and stillbirths.

  Perinatal mortality rates1 (1993)

  Number

  United Kingdom

  9.1

  Ireland

  9.0

  Germany

  7.4

  Spain

  6.6

  Luxembourg

  6.3

  Austria

  6.1

  Sweden

  5.9

  Denmark

  5.4

  Finland

  5.1

  Source:

  Eurostat—Demographic statistics 1996.

  Note:

  1 Stillbirths and deaths within the first week of life per 1,000 live and stillbirths.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Award Presentations
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) on how many occasions she or her Department have approached lottery distribution 14
  boards or grant recipients to arrange for her to make presentations of awards; what were the occasions; and who were the recipients;[14593]

  (2) how many lottery awards she has personally presented; who were the recipients; on what dates the presentations were made; and what sums were involved. [14594]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is central to the role of Ministers that they promote the work of the Department and its associated bodies. The national lottery, and the awards made by the independent distributing bodies, are an important part of that work. It is only right, therefore, they should take the opportunity to draw attention to the excellent work being done by these bodies around the country. This can include involvement in the presentation of lottery awards.

  The Department does not keep records of the occasions when Ministers have been associated with such presentations.

  Lottery Grants
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage is she will provide a regional breakdown of lottery grants in respect of each of the five good causes.[14368]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Awards totalling over £2.8 billion have been made to 18,769 projects throughout the United Kingdom. I have arranged for a regional breakdown to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Draft Pensions Measure
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if the commissioners have received the memorandum "Reasons why the Draft Pensions Measure is not Expedient" from the Parishes Protection Group; and if he will make a statement. [14973]

  Mr. Alison
  The commissioners have received this memorandum which has, I understand, been circulated to members of the parliamentary Ecclesiastical Committee. The commissioners do not accept the assertions in the memorandum, and will advise the Ecclesiastical Committee accordingly. I am arranging for a copy of a note setting out the position to be sent to the hon. Member.

  The proposals for the new arrangements for financing clergy pensions come with the support of the Church Commissioners, the Church of England Pensions Board, the Central Board of Finance, the Diocesan Boards of Finance and the General Synod, which gave final approval to the draft measure in November 1996 on an almost unanimous vote. The proposals reflect detailed and prolonged consultations and independent actuarial advice.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Dangerous Driving (Pleas)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) how many occasions, in the last year for which figures are available, the Crown Prosecution Service acted on the suggestion of a defendant that in exchange for pleading guilty to the charge of careless and inconsiderate driving, proceedings against the defendant on the charge of causing death by dangerous driving would be dropped; [14881]

  (2) if he will list the number of occasions in the past five years on which drivers who have caused a driving-related fatality have been charged with the offence of careless and inconsiderate driving in place of causing death by dangerous driving by the Crown Prosecution Service in order to ensure that a conviction is obtained; [14877]

  (3) how many occasions, in the last year for which figures are available, the Crown Prosecution Service offered defendants the opportunity to enter a guilty plea to the charge of careless and inconsiderate driving in substitution for proceeding against the defendant on the indictment of causing death by dangerous driving. [14880]

  The Attorney-General
  Charges in any particular case should reflect the seriousness of the offending and should give the court adequate sentencing powers. The selection of charges is governed by the evidential and public interest criteria contained in the code for Crown prosecutors; and prosecutors are assisted in relation to offences of the nature mentioned by the hon. Member by the driving offences charging standard adopted in March 1996 by the Crown Prosecution Service in agreement with the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  Where the Crown Prosecution Service subsequently decides not to pursue all the charges originally preferred, this will usually be because changed circumstances have made it impracticable to proceed or have brought about a revised assessment of the evidential or public interest test.

  Detailed information of the nature sought by the hon. Member is recorded only on individual case files and is not collected or collated centrally. It could therefore be made available only at disproportionate cost.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Ministerial Sub-committee on Health Strategy
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many times a year on average the interdepartmental Cabinet and Ministerial Sub-committee on Health Strategy has met since it was formed. [13376]

  Mr. Freeman
  In accordance with the principle of collective responsibility for Government decisions, including the need to maintain the frankness and candour of internal discussion and advice, details of proceedings of Cabinet committees are not published.

  Manchester City Centre (Rebuilding)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on developments in relation to financial support from the Government for the rebuilding of Manchester city centre following the IRA bombing. [15100]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I was delighted to announce this morning that the Government will give Manchester the funds required to implement the scheme chosen to regenerate Manchester city centre. We shall provide £43 million over the next three years, in addition to £20 million of European funds announced last summer.

  I expect these contributions to unlock very substantial investment by the private sector—around £345 million in total.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners' Brains
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the result of the discussions with the Department of Health on post mortem and pathology guidelines referred to in his answer of 16 April 1996,Official Report, column 362; and if he will make a statement. [14420]

  Mr. Sackville
  Specific discussions about the disposal of body organs removed in the course of a coroner's post mortem await the outcome of a wider assessment of coroners' pathology arrangements, and liaison between the Departments on these matters continues.

  Voluntary Groups
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each voluntary group part or wholly funded by his Department in the last two years for which the information is available and the amount of money received by each group in that period. [14147]

  Mr. Sackville
  Home Office funding of voluntary organisations amounted to £59,204,588 in 1993–94 and to £61,043,280 in 1994–95. I have placed in the Library lists of such organisations funded by the Home Office in each of those two years and the amounts which they received. The lead responsibility within Government in relation to the voluntary sector transferred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage on 1 May 1996.

  Doncaster Prison (Asylum Seekers)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many asylum seekers were held at Her Majesty's prison, Doncaster in each month since January 1996; [14596]

  (2) what was the average length of time spent in custody by asylum seekers held at HMP Doncaster during 1996. [14589]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Information on the number of asylum seekers detained—under sole Immigration Act powers—at Her Majesty's prison, Doncaster for selected dates during 1996 is given in the table.
  17
  Estimates for the average length of detention can be obtained only through examination of individual case records and, therefore, the information requested is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Asylum seekers recorded as being detained 2 3 at Her Majesty's prison Doncaster, as at selected dates during 1996

  Detained as at

  Total1

  31 January

  *

  29 February

  *

  29 March

  *

  10 April

  *

  31 May/7 June4

  3

  27 June

  *

  30 July/2 August5

  *

  4 September

  *

  1 October

  *

  5 November

  *

  11 December

  *

  1 * = 1 or 2.2 Persons detained solely under the powers contained in Schedule 2 or 3 of the Immigration Act 1971.

  3 These figures include people who have been in detention for less than a month. Because of the delay in recording receptions into, and releases from, detention and the large number of persons detained short period, the figures should be used with caution.

  4 Port cases are as at 7 June and In-country cases are as at 31.

  5 Port cases are as at 2 August and In-country cases are as at 30 July.

TREASURY

  Recombinant Factor 8 Blood Products
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to discuss the zero rating for VAT purposes of recombinant factor 8 blood products with the EC Commission. [11206]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  None. We are not permitted to extend the scope of our existing VAT zero rates under the terms of the EC sixth VAT directive agreed in 1977 by the then Labour Government.

  North-East Regional Crime Squad
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer Luxembourg what representations he has received from Customs and Excise about the role of the north-east regional crime squad in the cases of Rv. Beriman and R v. Charrington and others; and if he will make a statement. [13584]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  HM Customs and Excise tells me that an inquiry was initiated into the conduct of two of the police officers after they had given evidence in the Rv. Beriman trial. Aspects of the R v. Charrington and others case are the subject of an inquiry commissioned by the chief constable of Cleveland.

  Value Added Tax (European Union)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the rates of VAT in each of the member states of the European Union for each of the main commodities and services. [13758]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The table details the standard rate and reduced rates of VAT in each member state of the European Community, with the main items that are subject to those reduced rates. All other goods and services, unless exempt from VAT, are ordinarily subject to the standard rate.
  18

  VAT rates in the European Community (standard rates and reduced rates; and main items subject to reduced rates)

  Member State

  Standard rate (per cent.)

  Reduced rates (per cent.)

  Austria

  20

  10—Food; books and newspapers; public transport

  Belgium

  21

  12—Fuel (coal only); social housing

  6—Food; books and newspapers; public transport; water supplies

  Denmark

  25

  0—Daily newspapers

  Finland

  22

  17—Food

  12—Books; Pharmaceuticals

  6—Public transport

  France

  20

  5.5—Food; books; public transport; Pharmaceuticals

  2.1—Newspapers

  Germany

  15

  7—Food; books and newspapers; local public transport

  Greece

  18

  8—Food; public transport; Pharmaceuticals

  4—Books and newspapers

  Ireland

  21

  12.5—Domestic fuel and power; newspapers; new housing

  2.8—Livestock

  0—Food; books; Pharmaceuticals

  Italy

  19

  16—Certain foods

  10—Certain foods; domestic fuel and power; public transport; Pharmaceuticals

  4—Basic foodstuffs; books and newspapers; certain social housing

  Luxembourg

  15

  12—Fuel (other than gas and electricity)

  6—Fuel (gas and electricity)

  3—Food; books and newspapers; Pharmaceuticals

  Netherlands

  17.5

  6—Food; books and newspapers; public transport; water supplies; Pharmaceuticals

  Portugal

  17

  12—Restaurant services; certain foods

  5—Food; books and newspapers; public transport; water supplies; Pharmaceuticals

  Spain

  16

  7—Food; water supplies; public transport

  4—Basic foodstuffs; books and newspapers; Pharmaceuticals

  Sweden

  25

  12—Food

  6—Newspapers

  19

  VAT rates in the European Community (standard rates and reduced rates; and main items subject to reduced rates)

  Member State

  Standard rate (per cent.)

  Reduced rates (per cent.)

  United Kingdom

  17.5

  8—Domestic fuel and power

  0—Food; books and newspapers; public transport; children's clothes; new housing; water and sewerage services; pharmaceuticals

  Travel Insurance
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the number of people who have taken out travel insurance from(a) an insurance broker and (b) a travel agent in the last month for which figures are available. [13658]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Calculations of revenue changes resulting from the Budget proposal were derived from information on premiums published by the Association of British Insurers.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, columns 234–35, (1) concerning insurance, if he will state (a) the extent of the increase in margins resulting from inflating the price of VAT-exempt insurance supplied in association with vatable goods and services, and (b) the normal margins in (i) the retail and (ii) the tour operating part of the travel industry; and what evidence he has that margins on insurance provided by the travel industry have changed since the introduction of insurance tax, and that such change has resulted from tax avoidance; [14112]

  (2) if he will publish the data which supports his statement that there is a widespread practice of inflating the price of VAT-exempt insurance supplied in association with vatable goods and services; and if he will list (a) the number of instances discovered of price inflating, (b) the number of companies involved in price inflating, (c) the average value of the inflation price compared with the non-inflated price for each company and (d) the inflated price as a proportion of the non-inflated price. [14114]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 3 February 1997]: The practice of inflating the price of VAT-exempt insurance premiums is commonplace in certain industry sectors, including the travel industry, and cases are too numerous to list. A mark-up of 100 per cent. on travel insurance is regularly applied by tour operators and travel agents and mark-ups of this size have been reported in the travel press. The basic pricing structure of the industry—low margin on holiday, high margin on insurances—is not disputed by industry representatives. The result of this pricing policy is that a typical travel insurance policy for a two-week European holiday purchased from a travel agent or tour operators costs about £30. A similar policy can be purchased elsewhere for half that price. There has never been any suggestion that the margins on insurance products provided by the travel industry were materially changed by the introduction of insurance premium tax.
  20
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what external legal advice he took before introducing a differential rate of insurance premium tax; and with which external bodies he consulted on this matter. [11468]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 22 January 1997]: Extensive consultations with industry took place prior to the Budget concerning measures to counter VAT avoidance by various sectors that were misusing the VAT exemption for insurance. However, as is usual with tax-raising Budget measures, no external consultation took place on the insurance premium tax rate changes before the Budget announcement. Since that announcement, Ministers and officials have had numerous meetings with representative bodies for those affected by these changes.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the advantages enjoyed by insurers, brokers and agents over independent travel agencies in respect of rates of insurance premium tax; and if he will make it his policy to impose a common rate of tax in the holiday insurance market. [13342]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 4 February 1997]: I have received a number of representations about the proposal to apply a higher rate of insurance premium tax to travel insurance sold through travel agents. This is an important element of the proposed higher rate which will address, on a wider front, the current VAT loss caused by certain suppliers applying disproportionately high margins to VAT-exempt insurance when sold with vatable goods and services. Since this VAT loss cannot arise when insurance is sold in isolation by insurers or specialist insurance intermediaries, such sales have not been included within the scope of the higher rate.

  Value Added Tax (Isle of Man)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much value added tax is paid by the Government of the Isle of Man to the Exchequer; and if he will make a statement. [13873]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  In normal circumstances, the Government of the Isle of Man do not pay any VAT to the Exchequer, but under the revenue-sharing agreement of the Isle of Man Act 1979, the Isle of Man has contributed the following amounts of net VAT receipts during the past three financial years.

  1993–94: £20,157,399

  1994–95: £24,100,764

  1995–96: £22,481,096.

  Departmental Policies (Bournemouth)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effect of his Department's policies on the residents of Bournemouth since 1992, with special reference to the effects of changes in the resources provided in real terms. [14945]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Bournemouth is sharing fully in the success of the British economy, which is enjoying a combination of low inflation, falling unemployment, low mortgage rates and rising living standards not seen for a
  21
  generation. Claimant unemployment in Bournemouth has halved in the past four years, from 11.9 per cent. of the work force in December 1992 to 5.8 per cent. in December 1996, and is now well below the national average. The Treasury does not provide resources directly to local areas.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlie the decision of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to decline to allow exemption from landfill tax for all construction sites where contaminated soil is removed; how many such refusals of exemption have so far been indicated; what tax revenues he expects to raise as a result of those decisions; and if he will indicate the legal basis for those decisions. [11366]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 20 January 1997]: In granting the exemption, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise needs to be satisfied that the applicant is carrying out, or intending to carry out, a reclamation of land rather than simply carrying out a construction project. It takes into account the presence of pollutants in the waste, the amount of waste being removed compared with the amount that needs to be removed in order to carry out the construction, and whether all the waste would be removed from an area wider than the actual construction area. Each case is individually considered, bearing in mind all relevant factors.

  It is not possible in the time available to break down the number of refusals by reason. As at 6 January 1997, the total number of applications refused was 83. Applications that are not eligible for the exemption do not raise additional landfill tax revenue. The potential landfill tax payable if wastes arising from refused applications are landfilled amounted to £35,595,713 as at 6 January 1997. The legal basis for decisions to refuse an application for exemption is failure to meet the qualifying provisions contained in sections 43A and 43B of the Finance Act 1996 as inserted by article 3 of the Landfill Tax (Contaminated Land) Order 1996 (SI 1996 No. 1529).

  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications have so for been received for landfill tax exemption certificates; in how many of those cases such a certificate(a) has been granted, (b) has been refused and (c) is still under consideration; and in how many cases of refusals applicants have lodged, or indicated an intention to lodge, an appeal. [13598]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 30 January 1997]: HM Customs and Excise has received 542 applications for landfill tax exemption certificates. Certificates have been granted for 153 applications, refused for 92 applications, and 297 applications are still under consideration. An applicant who wants customs to reconsider a refusal must ask in writing for a formal review within 45 days of the refusal. Customs has received five such requests. Applicants who initially voice their dissatisfaction with a decision may choose not to take the matter any further, and customs does not record informal indications that an appeal is being considered.

  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his reply of 23 January,Official Report, column 685, if his statement that eligibility for
  22
  exemption from landfill tax of construction sites where land is contaminated was never intended to be automatic is consistent with Her Majesty's Government's previous statements on these matters; what recent representations he has received on this point; and if he will make a statement. [13596]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 30 January 1997]: It was, and remains, the Government's intention that all waste arising from the reclamation of contaminated land, where the reclamation qualifies for exemption under the Landfill Tax (Contaminated Land) Order 1996, should be exempt from Landfill tax. Waste arising from construction after the land has been reclaimed is not exempt, nor was it ever intended that it should be. I understand the Building Employers Confederation is in correspondence with HM Customs and Excise on some issues of interpretation of the dividing line between reclamation and construction.

  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the implications of the legal case Pepper v. Hart for the interpretation of the Landfill Tax (Contaminated Land) Order 1996 in the context of previous correspondence with the construction industry; and if he will make a statement. [13597]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 30 January 1997]: I understand that the Building Employers Confederation, in correspondence with HM Customs and Excise, has quoted Pepper v. Hart in questioning customs' interpretation of the Landfill Tax (Contaminated Land) Order 1996. Pepper v. Hart establishes that statements made by a Minister or other promoter of a Bill with, if necessary, such other parliamentary material as was necessary to understand such statements and their effects, may be relied upon to interpret a statutory provision which is ambiguous, obscure or which leads to absurdity. The case did not concern interpretation of a statutory instrument. In Pickstone v. Freemans—PLC (1989) AC 66—the House of Lords, in construing a statutory instrument, had regard to what was said by the Minister who initiated the debate on the regulations. Neither Pepper v. Hart nor Pickstone v. Freemans considered whether correspondence from a Minister prior to the introduction of the relevant legislation could be relied upon. Such correspondence does not constitute parliamentary material.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what method the overseas trade statistics listing exports of live farm animals by species have been derived for(a) 1993, (b) 1994, (c) 1995 and (d) 1996. [13551]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 31 January 1997]: Overseas trade statistics for exports from the United Kingdom to countries outside the European Community are compiled from customs declarations made to HM Customs and Excise by exporters and their agents.

  Overseas trade statistics for dispatches from the United Kingdom to other members of the European Community are compiled from returns sent by traders and their agents to the tariff and statistical office of HM Customs and Excise through the Intrastat system. The Intrastat system was established in 1993.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will arrange for the number of electors in each constituency to be placed in the Library following the publication of the final electoral registers on 16 February. [14252]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 6 February 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from John Fox to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 10 February 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked the Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) to reply to your recent question on when the number of electors on the 1997 Electoral Register will be placed in the Library. The Director has asked me to reply in his absence.
  ONS are preparing a Monitor detailing electors on the 1997 Electoral Register by the new Parliamentary Constituencies. This will be published by early April 1997 and will be placed in the Library on publication date.

  Nationalised Industries
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the 1995–96 outturn figure for the external financing requirements of each of the nationalised industries. [14513]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 6 February 1997]: The 1995–96 outturn figure for the external financing requirements of each nationalised industry was given in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" published on 26 November last year. The latest figure will be published in "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses" on 20 March.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlay the differences in hisestimate for the first year revenue yield from the 50 per cent. rate of income tax on taxable incomes as between his answers of 1 November 1996,Official Report, column 279, and 28 January, Official Report, column 143. [14490]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 6 February 1997]: The main factor affecting the change in estimated yields is that the answer of 28 January refers to 1997–98 income levels whereas the answer of 1 November 1996 refers to 1996–97 income levels. Earnings are estimated to grow between the two years, which increases the number of taxpayers affected and therefore increases the yield.

  Dorneywood
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the running costs of Dorneywood in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [14618]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 7 February 1997]: Dorneywood is financed and administered by the Dorneywood Trust, a private trust for which I am not responsible.

PRIME MINISTER

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Prime Minister how many people are employed by his Department to provide advice on the application of equal opportunities, and at what cost, in the last year for which figures are available. [14463]

  The Prime Minister
  For these purposes my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Paymaster General, Office of the Public Service, on 7 February,Official Report, columns 734–35.

  Travel Costs
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 5 February,Official Report, column 609, concerning travel costs, for what reasons comparable data for 1983 to 1987 are not available; and if he will make a statement. [15169]

  The Prime Minister
  Comparable data for 1983 to 1987 are not available because it is departmental policy, which accords with the guidance in "Government Accounting" and the requirements of the National Audit Office, to destroy financial records after five years.

  Ministerial Incomes
  Sir Terence Higgins
  To ask the Prime Minister how his salary compares in percentage terms, after adjusting for inflation, with that of the Prime Minister of 30 years ago; what is the corresponding figure for Cabinet Ministers; and how much average real incomes for the population as a whole have increased in percentage terms over the same period. [15018]

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested is as follows:

  Prime Minister's salary: decrease 48.3 per cent.

  Cabinet Minister's salary: decrease 36 per cent.

  Average earnings: increase 66.7 per cent.

  All percentages are adjusted for inflation and are taken between December 1970—the earliest for which average earnings information is available—and December 1996.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will provide a breakdown of the spending by the Cabinet Office on external advice in relation to the Scott inquiry, indicating how much has been spent on legal advice and from whom it was obtained. [14533]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 6 February 1997]: No payments have been made by the Cabinet Office for external advice, including legal advice, in relation to the Scott inquiry.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost of salaries since 1992 paid to persons in the Cabinet Office employed on a part-time or full-time basis in any capacity relating to the Scott inquiry. [14532]
  25
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 6 February 1997]: The direct salary cost of officials within the Cabinet Office wholly employed on matters relating to the Scott inquiry from December 1992 to September 1996 was approximately £554,500. Since October 1996, no officials within the Cabinet Office have been wholly employed on Scott inquiry-related matters, although some officials have inevitably been involved on an occasional basis as part of their normal duties; the direct salary cost of their involvement is unquantifiable.

  Ministerial Visits (Latin America)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list by country the ministerial visits made to Latin America by his Government in(a) 1995 and (b) 1996. [14854]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 7 February 1997]: Visits made by Ministers to Latin America were as follows:

  Month

  Country

  Minister

  1995

  January

  Brazil

  Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Portillo)

  February

  Brazil Panama Colombia

  Minister of State Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Davis)

  March

  Uruguay

  Baroness Trumpington

  May

  Argentina

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Welsh Office(Mr. Richards)

  Brazil Mexico

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Hunt)

  Peru Colombia

  Minister of Trade (Mr. Needham)

  July

  Argentina

  Baroness Trumpington

  Peru

  Minister of Defence (Earl Howe)

  September

  Mexico

  Minister of State, Department for National Heritage (Lord Inglewood)

  Mexico

  Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor)

  Peru Argentina Brazil Chile

  Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr Gummer)

  Venezuela

  Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser)

  Argentina Brazil

  Minister of State for Education(Lord Henley)

  Cuba

  Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Taylor)

  November

  Peru Colombia

  Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor)

  Colombia

  Minister of Health (Mr. Sackville)

  26

  Month

  Country

  Minister

  1996

  January

  Argentina Brazil

  Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Clarke)

  Guatemala

  Lord Chesham

  February

  Brazil Chile Mexico

  Minister for Trade (Mr. Nelson)

  March

  Colombia Venezuela

  Minister of Trade at the Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser)

  Brazil

  Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gummer)

  April

  Mexico Bilivia Brazil

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Rifkind)

  May

  Peru Chile

  The Lord Chancellor

  Mexico

  Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser)

  Venezuela Guatemala

  Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor)

  June

  Chile Colombia

  Secretary of State for Education (Mrs. Shephard)

  Argentina Brazil

  Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser)

  Belize

  Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor)

  August

  Ecuador Brazil Uruguay Paraguay

  Lord President of the Council (Mr. Newton)

  September

  Argentina Brazil Mexico Peru

  Minister of State for Agriculture (Mr. Baldry)

  Colombia Costa Rica Bolivia Peru

  Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gummer)

  Cuba

  Minister of State at the Home Office (Mr. Sackville)

  Brazil

  Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Arbuthnot)

  Mexico

  Minister of State at the Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley)

  October

  Mexico

  President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Lang)

  November

  Argentina

  Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gummer)

  Argentina Brazil

  Minister for Trade (Mr. Nelson)

  Bolivia Peru

  Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser)

  27

  Month

  Country

  Minister

  December

  Chile

  Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Portillo)

  Guatemala

  Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor)

  Chequers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many(a) full time, (b) part-time and (c) temporary staff have been employed at Chequers in each of the last five years; if he will list their principal duties; and if he will make a statement; [14978]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 4 February, Official Report, column 524, what percentage of the total budget for the running costs of Chequers has been made up by the annual grant from public funds in each of the past five years; [14977]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 4 February, Official Report, column 524, if he will list the dates he has been in residence at Chequers for each of the past two years; and if he will make a statement; [14974]

  (4) what uses Chequers has been put to for the periods when he has not been in residence; and if he will make a statement. [14975]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 7 February 1997]: I have nothing further to add to the replies that I gave to the hon. Member on 4 February, Official Report, column 524.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 4 February,Official Report, column 524, if he will list the independent trustees of Chequers. [14976]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 7 February 1997]: In accordance with the Chequers Estate Act 1958 the trustees are:
  The Lord Privy Seal, the right hon. the Lord Cranbourne DL, chairman
  Sir Ralph Verney Bt KBE DL JP, the Prime Minister's appointee
  The Lord Camoys DL, appointee of the Secretary of State for the Environment
  Ms J C Lomas, Public Trustee ex officio
  C Nunneley Esq, chairman of the National Trust ex officio.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Legislative Timetable
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what estimate he has made of the number of hours(a) on the Floor of the House and (b) in Committee needed to complete the Government business already announced in this Session. [13377]

  Mr. Newton
  The number of variables involved would make any such estimate merely speculative.

  Parliament (Dissolution)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what functions he discharges in relation to the dissolution of Parliament. [13378]

  Mr. Newton
  In my capacity as Lord President, I would expect to attend the meeting of the Privy Council at which the proclamation dissolving Parliament is signed.

  Prime Minister's Question Time
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to change the format of Prime Minister's Question Time. [13380]

  Mr. Newton
  My position remains as set out in my speech in the debate on parliamentary procedure on 11 July 1996,Official Report, columns 631–71.

  Undelivered Speeches
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will introduce a procedure to allow hon. Members who have attended a debate but not been able to speak to have their speeches printed in the Official Report. [13381]

  Mr. Newton
  I have no plans to do so.

  Parliamentary Proceedings
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what steps he is taking to increase the opportunities for Back Benchers to initiate proceedings in the House. [13382]

  Mr. Newton
  The introduction of Wednesday morning sittings as part of the Jopling reforms has substantially increased the number of occasions on which Back Benchers can initiate debates on subjects of their choice. I have no current plans for further changes.

  Points of Order
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to review parliamentary procedures relating to points of order. [13383]

  Mr. Newton
  None; but the hon. Gentleman may wish to draw any concerns or suggestions he has to the attention of the Procedure Committee.

  Divisions
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will take measures to limit the length of time permitted for Divisions; and if he will make a statement. [13709]

  Mr. Newton
  Standing Order No. 37(3) provides that "at least eight minutes" must elapse between the calling of the Divisions and the locking of the doors into the Division Lobbies. I do not believe that this period could be shortened without causing significant inconvenience to Members based in 7 Millbank, and I therefore have no proposals to change the Standing Order.

SCOTLAND

  Ministerial Meetings
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings of the Council of Minsters have been attended as participants by Scottish Office Ministers in each year since 1992; how many of these attendances related to agriculture and fisheries; and what was the total number of meetings held by the Council of Ministers in that period. [14225]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Scottish Office Ministers' attendance

  8

  8

  8

  7

  15

  of which related to agriculture and fisheries

  7

  6

  5

  5

  13

  Total number of meetings held by the Council of Ministers in that period1

  87

  94

  92

  81

  88

  1 The information for 1992 to 1994 is contained in the 40th, 41st and 42nd "Review of the Council Work", in the secretary general's report, which forms the foreword in each of the reviews. The summary of Councils held between 1995 and 1996 is as yet unpublished but is obtainable from the press office of the Council of the European Union.

  Water and Sewerage Charges
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to achieve full equalisation of water and sewerage rate charges across the north of Scotland area. [15206]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The annual charges for water and sewerage services are a matter for the North of Scotland Water Authority, subject to approval from the Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers Council. I understand that

  Remuneration and reimbursement payment to dispensing doctor 1990–91 to 1995–96

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Number of prescriptions (000s)

  1,570

  1,662

  1,731

  1,828

  1,891

  1,882

  £000

  Value of ingredients before discount

  8,579

  9,904

  11,131

  12,383

  13,463

  13,992

  Value of ingredients after discount

  8,221

  9,457

  10,701

  11,872

  12,880

  13,421

  On cost allowances

  892

  1,029

  1,169

  1,300

  1,414

  1,469

  Dispensing fees

  1,386

  1,471

  1,536

  1,613

  1,723

  1,711

  Container allowances

  60

  63

  66

  69

  72

  72

  Reimbursement of value added tax

  1,242

  1,666

  1,884

  2,090

  2,267

  2,361

  Total value of payment

  11,799

  13,686

  15,356

  16,945

  18,355

  19,034

  Source

  Prescription Pricing Division, Common Services Agency.
  30
  progress with harmonisation of charges to domestic customers has been made in 1996–97 and that the authority expects to make further progress over the next few years.

  Psychotic Diseases
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate how many people in Scotland were registered suffers of(a) Alzheimer's disease, (b) schizophrenia and (c) other psychotic diseases in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [14662]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 February 1997]: Information on the number of mentally ill people with a particular diagnosis is not collected centrally. We estimated that there were around 60,000 people in Scotland with a diagnosis of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease, in 1994.

  Doctors' Disbursements
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the payments made(a) to dispensing doctors for prescriptions dispensed and items personally administered and (b) to non-dispensing doctors for items personally administered, by the Prescription Pricing Authority in Scotland, broken down by (i) net ingredient cost, (ii) discounted cost, (iii) VAT, (iv) oxygen etcetera, (v) container allowance, (vi) dispensing fees, and (vii) on cost and in total in each year since 1990–91. [14143]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The payments made to dispensing doctors by way of remuneration and reimbursement in respect of their dispensing activities are set out in the table. The total value of remuneration for the supply of oxygen is less than £1,000 in any year.

  The personal administration scheme does not apply in Scotland and no payments to GPs are authorised by the prescription pricing division of the Common Services Agency other than those mentioned in the table or for the supply of oxygen.
  31
  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the evidence submitted to the Doctors and Dentists Pay Review Body regarding disbursements to doctors in Scotland. [14144]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As the Health Department's evidence to the Doctors and Dentists Pay Review Body was made available to the "Health Service Journal" in October 1996, there are no plans to publish it.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Armoured Vehicles (Indonesia)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the amount and types of plastic bullets and tear gas products which were licensed for export to Indonesia in each year since 1990. [14264]

  Mr. Nelson
  Since 1991—the period from which records are readily available—there have been no exports of tear gas products and only one export—in 1992—of 10,000 rounds of 9 mm inert plastic training cartridge cases to Indonesia.

  I must point out, however, that the computer records cannot always identify individual items on an export licence application if they are part of a larger export.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the answer of 23 January,Official Report, columns 708–709, on the export of armoured vehicles to Indonesia, what was the monetary value of the vehicles and associated equipment covered by the export licence. [14113]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 3 February 1997]: This is a commercial matter between the exporter and the Indonesian Government.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answers of 9 December,Official Report, columns 29–30, and 23 January, columns 708–709, in respect of exports to Indonesia if he will place a list of the associated equipment in the Library; how many categories of equipment as detailed in the export control regulations are included in the export licences; and if he will list the categories in each licence. [14266]

  Mr. Nelson
  No. Such detailed lists are a commercial matter between the company, the Indonesian Government and the licensing authority. However, the licensability of the Alvis applications was determined under ML6 and ML3 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994.

  Licensability for the Procurement Services International application was determined under ML6 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 9 December,Official Report, columns 29–30, if he will place a copy of the export licence in the Library. [14261]

  Mr. Nelson
  No; the licence itself is a matter between the company and the licensing authority.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 23 January,Official Report, columns 708–709, if he will list the
  32
  communications and surveillance equipment installed in the eight Tactica command and communications vehicles. [14265]

  Mr. Nelson
  Detailed lists of this kind are a commercial matter between the company and the Indonesian Government and disclosed only to the licensing authority.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 23 January,Official Report, columns 708–709, if he will list the design and deployment descriptions of each of the armoured vehicles. [14304]

  Mr. Nelson
  The design is a matter for the company. Information on the vehicles that is in the public domain can be found in the "British Defence Equipment Catalogue".

  Deployment will be a matter for the Indonesian Government.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 23 January,Official Report, columns 708–709, relating to the training of Indonesian personnel in the use of water cannon or armoured vehicles, if he will identify the company. [14262]

  Mr. Nelson
  The hon. Member's original question related to the Tactica family. The company concerned is the supplier of the vehicles, Procurement Services International Ltd.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade under which category the marker dye used in the Tactica water cannon is controlled within the United Kingdom strategic export control system; and if the licence granted for the Tactica covers such products when licences have previously been granted for the export of marker dye to Indonesia. [14263]

  Mr. Nelson
  Detailed lists of this kind are a commercial matter between the company and the Indonesian Government and disclosed only to the licensing authority.

  Exports (Indonesia)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what basis his Department seeks assurances in respect of strategic exports to Indonesia; which categories of equipment are covered; and what factors determine which categories(a) require and (b) do not require assurances. [12566]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government have in the past sought and received from the Indonesian authorities general assurances that British-supplied military equipment will not be used against civilians in Indonesia or East Timor.

  Export licence applications are considered on their merits, taking account of all relevant factors on a case-by case-basis. On occasion, we seek assurances from the Government concerned, but this is not on the basis of pre-determined categories of equipment or factors.

  Nanotechnology
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of Board of Trade what plans his Department has to develop a formal programme for nanotechnology research; and if he will make a statement. [14972]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 7 February 1997]: Nanotechnology is an enabling technology which may impact the advancement of a wide range of scientific and engineering disciplines and industrial sectors in the future. It is essential for each of these disciplines and sectors to be able to prioritise its own research into all enabling technologies, including nanotechnology, to best suit its own objectives. This is indicated by the conclusions of the foresight panels, over half of which identified nanotechnology-related topics as research priorities.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the(a) financing and (b) progress of nanotechnology research in (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) Japan, (iii) the USA, (iv) Germany and (v) other countries; and if he will make a statement. [14970]

  Mr. Taylor
  [holding answer 7 February 1997]: Two studies were conducted by the National Physical Laboratory for the DTI in 1986, and lead to the formation of the national initiative on nanotechnology, which stimulated research in the field.

  The current position on nanotechnology research is concisely summarised in section 3 of the Office of Science and Technology's report "Making it in Miniature" of October 1996, which is available to Members in the Library of the House.

  In the UK, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council—the major funding body in this sector—is about to review its portfolio of nanotechnology research, and will identify any actions necessary as a result.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the laboratories researching nanotechnology in the United Kingdom, and if he will make a statement. [14966]

  Mr. Taylor
  [holding answer 7 February 1997]: At least 47 publicly funded institutions have received research grants which are related to nanotechnology.

  Examples of major academic centres for nanotechnology research include:
  Central microstructure facility at Rutherford Appleton laboratory, which is part of the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils;
  Nanoscale physics research laboratories at Birmingham university and at Cranfield university;
  Microelectronics fabrication centres at the universities of Sheffield and of Surrey;
  National surface science laboratory at Sheffield Hallam university;
  Nanoelectronics research centre at university of Glasgow;
  IRC in semiconductor materials at Imperial college of Science, Technology and Medicine;
  IRC in surface science at Liverpool university;
  Self-organising molecular systems research at Leeds university;
  34
  Semiconductors growth research centre at Nottingham university;
  Microelectronics centre at Southampton university.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the possible effects of exclusion of nanotechnology from the United Kingdom foresight project; and if he will make a statement. [14971]

  Mr. Taylor
  [holding answer 7 February 1997]: It is incorrect to say that nanotechnology has been excluded from the United Kingdom foresight programme. Several generic priorities relevant to nanotechnology have been identified under foresight with more than half of the foresight panels identifying subjects which fall under nanotechnology-related topics as research priorities.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) under what circumstances his Department provides grants for laboratories undertaking nanotechnology research; how much his Department has awarded in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement; [14967]

  (2) if he will estimate his Department's budget for nanotechnology research in each of the last five years and the projected figure for the forthcoming year; and if he will make a statement. [14968]

  Mr. Taylor
  [holding answers 7 February 1997]: Grants for nanotechnology research are available through the normal research grant system administered by the research councils; through foresight challenge; and through relevant Link programmes.

  Funding is dependent on scientific quality, as judged by peer review mechanisms.

  The total value of departmental funding for nanotechnology-related research over the last five years is in excess of £135 million. The major component of this is from the EPSRC as shown:

  EPSRC: value of research grants Starting in each year £ million

  1992–93

  12.9

  1993–94

  33.1

  1994–95

  40.8

  1995–96

  19.9

  1996–97

  22.5

  Post Office (Privatisation)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of privatising the Post Office. [14236]

  Mr. Page
  The Government's views on the future structure of the Post Office were set out in our Green Paper "The Future of Postal Services" published in June 1994, and in my predecessor's statement to the House on 11 May 1995,Official Report, columns 885–86.

  Coal Mines (Public Safety)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about his responsibilities for public safety in respect of the opening up of former mine shafts and adits. [14323]

  Mr. Page
  The responsibility for making safe any collapse in an abandoned coal mine shaft or adit is generally a matter for the Coal Authority.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people are employed by his Department to provide advice on the application of equal opportunities; and at what cost in the last year for which figures are available. [14477]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Department's approach to equal opportunities ensures that, as far as is possible, all officials involved in policy formulation and in providing advice to other staff take full account of the DTI's equal opportunities policies. Five members of staff are directly involved in implementing equal opportunities policies and procedures, although they are also engaged in other activities as well. The salary costs attributed to the equal opportunities work of these staff will be £76,855 in 1996–97.

  The above excludes the DTI's executive agencies. The chief executives have delegated responsibility for equal opportunities in their agencies.

  Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to make the United Kingdom's initial declaration to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. [14386]

  Mr. Nelson
  The United Kingdom, in accordance with the requirements of the chemical weapons convention, will submit its initial declaration to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons no later than 30 days after the convention comes into effect on 29 April 1997.

  Rom Data
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade further to paragraph 2 of his statement, "Events Surrounding the Collapse of Rom Data" placed in the Library on 19 February 1996, when he expects

  Company

  Inspectors

  Accountant inspectors costs (including support staff and VAT) £000

  Legal inspectors costs (including support staff and VAT) £000

  Total cost of inspection to date (including disbursements) £000

  Guinness plc

  Mr. D. Donaldson QC Mr. I Watt FCA

  2,397

  634

  3,031

  Wace UK Holdings Ltd. Tinsley Robor plc European Colour plc

  Mr. A. Robertshaw Mr. C. Mayhew J (both departmental officers1)

  —

  —

  14

  Mirror Group Newspapers plc

  Sir R. J. L. Thomas Mr. R. Turner FCA

  6,589

  1,650

  8,239

  36
  to make further information public; and when he expects the Department's disciplinary procedure will be completed. [14391]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 6 February 1997]: The Department has completed its internal inquiries which have confirmed that there were failings in the handling of the case. The appropriate action has been taken in respect of the small number of staff whose work fell below the standard expected and the outcome has been reported to the Comptroller and Auditor General.

  Regulatory Bodies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many individuals and firms have been licensed by each of the regulatory bodies created under the Insolvency Act 1986. [14792]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Only individuals may be authorised to act as insolvency practitioners under the Insolvency Act 1986. The bodies currently recognised by the Secretary of State, together with the numbers of their members they have authorised to act, are as follows:

  Number

  Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales

  834

  Insolvency Practitioners Association

  279

  The Law Society

  183

  Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland

  167

  Chartered Association of Certified Accountants

  123

  Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland

  68

  The Law Society of Scotland

  23

  In addition, the Secretary of State has authorised 133 practitioners.

  Companies (Investigations)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list(a) the cost of each of the investigations being currently carried out under the Companies Acts and (b) the amounts which have been paid to each of the inspectors and the basis on which they have been paid. [14912]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The table covers all current Companies Act inspections where the inspection has been announced. The basis on which payments are made to inspectors was set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), the then Minister of Corporate Affairs, in his answer to the hon. Member on 20 July 1993,Official Report, columns 131–34.
  37

  Company

  Inspectors

  Accountant inspectors costs (including support staff and VAT) £000

  Legal inspectors costs (including support staff and VAT) £000

  Total cost of inspection to date (including disbursements) £000

  Chancery plc

  Mr. R. Chandler ACA Mr. A. Fausset (departmental officer1)

  605

  —

  605

  Queens Moat Houses plc

  Mr. P. Phillips QC Mr. A. Burn FCA

  2,455

  763

  3,218

  1 Excludes departmental staff costs.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is(a) the cost of each of the investigations being currently carried out under the Financial Services Act 1986, (b) the amounts which have been paid to each of the inspectors and (c) the basis on which they have been paid. [14914]

  Mr. Taylor
  Inspections carried out under the Financial Services Act are not announced and are confidential. The table lists the costs—excluding departmental staff costs—of all current Financial Services Act inspections as at the end of January 1997. The basis on which payments are made to inspectors was set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton, the then Minister of Corporate Affairs, in his answer to the hon. Member on 20 July 1993,Official Report, columns 131–34.

  £000

  Accountant inspectors costs (including support staff and VAT)

  Legal inspectors costs (including support staff and VAT)

  Total cost of inspections to date (including disbursements)

  1,550

  330

  1,912

  Auditors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the president of the Board of Trade how many auditors in each year since

  Company

  Inspectors

  Date of publication

  Accountant inspectors costs (including support staff and VAT) £000

  Legal inspectors costs (including support staff and VAT)Total £000

  £000

  Norton Group plc

  R. McCombe QC J. Heywood FCA

  11 March 1993

  824

  155

  997

  Astra Holdings plc

  C. P. F. Rimer QC J. White FCA

  7 June 1993

  1,885

  424

  2,310

  London United Investments plc

  W. M. Gage QC

  23 September 1993

  1,882

  400

  2,283

  C. R. Driver and Co. Ltd (in liquidation)

  A. H. Gilroy FCA

  The Bestwood plc

  G. Moss QC

  20 January 1994

  2,523

  202

  2,726

  Atlanta Fund Managers Ltd

  J. Venning FCA

  Atlantic Computers plc

  E. W. Hamilton QC

  21 July 1994

  4,704

  1,860

  6,565

  Atlantic Computers Systems plc

  J.A. Scott OBE FCA

  Consolidated Gold Fields plc

  R. L. Heslop QC R. P. G. Lewis FCA

  29 September 1994

  3,467

  386

  3,853

  James Ferguson Holdings plc

  L. D. Ziman Solicitor

  6 July 1995

  4,553

  1,882

  6,435

  Barlow Clowes Gilt Managers Ltd

  W. M. Hoffman

  38
  1990 have filed a statement stating that they have resigned, have been removed, or have not sought reappointment. [14785]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information could not be retrieved from Companies House records except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to implement the European Union's fifth directive in respect of placing a requirement on plc auditors to owe a duty of care. [14789]

  Mr. Taylor
  The proposed fifth directive has not been adopted by the European Union.

  DTI Inspectors' Reports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the cost of DTI inspectors' reports which have been published since 1990 and the amounts paid to the accountant and lawyer inspectors(a) in total and (b) in each case. [14812]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), the then Minister of Corporate Affairs, gave on 24 February 1993,Official Report, columns 601–604. The additional information requested by the hon. Member is set out in the table:

  Supervisory Bodies (Money Laundering)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what responsibilities the recognised supervisory bodies have in respect of monitoring compliance by auditors with regulations governing money laundering. [14842]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Auditing is not covered by the money laundering regulations. Therefore, the recognised professional bodies cannot enforce compliance by auditors. However, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has set out what it considers the relevant requirements to be, within its ethical guidance for members in practice. Departure from such guidance would constitute evidence of professional misconduct.

  Further, the Auditing Practices Board is currently preparing a practice note to assist auditors in complying with the relevant requirements, including the application of auditing standards, in relation to money laundering.

  Land Mines
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria he applies in respect of the granting of export licences relating to land mines; and if he will make a statement. [15216]
  40
  Mr. Nelson
  The UK prohibits the export of all types of anti-personnel mines to all destinations.

WALES

  Teachers, Clwyd
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the teachers in the former Clwyd local education authority who retired in each of the last five years were under 60 years of age. [14672]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  School teachers in the former Clwyd LEA retiring before the age of 60 as a percentage of all teachers retiring1

  Percentage

  1991–92

  71.6

  1992–93

  70.6

  1993–94

  60.1

  1994–95

  61.3

  1995–96

  55.1

  1 Includes grant-maintained and independent school staff who are in the Teachers' Superannuation Scheme (TSS). Excludes those returning to non pensionable occasional service for years 1991–92 and 1992–93. Data not available for 1993–94 onwards.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people are employed by his Department to provide advice on the application of equal opportunities; and at what cost in the last year for which figures are available. [14471]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Ministry has a variety of staff involved in providing advice and information on equal opportunities, including trainers, personnel officers and legal advisors. In addition, there are staff with specific responsibility for advice in equal opportunity matters including an equal opportunities unit, and a network of agency, regional and local equal opportunity officers, for whom equal opportunities are only a portion of their responsibilities. The number of staff with such specific responsibility is therefore expressed below as full-time equivalents.

  The number of full-time equivalents in the Ministry and its executive agencies with specific responsibility for equal opportunities policy, advice and implementation including the impact of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, case work and monitoring is 16.8.

  The estimated annual cost of salaries, earnings-related national insurance contributions and superannuation for these individuals for the current financial year is £356,300.

  Nitrates
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 30 January,Official Report, column 355, what assessment he has made of the compliance with the labelling, compositional and packaging requirements of ammonium nitrate currently dispatched from the port of Tilbury. [14363]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Fertilisers Regulations 1991, as amended, are primarily measures to protect the purchaser, and offences relate mainly to selling or having in possession with a view to sale. Enforcement is the responsibility of local authorities. The Ministry has not assessed the level of compliance of ammonium nitrate fertiliser passing through Tilbury.

  Policy Initiatives (Funding)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to which policy initiative he has devoted most funding in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement on progress with each initiative. [14669]

  Mr. Boswell
  Details of funding for the Ministry's various policy programmes can be found in its annual departmental reports to Parliament.

  Animal Movements Computer System
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the Animo—animal movements—computer system to(a) commence operating and (b) be fully operational; and if he will make a statement on its objectives. [14858]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Animo computer system became fully operational in Great Britain in November 1993. Its objective is to provide a means of sending a computerised message from the member state from which animals or animal products are consigned to the member state of destination.

  Rabies
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what methods or eradication will be used to control an outbreak of rabies in the urban community; [14859]

  (2) what controls over pet movements will be introduced in the event of a rabies outbreak in (a) an urban area and (b) a country area; [14860]

  (3) what controls over (a) lorry movements and (b) the movement of people will be introduced in the event of an outbreak of rabies in Great Britain. [14861]

  Mrs. Browning
  This would depend on the nature and location of the outbreak. The powers to deal with an outbreak are contained in the Rabies (Control) Order 1974—SI 1974/2212. The provisions which may be applied is an infected area—or a zone of an infected area—are set out in schedule 3 to the order.

  Genetic Engineering
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect of the digestion process on genes in respect of his consideration of(a) the importation of genetically modified maize and (b) section 16 of the European directive. [14487]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 6 February 1997]: In considering the safety of Ciba-Geigy's maize, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes was satisfied that processing for food and animal feed use, with the action of digestive enzymes, would result in the substantial degradation of the DNA. However, it did not consider that the digestive process alone would be sufficient to avoid a small but finite risk arising from the transfer of an antibiotic gene in the maize to micro-organisms in the gut of animals if the maize was fed in an unprocessed form. This risk was examined by three EC scientific committees but not thought to be significant enough to warrant a ban on genetically modified maize imports into the Community.
  43
  I am not aware of any new data that would justify invoking article 16 of directive 90/220/EEC in respect of this material.

  Newcastle Disease
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, 1996 Fisheries and Food (1) what is the average value of the birds involved in the recent(a) Ross on Wye and (b) Sussex outbreaks of Newcastle disease; [14617]

  (2) what is the total amount of compensation that will be paid by his Department as a result of the recent (a) Ross on Wye and (b) Sussex outbreaks of Newcastle disease; and if he will make a statement. [14616]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 7 February 1997]: This information is not yet available.

  Compensation Payments (Diseased Animals)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total amount paid as compensation for(a) poultry, (b) cattle and (c) other animals as a result of the slaughter of diseased or suspected diseased animals in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [14615]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 7 February 1997]: The total amount paid as compensation for the slaughter of diseased or suspected diseased animals in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Disease

  £

  Poultry

  1992

  Avian Influenza

  6,202

  Salmonella

  897,918

  Total

  904,120

  1993

  Salmonella

  2,130,586

  1994

  Salmonella

  358,910

  1995

  Salmonella

  398,174

  1996

  Newcastle disease

  7,346

  Salmonella

  120,799

  Total

  128,145

  Cattle

  1992

  BSE

  29,211,594

  Brucellosis

  116,512

  Bovine tuberculosis

  683,831

  Total

  30,011,937

  1993

  BSE

  38,054,040

  Brucellosis

  22,657

  Bovine tuberculosis

  2,100,082

  Total

  40,176,779

  1994

  BSE

  25,382,456

  Brucellosis

  48,538

  Bovine tuberculosis

  2,020,773

  Total

  27,451,767

  44

  Disease

  £

  1995

  BSE

  11,057,384

  Brucellosis

  12,750

  Bovine tuberculosis

  1,988,820

  1996

  Total BSE

  13,058,954 6,956,362

  Brucellosis

  13,359

  Bovine tuberculosis

  2,283,512

  Total

  9,253,233

  OTHER ANIMALS

  Deer

  1992

  Bovine tuberculosis

  250

  Droplix
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has evaluated of the effects of Droplix on(a) cats and (b) their owners. [14856]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 7 February 1997]: All data associated with applications for marketing authorisations for veterinary medicinal products, including all relevant research information, are very carefully assessed by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. No veterinary medicine is authorised for use unless it meets stringent statutory criteria of safety, quality and efficacy, and the Government are advised on this by the independent scientific Veterinary Products Committee. Safety includes the health and welfare of the animal and the safety of the user of the product. Details of data submitted in support of particular products are subject to the confidentiality requirements of section 118 of the Medicines Act 1968.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will immediately suspend the licence of the organophosphate-based flea killer Droplix. [14855]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 7 February 1997]: The Veterinary Medicines Directorate has carefully monitored the withdrawal from the market by the marketing authorisation holder of the defective batches number 21–42 of Droplix Cat and 17–27 of Droplix Dog. The VMD continues to monitor the situation very closely and there is no reason to suspend the marketing authorisation.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  "Going GM" Conferences
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many "Going GM" conferences for head teachers and governors have been held to date; and what was the cost to her Department of(a) each conference and (b) the total programme of conferences. [14683]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has held 80 "Going GM" conferences since the programme began in 1992, at a total cost of some £1.1 million. The available information on costs for each conference is given in the table.
  45

  Location

  Number

  Date

  Hotel costs

  Leeds

  1

  16 November 1992

  6,202

  Bolton

  2

  12 December 1992

  6,873

  Sheffield

  3

  15 January 1993

  8,164

  Manchester

  4

  30 January 1993

  7,734

  Newcastle

  5

  10 February 1993

  8,539

  Newcastle

  6

  11 February 1993

  8,539

  Leicester

  7

  15 February 1993

  4,306

  Nottingham

  8

  1 March 1993

  7,751

  Taunton

  9

  8 March 1993

  3,491

  Birmingham

  10

  10 March 1993

  8,512

  Nottingham

  11

  29 March 1993

  7,378

  Daventry

  12

  26 April 1993

  4,150

  Haydock

  13

  30 April 1993

  2,858

  Maidstone

  14

  4 May 1993

  7,894

  St. Albans

  15

  7 May 1993

  9,772

  Heathrow

  16

  13 May 1993

  10,077

  Sandown

  17

  19 May 1993

  8,019

  Watford

  18

  27 May 1993

  6,876

  Bournemouth

  19

  18 June 1993

  6,669

  Cheltenham

  20

  28 June 1993

  6,263

  Exeter

  21

  13 July 1993

  7,638

  Maidstone

  22

  23 September 1993

  4,473

  Bristol

  23

  7 October 1993

  8,908

  Cambridge

  24

  5 November 1993

  9,240

  Cambridge

  25

  2 December 1993

  9,156

  Darlington

  26

  3 February 1994

  5,392

  Manchester

  27

  18 February 1994

  8,236

  Newcastle

  28

  4 March 1994

  6,392

  Huddersfield

  29

  14 March 1994

  7,645

  Harrogate

  30

  27 April 1994

  10,454

  Stratford

  31

  28 June 1994

  7,747

  Hinckley

  32

  5 July 1994

  4,720

  Stoke

  33

  13 July 1994

  3,859

  Warrington

  34

  24 September 1994

  4,723

  Penrith

  35

  27 September 1994

  3,554

  London

  36

  1 November 1994

  6,404

  Newquay

  37

  21 November 1994

  3,522

  Manchester

  38

  5 December 1994

  9,273

  Swindon

  39

  27 January 1995

  5,446

  Gatwick

  40

  23 February 1995

  7,113

  Norwich

  41

  1 March 1995

  3,662

  London

  42

  10 March 1995

  7,327

  Bournemouth

  43

  14 March 1995

  7,044

  Cambridge

  44

  12 May 1995

  3,660

  Bournemouth

  45

  19 May 1995

  6,072

  Bristol

  46

  5 June 1995

  7,951

  Newcastle

  47

  9 June 1995

  4,046

  Scarborough

  48

  22 June 1995

  4,011

  Milton Keynes

  49

  11 July 1995

  6,365

  Leyland

  50

  29 September 1995

  5,401

  Haydock

  51

  2 October 1995

  5,892

  Reading

  52

  9 October 1995

  6,320

  Maidstone

  53

  20 October 1995

  7,779

  Bristol

  54

  30 October 1995

  8,010

  Birmingham

  55

  10 November 1995

  5,767

  Leicester

  56

  13 November 1995

  6,112

  Stoke

  57

  4 December 1995

  8,846

  Barnsley

  58

  15 January 1996

  5,589

  Hinckley

  59

  19 January 1996

  7,194

  Leicester

  60

  25 January 1996

  6,208

  Elstree

  61

  29 January 1996

  5,893

  Croydon

  62

  5 February 1996

  6,424

  Torquay

  63

  29 February 1996

  11,208

  Huddersfield

  64

  13 March 1996

  4,738

  Huddersfield

  65

  14 March 1996

  4,833

  Penrith

  66

  30 April 1996

  4,177

  Swindon

  67

  14 May 1996

  7,448

  Norwich

  68

  23 May 1996

  4,165

  Stourport

  69

  10 June 1996

  4,676

  Milton Keynes

  70

  17 June 1996

  6,551

  Basingstoke

  71

  1 July 1996

  6,760

  Basingstoke

  72

  8 July 1996

  5,155

  Maidstone

  73

  10 October 1996

  5,218

  Gatwick

  74

  11 October 1996

  6,000

  46 47

  Location

  Number

  Date

  Hotel costs

  Warrington

  75

  21 October 1996

  6,103

  Selby

  76

  15 November 1996

  5,000

  Derby

  77

  25 November 1996

  6,729

  Cambridge 1

  78

  3 December 1996

  7,122

  Cambridge 2

  79

  20 January 1997

  4,500

  Plymouth

  80

  28 January 1997

  3,500

  Total

  513,415

  Costs listed are those attributable to specific conferences. In addition, there are two contracts: one for conference organisation and support services which for the 80 conferences has totalled an estimated £526,000, the other for certain categories of mailings which has totalled an estimated £78,000.

  The costs for the two most recent conferences are estimated pending receipt of an invoice.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many representations her Department received from head teachers registering complaints in respect of invitations to attend "Going GM" conferences. [14684]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has identified some 10 complaints from head teachers in respect of invitations to attend "Going GM" conferences in the last two years. During this period, 41 conferences were held and all head teachers in local education authority schools have been invited to at least one. The information in respect of earlier conferences is not readily available.

  "Coalition for Citizenship"
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the report "Coalition for Citizenship". [14688]

  Percentage of day pupils known to be eligible for free school meals and of 15-year-old pupils achieving five or more GCSE grade A* to C

  England 1995–96

  Percentage of day pupils known to be eligible for free school meals1

  Local education authority area

  County/controlled schools

  Voluntary aided schools

  Grant maintained schools 2

  Percentage of 15-year-olds achieving five or more GCSEs grades A* to C3

  Corporation of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Camden

  43.0

  34.8

  15.2

  43.0

  Greenwich

  43.0

  32.8

  —

  29.1

  Hackney

  63.8

  52.6

  —

  25.7

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  54.3

  30.9

  —

  35.3

  Islington

  56.3

  44.2

  —

  22.4

  Kensington and Chelsea

  55.5

  36.5

  22.5

  46.7

  Lambeth

  53.8

  41.5

  42.0

  25.1

  Lewisham

  43.7

  34.3

  —

  30.0

  Southwark

  55.8

  41.5

  45.6

  24.6

  Tower Hamlets

  69.6

  55.0

  —

  23.9

  Wandsworth

  39.9

  30.0

  33.9

  32.8

  Westminster

  49.9

  39.2

  —

  33.0

  Barking

  27.8

  21.9

  —

  27.1

  Barnet

  23.0

  17.4

  11.8

  53.4

  Bexley

  17.2

  12.8

  10.3

  46.8

  Brent

  31.5

  30.8

  28.2

  35.1

  Bromley

  20.5

  17.9

  12.4

  50.3

  Croydon

  29.9

  14.4

  17.4

  38.8

  Ealing

  30.1

  16.6

  27.4

  346

  Enfield

  26.2

  12.0

  18.3

  41.0

  Haringey

  47.4

  29.5

  —

  28.5

  Harrow

  14.5

  6.6

  —

  53.5

  Havering

  16.6

  6.7

  6.5

  44.1

  Hillingdon

  17.4

  41

  140

  40.9

  Hounslow

  28.3

  17.9

  —

  42.3

  Kingston upon Thames

  10.6

  6.6

  10.0

  59.9

  48
  Mrs. Gillan
  The recently formed "Coalition for Citizenship" is a group of organisations concerned with education for citizenship. I am not aware that it has produced a report. Its constituent organisations provide information, advice and support to schools in relation to citizenship and personal and social education.

  GCSE Scores
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list (i) by local education authority in England the percentage of pupils in(a) maintained schools, (b) voluntary-aided and (c) grant-maintained schools entitled to free school meals and (ii) the average proportion of pupils in all schools excluding the independent sector in each authority, gaining five or more GCSEs at grades A to C. [14903]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  49

  Percentage of day pupils known to be eligible for free school meals and of 15-year-old pupils achieving five or more GCSE grade A* to C

  England 1995–96

  Percentage of day pupils known to be eligible for free school meals1

  Local education authority area

  County/controlled schools

  Voluntary aided schools

  Grant maintained schools 2

  Percentage of 15-year-olds achieving five or more GCSEs grades A* to C3

  Merton

  25.7

  15.0

  —

  38.3

  Newham

  43.1

  29.5

  —

  27.9

  Redbridge

  21.2

  8.8

  —

  50.8

  Richmond upon Thames

  16.1

  15.8

  —

  52.2

  Sutton

  17.7

  8.9

  4.5

  56.4

  Waltham Forest

  38.2

  20.5

  16.1

  33.4

  Birmingham

  41.7

  32.6

  21.1

  32.9

  Coventry

  25.3

  23.4

  —

  38.0

  Dudley

  19.1

  25.2

  14.4

  44.9

  Sandwell

  29.1

  21.3

  —

  26.5

  Solihull

  15.3

  14.8

  —

  49.6

  Walsall

  30.7

  19.4

  10.2

  32.2

  Wolverhampton

  28.2

  22.5

  23.5

  30.2

  Knowsley

  53.3

  47.6

  —

  23.6

  Liverpool

  47.0

  41.6

  21.7

  27.6

  St. Helens

  30.2

  26.0

  —

  40.9

  Sefton

  23.7

  26.7

  —

  44.0

  Wirral

  31.9

  31.9

  6.4

  44.4

  Bolton

  23.8

  17.6

  11.3

  41.9

  Bury

  18.5

  14.5

  —

  48.5

  Manchester

  50.8

  42.2

  —

  27.0

  Oldham

  30.5

  19.4

  —

  33.3

  Rochdale

  36.0

  23.4

  22.6

  35.4

  Salford

  36.8

  29.9

  —

  30.1

  Stockport

  18.9

  15.4

  —

  49.0

  Tameside

  27.7

  18.1

  11.1

  35.4

  Trafford

  22.2

  17.7

  50

  48.6

  Wigan

  22.8

  17.4

  —

  43.9

  Barnsley

  26.9

  18.5

  —

  28.2

  Doncaster

  28.7

  17.4

  —

  33.5

  Rotherham

  24.0

  20.7

  —

  36.2

  Sheffield

  29.0

  28.0

  16.3

  37.2

  Bradford

  32.7

  20.3

  18.9

  28.9

  Calderdale

  26.5

  18.4

  10.7

  39.7

  Kirklees

  24.2

  16.7

  —

  38.4

  Leeds

  23.6

  19.7

  —

  36.6

  Wakefield

  21.5

  14.4

  —

  35.3

  Gateshead

  28.4

  25.8

  —

  36.6

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  37.7

  29.6

  —

  32.7

  North Tyneside

  23.5

  22.5

  —

  41.1

  South Tyneside

  37.2

  30.8

  —

  35.2

  Sunderland

  29.9

  17.1

  —

  31.7

  Isles of Scilly

  7.6

  —

  —

  73.1

  Bath and North-east Somerset

  14.8

  13.9

  —

  47.4

  City of Bristol

  28.9

  22.3

  —

  30.9

  North Somerset

  13.6

  10.0

  —

  52.5

  South Gloucestershire

  12.9

  10.2

  —

  44.7

  Hartlepool

  34.7

  21.7

  —

  31.9

  Middlesbrough

  39.6

  29.5

  —

  26.9

  Redcar and Cleveland

  29.7

  25.6

  —

  37.6

  Stockton on Tees

  27.8

  19.2

  —

  37.2

  City of Kingston upon Hull

  33.3

  20.9

  —

  22.8

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  11.3

  7.6

  6.1

  43.6

  North-east Lincolnshire

  24.8

  22.6

  —

  32.4

  North Lincolnshire

  19.1

  14.1

  —

  32.4

  North Yorkshire

  10.3

  5.5

  —

  53.0

  York

  14.9

  12.9

  —

  47.7

  Bedfordshire

  20.8

  16.7

  13.2

  42.7

  Berkshire

  12.8

  9.1

  10.6

  48.8

  Buckinghamshire

  10.4

  3.6

  10.0

  50.5

  Cambridgeshire

  16.2

  17.1

  13.2

  46.7

  Cheshire

  16.0

  16.5

  11.8

  49.3

  Cornwall

  20.4

  16.5

  —

  46.7

  Cumbria

  18.4

  16.3

  8.9

  44.2

  Derbyshire

  19.2

  14.2

  11.1

  42.0

  Devon

  18.4

  15.5

  10.2

  44.2

  50 51

  Percentage of day pupils known to be eligible for free school meals and of 15-year-old pupils achieving five or more GCSE grade A* to C

  England 1995–96

  Percentage of day pupils known to be eligible for free school meals1

  Local education authority area

  County/controlled schools

  Voluntary aided schools

  Grant maintained schools

  Percentage of 15-year-olds achieving five or more GCSEs grades A* to C

  Dorset

  11.5

  6.5

  8.8

  49.3

  Durham

  23.3

  16.3

  —

  36.2

  East Sussex

  21.1

  19.5

  —

  43.3

  Essex

  19.5

  11.5

  12.7

  43.1

  Gloucestershire

  16.2

  9.0

  9.2

  50.2

  Hampshire

  15.1

  11.4

  9.9

  46.5

  Hereford and Worcester

  11.3

  7.0

  6.7

  44.6

  Hertfordshire

  14.1

  8.9

  9.6

  49.3

  Isle of Wight

  21.7

  19.9

  —

  44.5

  Kent

  19.0

  16.9

  13.8

  43.7

  Lancashire

  26.4

  17.8

  8.1

  42.6

  Leicestershire

  16.6

  9.6

  12.5

  39.7

  Lincolnshire

  10.2

  5.5

  10.0

  44.5

  Norfolk

  15.6

  13.5

  13.6

  41.9

  Northamptonshire

  13.2

  14.9

  14.1

  43.5

  Northumberland

  17.4

  11.6

  —

  46.1

  Nottinghamshire

  25.3

  15.5

  29.4

  36.4

  Oxfordshire

  11.2

  11.0

  —

  45.7

  Shropshire

  16.3

  14.8

  14.5

  48.0

  Somerset

  12.2

  9.9

  11.6

  50.0

  Staffordshire

  18.0

  14.2

  13.7

  40.9

  Suffolk

  15.5

  10.9

  —

  47.0

  Surrey

  11.6

  8.0

  7.4

  50.5

  Warwickshire

  12.2

  10.6

  9.4

  43.7

  West Sussex

  12.8

  10.1

  —

  50.7

  Wiltshire

  13.9

  12.0

  9.6

  48.3

  England

  22.6

  20.0

  13.5

  44.5

  1 Position on the annual schools' census date in January.

  2 Schools operating as GM on the annual schools' census date in January.

  3 Including maintained schools and city technology colleges. Columns have been left blank where they would have contained two schools or fewer, in line with normal pupil confidentiality.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the percentage of 16-year-olds passing five or more GCSEs at grade C or higher in Derbyshire in each year since 1992. [15162]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The percentage of 15-year-old1 pupils in maintained schools passing five or more GCSEs at grade C or higher in Derbyshire in each year since 1992 is:

  Percentage

  1992

  36.1

  1993

  37.8

  1994

  40.9

  1995

  39.8

  1996

  42.0

  1 Age at beginning of the academic year.

  Skills Research
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research her Department has undertaken to identify the skills required by industry in the past two years. [14694]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department commissions an annual survey of employers which asks about changing skill requirements and recruitment difficulties. In 1995 and 1996, it was published by Public Attitude Surveys Ltd. as the "Skill Needs In Britain" survey. The Department is also funding in-depth studies into changing skill 52
  requirements within specific occupations. There are in the process of being published by the Institute for Employment Studies under the banner "Skills Review".

  Jobseeker's Allowance (Sanctions)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she will publish the first analysis of adjudication officers' decisions relating to benefit sanctions against people not meeting the terms and conditions of the jobseeker's agreement and jobseeker's direction; if the published information will provide a breakdown of the specific reasons for benefit sanctions; and what the practice will be for the continuing release of such information. [15134]

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

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 10 February 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the publication of the analysis of adjudication officers' decisions on questions arising on claims for Jobseeker's Allowance. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Information about decisions on questions arising on claims for unemployment benefit is contained in a document entitled "Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions". This document, which is

  53
  published quarterly, provides information on all the main entitlement questions arising on claims, as well as those which might be regarded as sanctions.
  The publication for the quarter ending 31 December 1996 will also include decision given on questions arising on claim for Jobseeker's Allowance. All the main questions will be shown separately, including those relating to the Jobseeker's Agreement and Jobseeker's Directions. I expect to publish this analysis by the end of March 1997.
  The analysis will continue to be published quarterly and copies will be placed in the Library of the House.
  I hope this clarifies the situation.

  Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers in Kirklees retired before the age of 60 years, other than for reasons for health or disability in each of the past six years. [14621]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Teachers from the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special sector in Kirklees, who took premature retirement on the grounds other than ill health or disability from 1990–91 to 1995–96, are shown in the table:

  Financial year

  Number of premature retirements1

  1990–91

  101

  1991–92

  101

  1992–93

  74

  1993–94

  76

  1994–95

  78

  1995–96 (provisional)

  90

  1 Excludes those last recorded in sixth form colleges.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent in each year from 1990 to 1996 on the teachers' early retirement scheme in respect of retirements on grounds of ill health; and what was the number of(a) male and (b) female teachers covered in each year, broken down in respect of (i) class teachers and (ii) head teachers in (1) England and (2) Wales. [15157]

  Mrs. Gillan
  This question requires calculations which could not be carried out in the time available. I will reply as soon as possible.

  School Buildings (Kirklees)
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total amount of Kirklees metropolitan council's education budget, within the standard spending assessment formula, available for the repair and maintenance of school buildings in each of the past 10 financial years. [14620]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The amount made available for the repair and maintenance of school buildings from within Kirklees local education authority's total budget in each of the past 10 years was a matter for the LEA to determine in the light of its own priorities. No component of the SSA allocation is designated for repairs and maintenance, or any other specific aspect of education.

  Quick Corporation
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the industrial tribunal ruling against the Quick Corporation on 21 January; and if she will amend the employment regulations in the light of it. [14395]

  Mrs. Gillan
  It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the ruling of an independent industrial tribunal in any particular case. I see no reason to consider amendment of the Race Relations Act 1976 as a result of the ruling.

  Surplus Places
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 4 February,Official Report, column 556, concerning comments by education authorities on changes in the capacity of schools and places occupied in them, what steps she is taking to ensure that these comments on capacity are made on a basis comparable to that adopted in 1994. [14982]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The annual collection of data on surplus places is governed by the Education (Information as to Provision of Education) (England) Regulations 1994—SI 1994 No. 1256. Local education authorities and the Funding Agency for Schools are required to make a return which includes information on the more open enrolment capacity of each school correct at the third Thursday in January of that year. LEAs and the FAS also provide a commentary which gives them an opportunity to record any possible changes to the capacity of schools, whether as a result of places being filled as pupil numbers rise, or removed, or new places built.

  General Schools Budget
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list, in descending order, the proportion of the general schools budget not delegated to schools for each shire county education authority in the most recent year for which figures are available. [15161]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table gives the information requested and is derived from the local management of schools budget statements for 1996–97 produced by local education authority under section 122 of the Education Act 1996, formerly section 42 of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Local education authority

  Percentage of general schools budget not delegated

  Warwickshire

  33.4

  Cambridgeshire

  32.4

  Buckinghamshire

  31.4

  Cornwall

  30.2

  Oxfordshire

  29.5

  Derbyshire

  29.3

  Shropshire

  28.8

  Surrey

  28.0

  55

  Local education authority

  Percentage of general schools budget not delegated

  Norfolk

  28.0

  Dorset

  27.0

  Lancashire

  26.9

  Gloucestershire

  26.7

  Wiltshire

  26.5

  Bedfordshire

  26.4

  Cumbria

  26.1

  Nottinghamshire

  26.1

  Durham

  25.9

  East Sussex

  25.8

  Kent

  25.6

  Northamptonshire

  25.1

  Hereford/Worcester

  25.0

  Lincolnshire

  24.9

  Northumberland

  24.7

  Essex

  24.5

  Devon

  24.4

  Leicestershire

  23.8

  Isle of Wight

  23.6

  Berkshire

  23.2

  Hampshire

  23.1

  Cheshire

  23.0

  West Sussex

  22.6

  Straffordshire

  22.5

  Somerset

  22.1

  Hertfordshire

  20.9

  North Yorkshire

  20.8

  Suffolk

  20.6

  Part-time Study Rules
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will place in the Library the evaluation report commissioned by her Department into the effectiveness of the part-time study rules for claimants in force before the introduction of jobseeker's allowance. [15103]

  Mr. Forth
  There will be two reports. One will be based on a survey of unemployed claimants; the other will be a qualitative report. Both will be placed in the Library.

  Computer Crime
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on how many occasions in each of the last five years computer systems have been illegally accessed by computer hackers in her Department. [14540]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 6 February 1997]: The available relevant figures are shown in the table:

  Year

  Number of illegal accesses

  1993–94

  6

  1994–95

  37

  1995–96

  19

  1996–97 (to date)

  30

  56
  Mr. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many cases of computer hacking, fraud and theft, including theft of computer chips, her Department has recorded in the last five years. [14541]

  Mr. Squire
  [holding answer 6 February 1997]: The available relevant figures are shown in the tables:

  (a) Table 1: Computer hacking

  Year

  Number of illegal accesses

  1993–94

  6

  1994–95

  37

  1995–96

  19

  1996–97 (to date)

  30

  (b) Table 2: Computer fraud and theft

  Year

  Fraud

  Theft

  Number

  £000

  Number

  £000

  1991–92

  18

  246

  n/a

  n/a

  1992–93

  13

  51

  n/a

  n/a

  1993–94

  11

  88

  105

  343

  1994–95

  8

  78

  89

  321

  1995–96

  2

  200

  221

  1,475

  1996–97 (to date)

  2

  n/k

  84

  316

  n/k = not known.

  n/a = not available.

  Modern Languages Examinations
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many candidates took(a) A-level French, (b) A-level German, (c) A-level Spanish, (d) A-level Portuguese, (e) GCSE French, (f) GCSE German, (g) GCSE Spanish and (h) GCSE Portuguese in (i) 1995 and (ii) 1996. [14853]

  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 7 February 1997]: The numbers of candidates in England in 1995 who took A-level and GCSE in the specified languages are as follows. The information for 1996 is not yet available.

  Number of candidates

  (a) A-level French

  24,648

  (b) A-level German

  9,915

  (c) A-Level Spanish

  4,262

  (d) A-level Portuguese

  121

  (e) GCSE French

  326,824

  (f) GCSE German

  125,417

  (g) GCSE Spanish

  38,503

  (h) GCSE Portuguese

  337

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Zaire
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited Zaire. [15212]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not visited Zaire during his time as Foreign Secretary.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid the United Kingdom currently gives Zaire; and if he will make a statement. [15205]

  Dr. Fox
  Britain's bilateral assistance programme to Zaire along with those of major donors including the European Commission, were suspended in 1992 following concerns about economic and human rights issues. Donors have, however, continued to provide humanitarian assistance to Zaire.

  In November, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development announced a commitment of £10 million following the large-scale refugee movements in the Kivu region. This commitment included an allocation of £4 million to support UN and non-governmental organisation relief in eastern Zaire and countries neighbouring Rwanda. The European Commission provided 3.7 mecu to Zaire in 1996—the United Kingdom share of this is £0.48 million.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  UN Embargoes
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to apply future United Nations embargoes to the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands, at the same time as they are applied to the United Kingdom. [14957]

  Mr. David Davis
  The Government's policy is to apply future United Nations embargoes to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, at the same time as they are applied to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Nations embargoes are currently in force. [14959]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  There are four United Nations arms embargoes in force against Somalia, Liberia, Angola and Rwanda. In addition, the full economic sanctions regime against Iraq and the partial regime against Libya also include arms embargoes.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the dates on which orders came into effect for implementing United Nations embargoes in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the Isle of Man since 1979. [14958]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, in another place, on 30 January,Official Report, House of Lords, columns 108-109, in which she listed the dates of the implementation of United Nations arms embargoes in the United Kingdom. The
  58
  embargoes on Libya, Iraq, and Angola came into force in the Isle of Man on the same date as in the United Kingdom. The arms embargoes in Liberia, Rwanda and Somalia—but not former Yugoslavia, on which the embargo has been lifted—came into force in the Isle of Man on 21 December 1996. The only other embargoes imposed by the United Nations since 1979 were on Haiti, the former Yugoslavia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The embargo on Haiti and the FRY came into force in the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man on 20 July 1993 and the 5 June 1992 respectively. The arms embargo on the former Yugoslavia came into force in the UK on 22 July 1993.

  Former Prisoners of War (Japan)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support Her Majesty's Government plan to provide to the action taken by the Association of British Civilian Internees against the Japanese Government; and what measures he has taken to ensure that the 1951 peace treaty does not obstruct the case. [14782]

  Mr. Hanley
  Successive British Governments have accepted that the question of compensation was settled legally by the 1951 San Francisco peace treaty. Although we cannot become involved in legal proceedings, our embassy has provided practical assistance to former prisoners of war and civilian internees when they visited Japan, and we have repeatedly drawn the attention of Japanese Ministers to the claims of the former prisoners.

  Conventional Forces in Europe
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement outlining the proposals tabled by NATO in Vienna on the modernisation of the conventional armed forces in Europe. [14777]

  Mr. David Davis
  NATO is committed to adapting the conventional forces in Europe treaty to the changing European security environment. Our aim is to improve the security of all parties to the treaty by agreeing lower overall equipment limits; enhanced provisions for information exchange and verification; and measures to prevent destabilising concentration of forces in any region. NATO is drawing up a set of proposals to meet these objectives, which it hopes shortly to table in Vienna.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of the limits set out in the conventional armed forces in Europe treaty, with particular reference to the impact of changes in the former Soviet Union. [14776]

  Mr. Davis
  When the Warsaw pact was dissolved, its limits for weapons holdings under the CFE treaty were divided between its former members under the Oslo agreement of 1992. The former Soviet Union's limits were later divided between the relevant successor states under the Tashkent agreement of 1992. During negotiations to adapt the CFE treaty, we and our NATO allies are committed to completing the process of updating the bloc-to-bloc structure of the treaty.

  China
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will(a) call on the Government of China to cease their action against unregistered Christian churches and (b) have this issue specifically raised at the forthcoming session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission. [14813]

  Mr. Hanley
  Restrictions on religious activity in China and persecution of those who practise outside the official church framework are causes for great concern. We and our EU partners continue to urge the Chinese authorities to regard freedom of worship as fulfilling a basic human need, not as a threat. In the light of this and other concerns, we and our EU partners are giving careful consideration to our position at the 1997 United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will call on the Government of China to release Bishop Zeng Jingmu from prison in Jiangxi province and to ensure he receives adequate medical treatment. [14816]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 27 November 1996,Official Report, column 292.

  Turkey
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government plan to take to encourage the Government of Turkey to release Melek Akyol and Soner Onder. [14787]

  Mr. David Davis
  Our officials in Ankara raised Mr. Onder's case with the Turkish authorities before his trial, and reminded them of the widespread concern about his sentence. We last raised the case of Melek Akyol in September 1996. We will continue to monitor both cases.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what account Her Majesty's Government will take of the Turkish Government's treatment of its Christian minorities, with special reference to Syriacs and Armenians, in assessing its policy on Turkey's admission into the European Union. [14788]

  Mr. Davis
  The broad criteria for membership of the European Union were set out in the Copenhagen conclusions of 1993. They include the"stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities".

  All countries wishing to join the EU, including Turkey, will need to meet these criteria.

  Arms Supplies (Rwanda)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 18 December,Official Report, columns 636–37, by what means the United Nations special commission on arms supplies to Rwanda conveyed its opinion on the co-operation received from the United Kingdom Government to his Department. [14962]
  60
  Mr. David Davis
  The chairman of the commission of inquiry into arms flows to Rwanda wrote to the United Kingdom permanent representative to the United Nations on 17 December to convey his appreciation for the co-operation extended to the commission by HM Customs and Excise and the Ministry of Defence. A copy of this letter has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial contribution Her Majesty's Government have made towards the running costs of the United Nations special commission on arms supplies to Rwanda. [14960]

  Mr. Davis
  The United Nations commission of inquiry into arms flows to Rwanda has been allocated $1,578,200 from the UN regular budget since its inception in 1995. The United Kingdom contributes 5.32 per cent, to the regular budget and has therefore contributed approximately £84,000.

  Falkland Islands (Oil Revenues)
  Sir Michael Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter from the Falkland Island councillors addressed to the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), and dated 8 December 1994, concerning oil revenues. [14894]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Copies of this letter have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Iran
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to express concern about the death of the Rev. Mohammed Bagher Yusefi in Iran in 1996 at this year's session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission; and what further action Her Majesty's Government will be taking to communicate concern to the Iranian Government about the deaths of Iranian Church leaders in the last three years. [14904]

  Mr. Hanley
  We were deeply concerned by the death of Mr. Yusefi and have recently raised his case with the Iranians. We take a very serious view of human rights abuses in Iran. We are still, with EU partners, preparing our position for this year's session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. We will continue to press for tough resolutions and statements on Iran through EU and UN machinery until clear evidence of improved Iranian behaviour emerges.

  Consul (Krakow)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to appoint a consul located in the city of Krakow. [14309]

  Mr. Hanley
  The appointment of an honorary consul in Krakow was approved in principle but the candidate was unable to take up the post. It is now our intention to make an appointment by the end of 1997.

TRANSPORT

  Light Rapid Transit Systems
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the criteria he applies in assessing financial support for light rapid transit systems. [13352]

  Mr. Watts
  To qualify for funding through section 56 grant, a light rail scheme must be shown to be able to operate at a profit, and the benefits of the system to non-users must be greater than the funding gap.

  Crime (London Underground)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to tackle crime and its causes on the London Underground. [13360]

  Mr. Bowis
  Recorded crime on the underground has fallen in six of the last seven years as a result of measures taken by London Transport, The british transport police, local authorities and the Government. I have established and chair a secure stations national steering group which will be promoting safety measures for passengers and staff at rail and underground stations.

  Road Improvements (Thames Gateway)
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his current priorities are for road improvements in the Thames gateway area. [13361]

  Mr. Bowis
  The "Transport Strategy for London" and the "Thames Gateway Planning Framework" outline road improvements for the Thames gateway area. Major priorities are improvements to the A13, trunk roads in north-west Kent and the proposed package of east Thames crossings.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many former British Rail train operating companies are now in private hands. [13362]

  Mr. Watts
  Eighteen franchises are now being operated by private sector franchisees.

  European Transport Network
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet his European Union counterparts to discuss support for regional transport systems feeding into the European network. [13363]

  Sir George Young
  I have no plans to do so, but my noble Friend the Viscount Goschen, who is the designated Minister for European transport matters, plans to attend the European Transport Council meeting to be held on 11 and 12 March.

  Dartford-Thurrock Toll Crossing
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions his Department has held in respect of future charges on the Dartford-Thurrock toll crossing. [13364]

  Mr. Watts
  None.

  Dorchester Relief Road
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the limit of Government support for roads funded by private finance initiatives sponsored by local councils; and what account he will take of this limit in determining whether to support a bid to build the Dorchester relief road under the private finance initiative. [13365]

  Mr. Watts
  The regulations for local authority PFI enable authorities to build any self-financing schemes which meet specified risk transfer tests. For schemes where local authorities will be purchasers of design, build, finance and operate services, assistance with future payments can be given through a notional credit approval. The Treasury has agreed to initial resources of £200 million for notional credit approvals to English local authority PFI schemes in 1997–98.

  This includes £35 million for transport projects in 1997–98. I stress that this is an initial and provisional figure. Provisional quotas may be redistributed if local authorities have more success in some project areas than others in generating acceptable PFI projects.

  A number of highway authorities, including Dorset county council, have expressed their interest in developing DBFO schemes. If satisfactory business cases are proposed, the Department of Transport will seek Treasury agreement to the notional credit approvals which may be required.

  Public Transport
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of journeys are made by public transport in(a) Britain and (b) the rest of the European Union. [13366]

  Sir George Young
  The information available for the rest of the EU suggests that travel by car accounted for 84 per cent, of passenger kilometres in 1994, compared to 16 per cent, for bus and rail travel. Equivalent figures for Great Britain are 89 per cent, and 11 per cent, respectively.

  Railway Infrastructure (Investment)
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to encourage investment in the railway infrastructure. [13367]

  Mr. Watts
  Privatisation of Railtrack, the rail infrastructure provider, has freed rail investment from the constraints of public sector funding. Investment can now be planned and made in response to commercial need. Railtrack has every incentive to invest in the rail network because of the contractual matrix set up between it and the rail operators—including a challenging performance regime.
  63
  Railtrack is due to publish its network management statement shortly which will contain detailed plans of how Railtrack intends to spend money. Progress will be monitored closely by the Rail Regulator.

  Trackside Litter
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made in establishing who is responsible for clearing litter from the sides of railway track; and if he will make a statement on the current extent of trackside litter. [13368]

  Mr. Watts
  Where station leases have been granted by Railtrack, train operating companies are responsible for litter collection on these stations and for a distance of 110 yds from the ends of the platforms. Railtrack is responsible for cleaning the tracks and embankments— beyond stations—and for the major stations it operates. My Department and the Department of the Environment intend to make orders which will make it clear who has the statutory responsibility for litter clearance. The current extent of trackside litter is a matter for train operators and Railtrack.

  Road Maintenance
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he has received from the Highways Agency in respect of the backlog in road maintenance. [13369]

  Mr. Watts
  The trunk road network is in a good condition, as confirmed by the latest national road maintenance condition survey. Only 3.9 per cent, of motorways and 7.3 per cent, of all-purpose trunk roads have less than zero residual life. The target agreed in 1991 was for the proportion of trunk roads with less than zero residual life to be between 7 and 8 per cent.

  Car Use
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate of the growth in(a) the number of cars and (b) the number of passenger car miles travelled by 2010. [13370]

  Sir George Young
  Based on the national road traffic forecasts published in 1989, and with no changes in policy, my Department estimates the number of cars in Great Britain will increase from about 22 million in 1997 by between 19 and 27 per cent, by 2010 and that the number of passenger car miles travelled will increase by between 21 and 32 per cent, by 2010.

  Traffic Congestion (Costs)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the costs to British businesses of traffic congestion. [13372]

  Sir George Young
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) on 25 November 1996,Official Report, column 13.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Services
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the time scale for introducing through rail services from the channel runnel to Yorkshire and the north-east of England. [13373]

  Mr. Watts
  I understand from Eurostar (UK) Ltd. that it intends to begin its international service along the east coast main line in early July.

  Lorry Weights
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many responses he has had to the consultation on lorry weight proposals. [13371]

  Mr. Watts
  To date, my Department has received 62 formal responses to the consultation document on lorry weights.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations and from whom he has received to date in his consultations on the introduction of 44-tonne lorries; and if he will list whether they are for or against their introduction. [13553]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 31 January 1997]: To date, there have been 26 formal responses to the consultation document. Those in favour of 44 tonnes came from: Forest Enterprise, Co-operative Union Ltd., West Sussex county council, Cumbria county council, Tees Valley joint strategy unit, Kent county council, Warwickshire county council, Commercial Motor Magazine, Food and Drink Federation, T. Brady and Son Ltd., Magnox Electric pic, CAIB UK Ltd., Transport Resources International and Westward Commercial Vehicles Ltd., as well as two members of the public.

  Those against came from the hon. Members for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva), South Norfolk council, Liverpool John Moores university, GMB, the Chiltern Society, the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, Great Yarmouth borough council and one member of the public.

  The Institute of Trading Standards Administration has made a formal response but expressed no opinion.

  In addition, several right hon. and hon. Members have recently written about correspondence from their constituents on the subject.

  The consultation period closes on 14 February.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many spot checks were undertaken by the Vehicle Inspectorate on the noise levels emitted by heavy goods vehicles during the last year for which figures are available. [15349]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Vehicle Inspectorate does not carry out such checks.

  Data Collection (Postcodes)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what use his Department and its agencies make
  65
  of postcode areas for the collection of data and in formulas for the distribution of grants and awards; and when such usages were last reviewed. [14796]

  Mr. Bowis
  My Department collects postcode information as part of a number of statistical surveys, and in the case of the national travel survey uses postcode areas as an aid to sampling. My Department makes no grants or awards on the basis of postcode area.

  Motor Cycles (Provisional Licence Ban)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures his Department took to advertise the provisional licence ban for motor cycle riders which commenced on 1 January. [14911]

  Mr. Bowis
  On 1 January we advised all the registered keepers of learner-size motor cycles and mopeds, the group of existing riders who were most likely to be affected, of the new compulsory basic training rules. It is not possible to identify how many of those had already undertaken training or who held full entitlement to ride, and were therefore unaffected personally. Informing all registered keepers served to pass the message to learners who might use those machines.

  Mr. Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the number of motor cycle riders affected by the provisional licence ban which commenced on 1 January. [14917]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on 21 January 1997,Official Report, columns 561–62.

  Rail Routeing Guides
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 4 February,Official Report,

  New motor vehicles 1992–96 Great Britain (in thousands)

  Year

  Private and light goods

  Motor cycles scooters and mopeds

  Other vehicles

  All vehicles

  Of which body type cars

  Percentage company cars

  1992

  1694.4

  65.6

  141.8

  1901.8

  1599.1

  52

  1993

  1853.4

  58.4

  162.2

  2074

  1776.5

  51

  1994

  1991.7

  64.6

  192.7

  2249

  1906.4

  52

  1995

  2024

  68.9

  213.6

  2306.5

  1938.1

  53

  1996

  2093.3

  89.6

  227.2

  2410.1

  2018.3

  52

  Source:

  DVLA

  New motor vehicles in Northern Ireland (in thousands)

  Year

  All vehicles

  1992

  40

  1993

  44

  1994

  49

  1995

  50

  1996

  n/a

  Note:

  n/a = not available.

  Source.

  DVLNI.

  Marine Safety Agency
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the proposed increase in the Marine Safety Agency survey fees; what factors underlie the scale 66
  column 569 on rail routeing guides, if he will ensure that a copy of (a) the current routeing guide and (b) the revised guide is placed in the Library. [14783]

  Mr. Watts
  The introductory version of the routeing guide is being reviewed and amended on a regular basis during the introductory period. However, I will ask the Association of Train Operating Companies to ensure that a copy of the current and finalised routeing guide is placed in the Library.

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what account his Department has taken of the presence of otters at Rack marsh on the River Lambourn in determining the route of the Newbury bypass; and if he will make a statement. [15131]

  Mr. Watts
  The Highways Agency was aware that otters were expected to migrate back to this area and worked with the Environment Agency over measurers to encourage their return with some success. In support of this work, and in line with our commitment to protect wildlife, the Highways Agency will be incorporating otter crossings through the bypass embankment at various suitable locations. The Highways Agency will continue to liaise with the Environment Agency on this matter.

  Motor Vehicles
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many new private motor vehicles have been licensed in the United Kingdom in the last five years. [15180]

  Mr. Bowis
  Figures given in the table show new registrations in Great Britain and Northern Ireland for private vehicles over the period 1992–1996. No breakdown is available for the Northern Ireland figures.

  of increase; with whom he has consulted on the matter; and what arrangements he has made in respect of disseminating information relating to the increase. [14697]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 7 February 1997]: I have asked the chief executive of the Marine Safety Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Elliot Morley, dated 10 February 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about the changes to Marine Safety Agency's survey fees. The survey fee rate was increased from £45 to £60 per hour on 1 February 1997. The overriding reason for agreeing this increase is that the fees generated by the merchant and fishing vessel survey service have not been covering the full operating cost, and this situation has to be corrected.

  67
  Before making the increase 55 organisations were consulted and 14 replied with comments. The change was promulgated by way of a Press Notice on 7 January 1997. A copy of the Press Notice is enclosed.

  Marine Safety Agency fees change
  On 1 February 1997, the Marine Safety Agency (MSA) will be changing some of its fees. The main change is that the hourly rate charged by the MSA will increase from £45 to £60. The following changes to fees charged by the MSA will also come into force on that date.
  Maximum fees for tonnage measurement performed by the authorised measuring authorities will no longer be set by the MSA. The fees will be set by the measuring authorities.
  Current fees for Safe Manning Certificate will be replaced with a revised range of fees reflecting more accurately the work involve.
  Charges will be introduced for follow-up inspections of UK registered ships detained abroad.
  All work performed on or after 1 February will be charged at the new rate.
  The overriding reason for the increases is that the merchant and fishing vessel survey service has been making a large annual loss, which has to be borne by the taxpayer.
  The fee increases will bring the service back into line with normal Government policy that users pay the cost of the service provided.
  The new fees will be listed in a Statutory Instrument, the Merchant Shipping (Fees) Regulations 1997, covering all of MSA's statutory fees. This will be available from branches of the Stationery Office.

  Notes of editors

  Marine survey fee hourly rate
  Government policy requires that the fees for services provided by Government should be set at a level to recover the full cost of those services, to ensure that no subsidy is provided or supplementary taxation levied. A recent review of the fees set by the Marine Safety Agency revealed that only the marginal costs of the services were being recovered with the result that the taxpayer was subsidising the services. In order to rectify the situation we needed to increase the hourly survey fee rate from £45 to 60 to bring income in line with costs. The new rate will not recover any of the past losses. Whilst the increase is significant we believe that it is still competitive against rates charged by the Classification Societies, particularly as it is inclusive of UK travelling expenses.
  The Marine Safety Agency (MSA) went out to consultation with the shipping industry on 9 September about proposed changes to the MSA fees. Six weeks were allowed for consultation and responses were received from 15 organisations. Concern was expressed by the industry, particularly the fishing industry, about the scale of the increases. However, Ministers have noted that the taxpayer is subsidising the service in excess of £1 million per annum and this is the overriding reason for agreeing the increase.

  Fees for detention of UK ships: follow up actions
  It has been proposed that MSA should carry out follow-up inspections of UK registered ships detained abroad. The Chamber of Shipping had been consulted and commented favourably on the proposal. The intention is that these ships will be inspected on return to the UK wherever possible, but inspection may need to be undertaken overseas if the ship does not return to the UK within a reasonable period following the detention. These inspections will be charged for at the new rate of £60 per hour.

  Tonnage measurement
  It has been agreed that the fees for tonnage measurement by delegated measuring authorities be deleted from the Fees Regulations and left for the authorities to set individually as happens on all other delegated work apart from radio survey. Any residual work done by the Marine Safety Agency will be charged at £60 per hour. This change was proposed under the deregulation initiative on the basis that reasonable competition exists between the delegated authorities.

  68
  Safe manning certificates
  The charges for Safe Manning Certificates are presently at fixed rates even where similar work has been undertaken on a sister ship or only an amended certificate is required. The new fees moved to a fairer basis of charging as follows:

  £

  a) Certificate for a passenger ship

  540

  b) Certificates for other vessels: 350kw and over under 350kw

  300 180

  c) Technical amendments e.g. involving manning changes

  180

  d) Certificates for sister ships were manning requirements are identical to those for which a Safe Manning Certificate has previously been issued.

  60

  For further information please contact:

  Miss Sarah Lay

  Bay 2–23

  Marine Safety Agency

  Spring Place

  105 Commercial Road

  Southampton

  S015 1EG

  Tel: 01703 329257

  Fax: 01703 329289

  All Press Enquiries please contact:

  Miss Annette Bowman

  Bay 3–30

  Marine Safety Agency

  Spring Place

  Commercial Road

  Southampton

  SO15 1EG

  Tel: 01703 329403

  Tel: 01703 329122.

  MV Derbyshire
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if media representatives have been invited to be present on phase II of the expedition to the motor vessel Derbyshire; and if he will make a statement. [15158]

  Mr. Bowis
  Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is discussing with the Discovery Channel the possibility of making a scientific and technical programme about the Derbyshire expedition.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the names and expertise of the assessors taking part in phase II of the expedition to the MV Derbyshire; and if he will make a statement. [15159]

  Mr. Bowis
  The assessors taking part in phase 2 of the return expedition to the wreck of the MV Derbyshire are Robin Williams, an independent consulting naval architect, who will act as chief scientist; Professor Douglas Faulkner; John Elder, professor and former head of the department of naval architecture and ocean engineering at Glasgow university; and Dr. Remo Torchio, a naval architect who is a consultant to RINA, the Italian classification society.

  Rail Tickets
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many complaints have been received by the Office of the Rail Regulator regarding the lack of impartial advice on ticket sales. [14493]

  Mr. Watts
  Since 1 April 1996, the Rail Regulator has received two specific complaints about the lack of impartial advice on ticket sales.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff will be involved in the proposed survey of rail ticket outlets by the Rail Regulator following his report into impartial ticket sales. [14495]

  Mr. Watts
  The Rail Regulator has employed a professional market research organisation to carry out the survey of rail ticket outlets. The number of staff involved in the survey is a matter for it.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research was undertaken in the form of anonymous purchase of rail tickets by Rail Regulator staff prior to the publication of the recent report into impartial ticket sales. [14494]

  Mr. Watts
  The Rail Regulator employed consultants to test the capabilities of station ticket offices in 1995, when all train operating companies were owned and controlled by the British Railways Board.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many railway stations will be included in the proposed survey of rail ticket outlets by the Rail Regulator following his report into impartial ticket sales. [14496]

  Mr. Watts
  Some 613 stations are included in the Rail Regulator's survey of rail ticket outlets.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the Rail Regulator will give advance warning to train operating companies before undertaking the survey of rail ticket outlets. [14400]

  Mr. Watts
  The Rail Regulator has given advance warning of his intention to carry out surveys of rail ticket outlets. No prior warning is being given about the details of the surveys.

  Channel Tunnel Fire
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the investigations into the channel tunnel fire to be completed. [14492]

  Mr. Watts
  The channel tunnel fire has raised a number of complex issues. A judicial inquiry into the cause of the fire is being carried out by the French authorities; I have no information on its timetable. Eurotunnel is carrying out its own investigation, the timetable for which is a matter for the company. The inquiry by the independent Channel Tunnel Safety Authority is proceeding as quickly as possible, but until it has progressed further and has been given access to evidence currently held for the French judicial inquiry, the authority is not able to forecast when its inquiry will be completed.
  70
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the distance between the freight train involved in the recent fire in the channel tunnel and the passenger service immediately behind was at the time that the freight train stopped in the tunnel. [14429]

  Mr. Watts
  Three investigations, including a judicial inquiry, are under way into the channel tunnel fire. Until all the facts have been established, it could be prejudicial to release partial information.

  Overloaded Aircraft
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, columns 487–88, how many aircraft have been found to be overloaded in each of the last two years. [14427]

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

  Road Fatalities
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what percentage of fatalities on United Kingdom roads were due to drink-driving offences in the last year for which figures are available; [14920]

  (2) what percentage of fatalities on United Kingdom roads were due simply to errors of judgment committed by sober drivers in the last year for which figures are available; [14921]

  (3) how many driving-related fatalities occurred in the last year for which figures are available. [14874]

  Mr. Bowis
  Latest provisional estimates indicate that, in 1995, there were 580 fatalities in drink drive accidents accounting for 16 per cent, of all fatalities on public roads in Great Britain. On these same roads, there is no evidence available to assess the effect of driver error on fatalities in road accidents. However, research indicates that errors of judgment by road users, whether sober or not, is a contributory factor in about 95 per cent, of road accidents. In 1995, there were 3,590 fatalities in road accidents involving motorised vehicles.

  Aviation Standards (Thailand)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the International Civil Aviation Organisation to complete its assessment of Thailand's ability to meet international aviation standards; and what advice he has given to UK passengers regarding the safety of airlines registered in Thailand. [14426]

  Mr. Bowis
  The International Civil Aviation Organisation safety assessment of Thailand is complete and a report is awaited. We continue to issue permits for Thai-registered aircraft to operate services to the UK. Where we have concerns about the safety standards of an airline, we pursue this through aircraft ramp checks and direct consultation with the national aviation authority concerned. If these investigations show that there is a failure to meet international minimum safety standards, we will take action to refuse, vary, suspend or revoke as appropriate these operating permits. To date, my
  71
  Department has not asked for a ramp check to be conducted on any Thai-registered aircraft operating to the UK.

  Air Operating Licences
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if applications have been made by(a) Air Operations Europe and (b) Air Operations International for an air operating licence. [14428]

  Mr. Bowis
  No.

  Vehicles (Pollution)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to decrease pollution caused by road vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [13710]

  Mr. Bowis
  More stringent emission standards have been introduced for new and existing vehicles, the most recent of which further reduced permitted emissions from passenger cars from 1 January 1997. As a result of these measures, pollution from road vehicles is forecast to decline until well into the next decade. Further improvements, which are currently being discussed with our EC partners with a view to implementation from 2000, are aimed at sustaining this decline against the forecast growth in traffic.

  Fiscal measures are also encouraging the use of cleaner fuels. Lower tax rates are being applied to unleaded petrol and road fuel gases. It is also proposed to reduce the duty level on ultra low sulphur diesel from May 1997. The Government are currently consulting on the introduction of an incentive of up to £500 for lorries meeting stringent emission standards.

  Rail Link (London)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will announce the conclusions of his Department's examination in 1996 of the proposal for a link line to be created to combine the underground and BR line services of the Bakerloo line north of Harrow and Wealdstone station with the British Rail Euston to Watford facility. [13843]

  Mr. Bowis
  The promotion of new rail projects in London is the responsibility of the transport operators—London Transport, Railtrack and the train operating companies.

  I understand that London Transport has, from time to time, reviewed the proposal to reintroduce Bakerloo line services between Harrow and Wealdstone and Watford junction, most recently in the light of both the proposed Croxley rail link project and the recent franchising of North London Railways, but that its initial indications are that there remains insufficient demand to justify the additional costs involved. London Transport will, however, continue to work closely with the new franchisee to investigate ways of developing the route.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Claims Statistics
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for state welfare benefits and pensions falling under the responsibility of his Department and its executive agencies were being(a) paid and (b) processed at 31 July 1996. [11296]

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

  Benefit and pensions in payment and awaiting processing at 31 July 1996

  Benefit pension

  Claims in payment

  Claims outstanding awaiting processing

  Attendance Allowance

  1,280,932

  33,127

  Child Benefit

  16,968,700

  12,888

  Child's Special Allowance

  255

  Not applicable

  Council Tax Benefit3

  5,661,000

  160,000

  Disability Living Allowance

  1,764,895

  65,853

  Disability Working Allowance

  9,848

  1,176

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit

  4237,208

  30,157

  Family Credit

  678,648

  45,314

  Guardians Allowance

  52,147

  57

  Housing Benefit1

  4,779,000

  170,000

  Incapacity Benefit

  1,945,480

  26,773

  Income Support

  63,988,964

  72,490

  Industrial Death Benefit

  720,035

  Not available

  Invalid Care Allowance

  344,041

  4,521

  Maternity Allowance

  19,688

  3,008

  One Parent Benefit

  1993,500

  3,761

  Retirement Pension

  89,722,000

  40,544

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  359,929

  23,981

  Unemployment Benefit

  9398,000

  Not available

  War Disablement Pensions

  10267,167

  39,614

  War Widows Pension

  59,578

  1,224

  Widows Benefit

  8290,740

  2,720

  1 As at 31 December 1995. Based on 1 per cent sample.

  2 As at 31 December 1995. This allowance was withdrawn in 1987.

  3 Figures relating to claims in payment are taken from the Quarterly 100 per cent. count taken on the last day of May 1996 (rounded to the nearest thousand). Figures relating to claims outstanding awaiting processing are taken from the Annual Administrative Return 1994–95 and relate to number of claims outstanding as at 28 February 1995 (rounded to the nearest ten thousand). Figures for Council Tax Benefit include second adult rebate cases.

  4 As at 1 April 1995 Figures are collected for the number of assessments, a recipient may have more than one assessment.

  5 As at 6 January 1996.

  6As at 31 May 1996.

  7 As at 31 December 1995 and is an estimated figure.

  8 As at 31 March 1996. Based on a 5 per cent scan of the Retirement Pension Computer System.

  9 As at 9 May 1996. Based on a 5 per cent. sample.

  10 Includes request for review.

  1. For the benefits and pensions being processed at 31 July data have been provided for the claims outstanding.

  2. The Department publishes statistical information annually. Not all statistics are collected monthly.

  3. Data on the number of Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit recipients are collected quarterly at the end of February, May, August and November. Similarly Unemployment Benefit statistics were collected quarterly.

  4. Figures for Retirement Pension and Widows Benefit recipients are collected twice a year at the end of March and the end of September. Figures for Industrial Disablement Benefits, are collected annually at the end of March. Child Benefit, One Parent Benefit, Guardians Allowance and Child's Special Allowance are collected annually at the end of December.

  5. Data are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much is being spent in the current financial year on the publicity campaign to tackle benefit frauds, broken down by parliamentary constituency. [13819]

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

  The publicity cost of the "Spotlight on Benefit Cheats" campaign this financial year has been £2.5 million. The

  Social fund—capital disregards

  Capital disregard

  Date introduced

  Uprated by prices1

  Uprated by earnings2

  Maternity/funeral payments

  £500

  April 1987

  £760.50

  £918.40

  Budgeting loans and community care grants

  £500

  April 1988

  £736.85

  £851.90

  Budgeting loans, community care grants and maternity-funeral payments for applicants aged 60 and over

  £1000

  April 1990

  £1,338.05

  £1,426.30

  1 The Retail Prices Index (all items) less rent, local taxes and mortgage interest payments, and the Average Earnings Index (Whole economy unadjusted) as published by the Office of National Statistics, have been used in this table. All calculations are rounded to the nearest 5p at each uprating date.

  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the value of the widow's payment in 1997–98 if it had been uprated by(a) prices and (b) earnings since its introduction. [14279]

  Mr. Heald
  The widow's payment of £1,000 was introduced in April 1988. From April 1997, the payment would be £1,504.15 if it had been uprated in line with prices and £1,703.95 if it had been uprated by average earnings.

  Source:

  Retail Prices Index (all items) and the Average Earnings Index (Whole Economy), as published by the Office of National Statistics.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of(a) single pensioners, (b) pensioner couples and (c) all pensioner units were dependent on state benefits for at least 75 per cent, of their income in the latest year for which figures are available. [14269]

  Mr. Heald
  In 1994–95, the latest date of which figures are available, 60 per cent, of single pensioners were dependent on state benefits for at least 75 per cent, of their gross income; the figure for pensioner couples was 37 per cent. For all pensioner units, the average across single pensioners and pensioner couples, 51 per cent, received at least 75 per cent, of their gross income from state benefits.

  Source:

  The Pensioners' Incomes Series 1994–95.

  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the value of the £10 Christmas bonus in 1997–98 if it had been uprated by(a) prices and (b) earnings since its introduction; and if he will estimate how much it would cost to increase it to these levels. [14282]
  74
  publicity cost of the national benefit fraud hotline has been £476,000 so far, with a further £500,000 expected before the end of this financial year.

  Benefit Upratings
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the value of(a) £500 and (b) £1,000 capital limits for social fund payments in 1997–98 if they had been uprated by (i) prices and (ii) earnings since their introduction. [14280]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table:

  Mr. Heald
  The £10 Christmas bonus would be £68.35 in December 1997 if it had been uprated in line with prices since its introduction in 1972. It is estimated that the additional cost would be around £800 million.

  If the increase had been in line with average earnings, the bonus would be £115.45. The additional cost would be around £1.4 billion.

  Source:

  Retail Prices Index (all terms) and the Average Earnings Index (Whole Economy), as published by the Office of National Statistics.

  Benefits Agency Medical Services
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the contractorisation of the Benefits Agency medical services now includes(a) disablement questions assessed by adjudicating medical authorities, (b) the assessment of war pensions, (c) medical boards, (d) medical appeal tribunals, (e) adjudication of disability living allowance claims and (f) adjudication of incapacity benefit claims. [14396]

  Mr. Burt
  The contractorisation of the work of the Benefits Agency medical services includes disablement questions assessed by adjudicating medical authorities and medical boards. It does not include the assessment of war pensions or medical appeal tribunals. The adjudication of disability living allowance claims and incapacity benefit is undertaken by lay staff, who are advised by Benefits Agency medical services but are not bound by their advice.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if(a) employees and (b) fee-paid doctors working for the private contractors who will be running the Benefits Agency medical services will be eligible to sit as (i) members of disability appeal tribunals, (ii) members of medical appeal tribunals and (iii) medical assessors on social security appeal tribunals for all work test appeals. [14397]
  75
  Mr. Roger Evans
  Appointments to appeal tribunals are a matter for the president of the independent tribunal service, His Honour Judge Keith Bassingthwaighte, and I have communicated the contents of the question to him.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements he has made to ensure confidentiality of information during site visits by private sector companies in connection with their interest in running the Benefits Agency medical services. [14398]

  Mr. Burt
  The project team taking forward the contractorisation of Benefits Agency medical services will facilitate and chaperone all site visits by shortlisted private sector companies, and will ensure confidentiality is maintained.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 11 November 1996,Official Report, column 89, when he expects to discuss targets and performance indicators with private sector companies contracting for the Benefits Agency medical services. [14399]

  Mr. Burt
  During the negotiation phase of the procurement, which runs from 20 November 1996 to 1 May 1997, targets and performance indicators will be amongst a wide range of issues discussed with the shortlisted private sector companies.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has had with the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board on the implications of the contractorisation of the Benefits Agency medical services. [14401]

  Mr. Burt
  One of the statutory functions of the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board is to advise on matters referred to it by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Although there is no legal requirement to consult the board, its views have been sought on this issue by way of presentations made by the project team taking forward the contractorisation and by discussion with the Department's chief medical adviser, and have helped to inform the development of proposals.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects contracts for the Benefits Agency medical services to be(a) awarded and (b) implemented. [14402]

  Mr. Burt
  The timetable for the contractorisation of Benefits Agency medical services has recently been extended and it is now anticipated that the contract or contracts will be let by June 1997.

  Following award of the contract or contracts, there will be a period of transition during which contractors must demonstrate their capability to deliver the service before a formal hand-over can take place.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance on the assessment of disability benefits he intends to circulate to the contractors who will be running the Benefits Agency medical services. [14403]

  Mr. Burt
  The shortlisted private sector companies have been supplied with detailed guidance on medical issues. The successful contractor or contractors will have a mandatory requirement to adhere to the guidance and to consult the Department before altering existing guides or introducing new guides.

  DSS Charge Programme
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which DSS offices in Scotland have been designated(a) core, (b) flexible and (c) surplus under the DSS change programme. [14827]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  The proposed transfer of responsibility for the DSS estate aims to improve value for money, increase ability to match accommodation to changing operational needs and bring in private sector expertise in managing estates, leaving the Department to concentrate on its core business.

  The Department has reviewed its future estates needs and, for the purpose of the procurement, categorised its accommodation in three ways: core means an expected continued need for accommodation over the full 20-year duration of the proposed contract; flexible means that the agency will be able, but not committed to, vacate such property over a period of years should that reflect operational needs, which does not mean a formal decision to leave the accommodation at any particular time; and surplus means it is not required from the start of the contract. The agency is currently paying for a considerable amount of unoccupied space.

  Any proposed office closures continue to be subject to the normal consultation process, including ministerial approval.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals would be affected if the employee limit on national insurance contributions were removed; and what is his estimate of the total extra amount that they would have to pay. [14868]

  Mr. Heald
  It is estimated that in any one week in 1996–97 an average of 3.2 million employees have earnings above the national insurance upper earnings limit.

  If the limit was removed, it is estimated that the employees affected would pay an extra £3.3 billion in contributions in a full year1.

  Notes:

  1Assumes that the current 10 per cent, contribution rate would apply to earnings above the Upper Earnings Limit.

  Back-to-work Bonus
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants have established a back-to-work bonus; how many of these qualified for a cash payment; and what is the average level of(a) bonuses and (b) cash payments broken down to show (i) jobseeker's allowance claimants and (ii) income support claimants. [15102]
  77
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table:

  Back to work bonus statistics1

  Jobseeker's allowance2 claimants

  Income support claimants

  All claimants

  Claimants with an accrued bonus at the end of January 19973

  58,000

  61,000

  119,000

  Bonus payments made from October 1996 to January 19974

  2,000

  1,000

  3,000

  Estimated average bonus payment5

  £88.44

  £78.81

  £85.34

  Notes:

  1 Provisional data based on claims held on the Income Support Computer System (ISCS) and Jobseeker's Allowance Payment System (JSAPS). No clerically processed claims included. Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2 Claims recorded on JSAPS and claims flagged as unemployed on ISCS.

  3Live claims on ISCS and JSAPS with a bonus accrual plus claims which have ended with a bonus accrual but no bonus payment has been made (claimants who return to benefit within 12 weeks and have not claimed a bonus retain the amount accrued during the previous claim).

  4Claims authorised for payment recorded on JSAPS and ISCS.

  5Based on total amount authorised for payment recorded on ISCS and JSAPS.

  Information on amounts of bonus accrued by claimants still on benefit will be available from the Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance Quarterly Statistical Enquiries. Figures for November 1996 are expected to be published in the summer.

  Source:

  Back to Work Bonus management information statistics.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications have been made for extended payments of housing benefit and council tax benefit; and how many of these have been successful in each standard region broken down to show(a) the numbers of registered unemployed, (b) those in receipt of a training allowance, (c) lone parents, (d) carers and (e) the duration of benefit claim. [15104]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the formal requested.

  However, information on the number of applications for extended payments of housing and council tax benefits and the number successful are being processed and will be published in the "Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Summary Statistics—Update Number 2" in March. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Information broken down by client group will become available in late 1998.

  Disability Benefit
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what have been the annual savings to his Department in constant prices of ending the link between disability benefit and average earnings. [1417]
  78
  Mr. Burt
  [pursuant to his reply, 11 November 1996, c. 90]: The link between invalidity benefit and earnings was broken in 1980 to ensure that long-term provision of benefit based on incapacity should be sustainable.

  The additional costs which would have been incurred had invalidity benefit been increased by the higher of average earnings or prices are set out in the table:

  Year

  Additional cost 1996–97 price £ million

  1980–81

  5

  1981–82

  35

  1982–83

  55

  1983–84

  65

  1984–85

  145

  1985–86

  175

  1986–87

  300

  1987–88

  450

  1988–89

  595

  1989–90

  730

  1990–91

  855

  1991–92

  985

  1992–93

  1,235

  1993–94

  1,420

  1994–95

  1,520

  1. Estimates cover Invalidity Pension and adult dependency increases only.

  2. Estimates rounded to nearest £5 million.

  3. Estimates converted to 1996–97 prices using the GDP deflator.

  4. Offsetting costs estimated using Family Expenditure Survey data.

  Invalidity Payments
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 11 November,Official Report, column 90, what have been the annual savings to his Department in constant prices of ending the link between average earnings and (a) invalidity allowance, (b) attendance allowance, (c) non-contributory invalidity pensions and its successor benefit and (d) invalidity care allowance. [7049]

  Mr. Burt
  [pursuant to his reply, 4 December 1996, c. 714–15]: The information is set out in the table:

  Net savings derived from uprating in line with growth in prices only from 1980 as compared to uprating in line with the higher of the growth in prices or average earnings

  £ million

  Year

  Invalidity Allowance (IVA)

  Attendance Attendance(AA)

  NCIP/Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA)

  Invalid Care Allowance(ICA)

  1980–81

  1—

  20

  1—

  1—

  1981–82

  5

  25

  5

  1—

  1982–83

  5

  55

  5

  1—

  1983–84

  5

  90

  5

  1—

  1984–85

  15

  110

  10

  1—

  1985–86

  15

  150

  10

  1—

  1986–87

  20

  220

  20

  15

  1987–88

  30

  305

  25

  30

  1988–89

  35

  360

  30

  30

  1989–90

  45

  420

  40

  30

  1990–91

  50

  465

  50

  35

  1991–92

  55

  615

  60

  50

  79

  Net savings derived from uprating in line with growth in prices only from 1980 as compared to uprating in line with the higher of the growth in prices or average earnings

  £ million

  Year

  Invalidity Allowance (IVA)

  Attendance Allowance (AA)

  NClP/Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA)

  Invalid Care Allowance (ICA)

  1992–93

  65

  840

  75

  60

  1993–94

  75

  1,010

  85

  75

  1994–95

  80

  1,185

  95

  95

  1 Denotes negligible savings.

  1. Estimates are rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  2. Estimates converted to 1996–97 prices using GDP deflator.

  3. Estimates for Invalidity Allowance exclude savings from individuals not currently entitled to it since it is entirely offset against additional pension, but who might become entitled if the earnings uprating was restored.

  4. Estimates take account of offsetting costs in the income related benefits.

  5. It is estimated that Attendance Allowance is Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance (Care) highest and middle rate. The lowest rate of Disability Living Allowance (Care) has been excluded from the calculation as it was introduced in 1992 and was therefore, never linked.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish for each local authority in England the total sums allocated for social housing investment in 1997–98 under(a) the Housing Corporation's approved development plan, (b) local authority basic credit approvals, (c) local authority specific capital grants, (d) estate action and (e) other programmes. [13788]

  Mr. Curry
  I have arranged for a table giving the data requested on authorities' approved development programme, housing investment programme and estate action allocations for 1997–98 to be placed in the Library. The table also includes provisional 1997–98 allocations for capital challenge for investment in authorities own stock, housing action trusts and the 1997–98 allocations from round 1 of the estates renewal challenge fund. Allocations for 1997–98 from the second round of the estates renewal challenge fund and under the cash incentives scheme have not yet been finalised.

  Some of the resources allocated through the single regeneration budget challenge fund and city challenge will be used for investment in social housing but this element is not separately identified in the allocations made.

  Planning Applications (Teesside)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the planning applications made to Teesside development corporation which have been opposed by(a) Stockton borough council and (b) Cleveland county council and the number of jobs expected to be created by each project listed. [14600]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Of the planning applications considered by the Teesside development corporation, since it was established in 1987, 14 were opposed by either Cleveland county council or Stockton borough 80
  council. Of these, 12 were approved by the corporation and have led to the creation of an estimated 3,480 jobs, with a further 500 expected to be provided in due course. Two applications were not approved.

  These applications, and the estimated numbers of jobs created by each project are as follows.

  OPPOSED BY STOCKTON BOROUGH COUNCIL:

  Approved

  Teesside Retail Park1—1,735 jobs

  H. J. Banks Waste Disposal, Port Clarence—8 jobs

  Comcast, Preston Farm—1,000 jobs

  Croft and Blackburn—67 jobs

  Soccer Sensations, Preston Farm—3 jobs

  Stevenson Mazda Dealership, Preston Farm—20 jobs

  Preston Farm Business Park—167 jobs

  Teesside Retail Park, Phase II—100 jobs forecast Rowing Course, Teesdale—no jobs forecast

  Not approved

  Wimpey Homes1 Preston Farm

  Fenland Village1 Cowpen Bewley

  OPPOSED BY CLEVELAND COUNTY COUNCIL

  Approved

  ASDA and non-food retail, Hartlepool Marina—370 jobs

  Jacksons Landing Retail Outlet—110 jobs

  ASDA, Middlesbrough Dock—400 jobs forecast

  1Also objected to by Cleveland County Council

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the rock characterisation facilities at(a) Dounreay and (b) Sellafield. [13711]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A public inquiry has been held into the appeal by UK Nirex against Cumbria county council's refusal of planning permission for a rock characterisation facility at Longland's farm, near Sellafield. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce his decision as soon as practicable. Neither I nor my right hon. Friend is aware of any planning proposals for a rock characterisation at Dounreay.

  Blight
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport regarding the implementation of the findings of the interdepartmental working group on blight; and what proposals he has to implement its findings in respect of payment of compensation. [14570]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  When the interdepartmental working group on blight submits its final report, I shall consider any recommendations it makes with other Ministers concerned, including the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Compulsory Purchase
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what plans he has to simplify the existing legislation regarding compulsory acquisition and compensation; [14574]
  81
  (2) what plans his Department has to review the compulsory purchase compensation procedure. [14571]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department is responsible for two major reviews which impact upon compulsory purchase and compensation. Firstly, we commissioned the City university to conduct research into the operation of the compulsory purchase procedures. Its final report was presented to the Department this week. Secondly, the interdepartmental working group on blight is currently looking at a range of issues which, while focused on generalised blight arising during the various stages of major infrastructure project development, also include how the current compensation code may affect popular perceptions surrounding proposals for new works.

  I will look carefully at both reports and consider any case which may be made for changes to existing law and practice.

  Climate Change Convention
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress made at the Geneva conference reviewing the climate change convention. [14865]

  Mr. Gummer
  In Geneva, I urged others to follow the UK lead in meeting current commitments; strongly supported the view that the findings of the intergovernmental panel on climate change constituted a clear scientific basis for urgent further action at the widest possible level; and reiterated my call for developed countries to agree, at the third conference in Japan in December, to aim to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to between 5 and 10 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010.

  My address to the conference, together with a copy of the conference ministerial declaration, which addressed most of the same key issues, is available in the Library of the House.

  Oil Discharges (North Sea)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of changes in the figures for oil discharges into the North sea prepared by the Oslo-Paris commissions. [14867]

  Mr. Gummer
  These figures are not yet available. The draft reports on oil discharges into the North sea are still being considered by the Oslo and Paris commissions.

  Voluntary Purchase Grant
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of Sate for the Environment how many tenants have received a voluntary purchase grant. [15166]

  Mr. Curry
  Purchase grants are paid by the Housing Corporation to registered social landlords to meet the cost of discounts to help tenants buy their homes. Grants are paid to the landlord after a tenant has completed the purchase. By the end of January eight grants had been paid. The process of purchase and grant payment typically takes some months, and other tenants intending to buy will not yet have reached the stage where grant is paid.

  Tenants' Rights
  Mr. Austin Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) on how many occasions the Housing Corporation has intervened to ensure that a housing association complied with the tenant's guarantee; and if he will list the associations concerned and the year in which the Housing Corporation intervened; [15168]

  (2) how many tenants have exercised the tenant's guarantee in each year since it was introduced. [15167]

  Mr. Curry
  The tenant's guarantee contains statutory guidance on the management of accommodation by registered social landlords—RSLs. It includes the statutory rights that their tenants, leaseholders and residents should enjoy. Landlords are required to comply with the tenant's guarantee as part of the Housing Corporation's overall performance standards for housing management. Failures attributable to non-compliance with the tenant's guarantee are not separately identified. The corporation may intervene if landlords do not comply with the overall standards. The corporation's annual regulation report 1995–96, a copy of which will be placed in the Library, provides information about the number of RSLs that failed to meet the overall standards and the various measures taken by the corporation.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many tenants exercised their rights under the rent-to-mortgage scheme in each year since its introduction. [15165]

  Mr. Curry
  Latest information on rent-to-mortgage activity in England since the introduction of the scheme in October 1993 is given in the table.

  Claims

  Acceptances

  Sales

  October 1993—March 1994

  152

  19

  —

  1994–95

  738

  89

  12

  1995–96

  408

  41

  8

  April—September 1996

  176

  15

  3

  The figures to March 1994 and for all sales are of reported activity only as no estimates were made for non-responding authorities in either grouping; the figures cover around 90 per cent. of authorities.

  Chorley Borough Council (Tenders)
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will require Chorley borough council to invite new tenders for its landscaping and ground maintenance work; and if he will make a statement. [15217]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  On 10 July 1996 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State served a notice upon Chorley borough council, setting out his view that the authority had acted anti-competitively during a competition for grounds maintenance work. My right hon. Friend has given careful consideration to the authority's response to the notice.

  It is my right hon. Friend's view that, in its method of calculating prospective redundancy costs if the contract were awarded to an external contractor, Chorley borough council acted in contravention of the regulations and statutory guidance.
  83
  My right hon. Friend also considers that the authority has contravened the guidance by not informing contractors that the costs associated with the termination of leases would be taken into account in the tender evaluation. He has, therefore, today given the authority a direction which requires it to re-tender grounds maintenance work by 10 November 1997. The council must seek his consent if, at the end of the re-tendering process, it plans to assign the work to its direct services organisation.

  Landscape Protection
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what guidance he has given local planning authorities to protect(a) the quality and (b) the character of the local landscape in their area; [15185]

  (2) what plans he has to exclude local landscape designations from reviews of local authority development plans to take account of recommendations relating to countryside character recently put forward by countryside agencies. [15187]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  "Planning Policy Guidance Note 7" on the countryside and the rural economy refers to statutory and local designations. We are now preparing a revised version of PPG7, taking account of comments 84
  received during consultation on a revised draft last year, including comments on the character of the countryside and local landscape designations.

  Housing Corporation Loan Portfolios
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made on the sale of the Housing Corporation's loan portfolios to the private sector. [15235]

  Mr. Curry
  I announced on 31 October 1996,Official Report, columns 192–93, the Government's decision in principle to sell the loans provided to housing associations by the Housing Corporation and Housing for Wales, subject to satisfactory final bids from the private sector for the portfolios.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are happy to announce today that following further negotiations we have chosen NatWest Markets as the preferred bidder for both the English and the Welsh portfolios.

  NatWest is one of the leading private lenders to housing associations, with a strong track record in this area. Once we have completed the final negotiations on the sale, I expect a successful transfer of these loans into the private sector, and a positive on-going relationship between housing associations and their new lender.

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

The Lord Bishop of Leicester
Thomas Frederick, Lord Bishop of Leicester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Exeter and the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.
Lord Rowallan—Lord Rowallan— Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Sudan: Human Rights
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in relation to the Government of Sudan's failure to comply with United Nations resolutions concerning human rights.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we remain gravely concerned at Sudan's human rights record and failure to comply with successive United Nations resolutions on human rights. We shall continue to press for an improvement both in our bilateral contacts with the Government of Sudan and in international fora.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer which will provide some encouragement to those who are concerned about violations of human rights. Is my noble friend aware that I have just returned from southern Sudan—the eastern Upper Nile—where I was able to observe at first hand the devastating effects of the aerial bombardment and scorched earth
2
policy carried out by the Government of Sudan against innocent civilians? At least 50,000 people have been displaced; many are dying from starvation. Can my noble friend indicate what measure the Government may be able to take in response to this further escalation of human rights violations by the regime in Khartoum?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are most grateful to my noble friend Lady Cox for her sterling work in trying to bring peace to this very troubled land. Yesterday evening I spoke to the leader of the SPLA in Nairobi to see what might be done to bring about some kind of ceasefire. But, as my noble friend knows well, it takes two sides to bring about a ceasefire. We want a negotiated end to the civil war. We regularly express our concern to the Sudanese Government, as my Permanent Secretary did only two weeks ago. We will keep on trying. We will meet all the leaders of Sudanese society as they come to London. But until there is willingness on the part of the Government of Sudan to cease this behaviour I am afraid that we will continue to help the ordinary Sudanese people who are so imperilled by this action.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that many thousands of civilians are suffering complete lack of humanitarian aid in parts of the country designated by the Government of Sudan as no-go areas? What measures can Her Majesty's Government take to try to gain access to those people, particularly to ensure that they receive urgently needed food and medical supplies?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the Government are very well aware of the tremendous suffering. My noble friend Lady Cox leaves no stone unturned to tell me even more about the situation than may come through official channels. We have been a major donor of humanitarian assistance both through the United Nations and non-governmental organisations. Over the past six years we have spent more than £100 million helping the very people to whom the right

3
reverend Prelate refers. But until change can be brought about in the war zones and for displaced persons in Khartoum I am afraid that the work will have to continue to be carried out by the international community.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend inform the House whether there is any step that the Commonwealth collectively can take?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the action that the Commonwealth and all those who wish to see an end to the fighting can take is to put pressure on the Sudanese Government, but it is not a straightforward matter. At present the IGADD process, which was started most successfully by President Moi, seems to have stalled largely because of Sudan's poor relations with two Commonwealth members, Kenya and Uganda, and also Ethiopia and Eritrea. We shall go on asking for more to be done, but there is a total unwillingness on the part of the Government of Sudan. That is the problem we face every time we try to find another route to achieve a ceasefire.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the argument put by the former Prime Minister, Sadiq Al Mahdi, during his important tour of Arab countries, that the only way out of the Sudanese dilemma is to allow the people of the south a free choice on their constitutional future? Does the noble Baroness also agree that apart from the devastating violations of human rights that are being committed by the regime in the south in the Nuba Mountains and in the west Nile—which the noble Baroness has just visited—there have also been mass arrests in Khartoum resulting in the detention of at least 118 people since the beginning of this year? Will the noble Baroness raise that matter and other violations of human rights at the forthcoming meeting of the Human Rights Commission in Geneva?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the answer to the third question of the noble Lord is yes. The embassy has constantly raised cases of detained opposition activists with the Government and others. The worse abuses occur in southern Sudan. I regret to say that the abuses are being committed by all sides. We shall continue to make representations and to join our partners both in Europe and the Commonwealth in trying to improve the human rights situation. Referring to the first question posed by the noble Lord, I am not sure that even if the southerners were given a free choice it would be respected by the NIF. I regret that in Sudan there is a major problem. Everything will depend on how long the NIF in Khartoum lasts.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, two years ago the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury made a highly effective visit to Sudan. Will the Minister approach the Churches to give further massive public support in this country for our Christian brothers and sisters in both north and south Sudan?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the Churches have always been tremendously supportive of
4
efforts to try to bring an end to the human rights abuses and the fighting in Sudan. The noble Lord is right. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury did indeed do valuable work there. I met him on his return and he told me—I believe that the same situation applies—that it is extremely difficult to achieve change when the Government of the country are determined not to see that change through.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, since it is often said, perhaps rightly, that African problems are frequently best solved by African leadership—I saw something of that while teaching Sudanese for the priesthood during my work in Uganda—can the Minister give any hope that even if President Moi were unwilling, President Museveni and those closely associated with him—Museveni sharing a border with Sudan—are likely to be a force for justice and peace with regard to human rights both in the area of the Great Lakes and Sudan?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, President Moi is not unwilling to pursue the IGADD process. That is, of course, the African context in which we have been trying to pursue a negotiated end to the civil war. It is more difficult for President Museveni to take action because of the altercations between the Government of Sudan and the Government of Uganda. Although the Government of Sudan have made some moves towards addressing international concerns about human rights, there is just so much more that needs to be done, particularly in the treatment of the southerners, both in the war zones and among the displaced in Khartoum. All neighbouring countries and African leaders need to help. Perhaps we can leave the Great Lakes to the next Question.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister accept that on this side of the House we associate ourselves fully with what she said about the courage and consistent concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, in this matter? Has the Minister had an opportunity to study the interview recently given by President Museveni to the Financial Times in which, in his exasperation and concern about the situation, he suggested that this war should be declared a colonial war, which would enable other African states to intervene with personnel, equipment and other materials in support of the liberation forces in the south?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I regret that due to my travels I have not yet read the article concerned. I do not believe that becoming involved in colonial wars or action across borders will solve this or any of the other neighbouring problems.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, has any effort been made to approach the Arab states, because this is largely an Arab and Islamic problem? Secondly, what have we done to stop the import of chemical

5
weapons? Thirdly, is the appalling practice of letting the Government of Sudan distribute aid and force people to change to Islam continuing?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the moderate Islamic states are as concerned about Sudan as we are. Some of them are trying hard to help. I shall reply to my noble friend in writing on the other three questions.

Great Lakes Region: Aid
2.55 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their latest assessment of the humanitarian needs in the Great Lakes region of Africa, what response they are making, and what action they are taking to ensure the appropriate total response by the international community.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, since 1993 Britain has committed more than £178 million to the Great Lakes region bilaterally and through the EU. UNHCR estimates that there are about 750,000 refugees in the region, of whom 200,000 are in eastern Zaire, together with substantial numbers of internally displaced people. Access and security remain major constraints to meeting their basic human needs.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that with the evidence of the fighting now in northern Uganda, the continuing civil war in Zaire, the accelerating flow of refugees into Sudan, the renewed violence in Rwanda and the continued killing in Burundi, the humanitarian and security challenges remain immense? What are the Government doing to ensure that the Security Council does not repeat its grave failures of short-termism towards the Great Lakes in the past, and that it puts all possible diplomatic and other resources into working for an overall regional political settlement; into addressing the underlying causes of these conflicts, especially the grotesque poverty; and into assisting humanitarian agencies to gain access to those at risk, both to protect and to support them?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the problems are immense. By appointing Mohamed Sahnoun as the special representative—he is also the special representative of the OAU to the Great Lakes region—the new Secretary General has taken an important step forward. He is working with Mrs. Ogata, and with the DHA, to ensure that access for the agencies is improved. Mrs. Ogata told me last night that that is indeed happening.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, in view of the agonising difficulty of finding practical ways to mitigate the tragedy in Burundi, Rwanda and the Great Lakes region, does the Minister agree that the BBC's World Service Great Lakes helpline is making a useful contribution? Is she aware that it is funded by British aid organisations, with the support of the Minister's own ODA, and that uniquely it manages to
6
provide a service in the local languages of Kinyarwanda and Kirundi? It is the trusted way in which efforts are made to put separated children back in touch with their parents.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am aware of the Great Lakes helpline. I am extremely grateful to the World Service for a first class example of how to try to resolve some of the tragedies caused by the division of families during war. I am obviously aware of it because we partly fund the process. It is something which can be tried in other places. I am grateful to the World Service for having started the project.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House whether she sees any way ahead for separating the Interahamwe from the genuine refugees both inside Rwanda and inside the refugee areas.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the only way that one can satisfactorily separate the Interahamwe—the Hutu rebels who left Rwanda and went to Zaire—from the innocents is to see whether they are willing to give up the arms which many of them still possess and return as normal refugees to their country of birth. The vast majority are not so willing and, as a result, will probably find themselves spending the rest of their days in Zaire. They have moved much further westwards into Zaire. Conditions are difficult, although somehow the development and aid agencies are getting through to them and access is gradually improving. But every convoy has to be negotiated. So it is a major task.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister clarify one point? In her talks with the High Commissioner for Refugees last night, was she able to indicate that we are going to give any additional support to the UNHCR in what it is trying to do for those who are trapped in Zaire?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, Mrs. Ogata did not ask me last night for additional help. We discussed the situation and what could be done politically. That is the best help that we can give at the moment. I remind the noble Lord that since 1993 we have spent £178 million in the region. That is one of the best records anywhere.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, will the Minister say what response she has given to Emma Bonino who, as European Union Humanitarian Affairs Commissioner, expressed many misgivings and described the present international response as a scandal and wholly inadequate?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have not spoken with Emma Bonino in the past week but her comments that improving access for aid convoys is a priority for us all are absolutely right. We have supported her in that respect. But it is not helpful to the situation for each commentator to inflame the situation or blow it up even more. We must get on with the job, and that is what Britain is doing.

Royal Naval College, Greenwich
3 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to announce the list of those who will serve on Sir Angus Stirling's committee, which is to consider the future of the Royal Naval College, Greenwich.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, the body chaired by Sir Angus Stirling will be called the Greenwich Foundation for the Royal Naval College and is being registered as a charitable company limited by guarantee. I am pleased to announce that its other trustees will be Sir Benjamin Bathurst; Sir Franklin Berman; Councillor Len Duvall, leader of the London Borough of Greenwich; Sir David Cooksey; Professor Thomas Kempner; Richard MacCormac; Margaret Richardson and Christopher Swinson. We are most grateful for their agreement to serve in that role. The foundation will benefit greatly from their wealth of naval, business, financial, heritage, architectural and educational expertise.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much indeed for that most welcome Answer. First, I declare an interest as the Chancellor of the University of Greenwich. Will my noble friend assure me that the new body will move with speed towards arrangements for the University of Greenwich's sub-tenancy of the naval college following the recommendations of the committee set up under the chairmanship of Dame Jennifer Jenkins? The university is particularly anxious to achieve a settlement as regards HMS "Dreadnought", the old seamen's hospital.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. The foundation is in discussion with the University of Greenwich about its plans for occupation of the site. Naturally, the foundation will want to satisfy itself that the plans are viable before entering into a legal agreement. However, it is now for the foundation to take forward that work. I know that Sir Angus Stirling is conscious of the importance of the issue to the university.
With regard to the "Dreadnought" building, although I should like to assist my noble friend as far as possible, there is little definite that I can say at this stage. There is no direct Ministry of Defence interest in that building, but the director of the Greenwich hospital is in negotiation with the University of Greenwich in regard to its future.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, why is there no representative of the University of Greenwich among the members of the trustees?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the simple answer is that there may well be a conflict of interest should the university become a sub-tenant. However, we have ensured that there is educational expertise on the board of directors.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in view of the national importance of this matter and on the assumption
8
that the committee will make its recommendations during the next Parliament, what consultations were there with the Opposition on the membership which the noble Earl has just announced?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am not aware of any obligation on the part of the Government to consult Her Majesty's Opposition on a matter of this kind. I believe that the board of directors has wide experience and an absolutely unobjectionable range of expertise which will be brought to the table in this very important enterprise.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble friend assure the House that there can now be progress? So far, there has been quite a lot of delay. I hope that this very distinguished body, the members of which my noble friend announced this afternoon, will be able to scotch some of the more unsound ideas which have been in circulation about the future of the Royal Naval College.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his guarded welcome of this announcement. We have made good progress and the announcement today is part of that. We must remember that the foundation will be taking on extremely important responsibilities. We need to make sure that the terms of its operation are right and we must ensure that the right spread of expertise is available to the body of trustees. Those things take time.
We should not forget also that those with the potential to contribute most as trustees of such a body are usually those who are also in greatest demand generally.

London Underground: Privatisation
3.4 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they still support the privatisation of London Underground.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the Government support the principle of privatisation and are still considering whether its benefits can be extended to the London Underground.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive Answer, given the fact that in the past two weeks there have probably been 14 or 15 different reports emanating from the Government about what will be done, by whom and to whom. One of the more interesting reports from the Secretary of State is that the Government will have to pay somebody to take London Underground off their hands. Will the Minister explain to the House why the Government have cut the budget for London Underground by £300 million but at the same time are quite happy to pay a similar sum to somebody to take it off their hands?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, on the first point, the Government do not comment on leaked documents, and I believe that that is a policy in which the Opposition also believe these days. But we shall await confirmation of that. Secondly, we have given major funding to London Underground and over the next three years investment in LT's core network will in real terms be on average 50 per cent. above the level of the 1980s and twice the level of the 1970s.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is enormous potential for the development of London Underground? One has only to look at somewhere like Hong Kong to see that potential. It is essential that it is realised. There is no way, whichever government are in power, that the sums needed for capital investment could come from the Treasury. Therefore, as in the case of British Telecom, privatisation is likely to produce a superb service which we need.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that privatisation has resulted in better services at lower cost. We believe that that certainly has occurred in the transport sector. We wish to see to which other areas it can be extended, and that includes consideration of London Underground.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, following on that last question, does the noble Viscount agree that, in spite of the sums to which he referred having been paid to London Underground for investment, they are woefully short of what is needed, as the chairman of London Transport announced publicly recently? Pending whatever the Government may wish to do about privatisation, which could take some time, bearing in mind certain future events, would it not be possible to work out a way in which London Underground could turn more to the private sector to obtain the money while still being run as a public sector company?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, there will always be a great demand for additional investment and finance for London Underground. We certainly believe that the private finance initiative has been a success in that field. London Underground is making good progress with the PFI, and the three competitions currently in progress should, if completed successfully, deliver investment worth between £450 million and £650 million. In addition, the Northern Line trains contract, which was signed in 1995, is leading to investment of more than £400 million. Those are illustrations that the PFI is working.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in order to meet the demand of which one hears for expenditure on London Transport, plus other matters that have been hinted at from time to time, it would imply setting aside the convergence criteria which we should be obliged to follow if we wished to have anything to do with the single currency?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that question goes a trifle wide of the Question on the Order Paper. But my
10
noble friend is right that there will always be tremendous demand for additional spending on services such as the London Underground. We have illustrated that the PFI can work. We wish to see whether the great successes which have occurred—for example, the privatisation of the railways—can be extended to the Underground.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is not the main argument used for privatisation that it will introduce competition into an organisation? Is that not the last thing that we want for London Underground? What is needed is far more co-ordination rather than competition.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, competition is an important factor in business. We have not yet made any announcement about what our proposals may or may not be for London Underground. I am not in a position to say anything with regard to the detail. We are still considering the issue.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it not remarkable that the Minister is far more timid about this proposal than he has been in the past, when he was extremely gung-ho about all the advantages that it would confer? Is he aware that we hope that he will give an unqualified undertaking that this oft-deferred, flawed and unpopular proposal will appear in his party's election manifesto, because that would be yet another nail in its coffin?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, what I have noticed is that every time the Government come forward with a privatisation proposal it is opposed by the Opposition. They say that it will spell disaster and then after a few years they come to accept it and realise that it works. Indeed, I have not heard this afternoon about plans to renationalise any of the industries that have been privatised—perhaps, for example, Railtrack or British Airways. No such commitment has been put forward. Therefore, we must take it that the Opposition are doing their traditional rubbishing of privatisation and yet will go on to accept it.

Business
3.10 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Cumberlege will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Ashworth Hospital.

Police (Property) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Telecommunications (Fraud) Bill
Lord Renwick: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Renwick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Dignity at Work Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
In declaring an interest as the chairman of the Campaign against Bullying at Work, perhaps I may thank all noble Lords who took part in the deliberations on the Bill. As the Government recognised on Second Reading, the Bill deals with a real problem. It has received careful scrutiny in this House and was improved in Committee. No further amendments were thought necessary either on Report or on Third Reading. I believe that that demonstrates the workings of this House at their best.
I am sure that the House of Commons will give the Bill the support that it deserves as a serious attempt to promote good practice in employment and provide redress for those who have suffered bullying or harassment at work.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Monkswell.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Education Bill
3.13 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. We want to give parents real choice and we want to give children real opportunities to achieve their full potential. To do that we need a range of different types of good schools, all with high standards and good discipline. Those principles have been central to this Government's education reforms. They are what this Bill is all about.
We believe it is right for as many parents as possible to be able to choose the education that they want for their children. There is nothing remarkable about that. Many noble Lords on the Benches opposite would say the same. Where we differ is the way in which choice is defined and encouraged.
A choice between two schools of the same type is, admittedly, preferable to no choice at all. But parents deserve better than that. Parents want an education that suits the individual talents, interests, abilities and needs
12
of their child, not a standard service pitched at some notion of the average child. That is why parents should have access to a range of good schools of different types. That is real choice, and in some parts of the country real choice is already available. In some places there are selective schools and comprehensives, Church schools, and schools specialising in particular subjects such as technology colleges and language colleges. But in too many places there is no such choice. The choice is any school you want so long as it is an LEA comprehensive.
A parent may be lucky enough to live in a place where one of the LEA comprehensives is excellent—and many are. But a choice between good and bad schools of the same type is still a pretty meagre sort of choice. Real choice means greater diversity, and Part I of the Bill facilitates just that.
We want to encourage schools to develop distinctive strengths, which is one of the ways in which greater diversity helps to raise standards. Those strengths might be in teaching particular subjects or particular types of pupil. So schools that select some or all of their pupils by aptitude for particular subjects, or by general ability, are essential to a truly diverse system.
We want to give many more parents this option, so the Bill helps schools to respond to parental demand in several ways. First, it sets higher thresholds for the proportion of pupils which school admission authorities may select without having to seek central approval. These are 50 per cent. for GM secondary schools, 30 per cent. for LEA specialist schools in their specialist subjects, and 20 per cent. for all other schools.
Secondly, the Bill requires governing bodies of secondary schools to review annually whether to introduce or extend selection. No school will be obliged to introduce selection if it does not want to. But every school should consider the issue as part of its annual consideration of how the school is performing, how it compares with other schools, and how it can improve in order to provide the best possible service to its pupils and its community.
Thirdly, the Bill gives governors of county secondary schools which wish to become grammar schools the right to publish their own statutory proposals if they are blocked by the LEA. Similarly, technology colleges and other specialist schools in the LEA sector will have a right of appeal against a hostile LEA if they want to use their new powers to select up to 30 per cent. of their pupils.
The Bill promotes diversity and parental choice in other ways as well. It enables the Funding Agency for Schools to propose setting up new GM schools in any LEA area. The agency will also be able to pay grants to promoters of new GM schools to help them prepare development plans. GM schools are popular with parents. They achieve good results, and make good use of the freedoms that they already enjoy. They play a leading part in extending diversity. So the Bill gives them even greater flexibility to respond to the communities they serve.]

13
In addition to more freedom to introduce or extend selection, the Bill enables GM schools to add nursery classes, sixth forms and boarding facilities.
When the Bill was first introduced in another place it included a clause to allow GM schools to expand their capacity by up to 50 per cent. without the need for central approval. The clause was lost in Committee in another place owing to what I believe might be termed "procedural problems". On Report, the vote on the reintroduction of the clause was, as I understand it, originally reported by Whips from both sides of the House as a defeat for the Government by one vote but was subsequently found to be tied. The Government announced their intention of seeking to reintroduce the clause in your Lordships' House, and I confirm that today. The clause will allow popular and effective GM schools to expand and thus help more parents to get the choice of school they want for their children.
The Bill also extends choice outside the state sector by broadening the scope of the assisted places scheme. In future the scheme will be able to cover independent schools which only provide primary education.
I suspect that our debate on the Bill will show some pretty marked differences of view about selection, deregulation and diversity, although I have to say that I live in hope following fairly recent statements from the party opposite on certain matters. However, I trust that there will be no difference of principle between us when we move on to school discipline. I am sure we all agree that an orderly environment is vital to effective education. An undisciplined minority of pupils can disrupt whole classes and schools and undermine the education provided.
We should not be alarmist. In his recent annual report, to which reference was made in this House only last week, the chief inspector of schools states that most schools are orderly places. I believe that that reflects well on the headmasters, the head teachers and the staff of those schools, sometimes operating under difficult circumstances. The majority of pupils are well behaved and are keen to learn. Anyone who visits a school will know that.
But neither should we be complacent. When problems arise, they can have serious effects. The Government believe that more can and should be done to help schools tackle those problems while also ensuring that the system does not ignore the educational and other needs of pupils with behaviour problems. That is why the legislation contains measures to strengthen the ability of schools to promote good behaviour and to take effective action against bad. It will also promote more effective support for schools and individual pupils with behaviour problems. In doing so the legislation builds on the foundations laid by the recommendations of the 1989 committee of inquiry into discipline in schools, chaired so ably—if I might put it that way—by my noble friend Lord Elton, and on the behaviour and discipline measures which noble Lords supported in the Education Act 1993.
Many school governing bodies already adopt a statement of general principles on behaviour and discipline. We believe that this is good practice which
14
should be followed by all schools. The Bill will require all governing bodies to adopt such a statement. Head teachers will, as now, be responsible for deciding specific measures and sanctions, and for publicising and operating their school's discipline code. But there will be a new duty on governing bodies to provide a clear disciplinary framework for the school.
Schools will for the first time be given explicit statutory authority to detain badly behaved pupils after school without their parents' consent. That will ensure that detention as a sanction is more readily available, free of the potential risk of a legal action against the school for false imprisonment.
The Bill introduces a more flexible time limit of 45 days a year for fixed period exclusions in place of the current maximum of 15 days a term. That will help provide the scope, which the current limit sometimes denies, to set in motion effective action to tackle a pupil's problems before he or she returns to school. It should help avoid the need for permanent exclusions in some cases.
Such exclusions are a serious step for both pupil and school. So it is right that there should be robust and well-balanced arrangements to enable parents to make representations and seek reinstatement. But these must reflect all the interests concerned. Therefore the Bill strengthens the current appeals procedure by ensuring that schools—as well as the parents of excluded children—have the opportunity to present their case. It will also ensure that the interests of staff and other pupils are taken properly into account alongside those of the excluded pupil.
We believe that schools should not be obliged to admit pupils who have repeatedly been excluded from other schools. Currently, if schools still have empty places they cannot refuse to take a pupil on the ground of a bad disciplinary record. This Bill will change that, allowing admission authorities to refuse a place to pupils who have previously been excluded from two or more other schools.
The Bill also allows school admission authorities to require parents to sign a home-school partnership document as a condition of gaining a place. We believe that this will reinforce the relationship between parents and schools by ensuring that parents have a clearer understanding of what the school expects them to do to support their child's education, including in disciplinary matters.
But sanctions will not, on their own, provide an effective response to pupil behaviour problems. Schools and teachers need support in managing pupil behaviour so as to minimise disruptive behaviour. Pupils who have problems are still entitled to an education. And there must be effective means to address their problems. So the Bill requires every LEA to draw up a statement setting out their arrangements in relation to pupils with behaviour problems. These statements will cover the full range of an LEA's provision: for supporting schools in addressing behaviour problems; for meeting the needs of pupils with behaviour problems; and for planning behaviour support arrangements across the range of agencies, including schools, LEAs, social services and voluntary organisations.

15
It is important that there are effective alternatives to mainstream schools for pupils with behaviour problems. Pupil referral units are less effective than they should be in providing such an alternative. An important factor is often the way they are managed. The Bill therefore allows the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring LEAs to establish management committees for all their pupil referral units.
All these measures have been part of the Bill from the outset. But the Government have continued to listen to the views of teachers and others. In particular we have recognised that there is confusion about how far the law allows school staff to intervene physically to prevent violence and disruptive behaviour. We believe this to be unsatisfactory. An amendment was introduced in another place that added a new measure on discipline. It clarifies and codifies the circumstances in which it is lawful for staff to use physical force to restrain pupils.
This package will strengthen the framework for dealing with pupil behaviour and discipline problems. It will bolster schools' authority. It will also help ensure that support is available to schools which need it and that individual pupils' behaviour problems are properly tackled. These measures have been widely welcomed by schools, teachers and others. I trust that they will also be welcomed here.
I hope that the same will be true of the final part of the Bill which contains specific measures for raising standards in schools. We start with entry to primary school. The Bill requires all primaries to assess all their pupils at or around the age of five. This assessment will provide a baseline from which to plan each child's education, and measure each child's progress. The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority has consulted widely on the arrangements. Its proposals have been widely welcomed and are accepted by my right honourable friend.
The Bill allows my right honourable friend to make regulations requiring all schools to set annual targets for improving their performance, particularly for pupils' attainments in qualifications and national curriculum assessments. This will increase the need to ensure that the framework for assessments and qualifications is robust. To promote that the Bill proposes to merge the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority and the National Council for Vocational Qualifications to form the new and fairly well publicised qualifications and national curriculum authority. The new authority will oversee the curriculum and assessment in schools. Just as important, it will continue the work of developing a coherent set of courses and qualifications through which young people can progress at 16 and beyond in sixth-forms, in further education, in training for employment and as adults throughout their working lives.
With a much greater variety of training and courses to consider, it is more important than ever that young people have good advice on the choices before them. The Bill will ensure that all 14 to 16 year-olds get a planned programme of careers education. It will also
16
ensure that schools and colleges work closely with the Careers Service in providing the information and guidance which pupils and students need.
Finally, the Bill extends the powers of Ofsted to inspect the work of local education authorities. All schools are now held to account through inspections by Ofsted. LEAs should not be exempt. LEAs continue to have a significant role in supporting schools and providing services. Those functions will be inspected by Ofsted in collaboration with the Audit Commission. After the report has been published, the LEA will have to follow up the inspection with an action plan setting out its next steps.
I have outlined the three main areas of the Bill—more choice and diversity, school discipline and measures to raise standards. I am proud of our record of achievement in raising standards, widening choice, extending school self-government and making the whole process of education more transparent and accountable. This Bill builds on those achievements. It will allow the best within our system to flourish, encourage others to emulate that best, and support schools in providing high quality teaching and learning. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Henley.)
3.28 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for introducing this large and important Bill with his customary clarity and enthusiasm.
It was on 9th November 1895 that that famous cartoon appeared in Punch showing a bishop and a curate at the breakfast table. Said the bishop,
"I'm afraid you've got a bad egg, Mr. Jones".
The curate replied,
"Oh no, my Lord, I assure you! Parts of it are excellent".
Parts of this Bill are, if not excellent, at least broadly acceptable, but other parts are not. If the curate had consumed only those parts of his egg that he considered edible, he would still be in grave danger of salmonella, and so are we.
The acceptable parts of the Bill are, without exception, proposals which have previously been put forward by the Labour Party. We have no particular objection to having our clothes stolen, but we must take this opportunity to label them clearly before the party opposite lifts them off the washing line.
The first obvious example is the requirement in Part IV that schools publish a discipline policy and LEAs publish a statement of the support available to schools for dealing with disruptive pupils. In our publication, Excellence for Everyone, published in December 1995, we said that all schools would be expected to publish behaviour policies in partnership with the LEA, setting out for parents, pupils and teachers what was expected of them and what rewards and sanctions would apply. How nice to see the Government falling into line behind us.

17
Of even more venerable antiquity is the proposal in Clause 30 for home-school partnership documents. Labour first advocated these in 1988 and our plans were fully described more than a year ago in Excellence for Everyone. Not surprisingly, the Government have picked up this good idea and made a mess of it. We urged that all schools should introduce these contracts. The Bill proposes them only for some schools, which would produce an even further division and dispute within the school system.
The same is true of compulsory baseline assessment of children in primary schools in Clauses 32 to 35. That idea is perfectly acceptable—acceptable because it is Labour policy, developed in Labour local authorities such as Birmingham, Staffordshire and Sheffield, where it flourishes well; and it was fully described and highlighted in Excellence for Everyone on pages 23 and 24. Once again the Government have followed our example.
There is a wide measure of consensus on the Bill's proposals for Ofsted inspections of LEAs—fully spelt out in our publication, Diversity and Excellence, many moons ago. We agree about the regulation of supply teachers, for management committees for pupil referral units, careers education and guidance, and the merger of SCAA and NCVQ. There is even general support for the proposals on exclusion, though on those we shall be asking many questions and proposing additional solutions. Indeed, in all those areas where we are broadly in agreement in principle, we from these Benches will be putting down serious amendments and requiring detailed answers from the Government, and drawing attention to lacunae, imprecisions and infelicities in the Bill. The drafting is in many places far from clear and we shall have to pay close attention to it in amendments which we shall put forward at Committee and later stages.
We shall do that because it is the prime duty of your Lordships' House, as a revising Chamber, to scrutinise all proposals for legislation, but especially on this occasion because at Committee stage in another place such was the depth of disagreement about the first half of the Bill that, even with 16 separate Sittings, honourable Members were unable to give as close attention to details in the second half of the Bill as they would have wished. It falls, therefore, to your Lordships' House to assist another place in that respect. Indeed, it is very meet, right and our bounden duty so to do.
The Bill has, of course, left undone those things which it ought to have done. It makes no move towards reducing class sizes for five, six and seven year-olds to a maximum of 30. It does not introduce a general teacher council, vitally necessary to promote and regulate the teaching profession. It does not ensure that 11 year-olds reach level 4 in national reading tests, even though over half of 11 year-olds last year did not reach the required standard either in maths or in English. On that scandalous situation, this Bill is as silent as the grave.
The bad parts of this curate's egg are very bad indeed. We believe, and our honourable friends in another place have amply demonstrated, that the proposals in
18
Parts I, II and III to extend selection without consultation, to provide even greater freedoms and advantages to grant-maintained schools, to permit the Funding Agency for Schools to set up nurseries, sixth forms, boarding facilities and even entirely new grant-maintained schools and to extend the assisted places scheme to preparatory schools are nothing more nor less than pernicious porters of putrefaction into the state education system.
My noble friends behind me will be dealing with what we may call the "salmonella sections" of the Bill during this debate. Let me at this point introduce a whiff of wholesome fresh air by reminding your Lordships that these proposals, taken altogether, will make virtually no difference whatever to the overwhelming majority of children in our schools. The proposals come from the Conservative Party's almost paranoid obsession with a tiny minority of schools and its puerile preoccupation with school structure. Almost 90 per cent. of the nation's children attend their local comprehensive school and have done so for decades, and they have no quarrel with the comprehensive system. They like it; they choose it; they flourish in it. There is no demand for selection from pupils, parents or teachers. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that in the DfEE consultation on selection, only 1 per cent. were in favour. Less than 4 per cent. of grant-maintained schools have applied to select up to 10 per cent. of their intake. Even the Daily Express—no close friend of the Labour Party—polling its readers on 22nd January last with the ludicrously loaded question,
"Should there be more selection on merit rather than selection based on living in the right catchment area",
found a majority answering no. People do not want some vast, bewildering range of choice. They want good, free, local comprehensive schools. Polls conducted over the years since comprehensive education came in show a steady decline in support for selection, as more and more people experience the comprehensive system. In 1957, 90 per cent. of the population supported grammar schools. By 1967, it was 76 per cent. By 1987, it was 62 per cent., and the most recent poll in the Guardian showed that only 27 per cent. wanted their schools to select pupils.
I make no apology whatever for championing the comprehensive principle in education. I do so proudly. As Mr. Tony Blair pointed out at Oxford last June, the Tories want to dump comprehensive schools and return to the 11-plus system of grammar schools and secondary moderns—"a grammar school in every town". Labour wants to modernise the comprehensive system by finding better ways to recognise and develop the different abilities and talents of pupils within schools. The old system is dead. Grammar schools were a response to he needs of a vanished society which needed a small educated class and a large number of manual workers. Today the United Kingdom's success depends on producing a highly skilled, flexibly trained integrated workforce of educated people. The old distinction between the bosses and the workers is dead; so is the divisive system of grammar schools for the elite and secondary moderns for the rejects. And let us hope that never again will a parent receive a letter

19
containing the stinking euphemism, "Your child has been carefully selected as more suitable for secondary modern education", which means, of course, "Your kid's failed".
The comprehensive system has had, and still has, outstanding successes. At the present moment, despite the lack of funding from this Government, Arden School in Solihull, Ringmer Community College, East Sussex, and Cape Cornwall School in Cornwall are equal to any school anywhere. Mr. Chris Woodhead, HMCI, features them among schools which,
"have excellent GCSE results which they have sustained over a number of years. They are also highly effective in the attention they give to their pupils because of the exceptional quality of some of their extra-curricular provision. These are outstandingly successful schools".
DfEE figures for England and Wales show that in 1979–80 only 21 per cent. of young people obtained the equivalent of five or more GCSEs at Grade C. By 1994–95, 41.6 per cent. of comprehensive school pupils achieved this. Proportions of young people going from school to university have increased enormously since the days of grammar and secondary modern schools. In Scotland, which enjoys a fully comprehensive system, the results are better than in England and Wales. The overwhelming majority of comprehensives which are doing a good job for all pupils are very popular indeed with parents. So much of the scornful criticism of comprehensives is focused on a few inner-city schools and blindly neglects the nationwide picture of support. It is time the whole truth was told.
Labour is committed to a meritocratic system which allows people to rise by their talents, regardless of background. There will be no further selection under Labour, but we shall not declare war on existing grammar schools; nor shall we penalise preparatory schools or discriminate against Church schools. Our task is to raise standards in all 25,000 schools and for all pupils. The Prime Minister has admitted that,
"the top 15 per cent. of youngsters who come out of our schools are equal to anything you will find anywhere in the world. The other 85 per cent. frankly are not".
Such a carefree admission of complacency is frightening. A Labour government cannot and will not accept it.
This Bill fails us all because it fails to address the central problem facing our education system—how to raise the standards of achievement and fulfilment for average and below-average pupils. Until we can solve that we shall have this long tail of under-achievers unable to realise their personal potential, unable to contribute to the nation's success. We can produce the best in small quantities. Our problem is to raise standards for the less gifted.
It is a curate's egg of a Bill. It is neither good nor bad, neither one thing nor the other. It is neither hot nor cold. It is Laodicean. And because it is Laodicean I reserve for it the fate decreed for such things in the 16th verse of the third chapter of the Revelation of St. John the Divine, which the noble Lord the Minister, with his well-stocked and learned mind which I so much admire, will not fail to recognise.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, though I long since recognised that I am unable to keep up with his literary eloquence. I begin, as always, by declaring some interests. First, I am still the leader of a local education authority, and have been for almost 11 years; secondly, I have been a school governor for rather longer than that; and, thirdly, I have been married to a teacher for even longer. That means that I have long experience at what might be called the sharp end of successive government reforms. Discussion in my household does not lead me to believe that they have been wholly for the good.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, so often steals my words. I, too, had intended to describe the Bill as "a curate's egg". I suspect that, although I am the second to do so, I shall not be the last in this debate. The first half of the Bill is almost wholly bad, as the noble Lord said. The second half is good, at least in its intentions. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, claimed credit for that, and cited proposals from Labour's publication, Excellence for Everyone. I do not wish to enter into an "us first" competition. I simply refer the noble Lord to a Liberal Democrat publication which appeared some time before his, entitled Excellence for All. We very much enjoyed the backdrop to the Labour Party's launch of its publication: Labour got the title wrong and referred to it as Excellence for All. We are now one step ahead. Our publication is entitled Insisting on Excellence. I do not want to enter a competition as to "who thought of the good things first". Let us simply be pleased that there is a measure of agreement about what is good, and let us concentrate on that.
Uncharacteristically in an adversarial Chamber shortly before a general election, I begin by listing the proposals in the Bill with which I broadly agree and whose intention we welcome. We welcome, for instance, the proposals for career support for pupils and students; the proposed amalgamation of SCAA and NCVQ—indeed, on the basis of "us first" my honourable friend Don Foster put forward that proposal nearly five years ago; the necessary definition of compulsory school age; and the rather overdue proposals to bring agency teachers within current teacher requirements. We welcome baseline assessments—as I said previously, they are a recognition of existing good practice. My wife, who was for many years a reception teacher, assured me that that was something she had always done. We support, with some qualifications, the intention behind Ofsted inspections of local educational authorities.
We broadly support the measures contained in the Bill to improve discipline in schools and certainly support that intent, as I am sure do all noble Lords. The messages regarding detention are clearly right in their intention, although they give rise to concerns which we shall address in Committee. Similarly, the proposals on exclusion are widely welcomed in the education world and the teaching profession, but with reservations which will be discussed more fully at Committee stage. We shall return to the matter then.

21
I wish to make two points in passing. First, I particularly dislike the term that is used to describe children and young people—"disqualified persons". I hope that we can find a better description during the course of our examination of the Bill. I have some concerns, too, about funding for the continuing education of pupils who have been excluded. At this stage I simply wonder whether the excluding school should perhaps bear some of the responsibility for the continuing education of those children. It is all too easy for a school to exclude children and thereby absolve itself of responsibility. I do not suggest that that happens often, but it is sometimes the case.
We support the idea of home/school contracts. However, we have concerns about the process. We feel that such contracts should be part of a co-operative process between the school, the parent and the pupil. That can be properly achieved only when the pupil is in the school. If the proposal is to work, there must be a co-operative and agreed process, not an imposed process. We do not therefore see how it can reasonably be a condition of admission.
What happens, for instance, when parents know that they cannot control their child? Do they sign dishonestly as the only way to get that child into a school? What happens to children whose parents, for whatever reason, will not sign? Where will they go?
In his introduction, the Minister made reference to the clarification of the whole very difficult area of what is "necessary force". None of us wishes to see force used. We all recognise, however, that at times restraining force is necessary. To the extent that this Bill may be able to clarify this increasingly difficult area for teachers, we welcome its proposals.
I turn now to the bad part of the curate's egg. When the Bill was first proposed it was said in some quarters that its main purpose and certainly the main purpose of this part of the Bill was to embarrass the Labour Party. I do not think that is ever a good basis for proposing legislation, but now it seems to be entirely unnecessary. The Labour Party has shown that it is more than capable of embarrassing itself on the issue without any help from the Government.
The Bill proposes to increase selection. Liberal Democrats remain wholly opposed to selection by ability or interview and we strongly oppose the measures contained in the Bill. Selective schools mean grammar schools, by whatever name and whatever means—the Prime Minister's dream of a grammar school in every town. But selective schools also mean non-selective schools—secondary moderns by any other name—and three or four of them in every town. The Prime Minister's dream is a nightmare for the 75 per cent. of parents and pupils who would be consigned to a secondary modern in the unlikely event that that policy was successful.
For most, it means schools choosing pupils, not parents choosing schools. It means less choice for most, not more choice. What we should be striving for is more choice within schools, not choice between schools. I strongly reject the Minister's claim in his opening remarks that all LEA comprehensive schools are the
22
same and that that is no choice at all. That is not true, and under a proper education system it would he even less true. What we should concentrate on in the Bill and all legislative proposals is creating diversity between good comprehensive schools. That represents proper choice.
Those proposing more selection must demonstrate that it enhances quality of education, not for a few but for all. Demonstrably it does not do that. I doubt whether in many cases it does it even for a few. Secondly, they should demonstrate that there is a demand for more selection. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, quoted figures which I shall not repeat, but he is right to say that there is no evidence at all that there is a popular demand for more selection. All the evidence points to exactly the opposite. Proposals in Solihull and Milton Keynes to introduce selection were soundly and comprehensively defeated. This part of the Bill is proposing greater division, not greater diversity.
To extend that now to primary schools is frankly obscene and entirely inappropriate. Instead, we should concentrate on learning from the many excellent comprehensive schools to improve the standards in the rest, not this sterile and divisive debate of 30 years ago.
The Bill proposes that governors must consider every year whether or not to introduce selection. I think that is wrong and unnecessary, but if it is to happen then surely the balance should be that all schools that have selection should consider whether to reduce selection. That would be an even-handed approach if, in my view, an unnecessary one.
I turn to the other parts of the Bill. The Minister referred to the Government's much heralded intention to reintroduce the defeated clause from the other place. To allow schools, especially grant-maintained schools, to expand by 50 per cent. without prior consultation or authority is pernicious. It is the sixth attempt to relaunch what must surely be the Government's most publicly failed policy. I did not have time to look up the figures that were expected when GM schools were first launched upon the nation, but I am certain that they were dramatically less than the 1,100 that have so far been established. There are fewer and fewer ballots for GM schools and even those ballots that take place are, as often as not, unsuccessful. Liberal Democrats have always opposed GM schools, so of course we oppose that measure. But even supporters of GM schools need to consider the effect on neighbouring schools. To be able to increase the intake of a school by 50 per cent. or anything up to that is bound to have a devastating effect on neighbouring schools. Yet those schools, beyond protesting, have no right of appeal, no means to do anything about it.
Perhaps of most concern to your Lordships' House is that there have already been proposals in the past to expand the GM schools. Some of them have been rejected by the present Secretary of State. Presumably she has rejected them for very good reasons, given the Government's enthusiasm for GM schools. In future, even that safeguard will no longer be available. It will

23
no longer be possible to take account of the good reasons that led the Secretary of State to reject proposals.
Most important of all—and here I speak as the leader of a local education authority—it would put the final nail in the coffin of any hope of coherent, strategic planning of our education service. It will undoubtedly lead to a huge waste of public money. If noble Lords have any doubt about that, they should read the report of the Audit Commission entitled Trading Places, which demonstrated that fully, graphically and in no uncertain terms. I am sure that we shall return to that point later.
As to the assisted places scheme which it is proposed should be extended, we have an annual debate. We oppose the assisted places scheme and it clearly follows from that that we shall oppose its extension to primary and preparatory schools.
To conclude, there is much in the Bill that is to be welcomed; there is much that should be in the Bill but is not. Despite its good measures, it does little to improve the rock bottom morale in the teaching profession. It does little or nothing to enable the career development of professional teachers. As the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said, it should contain the provisions for a general teaching council about which there is a fair measure of agreement these days. Nothing is said about that.
The first part of the Bill has served its purpose. The Labour Party is now well and truly embarrassed. I fear—and I say this with some regret—there is a huge dent in the credibility of its education policy. That part of the Bill has served its purpose. Can we now abandon it, forget it and spend the fag end of this Parliament concentrating on that part of the Bill which is broadly acceptable, at least in its intentions? Let us spend our time ensuring that the eighteenth and last Education Bill of this Government can at least be the first on which there is common agreement.
3.56 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clarity in presenting the Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, for his encyclopaedic knowledge of the Bible, The Book of Common Prayer and clerical jokes. He will, of course, know that I am not the Bishop to whom he referred. Clergy having breakfast with me these days are more likely to have an austere diet of toast and coffee. However, it is perfectly possible that I might say to one of them: "Mr. So-and-so, is your toast burnt?" To that he might well reply: "Only on one side, my Lord".
The Bill is concerned with particular issues and I shall refer to some of them in a moment. I wish to begin by expressing regret that there is at present so little debate about the nature of education. We seem to reduce education at times to the acquisition of knowledge and to have forgotten that it is about leading people forward into growth. It is about the growth of personhood. We have forgotten that people are whole people with gifts, skills, motivation, emotion, energy, spirituality, capacity for relationship and far more. Modern education seems
24
to divide these up to lay stress on some and totally to ignore other aspects of personhood. To take one example only, when most enterprises in the modern world depend upon team work, why is it that so much of the testing within the educational system is individual only? Clearly, individual skills are of great significance but so too is the capacity to work together.
It seems to me that modern movement of information technology will bring about changes as great in the education system as did printing in a previous era. But that raises for us profound questions. Information technology is a tool and has to be subject to the people who use that tool. So we might well ask with T. S. Eliot:
"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"
We might perhaps add a further phrase: Where is the information we have lost in data? I believe that in the future we shall rediscover wisdom, which is clearly a deep dimension of being a person and growing as a person. I see little recognition in the public debate at the moment of the revolution that I believe lies ahead in education.
Turning to the Bill, I declare an interest as chairman of the Church of England Board of Education. I have also consulted with Roman Catholic colleagues. Your Lordships will know that the Churches' contribution to the maintained system of education in our country is massive. More than one school in three is a church school and one pupil in four attends such a school. My comments are from the perspective of church schools.
I begin by looking at the proposals on selection. Clearly, within my Church and indeed within all Churches, there are different views about selection. My personal view is that selection between schools is divisive; selection within schools—streaming or setting—can have great benefits.
But there is a particular concern of governors of voluntary or grant-maintained former voluntary schools in the matter of selection. Many of the schools, probably the majority, have been promoted or funded by a diocese to make a particular contribution to education in an area. If governors are able to change that contribution without having to consult the diocese which promoted or funded the school, that will override the concerns of the diocese. Most dioceses promote secondary schools to provide denominational education. If the schools choose to use 50 per cent. of their intake for selective places, those denominational places are lost. If the Government wish the Churches to continue to invest in church secondary schools, they must respect the purposes for which those schools were founded, purposes which are determined by diocesan authorities. Therefore, at the very least, the Churches ask that diocesan authorities should have to be consulted before changes are made to a school's character and, indeed, if matters of admissions are concerned, their consent should be required.
Let me refer to a point already made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, about the Secretary of State's powers to restrain governing bodies from making changes which are unwise, controversial or harmful to education in a particular area. To intervene at present, the

25
Secretary of State must be satisfied that governing bodies are acting in a manner that is so unreasonable that no reasonable governing body would behave in that way. That means, surely, that the Secretary of State can act only very rarely. I should like to see a reserve power for the Secretary of State to direct that the publications procedure shall, in the case of controversial proposals, apply to such proposals. Indeed, I had understood that such a provision was to be included in the Bill but at the moment I do not find any sign of it.
I have one other comment, again on a similar issue to that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tope; namely, the requirement that governing bodies should annually review the matter of selection. Perhaps I may put a slightly different gloss on it. It seems to me that the requirement for governing bodies to consider grant-maintained status on an annual basis has meant that practically no schools have gone grant maintained. Might it not be the case that, if the same provision were applied to selection, the same result would become apparent?
In relation to the planning clauses in the Bill, I have a point to make which might be slightly contentious. The planning clauses relate to grant-maintained schools on the basis that those schools are sufficiently independent and well governed to be able to make those decisions without consultation. Might not that also apply to voluntary aided schools, which I would argue are also in that category? At this point I am in something of a difficulty because I do not in fact support the planning clauses. But, were they to be included in the Bill, I believe that there is a case for arguing that voluntary aided schools should be subject to them as well as grant-maintained schools.
The Churches have always been very keen not to drive a wedge between voluntary schools and county schools. Noble Lords will be aware that that was our argument in relation to the fast track to grant-maintained status. Nevertheless, in your Lordships' House there are many who are well able to argue on behalf of county schools and I should like to argue on behalf of aided schools that such provision might be of help. Indeed, I mentioned that to the Minister's right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I should be interested to know whether he has any reflections on that particular suggestion. Of course, it would need to be with the consent of the appropriate diocesan authority.
In relation to school discipline, I welcome generally the Government's proposals to clarify the legal basis of certain aspects of school discipline. There may be reservations about how well it will work.
I should like to comment on home-school partnerships and the facility that schools will have to use them as part of their admissions criteria. Might it be the case that focusing attention on that particular use of home-school partnerships—that is to say, at the moment of admission—would inhibit the creation of a specific partnership document at a later point in a particular pupil's school career? There is some evidence that they could be valuable: for instance, if a pupil's behaviour is giving cause for concern, there might then be some place for the renegotiation of a partnership document;
26
or post-crisis, where a pupil is being readmitted to a school following a period of exclusion. Do we have to limit the home-school partnerships to the moment of admissions only?
Base line assessment schemes seem clearly to be good, in that they will contribute to the gradual development of a value added approach to the assessment of school effectiveness. For primary schools, surely, they should also provide an important reference point when governors set their annual targets.
With regard to the proposed Qualifications and National Curriculum Authority, the Churches would hope that that body would include someone with knowledge or experience of the voluntary sector and, indeed, that the Churches would be consulted about the membership of that body. That would put the legislation in line with existing legislation on the Funding Agency for Schools.
I have a concern about the title of that body: the Qualifications and National Curriculum Authority. It is clear from the text of the Bill that it is the Government's intention that that authority should be concerned with the whole of the school curriculum. The school curriculum is not the same as the national curriculum. Indeed, religious education is specifically excluded from the national curriculum and is part of the basic curriculum. There are other subjects which are part of a wider curriculum. With the title as given—the Qualifications and National Curriculum Authority—it could be supposed that the responsibilities of the authority are limited to national curriculum subjects only. Following the 1988 Act, the position of religious education was adversely affected for a number of years by the National Curriculum Council's unwillingness to accept responsibility for any curriculum issue beyond the national curriculum itself. Could we not, therefore, have a title which reflects the responsibilities of that body for the whole curriculum—perhaps the "Qualifications and Curriculum Authority"?
I am aware that there is some discussion about the acronym of that particular body and that the chief executive is debating whether he would prefer to be known as a "QuANCA" or a "QuACA". I do not wish to enter into that particular debate. Maybe one alternative is the "National Curriculum and Qualifications Authority", which I do not think can be made into anything shorter. I hope that the Government will take that anxiety on board.
Finally, I express the hope that under some future administration—of whatever colour—we can look forward to a more far-reaching Bill which is more creative and innovative than anything the present Bill has to offer.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, as many Members of your Lordships' House are aware, I had the privilege from 1990 onwards of chairing the Hamlyn Foundation National Commission on Education. Today I do not apologise for repeating some items of revision published in 1993 by that commission in its report entitled Learning to Succeed and the reports that it has published subsequently.

27
First, in the United Kingdom much higher achievement in education and training is needed to match world standards. Secondly, everyone must want to learn and have ample opportunity and encouragement to do so. Thirdly, all children must achieve a good grasp of literacy and basic skills early on as the foundation for learning throughout life. Fourthly, a full range of people's abilities must be recognised and their development rewarded. Fifthly, high quality learning depends above all on the knowledge, skill, effort and example of teachers and trainers.
In looking at our goals, which we listed serially, let me comment upon two: first, that there must be courses and qualifications that bring out the best in every pupil; secondly, that every pupil in every lesson has the right to good teaching and adequate support facilities.
Since the 1993 report was published, happily, some 50 per cent. of the proposals that we made and of our objectives have been accepted and implemented by government, though I must say that some of the means by which they have been implemented—not least in the field of nursery education—were not the ones that we as commissioners recommended.
The question I ask before examining the Bill in detail is this. In what way and to what extent do I recognise in the Bill items furthering the objectives which we defined? I must say, with respect, that there are certain aspects of the Bill which give the impression that a complex and detailed measure has been prepared showing some signs of hasty preparation and drafting, almost as though it had been prepared in the hope of rushing it through into legislation in the dying days of this Parliament. But, as previous speakers have already said, there are many parts of the Bill which I and I am sure my fellow commissioners welcome. It is good in parts. In response to the characteristically erudite and fiery Gallic contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, I say only that, happily, nowadays the salmonella organism is one that can normally be eradicated by good hygiene or by the use of appropriate antibiotics.
Where do I see the good points in the Bill? First, I wholly agree with the proposal to merge SCAA and NVQ. That integration was recommended by the national education commission and is a welcome step towards bringing closer together education and training in the United Kingdom. Secondly, like others, I welcome the measures proposed to improve school discipline. While the details of those measures require a little fine tuning and the clauses must not be used as a thinly veiled excuse for bringing back corporal punishment in schools, nevertheless, the measures as defined in the Bill are most welcome.
I too commend the proposals to introduce home-school contracts—something which again my education commission was anxious to see introduced. We defined, as did many others, the problem associated with the anti-education ethos which exists in certain parts of our society, not least in many of our inner city regions. My question is whether the provision that the home-school contracts should be signed prior to
28
admission will be a mechanism which will be effective and work in those areas where such contracts are most needed. Is it not possible that the necessity of having such a contract signed between parents, teachers and the school may put off some of those most in need of the improved education which we all hope to see in some of the most deprived areas of the country. The proposals therefore must be carefully considered and their preparation monitored.
I wholly agree with the proposals on baseline assessment and target setting. They are admirable and can do nothing other than improve standards. The proposals relating to statementing of children with behavioural problems are most welcome, as are those giving authority to Ofsted to inspect LEAs. We took a great deal of evidence for our education commission, and it was clear that many local education authorities were doing an excellent job, though some were doing a job which was far from excellent. Indeed, we recognised certain local authorities where no school inspections had been carried out under their auspices for many years. Therefore, that is a welcome measure.
Like others, I too have considerable reservations about the proposals on pre-school selection or selection by ability as a means of admission to a school. I confess that my father was a council school head teacher in a mining village in Durham county. I myself went to a highly selective grammar school which gave me a thoroughly excellent education. But I recognised at that time that some of the children who were excluded on the basis of failing the 11-plus possessed outstanding capabilities and that the education system to which they were referred—secondary modern schools came later—simply did not fulfil what might have been expected by capitalising upon those abilities. Some children with capable minds were classified from the outset as failures because they failed the 11-plus examination.
By contrast, I am wholly in favour of setting or selection within schools. I find the pre-school selection principle in the Bill disturbing, whereas setting by ability within schools is wholly to be recommended. One of the problems when the comprehensive system was first introduced was so-called "mixed ability" classes. They did not serve the interests of either the most able or the least able of pupils. The bright children who went into mixed ability classes did not develop at the rate one would have expected in the light of their capabilities, and those with the least ability were often left behind. Rather like many of the other "trendy" views and the anti-competitive attitude of some members of the teaching profession—the belief in egalitarianism, in so-called preservation of a child's self-esteem—that did great harm to the comprehensive system and to its image in the education community at large.
I have often quoted in this House the great American, Thomas Jefferson, who said,
"I believe in an aristocracy of merit based upon a democracy of opportunity".
That should be the attitude that we all adopt in examining our education system. Hence, setting within schools is the right way. Comprehensive schools have the ability to capitalise upon the wide range of abilities

29
that children possess, covering an enormous field of human activity, provided they have the leadership and the structure to allow them to have classes in which the most able can go ahead at a fast rate and the individual abilities of those who may not be so able can be recognised and built upon.
What is the most important item missing from the Bill? From the Ofsted reports of Chris Woodhead and his inspectors, it is clear that a large proportion of schoolteachers are doing an excellent job. However, there are some who are undoubtedly failing their pupils and failing the country. Fortunately, it is a small number. I have no doubt that this could best be handled by a general teaching council, something on which I have spoken repeatedly in the House. I was happy to see that a Bill introduced by Sir Malcolm Thornton had its First Reading in another place; I was pleased too to learn that Mr. Eric Forth made a suggestion recently to the effect that perhaps the time had come to establish a general teaching council.
I am aware from past speeches of the Front Bench that there are those who would prefer to see the establishment of a college of teachers comparable in certain respects to the Royal Colleges in the medical profession. But those bodies are concerned with professional and academic development. They are not concerned with the statutory regulation of the profession. We have statutory regulation of doctors, dentists and nurses. I played a part in seeing through this House Bills for the statutory regulation of osteopaths and chiropractors and the establishment of councils to regulate their authority. A general teaching council could be the most important innovation leading to the monitoring of high standards of education of teachers and high standards of education of those whom they teach; it would make sure that teachers who were not competent or who were performing at a less than satisfactory level had their problems handled appropriately; and it would introduce disciplinary procedures and procedures for dealing with teachers whose health problems might be putting students at risk.
I hope and believe that whichever government are in power after the election the general teaching council proposal will be one of the leading proposals in education in the next Parliament. My own feeling is that to have a Royal College would be complementary to the establishment of a statutory authority with which every teacher in the land must be registered.
I welcome the Bill in parts. I am unhappy about the proposals relating to selection. I am not opposed to the grant-maintained principle but I believe that the proposals in the Bill to extend grant-maintained status may have a damaging effect in the longer term. While certain popular schools, as the Minister put it in his cogent opening statement, will attract more and more pupils, what will happen to the schools which do not attract more and more pupils? Will we not be in danger of creating many more sink schools which will not serve the population as well and as effectively as they should?
4.23 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Henley for introducing this very important Bill. As he would expect, it is one which I wholeheartedly support.
Having listened to the preceding speakers, I am glad that there is a measure of agreement on a number of issues. I shall not argue as to who thought about what first. I have taken part in discussion of every education Bill since I arrived in your Lordships' House in 1971: all those introduced since 1979 have been fought by the party opposite line by line. It is extraordinary for those on this side of the House to see the kind of deathbed transformation which seems to have come over that party as it considers, with the general election approaching, what the public at large think about education.
Having said I am glad that there is a measure of agreement, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, whose speeches I always enjoy, that I admire his courage in speaking as he did about grammar schools. After all his honourable friend Mr. Blunkett, whom I heard on the "Today" programme only last week, told us that Labour is in favour of grammar schools. Perhaps it is because we know that his honourable friend Ms Harman is sending her son to one. So, clearly, some people think they are very good.
There was also the noble Lord's long peroration about grant-maintained schools. I say that in the light of the fact that his right honourable friend Mr. Blair is sending his children to one, something which I admire and support. Nevertheless, it is completely incongruous to have people on the Labour Front Bench saying they support grammar schools and then to hear the kind of speech we have had this afternoon. The whole thing is entirely designed to win votes in the coming by-election. The Labour Party is scrabbling around for what votes it can get here and there; it changes its mind on education policy every five minutes. How anyone can believe anything it says on the matter I do not know. However, as I said, I am glad there are some areas on which we can agree.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, seemed to be equally opposed to selective and grant-maintained schools and wanted more choice within schools. One of the problems with a uniform system of comprehensive schools is that it rules out choice within the comprehensive system. The number of comprehensive schools for girls is diminishing all the time and so the single sex option is not so readily available, something about which many women teachers have complained. I was sorry to hear the noble Lord, Lord Walton, make the mistake of thinking that if you do not go to a grammar school you have a terrible education. I hope he does not believe that everyone in a comprehensive school has an excellent education.
I wish to make three points about this important Bill. I agree with the first part because I believe that it encourages the improvement of standards in education by building on success. If there is one thing I have learnt in the course of my life—I think it is true of any organisation—it is that you raise standards by looking

31
for good practice and success and building on them. I should have thought that that was as true of the medical world as it is of the education world. I therefore welcome the greater freedom given to grant-maintained schools and the opportunity to have more of them. If there are no more than 1,100 grant-maintained schools, I suspect that that is because every time a ballot takes place there is a sustained campaign on the part of local education authorities and many in the educational establishment to stop them. We are all perfectly well aware of that. It is absurd to think that there have been free elections in any sense. Grant-maintained schools produce better results. Why would people who are in a position to choose them if they did not? They are a success story.
I welcome the expansion of the assisted places scheme, which is another great success story. Recent research shows that assisted place pupils obtain grades two or three higher at A-level than their counterparts in local authority schools. That makes a great deal of difference in terms of the universities they can go to and the subjects they can read. The city technology colleges are also a great success story.
I welcome the fact that there will be more opportunities for grammar schools. Other speakers will be discussing that point and so I shall not pursue it further. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, made the point that education in Scotland is very good, something with which I entirely agree. He will agree that education in Northern Ireland usually comes out top of the list. That could well be because Northern Ireland has kept its grammar schools. All employers I know welcome employees who have been educated in Northern Ireland. Perhaps my noble friend can tell us in his reply where Northern Ireland schools fall within the general league tables. I welcome the building on a series of success stories. We must not stop there. Successful schools will see how they can raise their own standards and improve standards for all.
The second area on which I wish to comment is discipline. I was glad that my noble friend had so much to say about it because, clearly, without good discipline in a school learning is impossible. I know that we have taken steps with the publication of statistics on truancy, and I recognise that many of the proposals in the Bill are based on the report of my noble friend Lord Elton. However, I think that with regard to discipline we have put teachers, and particularly head teachers, in a very difficult position.
The operation of the Children Act has had a serious effect in schools, no doubt not intended when the Bill passed through your Lordships' House. I heard of one head teacher being told firmly that under no circumstances should a teacher touch a child. I do not know what one is supposed to do to comfort a small child. Most of us would put an arm around such a child. It is deplorable that such things could be said to be "good advice". Conversely, there are many well publicised cases—such cases have come to my notice—of teachers who have found themselves, having tried to separate two fighting boys, being accused of abuse by
32
the parents of one of the boys. That puts the teacher in an impossible position. Such matters need to be looked at very carefully.
I read with great interest the memorandum that I was sent by the National Association of Head Teachers which I believe welcomes the proposals and wishes to go further. The matter needs close examination. I am glad to say that I believe that the overwhelming majority of teachers do an excellent job. One very practical way in which we could help them would be to give them the disciplinary powers that they need.
Many noble Lords will have much to say on the important issue of the merging of SCAA and NCVQ. I believe in the importance of high academic standards. Whatever happens with the merger, we must not see a lowering of standards. Judgments about whether A-levels are now easier or more difficult are always problematic. The truth of the matter is that A-levels now are rather different from what they were. Ultimately, however, we do no service to anybody—academic or vocational—if we do not set high, demanding, rigorous standards. Whatever the result of the merger, I hope that such standards will be applied equally across the board.
I am pleased that, as I understand it, Dr. Nicholas Tate is to be the chairman of the body because I hope that we shall not forget the moral and spiritual side of education. The matter has been raised in your Lordships' House on a number of occasions. We must stress the importance of marriage and the family. After all, it is the children—and the children of the future—whom we are considering. I hope that there will be a great measure of agreement across your Lordships' House on the matter and that this important aspect of life is not forgotten.
In conclusion, I should like to raise one point which, in a way, is outside the scope of the Bill. However, this Second Reading debate gives me an opportunity to refer to a matter on which I shall table an amendment in Committee. I refer to British schools in the European Union. Looking around your Lordships' House, I believe that the only Member who was present in the Chamber when we last discussed this matter is the noble Baroness, Lady David, who was good enough to support me in an amendment to the Education Reform Act 1988, which was carried in this House. I now see that my noble friend Lord Boardman is in his place. I believe that he was present then also.
The point at issue is as follows: thousands of British men and women now work in the European Union. Naturally enough, they are concerned about the education of their children. Many of them work in Europe for only a limited period. They can send their children to a British school which teaches and follows the national curriculum in the same way as a maintained school in this country. Such schools prepare pupils for GCSEs and A-levels. Pupils sometimes attend such schools for as little as a year or for as long as six years. They then return to a maintained school in this country and go on to higher education.
British schools in Europe are fee paying because the British Government, unlike the governments of many other countries in the European Union, contribute

33
nothing whatever for the education of nationals abroad. Large companies in the European Union pay the fees for their employees' children because they can afford to do so. Small companies and particularly self-employed people are often unable to do that. That puts our exporters and business people at a great disadvantage, to say nothing of what it does to the education of their children which has been greatly interrupted. It is only common justice that people who are working hard for the prosperity of us all in this country should be helped. I shall be tabling an amendment to suggest a way in which it may be possible to give help, through some kind of educational grant scheme, to the children of employees of small companies or those who are unable to provide for such school fees.
Finally, once again I thank my noble friend for introducing this important Bill which will have my great support throughout its passage.

Ashworth Hospital
4.36 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should now like to repeat a Statement about the allegations concerning Ashworth Hospital in Merseyside which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about action being taken to address the allegations involving the Personality Disorder Unit at Ashworth Hospital in Merseyside. This unit comprises six wards, with 115 patients, within the total hospital population of 473 patients. Members will be aware that last Friday I instituted urgent action to address the very serious situation which had been brought to my attention in the preceding few days.
"In October last year Stephen Daggett, a patient at Ashworth Hospital, made a number of allegations, including the misuse of drugs and alcohol, financial irregularities, the availability of pornographic material and possible paedophile activity involving a child visitor within the Personality Disorder Unit. I am advised that the hospital began investigations at that time and that a subsequent ward search on 17th January found a large amount of pornographic material. Despite the availability of this evidence and of Mr. Daggett's allegations, the hospital continued to maintain that press reports of unacceptable and possibly unlawful activity within the Personality Disorder Unit were unfounded.
"On 28th January 1997 the Home Office received a letter from the honourable Member for Halifax enclosing a 60-page dossier which sets out the detail of Mr. Daggett's allegations. This dossier was passed to my department.
34
"On 31st January, police visited the home of a former Ashworth patient who had continued to be a frequent visitor to the hospital. Following this police action, a child has been taken into the care of the local authority under an emergency protection order.
"In the light of the allegations made by Mr. Daggett and of other evidence that has recently become available, I made three announcements on Friday. First, the hospital has suspended three members of staff, including the chief executive. An acting chief executive has been appointed with immediate effect. He is Mr. Erville Millar, chief executive of Lambeth Health Care NHS Trust, who has a strong background in mental health services. I can further inform the House that the hospital has today also suspended a member of the medical staff.
"Secondly, I have established a statutory inquiry under Section 84 of the National Health Service Act 1977 to review the clinical policies and the management of the Personality Disorder Unit at Ashworth Hospital. The inquiry will be led by His Honour Peter Fallon QC, a recently retired senior circuit judge. A Section 84 inquiry has the power to summon witnesses and to take evidence on oath. The inquiry will determine how and on what terms it takes evidence. It will also be for the inquiry to ensure that its work does not compromise continuing police investigations or possible criminal proceedings, but I would expect it to report within a year. Its report will be published.
"The terms of reference for the inquiry will be published as soon as possible. They will make clear that since it is activities within the Personality Disorder Unit of the hospital which have given rise to recent concern, the inquiry should focus on the policies, management and clinical care provided by the unit. The inquiry will, however, also wish to follow up any wider questions which are necessary to the proper consideration of these issues.
"Thirdly, with regard to the alleged involvement of a child, the Chief Inspector of Social Services, Sir Herbert Laming, has asked the local authority concerned for a full report on the handling of the case by its social services department. I will decide, in the light of that report, whether further action needs to be taken.
"The allegations which have been made about Ashworth Hospital are extremely serious. The public is entitled to reassurance on two counts. First, Ashworth Hospital must be properly managed and must provide a high level of security for the benefit both of patients and of the public at large. Secondly, the hospital must also ensure that its patients receive a high standard of clinical care. The action that I announced on Friday is directed at the achievement of both those objectives."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.41 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for repeating a Statement about a very serious and disturbing situation. We on these

35
Benches welcome the announcement of the inquiry and the fact that it has been quickly established. We have a concern as to whether its approach is broad enough. It is extremely sad that there is an urgent need for another inquiry at Ashworth only a few years after a similar investigation into serious incidents produced changes, including the appointment of the present chief executive who has now been suspended. I should like to ask a question about the suspension of senior staff. Can the noble Baroness add anything to her brief remarks about the suspension today of a medical member of staff? That matter was not referred to in the written version of the Statement that I was given.
The most serious questions that are raised today are probably those relating to the overall management and treatment of the so-called personality disordered—who used to be referred to as the psychopathic group of patients—in this one unit. All noble Lords recognise the extremely difficult and complex problems of combining care and security in this specialist field. On the whole, we welcome the move to the system of 24-hour care, where patients now have greater personal flexibility. For example, they hold the keys to their own rooms. Clearly, for that system to be acceptable and successful there is a need for highly skilled and effective management. Patients also need to be directly supervised by an adequate number of trained staff who are not intimidated or manipulated by the disordered and sometimes dangerous personalities in their charge.
The extremely disturbing situation at Ashworth that has been described suggests that security and supervision have been extremely lax and that there may even have been collusion between staff and patients. Obviously, the inquiry will look at the quality of management at the hospital as a top priority, but it will also need to establish whether there was implicit or explicit collusion about the pornographic and drug-taking activities that allegedly took place. Perhaps the Minister can assist us this afternoon by saying what, if any, evidence of such collusion has emerged. One knows that evidence of widespread drug abuse has been reported for more than a year by external supervisory organisations but has not been acted upon.
In addition, there is a statement by Mr. Daggett, a patient, to which the Minister referred, and a statement by Mr. Corrigan, an ex-nurse, which seem to have been ignored. I remind your Lordships that Mr. Corrigan had worked at the hospital for 10 years. It was he, among others, who reported the deplorable circumstances in which a young girl was smuggled into the unit and possibly molested.
Can the Minister explain why such various and authoritative reports were not acted upon more quickly? Were the mechanisms for reporting up through the system adequate? For example, how could these matters have been known locally without any reference to a regional authority or to the Department of Health? Are we seeing yet another serious example of the fragmentation of the NHS that leads to all of these matters being dealt with at such a local level that ministerial responsibility is difficult to carry out? For example, did any Minister know before the 28th January
36
reference to the dossier by the honourable Member in another place about what was happening, or was the Member of Parliament the first person at central government level to hear about it? Is the Minister concerned that the so-called gagging clauses which exist in NHS contracts have inhibited those members of staff who are still employed at the hospital from speaking more openly about their experiences?
Your Lordships will be aware that there are grave shortages of specialised staff across the whole spectrum of care for the mentally ill, particularly in the special hospitals. Can the Minister inform the House whether reports that staffing levels at Ashworth are at an all-time low are accurate? The reports say that there are shortages across the board, from forensic psychiatrists to ward orderlies. If they are true, what steps were being taken to improve the situation before these allegations became public? Can the noble Baroness speculate about the cause and effect of the staff shortages and the allegedly anarchic situation that the inquiry will investigate?
I said earlier that we welcomed the inquiry and the speed with which it had been set up. However, we are concerned that its terms of reference may not be sufficiently wide for it to consider some of the general issues about Ashworth and other special hospitals that need to be investigated. It is obvious that in the short term priority must be given to the alarming situation that has been revealed, but we on these Benches are anxious that the broader policy questions are also addressed. For example, for some time there has been discussion about the effectiveness or appropriateness of very large institutions and special hospitals like Ashworth, where many personality disordered patients are detained together. Noble Lords may recall that Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, who chaired the previous inquiry into events at Ashworth, described such organisations and institutions as inherently unmanageable. Will the inquiry be able to tackle that issue which is about both management and treatment?
There is an even broader clinical question about the psychiatric ability to treat personality disordered people. This is a subject that is much debated among psychiatrists, and potentially it has far-reaching consequences for the care and control of such patients. For example, has the Department of Health had time to discuss with the Home Office the possible impact of rethinking the questions about the treatability of these patients under the so-called hybrid orders for hospital and prison care that are proposed under the current crime Bill? It is important that these wider questions are inquired into and openly aired. There may well be a strong case for making this inquiry a public one so that at least the suspicions of cover-up and collusion can be seen to be examined. If the decision has been taken not to hold a public inquiry, perhaps the Minister can explain why that has been thought necessary. We all understand the importance of not compromising possible criminal proceedings.
Overall, we on these Benches would like to see both the specific problems and the general questions authoritatively and openly investigated; otherwise, we fear that in a few years' time another scandal will erupt

37
and may well he tackled with short-term crisis management, while the underlying issues at Ashworth and other special hospitals remain unresolved.
Lord McNally: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, has quite rightly drawn the attention of the Minister to the need for a proper balance between care and security at Ashworth. But I do not believe that Ministers should get away scot-free after the sheer disbelief and outrage of the general public at the catalogue of disasters that has been announced. Here we have child abuse and pornography—the worst nightmares of the public—associated with a secure unit for which there is direct ministerial responsibility. In an earlier age there would have been only one Statement made to either House; that is, a ministerial resignation. However, that belongs to an earlier age. Therefore, it is important that Ministers make it clear that there is a sense of urgency to match the public disquiet at what has been revealed at Ashworth. A one-year general inquiry—I echo the call of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for a public inquiry—may meet some of the concern.
There is need for immediate action. It is, again, unbelievable that this Statement is a product of the courage and publication by a patient. It has nothing to do with the lines of communication and command within the department but with a patient going public. We must have immediate assurances that there are already in place, ahead of any inquiry, proper and adequate machinery for inspections that breaks through what clearly is a successful wall of silence and collusion within these institutions. Without that assurance of external inspection, public disquiet will remain.
It is amazing that there have not already been any arrests or criminal prosecutions, given the range of evidence that has been acquired: 1,200 videos within a so-called secure unit suggests a range of knowledge and awareness which again makes the mind boggle.
I ask the Minister to comment upon the point made by the noble Baroness, which must awaken concern, about the size of these units. Earlier inquiries have drawn attention to the fact that units of this size are inherently unstable and unmanageable.
What lies at the heart of the Statement is its flabbiness and feebleness in the face of a scandal of such proportions. The actions are the usual ones—the judge is rolled out; a year of inquiry. But what the public want to know is that in this institution and parallel institutions immediate action is being taken to stop criminal activity by inmates, staff or visitors. I am not sure that that assurance comes from the Statement. Nor is there any sense of urgency about putting in place an independent inspectorate that can give the public the safety and the assurance they require.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for welcoming this inquiry. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, used the words, -Here we have" child abuse, child pornography, and so forth. We do not know whether it is, "Here we have".
38
These are allegations. That is why the inquiry is being set up. It would be wrong to jump to any conclusions before the outcome of the inquiry.
The noble Baroness asked about staff collusion, staffing levels, and why reports had not been acted upon earlier. Those are all matters for the inquiry, which is why we have set it up. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State only received these allegations at the end of last week. He acted within days to set up the inquiry to see whether or not the allegations have force behind them.
We should see this also in connection with the Health Advisory Service which reported in 1994 that things were improving at Ashworth. It said that there was a great deal more work to be done, but the Government acted upon all but one—the question of seclusion—of the recommendations of the Blom-Cooper Inquiry. The Health Advisory Service said that the changes were making an impact. It is hard for these institutions, whose whole nature is one of security, always to find out exactly what is going on.
The noble Baroness asked also whether the inquiry would look at much broader policies. We are doing that through the High Security Psychiatric Services Commissioning Board. It has already done a great deal on the general strategy for these secure services. It will be reporting its conclusions in due course.
The noble Baroness asked also whether the inquiry should be an open one. We have left that for decision by the chairman and the panel members. We shall publish the report, but we believe it important that we should get to the whole truth. One of the lessons we learnt from the Allitt Inquiry was that if the total inquiry is made public it does not always allow people the freedom to express their views about the situation they find working within these hospitals. It will be for the inquiry panel to determine whether it should be held in public or in private or, indeed, part private and part public. With the sensitivity of the issues and the need for patients to give evidence it may be that at least part of the evidence should be taken in private, but that would be a matter for the panel.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, taking account of the fact, as my noble friend the Minister said, that these are but allegations, nonetheless they are very serious and disturbing allegations. I accept that my right honourable friend the Minister acted with dispatch, but I should like to know what supervisory system was set up in the wake of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper's report. Who was operating it? How often were visits made? What was found? If there were no visits or if nothing was found, why was that so? I do not think that this is the sort of situation—allegations; yes, but terrifying ones—which one can slough off in any way.
I heard what my noble friend said about there not being a public inquiry. I beg my noble friend to reconsider. I think it should be a public inquiry with evidence given on oath. This is a very serious matter. There may be difficulties with certain patients who may not necessarily understand the nature of the oaths, but

39
some of the staff presumably do. This should be treated with the utmost seriousness. I made a similar request when the Matrix Churchill matter was raised in your Lordships' House. There are two other aspects. Is this entirely within the remit, the responsibility, of the Secretary of State for Health? I do not know. Has not the Home Office—the noble Baroness raised the point—any responsibility? Is it not involved in the supervisory arrangements? Can this not be reconsidered? It is not a matter for Judge Fallon whom I know personally. He is a first rate man. It is not a matter for him. It is a matter for government. The responsibility lies with some ministry or two ministries. It is not for Judge Fallon really to make recommendations.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, we are dealing with questions to the Minister.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for some of those comments. Of course my right honourable friend and, indeed, all his Ministers share with him the view that this is a very disturbing set of allegations. It is serious, and that is why we have taken prompt action. My noble friend suggests that there should be another body to supervise these hospitals. That is something that the inquiry will clearly want to consider.
At the moment we have the Health Advisory Service and the Mental Health Act Commission. They are two bodies which have overall responsibility for looking at the clinical practice within these three special hospitals. I am not sure whether a third would do the trick. Perhaps one must look to different mechanisms and to different lines of accountability. The hospital authority board, which has a chairman and non-executive members, is in many respects set up like a hospital trust. The chairman has direct accountability to the Secretary of State. The commissioning board, which purchases the services for the National Health Service, is part of the NHS Executive. The chairman of that board also has direct responsibility to the Secretary of State. There is a clear line of accountability, but it is for the inquiry team to see whether it worked; if it did not, why; and how it can be improved.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that the inquiry should be in public? There is widespread public concern about the matter which will not be allayed by an inquiry taking place behind closed doors.
Will the Minister also tell us more about the report of the Health Advisory Service? I believe she said that in 1994 the report indicated that there had been an improvement. Is she aware that if there had been an improvement, heaven alone knows what the conditions were like previously?
Finally, what is the Minister's reply to the point made by my noble friend Lord McNally? Is it not already clear that there should be some external inspection of such hospitals; the kind which operates within the Home Office with the chief inspector of prisons? Is it not
40
obvious that if such an inspectorate had been in existence many of these shocking episodes would have been identified earlier?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord asks what the Health Advisory Service found and if the situation had improved. The Health Advisory Service went in after the Blom-Cooper report in 1992. It found improvements but said that there was more work to be done. Perhaps I may put that into context. Before Sir Louis Blom-Cooper compiled his report allegations were made and evidence was found within Ashworth that it was a brutal system and a more therapeutic service should be provided. Sir Louis Blom-Cooper put forward about 25 recommendations. We have implemented all of those except for one which relates to seclusion.
The Health Advisory Service found that the situation had improved. It is for the inquiry to decide the matter, but it may be that one regime has been superseded by another and the swing has been too great. Clearly, the inquiry will wish to examine that matter.
I believe that I dealt with inspections when I replied to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. There are inspections by outside bodies and it will be for the inquiry team to decide whether a third body carrying out inspections will improve the standards or whether we should be using other mechanisms.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I deeply sympathise with the Minister in the position in which she finds herself with regard to the allegations. Can any of the allegations to which she referred by regarded as criminal? If there are suggestions that criminal actions may have taken place it is difficult to understand why the police were not immediately called in. Can the Minister enlighten the House about that?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes, the police are very much involved in these allegations. They are in the hospital at present, which is one of the reasons why we have some difficulty with the inquiry. Clearly, we must in no way obstruct what the Merseyside Police are doing at present.
I have been to Ashworth on two occasions and I have spoken to those responsible for the hospital. I know that in parts of the hospital extremely good work is being carried out. We are talking about one unit within the hospital, and that needs to be seen in context. The personality disorder unit contains people who, in the old jargon, were called psychopaths. They are very disturbed, violent people. I believe that they are the most challenging patients with whom we must deal anywhere in the health service and it is not surprising that on occasions we have difficulties.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the terms of reference. I finished today for publication next week an inquiry into allegations against the hospital trust in Leeds. Constantly, during the past three years I found that the people concerned had not read the terms of reference. The Minister referred to wider matters and my noble friend Lady Jay referred to more

41
general matters. Will the wider matters include resources and staffing of a wider nature than the narrower hut important issues that we have discussed today?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the terms of the inquiry will be focused on the clinical care, the policies and the procedures carried out within the unit. They will also take into account the security and management arrangements. To my knowledge there have been no problems regarding financial resources to the hospital. That has not been an issue. As regards whether the inquiry should look wider, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said that he wants it to focus on the personality disorder unit of the hospital. However, if the inquiry wishes to follow up wider questions which are necessary to the proper consideration of these issues it has the freedom to do so.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as we have a little time, perhaps with the leave of the House I may return to a few questions which I asked in my original remarks. The Minister has not responded to them but I believe that they are important and are not covered by the terms of the inquiry which she says make them difficult to comment on. The first is the issue of staffing levels at Ashworth, which must have been known to the management and to people in the wider healthcare community before the allegations became public. If the suggestion of considerable under-staffing at Ashworth is true, what was being done about it before the allegations came to light?
My second question related specifically to the member of the medical staff who, the Minister said, was suspended today but whose suspension was not referred to in the Statement.
My third question related to the mechanisms for reporting upwards from the hospital through the health service. There appears to be a considerable lacuna between the reporting of individual members of staff and the Secretary of State, or the Minister who is responsible for the hospital. Although the Minister said that the hospital trust will report directly to the Secretary of State, my suspicion remains that we are seeing another example of the fragmentation of proper responsibility and accountability within the health service.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer in detail the issues concerning the staffing levels at Ashworth. All I can say is that all such hospitals are both professionally and geographically isolated and find difficulty in attracting staff. As regards staff reporting, in this case it was not a member of staff who was reporting but a patient who was making allegations. I am sure that noble Lords who are aware of such institutions will know that frequently allegations are made by patients about their personal treatment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I believe that there was also an ex-nurse who was very much
42
involved in those allegations, which were substantiated, it is true, by the patient. However, there was the involvement of that ex-nurse.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, an ex-nurse was in charge of the patient Daggett, who absconded. He was subsequently dismissed by the board. I am in no position to judge the veracity of the allegations and, again, I am sure that that is something which the inquiry will wish to take up.
The accountability of this particular hospital is very clear. I explained it to my noble friend. It is as clear as it is with a trust or a health authority: it goes through the regional office of the NHS Executive to the Secretary of State. The noble Baroness is a member of a health authority and no doubt she knows the lines of management accountability as well as I do.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Minister has told us for the first time that a member of the medical staff has been suspended. Can we have some more information about that? Who is the person and what position does he hold? What is his connection with the allegations?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I do not have the name of the member of staff. All I know is that allegations have been made about him. I do not know what those allegations are in the same way that I do not know any details about the two nurses who have been suspended and the allegations made about them. But they are all suspended pending the inquiry, as is the chief executive.
Lord Richard: My Lords, what position does he hold?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the medical member of staff is a clinical psychiatrist.

Education Bill
5.11 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in returning to the Second Reading of the latest and, it is hoped, last Education Bill which this Government will present to the House, we all owe a very great debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for exposing very clearly the contradictions in the Government's arguments. On the one hand, in his opening remarks he suggested that the Bill will enhance the choice of parents—but that will be done by extending the ability of schools to choose the parents. That is one of the fundamental contradictions of the Government's position. By talking about extending choice for parents, they imply that that is good, and that is what they are doing. But in fact, they are reducing parental choice by giving schools the choice as to which parents are allowed to send their children to a particular school. That demonstrates the Government's complete lack of understanding of the nature of comprehensive schools and comprehensive education.

43
I speak from my experience as a member of the Manchester education committee and also from visiting other schools in other localities. I am also a governor and the chair of governors of a high school. Therefore, I should explain to the Government that every comprehensive school is unique and has its own ethos and separate identity. It may come as a surprise to the Government, who look at these matters superficially, that two schools, which have an almost identical building, with almost identical numbers of staff and pupils, may have a completely different ethos and arrangements within them for the education of the children. Therefore, by and large, parents have a wide range of choice within the comprehensive system.
I could go through all the aspects of the Bill in detail, but that has been done most ably by my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris. What I aim to do—I hope not to take too long over it—is to illuminate one or two aspects of the Bill which have been mentioned.
I was concerned about the way in which the Minister talked about the home-school contracts. At the moment, it is virtually an unwritten contract that all parents are required to present their children at school and that the school must educate the pupils. But home-school contracts take that a stage further. My reason for raising that matter is that I had experience of a school where the concept of home-school contracts had not been thought through and had not been well explained to it. Its view was that all that was required was that it should present the pupil and the parents with a piece of paper which said that the parents must get the child to school and must ensure that he did his homework and that the pupil must be attentive in class and do his course work. That seemed to be the implication of what the Minister said.
I suggest that a contract is between two or three parties and all the parties must have something to contribute to it. It is unfortunate if only one party or two parties to the contract are required to provide or produce something or adhere to any constraints and the third party—the school—does not. It would be well worth the Minister discussing and talking to people who have experience of devising those contracts and utilising them so that he understands what it is all about.
My next point is the effect of selection. Those of us—I include the noble Lord, Lord Henley—who are "baby boomers", born shortly after the war, experienced the divide in our education system between grammar schools and the secondary modern schools. There was that distinction at the age of 11 between a child being a success or a failure. There was a distinction as to whether he went on to a university or to some other form of usually lower class education.
One of the effects of that was that quite a large number of mistakes were made. People who should not necessarily have progressed through grammar schools to university did so, and quite a large proportion of the population who should have benefited from grammar school and university education did not do so. One result was that when those young people went into work in industry and commerce there was a distinction between what one might describe as the officer class and other
44
ranks. The result of that was an extremely deleterious effect on the performance of British industry and commerce, because we had the wrong people with the wrong qualifications in the wrong job. Having spent 20 years in industry, I can testify to that experience.
One of the other problems is the importance of sensible consultation. Again I speak from experience. When my children were fairly small, just coming up to primary school age and going into primary school, the local education authority planned to merge a girls' school and a boys' school. On the face of it, that was a sensible proposition. But when it came to the legal requirements of the consultation exercise, the only people whose opinions were sought were the parents of children already at those schools. If one bears in mind that the timescale of the change was five or six years, it will be understood that all the children at both those schools would have left the school by the time the merger took place. Effectively, the wrong group of parents were consulted. Those parents who had children at the feeder primary schools for both those high schools were not consulted at all. I suspect that, if they had been and had the right questions been asked about the future of the education which they wanted for their children, the results would have been rather different.
In conclusion, comprehensive schools have worked for this country. We can judge that in a number of ways. One way is to see the massive expansion of the numbers of young people who are qualified to go into university compared with the numbers under the previous system. A grammar school in every town means three or four secondary moderns. Education should not be a lottery, with a four out of five chance of failure. Education should be beneficial for everyone; in other words, everyone should have a 100 per cent. chance of a good education.
5.20 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I welcome some parts of the Bill. Fortunately, I do not have to go into questions of intellectual property with regard to those parts. However, there are many aspects of the legislation that I find very disturbing. I do not want to talk about the whole Bill—that is, either the good or the bad bits—but will concentrate on certain aspects of it on this occasion.
I find the Bill somewhat confusing. I believe that the confusion in the first part of the Bill arises from the use of the concept of choice, and it is very familiar in the present educational climate. Of course the existence of more and different kinds of schools involves in principle a choice, just as the existence of the independent sector involves more choice. But to suppose that a school that is selective offers each individual parent more choice is, as has already been pointed out, totally fallacious. We might as well say that an individual parent has a choice of sending her child to Winchester. That is correct, of course, provided that her child is clever, is a boy, and that she has enough money to pay the fees.
Similarly, with a selective school, or a school which has more selective places than it had before, individual parents cannot choose to send their children there to the

45
extent that they could before. Parents can choose to let the child apply but they cannot possibly choose that the child should actually attend the school. For that, the child has to be clever enough to pass the entrance examination.
I am not at all hostile to selection as such. I do not believe that it is an intrinsic evil, with one proviso; namely, that the other schools are good and should be seen by parents to be good. I believe that they can provide a good education to those children who are not selected. I know, for example, of one London girls-only maintained school which is a Church of England school. I am told that this year there were 90 places to be filled—it is a three-form entry school—and that there were well over 490 candidates. That school selects partly on academic grounds and partly on Church membership grounds. But the point I wish to make is that it is incredibly important that any education Bill which advocates selection should say something about, say, those 400 girls who will not be going to that excellent school.
The main defect of the Bill, as I see it, is that it has very little hope to offer to schools which are not going to be selective schools. There is one exception to that and it is a most important one. The Bill does offer hope in the new qualifications. I believe that it is thoroughly admirable to have a new authority which covers all of the curriculum, including the new qualifications.
The worst feature of the legislation is that new powers have been given to the funding authority to start up new grant-maintained schools in any area. Moreover, the governors of existing grant-maintained schools can expand their school or change its character so far as concerns selectivity without proper consultation. We are told that they will be given advice or guidance from the Secretary of State, but we do not know what kind. That is a fragmentation of the policy making powers of the LEAs in relation to schools. As one speaker has already said, it is another nail—possibly not quite the last one—in the coffin of the local education authorities.
So far as I can see, the local education authorities will have only two functions in the future. One is to issue statements on children with special needs who will merit statements, if I may put it that way. But, even there, the local authority will not have to place those children with statements because, if your child has a statement, you really have a choice of schools. Indeed, schools and local authorities are almost bound to allow the child to go to the school of first choice, which will make things extremely difficult for schools such as the one in London that I mentioned. However, LEAs will have to issue statements and ensure that those children go to the schools which their parents prefer.
The other task of the LEAs is a new one and seems to me to be a terrible task; namely, to provide education, very expensively, to those children who will, if the Bill goes through in its present form, become "disqualified persons". Whatever else is claimed about the Bill, I believe that that title must go. I am sure that there is some other way to refer to those unfortunate children who will not be accepted at any school. However, I am afraid that they will be rather numerous. So a new and
46
sad task will fall to the LEAs and it is only to be hoped that they will have enough money to fulfil it. They will have to devise other forms of education for the children who will be excluded from every school, not just from the one at which they started. We should be ashamed to have legislation which contains such clauses about "disqualified persons".
As I have said before, I believe—and even more strongly on reading the Bill in detail—that the slaughter of the powers of the LEAs will turn out to be one of the worst things that this Government have done. We must restore local policy making to the education scene. Governors of schools are interested in their own school and they cannot have, and should not be expected to have, an overriding interest in the common good of all the children in their area. It is not their task to make policy. It used to be the task of the LEAs. I hope that some of that power will he restored to them somehow or other.
5.27 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I very much welcome the Bill. It appears to me neither as a curate's egg nor, to take the example of the right reverend Prelate, a half-burnt piece of toast, but as a very wholesome slice of daily bread for the children in our schools. I should particularly like to address the topic of selection which many speakers have referred to and which seems to result in a great deal of misunderstanding—not least a misunderstanding of what the Bill is actually saying and what it proposes to do.
However, perhaps it would be salutary, first, to ask why selection is on the agenda at all. It surprises me somewhat that there is a belief on the Opposition Benches—and, indeed, in some of the daily newspaper reports—that repeating like a mantra that comprehensive schools have been a success will somehow make that come true. Unfortunately you cannot have it both ways. You cannot produce the wonderful rhetoric which the noble Lord, Lord Morris, produced, and which I greatly enjoyed, about the failures of the education system where, for example, 85 per cent. are not performing as well as they should, and point out how desperately the children from deprived homes in poorer areas are being educated, while at the same time claiming that the comprehensive schools which all these children have been attending are a howling success.
However, surely as people who genuinely care—and I know that we all do—about what is happening to the young people in our society, we ought to be asking much more fundamental questions without ideological presuppositions as to what it is that is going wrong. It is patently obvious that we are not doing as well as we would like to be doing, especially as regards the less able or at least those who are perhaps less well endowed in terms of home background and so on. Indeed, we are not doing as well as we would like to do. We are not doing as well by them as they deserve. Therefore something must be wrong somewhere within the system that we have set up.

47
Comprehensive schools are not a howling success. When they were first introduced I was one of those who believed that they would be a great step forward. It is extremely disappointing to read the research of the past 10 or 15 years which consistently shows that children from more deprived backgrounds continue to perform poorly even though they are now in the comprehensive system. Many of us as educationalists thought that it was the failure of the secondary modern schools that made that happen. However, it is not; it seems to be something which continues despite the reorganisation of the system.
Sadly, the success rate of young people from less well-off homes in getting into higher education has not been radically changed. In many ways the social composition of those who enter higher education is not greatly changed from that of 20 or even 30 years ago. We need to look at this matter again and we should do so with open minds and without all this ideological baggage of repeating—as I said, rather like a mantra—comprehensive schools, good; every other kind of school, bad.
Having said that, as I listened to spokesmen from the Benches opposite this afternoon, I found myself re-reading the Bill rather nervously in case I had misread it. Were we being presented with proposals for 100 per cent. selection in some schools? Were we being invited to sign up to the idea that some schools should select all their pupils and others should select none—the old bipartite system of grammar schools and secondary modern schools? No, it is no such thing. The most that is being proposed is that local authority schools should be able to select up to 20 per cent. of their pupils and grant-maintained schools should be able to select up to 50 per cent. of their pupils on any range of criteria which they choose, not just academic ability but perhaps giftedness in the performing arts or music, or even in sport. The sort of picture we have been offered of how wicked it will be for a child to fail to get into a school and therefore be "in the sink" is absolutely not the picture which this Bill presents us with.
I have said before in your Lordships' House that to allow schools which are situated in deprived areas where achievement has been low to select a proportion of their pupils on grounds of ability might be a good thing. I remember that one of the aspects of the ILEA's policies that I liked—I am sure that noble Lords on the Benches opposite approved of the ILEA, which I, largely, did not—was that it attempted to achieve a mix of ability in its schools. It used to band pupils into the very bright, the medium-bright and the less bright and ensure that each of its comprehensive schools had a mix. That is the kind of possibility which is opened up by this Bill. In an area which has a long history of low achievement it is difficult for the head and the staff of a school to raise that level of achievement unless they can admit some pupils into the school who have the possibility of reaching higher achievement. Then one can begin to reverse the downward spiral. Therefore I strongly welcome that aspect of the Bill.
48
Nor does the Bill in any sense restrict choice; it widens choice. It always seems to me odd that we hear a repeated statement—as if repeating it made it true—by those on the Benches opposite that one cannot have parental choice and selection. I have said before in this House that people choose which university they wish to apply for. However, that does not mean they are guaranteed to obtain a place there. The universities select the students who best suit them. When young people enter the world of employment they choose which jobs to apply for. However, that does not mean they are guaranteed to obtain the job they want. There is a wide diversity of choice. However, the fact that they may sometimes suffer disappointment and not get the job they want or get into the university they want is surely not a recipe for going to the other extreme and becoming like the People's Republic of China and saying, "You have no choice at all. This is where you go and be blowed to your choice and your inclinations". I have seen young Chinese men and women in universities literally in tears when they describe to me how they were directed to study engineering although they wanted to become doctors or they were directed to become teachers when they wished to become actors or actresses. Surely we are not advocating that kind of thing.
Let us keep an open mind about what selection can achieve. What is more, we should keep an open mind about the effect of including in the criteria for selection the home-school agreements for parents. It is unfair to expect schools and teachers on their own to cope with all the difficulties that young people face nowadays in reaching their full potential. There must be a partnership, with parents being prepared to sign up to their part of the bargain. Schools alone cannot make good deficiencies that may exist in people's ordinary lives outside school. Schools must have help from parents. This surely is a way in which that can be achieved. I believe it is right to sign the agreements before the young person enters a school, because afterwards it is too late to find out that, however hard the teacher works, he or she is in opposition to the parents, who may be pulling the child away from what the teacher is trying to do. Having these agreements signed in advance gives the parents a choice too. If they do not like the criteria the school has set out in the home-school partnerships, they have the choice of choosing another school where the criteria are more to their liking.
I wish to refer to another aspect of the Bill; namely, the setting of targets by individual schools. I give this provision a particularly strong welcome. It has quite rightly been referred to rather tangentially by other speakers as being part of the package of raising standards. I wish to emphasise how important a part school targets play in raising standards. One of the courageous things which this Government have done is to set national targets, year on year, up to the year 2000, for the achievement of young people. Each year they have courageously published the performance tables to show how progress towards those targets is being achieved. The effect obtained by the annual publication of those tables has been beyond even my wildest

49
expectations. The raising of standards and pupil achievement has been quite remarkable. However, we are still not as far down the road as we would like to be, and we never shall be until we raise standards for all pupils in our schools. Simply to set national targets, or even regional targets through the training and enterprise councils, cannot reflect the whole picture. Targets must be set at the level of individual schools.
I refer to a depressing experience when I attended the education forum of one training and enterprise council at which regional targets were being discussed. The three representatives of three Labour local education authorities began the discussion by saying, "Of course you cannot possibly expect our kind of children to achieve anything like the national targets. Our kind of children can only reach a half, a third or even a quarter of the standards that the others can attain". I want individual schools to consider that kind of statement and say "nonsense". I believe that individual schools will not be tempted to lower their standards and to set themselves low targets. They will have to answer to parents and to pupils as regards the targets they set. I should like to see every school set itself realistic targets for the achievements of its young people. That way, most certainly, the achievements of young people will be raised throughout the entire population and not only in the leafy suburbs.
5.40 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I rise to speak about the Bill with mixed feelings because some parts are very acceptable and are, as my noble friend Lord Morris pointed out, Labour Party policy. But there are other parts which are far from being acceptable and will, I hope, be extensively amended before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House.
First, however, I should declare an interest (especially perhaps as in this instance my accent may be misleading). I am chair of governors of Fairlawn Primary School, a county school in the London Borough of Lewisham; and I also serve as one of the chairs of Lewisham Admissions and Exclusions Appeals Panels.
There are many aspects of this long and wide-ranging Bill which are of interest. However, at this stage I should like to make some points only about those parts of the Bill dealing, first, with selection, and, secondly, with exclusion. I turn to the proposals on selection in Part I, whereby all schools will be allowed to select up to an increased percentage limit without central approval or any public or community consultation. For county, voluntary and grant-maintained primary schools the limit is now to be 20 per cent.; for specialist schools it is 30 per cent; for grant-maintained secondary schools it is 50 per cent.; and, for reasons I cannot understand, grant-maintained schools requiring "special measures"—which means that they are considered to be failing on inspection—should be allowed a 20 per cent. increase.
One of the striking factors in the proposals is the way that parental choice—it was supposed to be a guiding light for this Government's education policy—is being eroded. Rather than expanding the choice for parents, an extension of selection will mean that those parents
50
whose children fail to meet whatever entrance criteria schools impose will not have their choice. Increasing selection gives the schools greater choice—not the parents of children who are not chosen. The effect on other schools of a local school becoming more selective has significance for the whole local community; and schools and planning authorities will face even more difficulty than they do already in planning provision for their local communities. Even the Government seem to see the risks in this since Clause 11 gives them reserve powers.
The question of the parental choice of school is already very vexed indeed, as anyone who has had anything to do with admissions appeals will testify. Parents say, sometimes despairingly, sometimes aggressively, "But this is the school of my choice", and have been misled by the propaganda poured out about this by the party in power into thinking that that should be enough to decide the matter. But of course it is impossible to satisfy all the demands for entry into a popular school. Proposals to increase selection will create further havoc in local admissions and planning.
I have felt for some time that we are looking into an abyss already; and I find that view endorsed by the Audit Commission report, Trading Places, of December 1996. It uses the word "gridlock" for the crisis. I make no apology for quoting this part in full because it is exactly the position that recent policies have produced. It has to be recognised and dealt with rather than further compounded by the proposals in the Bill before us. The audit report warned:
"Unwanted and unnecessary school places lock up scarce resources which could be used elsewhere. Class sizes continue to rise in popular schools. Appeals are on the increase. Schemes for school rationalisation are decreasing. Government and LEAs blame each other. The system risks gridlock".
That is an indictment with which I completely concur both from my own experience and from conversations with others who have to try to help deal with the flood of admissions appeals which pour in. Appeals clerks have a mammoth task to try to make the necessary arrangements and, not least, to find the people to sit on the panels day after day to hear the cases put by impassioned and sometimes distraught parents who more often than not have to be told that on the entrance criteria of the school their child does not qualify. Parental choice does not come into play when dealing with oversubscribed schools.
Before I leave selection, I wish to mention another worrying point in the Bill. I refer to the potential use of baseline assessments at the age of five for the purposes of selection. Those assessments are generally recognised as desirable to allow children's progress to be monitored properly, but it is not acceptable that they run the risk of being used for selecting children at such a young age.
Clauses 2 and 7 of the Bill require school governors annually to consider selection—a not very subtle attempt to encourage the growth of selection. It is an exact parallel to the requirement of annual decisions on whether to ballot parents on grant maintained status. The Government do not seem to have learnt from that experience that it does not achieve what they want. It is

51
yet another statutory demand on already overloaded governors who, not surprisingly, are becoming ever more difficult to find.
Turning to exclusions, we all recognise that other pupils and teachers have to be safeguarded from disruption, or worse, by individual pupils; and that as a last resort this has sometimes to mean exclusion. However, in dealing with the mechanics, let us never lose sight of the many and complex reasons for the fact that exclusions are a growing problem.
Disruptive children are often from emotionally and/or economically deprived backgrounds. In many areas the resources are lacking to provide adequate help from specialist services such as educational psychologists. And when the child is excluded, the arrangements either for referral units or home tuition are often woefully inadequate so that an excluded child is too often found to be coming to the attention of the police. Let us not overlook the real pressures in a league tables climate on a school to divest itself of problems which affect its overall performance and statistics.
Lastly, Clause 28 deals with,
"persons permanently excluded from two or more schools".
I am horrified to read the provision at Clause 28(2) which states:
"Where a child has been permanently excluded from two or more schools, he is a 'disqualified person' for the purposes of this section during the period of two years beginning with the date on which the latest of those exclusions took effect".
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. The term "disqualified person" should not be used of any child. It is completely unacceptable to label a child pejoratively in this way. I do not know what brilliant bureaucrat thought up this term. Perhaps—I do not know whether I dare say so in this House—it was one with a legal background. But surely someone should have thought of the consequences of such a term coming into usage about a child and the effect on the child and the parents. One does not need to be a child psychologist to see what harm it could do. And what civilised society would brand a child a "disqualified person", however many times that child has been excluded from a school? This term surely has to go.
There are many other sections of interest to me in the Bill upon which I shall not comment now. I conclude by saying that, although there are good points in the Bill, I find the whole thrust of the extension of selection very depressing. It is turning back the clock and it would do nothing to address the real problems of our current education system.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, there is much to praise in the Bill, since it addresses some of the problems which have plagued education in this country for years. The early clauses deal with the question of selection that has occupied so much of our debate. In the 1960s I was one of those in favour of the comprehensive principle. I see no reason at all to go back on that belief today.
52
When I became Provost of King's, in Cambridge, in 1956, 69 per cent. of the intake came from independent schools; a further 12 per cent. from direct grant schools; and the remainder from maintained grammar schools. Today, 70 per cent. of the intake come from comprehensive schools and a few maintained grammar schools. Has the intellectual level of achievement fallen? It has not. For five years running that college came top of the academic achievement table. Who can doubt that the principle of selection at 11-plus failed to identify boys and girls who would have gained entry to university and distinguished themselves there?
Yet people like myself should admit that the move to comprehensive education did not serve the country as well as it should. The tragedy of the comprehensive system was, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, that it coincided largely with a revolution in teaching methods—a revolution that was responsible for lowering the standard of achievement in schools; and in institutes and colleges of further education theories of education replaced old-fashioned instruction in chalk and talk.
The ideal of head teachers in comprehensive schools in the 1950s was that their schools should be uniform-wearing, satchel-carrying schools with homework; and that was diminished. In addition, the NUT turned to the tactics of disruption to enforce its claims.
On the question of selection, I want to make it clear that in comprehensive schools I favour the maximum of streaming and setting.
That is why, in my opinion, the Government were right to set up special schools to encourage the teaching of maths and science. I only wish that they would pay a differential to those who teach these subjects in all schools. The schools are competing with business, which demands higher and higher numeracy skills—and can pay for them. Who can blame potential teachers for settling for vastly higher pay in industry than they can possibly receive from teaching in schools?
Good schools in good LEAs have a grievance. They see comparable schools from indifferent LEAs adjoining theirs opting out and being awarded capital grants sometimes totalling £1 million—and not only capital grants; sometimes they receive more in recurrent grant. Whereas good schools which remained loyally with their LEA because that LEA had treated them fairly now see their recurrent grant go down because the Government have imposed cuts on local government. Is it any wonder that they feel sore? I have heard the noble Baroness, Lady David, make that point time and again at Question Time, and I have never heard a satisfactory reply from the Minister.
Clause 30 of the Bill requires parents to sign a home-school partnership document. That is a welcome innovation. But how long will it be before parents begin to think of suing schools which have had to cut back on teachers and other auxiliary staff and activities because in their opinion a school has broken its side of the contract?

53
I still doubt whether we realise how far we lag behind our competitors in Europe. Our children do not emerge from school with the attainments of Dutch, German or French children. That is one of the most severe criticisms which those who support a positive grammar school policy can bring against the policy of comprehensive education. Both the Germans and the French have maintained the equivalent of a selective principle. In only one of the Lander in Germany, Land Hesse, are the Gesamtschulen (that is to say, comprehensive schools) entirely compulsory.
I notice that the French are complaining that the standard of the baccalauréat has fallen. Has the standard of A-level achievement fallen in this country? There is grave scepticism about the marking of scripts now that such immense numbers sit GCSE examinations. Is it not time now to refer to the GCSE boards? Should not the Government set up an inquiry into their work and the effect that their policies have had on higher education? Options proliferate —
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive my intervening. I assure him that we have had concerns about standards over time regarding A-levels. We set up an inquiry under both SCAA and Ofsted which reported last year.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much indeed. I am sorry that I missed the results of that inquiry.
The clauses in Part IV of the Bill about discipline are admirable and long overdue. The upper limit for expulsion is set at 45 days. That allows time for social services to sort matters out. The previous period of 15 days was far too short. It is also right not to allow a pupil to be excluded indefinitely. However, I should like to see provisions that bring home the responsibility, and if possible the cost, of expulsion to the parent or parents of a child. I am sure it will be argued that that is impractical. How is a single parent, often living on support, to pay fines or costs resulting from the insupportable behaviour of her offspring? Yet much more should be done to compel parents to bear responsibility for the bad behaviour of their children. Has the Minister any further initiatives to pursue on this matter?
There is one comprehensive school under a particular LEA of which I have a little knowledge. Among LEAs, Harrow comes around the top of the table of achievement in secondary schools. I assure the House that I do not refer to Harrow-on-the-Hill; I refer to Harrow, the dormitory area of Heathrow Airport. It is one of the most multi-racial areas in the country.
My nephew is head teacher of a comprehensive school in Harrow. Twenty-five per cent of the pupils are white; 50 per cent. are of Indian origin but speak different languages such as Gujerati and Bengali; the remaining quarter speak a variety of mother tongues, including one speaking Japanese. The last count, in 1995, showed that 39 different mother tongues were spoken. The other day, 30 Somalis suddenly arrived, some of whom had received no schooling at all in their own country. They were admitted on the order of the
54
LEA. The teachers, naturally, are similarly multi-racial. Yet 50 per cent. of the 180 who enter for GCSE and A-level are awarded grades of between A and C.
There are head teachers with far more intransigent and devastating problems than those that face my nephew. I sometimes wonder whether we realise how formidable are the problems that teachers face. The grant-maintained schools do not have to admit children who cannot speak English. The LEA-maintained schools are obliged to do so.
The Government and the Chief Inspector of Schools have decreed that there should be league tables that show the attainment of schools in terms of examination results. I understand that the reports presented by inspectors refer to particular difficulties under which certain schools operate. But those are not reflected in the bare statistics; nor is any allowance made for them when grading a school, since grading purely reflects examination results.
I do not suggest that there should be an elaborate scheme of weighting which would reflect the inequalities. We do not want more unnecessary form-filling. But it would do a world of good for morale in disadvantaged schools if an asterisk could be placed against some of their names to show that inspectors are human and recognise that there are handicaps under which some schools labour. I am thinking particularly of a benighted school in the eastern part of Newham which received a dreadful report from Ofsted. Quite rightly, the weaknesses of management and staff were emphasised, but little was said about the deplorable condition of the buildings and the inadequate back-up facilities. By "back-up facilities" I mean all those aids essential for helping immigrant children to integrate with the school and learn the conventions and morality of their new country. Those facilities are the first to he cut by LEAs which are forced to economise.
I do not blame the chief inspector for his brutally frank remarks about the failings of some head teachers and staff. He is quite right to wake us up and face the truth. But I am bound to say that neither his record nor his pronouncements gain the confidence of teachers. I think he needs some guidance and he would find it were he to consult some of the noble and gallant Lords who sit on these Benches such as the noble and gallant Lord, Field Marshal Lord Bramall. They understand how to lead men under their command and inspire them, as well as tearing a strip off them when things go wrong. The chief inspector has something to learn about leadership. He should go himself to visit some good schools, accompanied by his PR officer and, if possible, a television crew. He should compliment the staff on the admirable work they are doing, praise them, encourage them, esteem them; and then add: "O si sic omnes!".
6.2 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, since I became a Member of this House in 1991 we have had an education Bill every year. At various times I remember Ministers saying: "This is the last education Bill we are going to bring before the House". But each year there is another one. I understand that this is now called the

55
"evolutionary approach", as if we were going through the stages of a carefully matured programme of legislation based on a coherent vision. I should like to believe that that is so, but it seems to me that the evidence is against it.
As I have said before, the Government have a choice: they can either try to raise standards by increasing bureaucratic control or they can try to raise standards by freeing schools to respond to the varied demands placed on them by parents. I do not think they have ever made up their mind which they want to do or perhaps even realised that beyond a certain point there is a contradiction between the two approaches. So each Bill we have had has had elements of both approaches. That is why I do not think we have yet achieved a stable framework for our educational system.
But that is all I want to say by way of criticism of the Bill. The great achievement of the Government has been to introduce the language of parental choice into educational discussion. So much so that even the Opposition parties feel constrained to pay lip service to it. However, I do not believe that they have the slightest idea what it means.
This is what Margaret Hodge said on Second Reading in another place:
"If all schools were good, parents and children could exercise real choice".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/11/96; col. 101.]
I quote her because she said succinctly what the other Opposition Front Bench spokesmen said verbosely. I suggest that she is simply misusing ordinary language. What she seems to be saying is this: "Trust us to make all schools equally good. Then we will trust parents—and only then—with the right to choose". But what sort of choice is that? Not only does it deny parents the right to choose things of which Margaret Hodge might disapprove, but it also ignores the role parental choice has in making and keeping schools good—choice as a mechanism. It shows no understanding of what choice can do in improving the quality of education.
Most people understand the difference between having and not having choice, even if the Labour and Liberal Democrat spokespersons do not. Having choice means the freedom to choose. It means having a variety of things to choose from. It means getting what one prefers. It does not mean a bureaucrat in Whitehall or town hall deciding what people ought to have and stopping them from having anything else. That is why I support the Bill. It allows more variety to develop; it gives parents more to choose from.
In theory, the Labour Party is all in favour of variety. Did not David Blunkett say so? Did he not say on Second Reading that:
"the development of specialisms within schools … can be operated perfectly reasonably within the framework of comprehensive schools".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/11/96; col. 51.]
Specialism is variety. How can it be developed within the framework of existing comprehensive schools? He is much too bashful to say. How can a school build up strength in music, sport or anything without being able to select pupils with a talent in those areas?
56
The Bill proposes a modest increase in selectivity: up to 20 per cent. of places in ordinary LEA schools. The Opposition parties throw up their hands in horror. Again at col. 51, Mr. Blunkett says that specialisms can be developed as part of
"a sensible admissions policy that covers the entire area".
If you pierce that fog, what it seems to me to mean is that the LEA will decide which school is to specialise in what and allocate places accordingly. In other words, the LEA will do the selection. Mr. Blunkett turns out to be in favour of selection after all, provided neither the school nor the parent does the selecting. What sort of hypocrisy is that?
The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, has followed her party in seeing a fundamental contradiction between schools selecting pupils and parents choosing schools. But I do not believe that that is true. It is not true of the independent sector, it is not true of universities, it is not true of the labour market, as my noble friend Lady Perry pointed out. Let me ask the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, a question. Do parents who send their children to fee-paying schools claim that they are deprived of choice because they cannot get their children into Eton, Winchester or Wycombe Abbey? Of course they have choice. Selection by schools and choice of parents are not contradictory. There is no conflict between them provided there is a sufficient supply of places for which parents or pupils have a preference. That is not necessarily a first preference, but a positive preference. The contradiction only arises if parents are forced to send their children to schools they actually dislike. That can only happen, I suggest, if over-subscribed schools are not allowed to expand or new schools are not allowed to be set up. That is why those of us who genuinely believe in parental choice have attached great importance to allowing the supply of school places to vary with demand.
The Bill made a modest contribution to that aim. In particular, it allowed over-subscribed grant-maintained schools to expand by up to 50 per cent. without getting permission. What happened? The Opposition parties combined to ambush that clause—Clause 3 in the original Bill—in the other place. I welcome the announcement by my noble friend Lord Henley of the Government's intention to re-introduce that clause in this House. The belief underlying the Opposition's attitude seems to be that no school should be allowed to be more successful or popular than any other school, that all should rise together or not rise at all. That is classic socialism and I do not accept it. On the contrary, I endorse what the Secretary of Sate said in another place that competition between schools is a powerful lever for raising standards. It seems to me to be much too generally accepted that if some schools are temporarily more popular than others, the others will simply become sink schools.
Why should it not be assumed that competition encourages emulation? It does in most other walks of life. Why should education be particularly immune to the stimulus of competition in raising standards? What worries me about speeches such as that of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, is that they are full of phrases about what we should do and do not pay nearly

57
enough attention to how those things—many of which I agree with—can come about. I suggest that competition is one of those mechanisms.
We must remember that what makes schools attractive to parents is not just good examination results but intangibles such as discipline, ethos, moral standards and so on, which are often, but not invariably, associated with good academic performance. Competition between schools is one of the surest ways of spreading what is called "good practice" as well as variety.
Mr. Blunkett said:
"We will not deny people the right to opt for the school of their choice".
That was tactful. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, rather let the cat out of the bag this afternoon when he said "People don't want choice". There speaks the candid planner. His party has supported him. Whenever the Government have tried to extend parental choice, whether by allowing popular schools to expand or by allowing a variety of schools to develop, the Opposition parties always vote against it. The only thing that they consistently support is more control and more planning. The only choice that they allow is Hobson's choice—take it or leave it. If that is one of the grounds on which the election is to be fought, I welcome it. We have nothing to be ashamed of, a lot to be proud of and further to go.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. I wonder whether I might just correct him. I have the exact script of what I said. I said:
"People do not want some vast, bewildering range of choice".
Lord Skidelsky: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the exact quotation. In other words, people might accept a small amount of choice, the kind of choice that a Labour controlled local education authority is willing to give them; but if the choice is extended in any way, they would find that bewildering, entirely unacceptable and would reject it. I assume that is what he means. I believe that my original quotation gives the gist of the attitude that he expressed.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I declare my long-standing interest as chairman of Mencap and wish to speak briefly on an issue of great concern to people with learning disabilities and their families: namely, further education. Although the issue to which I shall refer is not yet covered in the Education Bill, my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) will move an appropriate amendment in Committee unless the Government feel able to deal with the matter themselves. Ignoring Charles I's dictum of 1636:
"Never make a defence or apology before you be accused"—
unfortunately, he did not take his own advice—I should like to apologise for the fact that I shall not be able to be present at Committee stage owing to a commitment overseas. I should also apologise to the Minister and your Lordships if I have to make a slightly early exit from this Second Reading to attend a long-standing
58
charitable occasion of the Lords Taverners this evening. I have given the Minister notice of my intention to move on from what the Bill does contain to what it should contain under the umbrella of the Long Title.
Further education colleges already provide courses for substantial and increasing numbers of people with learning disabilities, many of whom 25 years ago would have been deemed ineducable. Further education is often a vital part of the development of a person with a learning disability; it helps greatly in enabling them to lead more enriched lives. The full titles hardly trip off the tongue, so I beg your Lordships' indulgence for simplifying them and saying that the 1992 FE Act, Schedule 2, gives the funding council the criteria for funding courses of further education. Paragraph (j) of Schedule 2 states that the council shall fund:
"a course to teach independent living and communication skills to persons having learning difficulties which prepares them for entry to another course falling within paragraphs (d) to (h) above".
In plain English that means that one does not get money for a basic lifeskills course unless there is a strong possibility of moving on to a more advanced course. In practice, it is a limiting clause and stops some people with severe learning disabilities getting the further education they want and need because of lack of certainty about what they will be able to cope with later on.
I give your Lordships a practical and recent real life example. Robert Parkinson is 20 years old. He is severely mentally and physically disabled. He wished to continue his education after his statement of special educational needs had expired at the age of 19. His former school confirmed that his intellectual capacity was still expanding but could not predict its eventual level. He was offered a place by Pengwern College, a residential college run by Mencap, which felt that Robert would benefit from further education. The funding council was approached to fund his place but refused the application because, given the level of his disability, it was uncertain that he would be able to progress beyond a basic lifeskills course. His family appealed against the decision but lost because of the restriction in the Act. His local education authority, which has a residual responsibility in this area, also felt that it could not fund him. His family finally decided that the only way to resolve the matter was to seek a judicial review. The court ruled that, as the law currently stands, the funding council could not fund Robert. Meanwhile, Robert attends a day centre and his mother says, "Robert was making progress at school but now his only option is the day centre. He has already slipped back."
Many of your Lordships are resplendent with academic distinction. But, for some, a law which did not allow them to take their O-levels unless there was a good prospect of getting an honours degree later on would have been rather inhibiting. So is Schedule 2(j). Robert is being discriminated against because he is severely disabled. If his disability were milde37r, the funding council would have had to pay for his further education.

59
If we are to embrace the principle of lifelong learning, it must cover everyone in our society. Severely disabled people must not be disenfranchised. I hope that, through an amendment to the Bill which embraces further education as well as schools, this matter can be rectified. I believe that the value of further education for people with severe learning disabilities, in terms of greater independent living skills and enhanced ability to communicate, should not be diminished. People with learning disabilities and their families should not be tossed between the local education authority, the funding council and the social services department to seek funding for essential courses—which will greatly enrich their lives and will only apply to a minimal number of individuals anyway—only to find that no one will fund and therefore a vital opportunity is lost, perhaps for ever.
If education means giving the mind the chance to grow and giving the person the chance to use their mind, can we legitimately deny that to people with learning disabilities? I cannot believe that the Minister, or indeed any Member of your Lordships' House, would be party to such a denial.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I must offer a deep apology to your Lordships' House but the Chancellor of my university will be in Cambridge and I should be in his presence in the not very distant future. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to excuse me if I withdraw when I have made my remarks.
My contribution might well start with appreciation of those comments made by such as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and other noble Lords who have drawn attention to the non-technical side of education. I strongly believe that we must never forget the spiritual as well as the general education of the young people in our country.
I want to spend a few moments directing your Lordships' attention to Part VII of the Bill concerning the supervision of the curriculum for schools and external qualifications. I shall be speaking particularly about the new body which is to be called the Qualifications and National Curriculum Authority.
Others have given their reasons for feeling that they can come today to this debate and speak. In my case, I am conscious that many Members of this House will have 30 year-old relatives who took their O-levels and A-levels while I was vice-chancellor at Cambridge. They will find a facsimile of my signature on the no doubt framed and much treasured certificates for which they qualified. While I was at Cambridge involved with teaching and the affairs of Downing College, I entertained examiners from the local examination board who came during the summer months to re-mark their efforts and equilibrate the standards that they were demanding of the examinees.
I want to make the point that, altogether, 30,000 school teachers are involved in the process of examining for the various boards, 2,000 of them being involved in the actual affairs of the board. I regard those people as
60
the most dedicated of all our teachers. Not many people are prepared to go to meetings and have their marking criticised as being too tough or too weak; yet they do that in the summer months and equilibrate the marks.
I should perhaps advise your Lordships that around a decade ago we had 40 examining boards in this country; now we are down to only four for the school examinations and three for vocational qualifications. They are based in Manchester, the Midlands, Cambridge, Guildford and London. I am speaking to your Lordships today to try to make your Lordships aware of the anxieties felt about the new body, the Qualifications and National Curriculum Authority.
Around 750,000 young people sit qualification exams each year. As I said, around 30,000 people are involved in the marking of those papers. Your Lordships will be aware that in that activity the examiners are divided into many and various committees. They all now fall under the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority or the National Council for Vocational Qualifications. In the past few days Ofsted has stated that it is not now so displeased with the results of the A-level examinations. If that is so, the people in the universities are asking whether this is the best time to disturb the ongoing arrangements. They are also concerned because they hear from the Department for Education that there will be a restructuring of the boards; that a consultation paper is to be published in that regard, but only after the restructuring has been defined. Being academics, they want to know whether or not there will be consultation before the restructuring proceeds—and I agree with them.
Specific anxieties centre on how widely the new regulations will extend and whether the rules being developed will be in conflict or otherwise with the regulations. Is it appropriate that the new body should have powers to cap the fees that boards are expected to raise without reference to the boards or to the Government? What appeal facilities will there be when difficulties arise between the boards and the new over-arching organisation, the Qualifications and National Curriculum Authority?
Schedule 6 is concerned with the establishment of committees by the new authority. My colleagues are concerned that it has not yet been made clear what kind of committees they will be, with what kind of responsibilities. All that may sound pernickety to Members of this House. But I am anxious not to antagonise that large group of dedicated teachers who are concerned with checking the end point of the academic processes and the qualifications for vocations. We rely on them to tell us how we are doing compared with the French and the Germans. Therefore, when my colleagues say that they are concerned that the board's membership will be so small that it cannot cover the whole range of interests in the examining field, I am sympathetic to their anxieties.
Perhaps the Government could consider organising a self-regulatory system involving the existing bodies and the new authority could then monitor the situation. Your Lordships will be aware that academic people always

61
hope to be able to show their support and interest for systems by self-regulation. That is certainly how doctors behave.
I want to conclude by reminding myself in your Lordships' presence of the wonderful guidance given to me when I went to Nottingham University by its first vice-chancellor, Bertrand Hallward, who, in his nineties, is still alive. He said to me that the universities would be making decisions at their peril if they did not take great interest in the training of the people who leave the schools to enter university and those who will teach them. It is of course from that group that examiners are recruited.
Perhaps I may put down a marker on this occasion that I shall be tabling amendments for the consideration of the Committee in relation to the structure and functions of the newly established authority, the Qualifications and National Curriculum Authority. But that is for another day. I am grateful today for your Lordships' attention.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, for the past 20 years around 90 per cent. of the children in this country have been educated in the comprehensive system. So far as I am aware, I am the only person taking part in this debate who himself attended a comprehensive school. I suspect that says more about the make-up of this House than it does about me.
I too wish to restrict my comments to selection and the issues surrounding the introduction of greater selection. Mantras were mentioned earlier this afternoon, but it is indeed a mantra that selection itself will drive up standards. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said that competition is a lever for standards for children of all abilities. That is an assertion which I believe to be quite untrue.
Last autumn I attended an education conference where I spent a long time talking to the head teacher of a girls' independent school. The school is in an area where there is a long-established tradition of grammar schools. They have their natural partners in a number of secondary modern schools going under other names. The head teacher explained to me that one of the reasons her school was so successful was that a large proportion of the intake was of girls who had failed the examination for the local grammar schools. She went on to explain that her school achieved examination results that were at least on a par with and in some years even exceeded the results of the grammar schools. Naturally, she was proud of the results of her school, and quite rightly so. I went on to ask her what she thought that said about the 11-plus or selection at 11. She said that to her the attitude of the girls' parents was far more important to their likely achievement at the age of 16 and 18 than any examination at 11 years old. I noticed that she was careful to talk about the parents' attitude to education rather than their social class or income. But I suspect that she was probably being duly sensitive to her audience.
Is that really a system we want to return to, where a minority of bright children are well educated by the state and those who fail the exams with parents who can
62
afford it opt out of the state system, while those who cannot are labelled as failures and go to institutions which are perceived as second best? I do not accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, about schools selecting fractions of pupils. My experience in the London Borough of Wandsworth is that parents know very well which are the truly selective schools and which schools are just using magnetism and selecting fractions of pupils as a smokescreen for the sink schools. Parents know when a school is truly selective.
The Bill has a number of methods by which it seeks to impose greater selection and it is doing that without any of the normal consultation procedures. I shall go through seven such paths that I have identified. Clauses 2 and 7 require the governing body annually to consider selection. Here we have the thought police in action again and they will probably be just as successful here as they have been in encouraging more schools to go grant-maintained. Nevertheless, the governing bodies will have to think about it every year. Under Clause 3(6), grant-maintained schools, both primary and secondary, can select up to 50 per cent. of their intake. It is a bizarre proposal that primary schools will be able to select pupils. I read the Hansard report of the Committee stage in another place, where the Minister assured the Committee that she was thinking of music schools and things like that. However, even selecting on the basis of the musical ability of five year-olds is a lottery in the best of circumstances.
Under Clause 13 the FAS is given power to create new schools. That will overturn the thresholds laid down in the 1993 Act and gives the FAS unrestricted powers. If anything, that is an admission of the failure of the take-off of grant-maintained schools that the Government had anticipated. In Paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, county and voluntary aided schools are able to expand their selection up to 20 per cent. In Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1, county and voluntary sixth forms can discount age for the purposes of their overall percentage of selected pupils, which will effectively increase the number of selected pupils. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 gives the Secretary of State power to direct LEAs to implement increased selection for specialist schools. Finally, Paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 gives county secondary school governors power to request LEAs to publish proposals for a school to go selective. If the LEA does not do it, the school can go ahead and do it anyway. Today we heard from the Minister that the Government will bring back the old Clause 3 from the Bill in another place to enable grant-maintained schools to expand their size by up to 50 per cent. every four years, which will increase the total number of selected pupils.
It says something about the problem the Government anticipate with introducing greater selection that they have to use all these methods of requiring schools to consider selection. They know they have a fight on their hands. They are using every mechanism they can to try to force this on to the education agenda.
I wish to close by talking again about Wandsworth. I know a 14 year-old boy who, I suppose one could say, is a friend of mine. The boy is well behaved and is keen to learn. He is probably of below average ability. He is

63
probably what we would call a band 3 child. When he was 11 his mother and teacher assumed that he would be unable to pass the exam for the local selective schools that were in place in Wandsworth at the time so he went straight to the local non-selective comprehensive school, which is sometimes called a sink school. The school is a rough school where the teachers do well even to keep the class quiet let alone teach the children anything. The boy was bullied and he took a lot of time off school. He fell behind in his lessons and after two years he was moved to another non-selective school in the borough. Over the past year he has done better. He has settled down but he is still behind in his lessons. It has now been diagnosed that he has a sight defect which has led to his problems with reading. The boy is nearly 15 and it has only just now been diagnosed that he has this sight defect. He is someone with what we might call non-statemented special educational needs. It is a tragedy that the boy has reached this stage in his education and only now has the problem been diagnosed.
I would ask the Minister this question. What will the rhetoric and mantra of choice, diversity and selection do for children like that? I am not talking about someone who is stupid. I am talking about someone who is slightly below average and whom the system has failed. All the rhetoric we have heard today has done nothing for this child in his educational life. I reached 20, where I lost count of the number of times the Minister used the word "choice" in his speech. I heard the word "choice" numerous times when I was a councillor in Wandsworth. I have given the House a specific example of where "choice" has failed a boy.
The challenge for the Government and for my party is to find a mechanism which rewards success and is intolerant of failure. I look forward to a Bill which is specifically targeted at enhancing diversity and choice for children of below average ability.
6.38 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, a few years have gone by since I was an LEA officer responsible for a number of comprehensive and special schools, and even more years since I taught modern languages in the maintained sector and before that in a good old-fashioned boys' public school. I must admit that my feelings on being confronted with the Bill that we are looking at this afternoon include relief that I am no longer on the receiving end of yet another piece of educational legislation—the 21st, on my reckoning, since the present Government came to power. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who I see is not in her place, I have taken part in discussion of a good few recent education Bills. In fact I seem to recall one of the points that she raised earlier coming up in the middle of that memorable night in 1988 when we all sat until a quarter to nine in the morning.
I do not look back to any golden era in education. But I do believe that, among improvements that have undoubtedly been made in recent years, much that is valuable has been thrown away. This Bill, it seems to me, continues that trend. If I pass rather speedily over
64
the sections of this many-faceted measure which deserve a welcome, this is chiefly to save time in the face of a longish speakers' list, and to leave room for a hard look at the more contentious areas.
From Part IV of the Bill onward, as many speakers have pointed out, there is a lot of good, practical sense. Disciplinary arrangements needed attention. Baseline assessment, performance targets, inspection of LEAs, emphasis on careers education and regulation of supply teachers are all uncontentious in principle, even if there is some devil in the detail which will emerge doubtless in Committee. On the whole there has been wide consultation and preparation here, for which the Government can take much credit.
Just over four years ago John Patten, then Secretary of State, introduced the White Paper Choice and Diversity which foreshadowed the major 1993 Act with the comment—the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, has stolen my point here—that it was the last piece in the educational jigsaw and that no more legislation could be expected during this Government's lifetime. Plus ça change, my Lords. In terms of good management practice there is a limit to the amount of reform any institution can be expected to absorb. I was by no means the only one of your Lordships who maintained several years ago that that limit had been reached and that what the education service now needed was a period of stability in which the reforms could bed down. Constant change is not good for morale, and low morale attracts poor performance.
The changes have often been piecemeal, and sometimes self-contradictory, giving an impression of amateurishness in an area which cries out for clear, strategic thinking. The 1988 Act saw the introduction of the NCC, the National Curriculum Council; by 1993 we had SCAA; now it is to be QNCA. The ground is always changing, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, pointed out, it is mostly structural organisational change unrelated to the classroom.
The most significant changes in the present Bill, as we have seen, relate to selection, which is to be encouraged by a variety of means. It is hard to see what this is going to achieve. There is no good evidence that selection of this kind raises standards, particularly in the areas where they most need to be raised. There is good evidence that most people do not want it. If the worry is that we do not educate to the level of our industrial competitors, then we need to note that few if any of them select by ability. Is it about choice? But, as we have heard, the Government want to give parents the choice of school, not schools the choice of pupil, which is what selection by ability produces. These proposals will indeed reduce the choice that already exists. I cannot agree with the analogy used by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, of university entry where students do at least end up in some selective institution. The situation with local schools is quite different. Is selection about diversity? Well, yes, but that is hardly an end in itself in the absence of positive benefit. I am not against selection in every form, but I cannot see why the Government should want to pursue what is in no

65
sense a winning formula unless it is simply to satisfy the Prime Minister's wish to see secondary moderns in every town.
I can. however, see some of the harm that will come about. Selection is possible under present arrangements, but there are checks and balances, at local as well as central level, and there is accountability. From now on, if Parts I and II of the Bill go through, there will be minimal opportunity for comment and objection on the part of those in the neighbourhood who are affected by a school's decision to select unilaterally. LEAs are not perfect, and in some areas schools may have found their influence stultifying. but many people are grateful for the democratic accountability that has meant that no one part of the community can affect the operations of another just like that, without the fullest consultation. If there were to be more selection—and selection by one school, just as opening a sixth form or a nursery, has a knock-on effect throughout the entire community—let it be introduced by a body such as the local authority with an overview of the situation on the ground. Individual choice is admirable, but in a civilised society it needs to be balanced against the needs of the community as a whole. A reserve power under Clause 11 for Whitehall to intervene does not adequately meet the case.
For what this Bill does is increase the fragmentation—in the word of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock—in the education service which previous Acts have started, and to which some of us in past debates have tried to draw attention. The more freedom an individual school has to go its own way unchecked, in terms of size and nature of intake, the greater the incoherence in the system as a whole—indeed the less there will be a system at all. This makes inevitably for inefficiency, and for the near impossibility of sensible planning by the agency—the LEA—which still has the statutory duty of seeing that there are the right schools at the right time in the right places, and that pupils can get to them without too much difficulty and public expense. I do not believe (and nor, as it happens, does the Audit Commission) that the Government have ever satisfactorily resolved this tension between choice of schools and the need to manage resources such as school places efficiently. In parenthesis, when I worked in Oxfordshire we achieved a success rate of around 97 per cent. in parental choice of schools before legislation on the matter was even a gleam in the Government's eye. At the same time I am glad I am not a parent who will have to face the confusion of entrance exams and criteria which the new arrangements may bring about. As ever, those who are already least advantaged will find it hardest to cope.
All this raises the fundamental question whether the Government still see education as a public service. They have gone far towards abandoning the concept of a community of schools, and of local partnership, and this is sad. Once again we have an Education Bill which erodes local democracy, nowhere more so than in Part II which empowers an unelected body to set up grant-maintained schools in any local authority's area and send it the bill, a total change from the provisions
66
of the 1993 Act. Partnership is out, and we are moving towards a free-for-all in education which I do not believe is in the best long-term interests of our children.
Leaving aside for a moment the matter of pace and frequency of recent reform, another bout of change might be acceptable if it were well targeted, or if the service were in acute crisis which, contrary to what The Times would have us believe, the objective evidence shows it is not. Let me end by pointing to what the Bill does not do. Other noble Lords have done the same.
It does not do anything for the lowest 40 per cent. of the ability range, as others have said. It is here, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, pointed out, that this country falls down, and has so for years: the achievements at the top end are not the problem. It does not do anything for resources: not the factor, certainly, but a significant factor which continually crops up in surveys of schools, and one which the inefficiencies of a free-for-all are bound to make worse. If you want to see what resources can do for the educational league tables, look at the major public schools.
Above all, and this includes my two previous points, except for a couple of commendable clauses on discipline it does not touch the classroom. Surely, this is where it begins and ends. Since 1980 we have been so concerned with structures and systems and administrative bodies that too little attention has been paid to the actual teacher, and his or her skills, training, morale and status—I was glad to hear the General Teaching Council mentioned—conditions and professional pride. I am not saying we should legislate directly for what goes on in the classroom, nor am I saying that there have not been worthwhile initiatives directed to the quality of teaching and learning, because there have. My point is that this has been overshadowed by an avalanche of structural changes, the majority of which do not, I believe, make the slightest difference to how our children perform in the classroom. Instead they have siphoned energy and resources from where they should properly have been directed, the point of interaction between teacher and pupil. Given the things of value that we have lost on the way, I think I would willingly trade all the administrative reforms of the past 17 years, apart from special needs, against that one consideration.
So while there will be much of a practical nature to support, I cannot welcome the provisions of the early parts of the Bill which I feel will be profoundly unhelpful to what goes on in schools. I regret that I shall probably have to miss some of the later stages, but I hope that changes can be made to soften some of the more unfortunate effects of this latest measure in a seemingly endless sequence of legislation.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, at my age I tend to be autobiographical when this subject comes up. I vaguely remember being taught about evolution as a small boy. The teacher told me about dinosaurs and said that they were extinct. Had that teacher been alive and present in the Gallery tonight he would have had to withdraw that statement because the noble Lords, Lord Morris of

67
Castle Morris and Lord Tope, are the best examples of living dinosaurs that I have come across for some time. They still repeat the opinions of left-wing educationalists of 30 or 40 years ago when the damage was done to our education system, which all of the Bills in the last three Parliaments have still not been able to correct.
On the other hand, I am always grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, for his extreme honesty. He gives us a picture of what is in the minds of the party he represents. It is important to know what is in its mind, not merely what is contained in the press releases or statements that are made on behalf of the leader of that party. No one listening to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, can deny that he hates the very notion of a grammar school or any kind of selective school. Therefore, when people are told that the existing grammar schools will be safe in the hands of the Labour Party they must be very gullible to believe it. They would have to be like those in Albania who have lost all their savings on pyramid investments. Luckily, there are not many Albanians in the Wirral.
The more important point is that which has been referred to obliquely by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and, in a rather different way, by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley; namely, that what matters in the end is not structure but what goes on in the classroom. It is that which has been affected by the progressive educational philosophy that it has been the lot of trainee teachers to receive for a whole generation or more. That is at the root of the problem rather than any form of structure. No doubt there were some comprehensive schools in which teachers took no notice of the kind of nonsense that came from, say, the London University Institute of Education when the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was there. They would still teach subjects and would not be child centred. They would insist on children learning by rote, which is a very good thing for children to do. That could happen in a comprehensive school, although it is perhaps unlikely that that would happen in such a school in a Labour-controlled authority. I believe the Government agree that we find ourselves in a rather unfortunate position in which we experiment with various structural changes in order at least to create some centres of excellence from which we can derive the kind of people that we need at all levels of the economy and society.
I thought that in the speeches of some noble Lords and noble Baronesses there was far too much about what was popular with children or parents. What matters is the national interest in having a state system of education at all. Surely, what matters is the selection of quality wherever it is and whatever the level of ability of particular pupils. In a sense we are skirting round the issues. I do not share the belief of some of my noble friends that parental choice is all important. I doubt that some parents are good at making choices. But there are parents who feel that their children are not being taught very well. I have read that in the borough of Islington almost one-third of parents try to find places for their children in schools in neighbouring boroughs because they have a better reputation. Lenin would have said that
68
they were voting with their feet, but since mostly they belong to the champagne tendency of the Labour Party they may be described as voting with their Volvos. These are expedients adopted by individuals.
That leads me to one of the matters on which, autobiographically, I can assent to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. I believe that there should be a general teaching council. I say "autobiographically", because the Conservative Party committee which advised the Government before the 1983 election made that particular suggestion. It was turned down by the late lamented Lord Joseph, who was then Secretary of State for Education, because he believed that such a body would be captured by the teaching trade unions. I agree that if we had a general teaching council that was run by the likes of Mr. de Gruchy or Mr. Doug McAvoy it would not be of much use. But I believe that Lord Joseph's fears were unfounded. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, has said, we need a general teaching council to root out bad practice and make sure that teachers in the classroom are acquainted with good practice. I hope that in the end my noble friend will accept that.
My other autobiographical point relates to discipline. I remember telling your Lordships when the measure was brought in to abolish corporal punishment, at the behest of that foolish court in Strasbourg, that the people who would pay for the excesses of those continental jurists would be the teachers in the classroom. I was right. I do not say that corporal punishment should now necessarily be restored. It may be that that is no longer possible. But certainly it has produced a problem of discipline which is relatively new. The degree of violence and assaults on teachers, which the trade unions quite rightly are concerned about, is a matter that must be tackled. Whether the measures in the latter part of this Bill, which appear to have general approval, will do the trick I do not know.
There is, however, another possibility that we have not examined in this country but which is followed in certain continental countries, notably France. In that case discipline in schools is the responsibility not of the classroom teacher but a person specially designated for that purpose. It is a pity that any classroom teacher should have to bother with discipline. It is difficult enough for the teacher to keep up at all in these days of expanding information, information technology and matters of that kind, let alone to be distracted by wondering whether he or she can intervene to stop one little boy from hammering another. There are matters that we can think about and learn from.
I was surprised to hear the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, assert that the comprehensive model was one adopted by our major European neighbours. France and even more so Germany have highly differentiated school systems. They have never gone in for the comprehensive model. We are told—and the noble Lord, Lord Annan, frequently reminds us—that their results are better. I do not say that that cannot be done. I agree with streaming and setting which, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, is the solution so long as one keeps the comprehensive system. However, I would point out that mixed ability teaching was part of the

69
doctrine with which teachers were imbued in institutes of teacher training for very many years. One still sometimes hears from the Campaign for State Education, and such bodies, objections to anything but mixed ability teaching. There are many things that we could do and many things that I hope we will do. Meanwhile, for what it is worth, as another step forward in the right direction, I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
7 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, because I cannot help enjoying his speeches. But there is a great deal of what he said that I should like to challenge. If I went into it in detail, there would be a great deal to go into and my speech would be even longer than it is going to be, and I do not think that that would be popular with your Lordships. I may find a few remarks to make as I go through.
First, I must apologise to the Minister for missing his opening speech. I really do apologise for that. It was very bad manners indeed. I shall explain privately later why I missed it. I missed also a little bit of my noble friend's speech.
I intend to speak on Part VII of the Bill which has not been much discussed, but to spend most of my time on Parts IV and V—the parts dealing with discipline, exclusions and admissions. There has been agreement on a number of clauses and disagreement on others. In some cases, the ideas behind the proposals may be accepted, but better ways of achieving their aims can be found which would be more likely to work better for school, parent and pupil.
Those clauses were not sufficiently discussed in another place. And the anxieties of a large number of children's organisations, which make up the Children's Consortium, were not given enough attention. The Children's Consortium is made up of 14 bodies: the NSPCC, the National Children's Bureau, Barnardos and the Children's Society, to name but four of them.
I would like to make my position clear. It is essential that there is good discipline in schools. Schools have very real problems, and there must be sanctions when classes are disrupted, where there is bullying and serious behavioural problems.
This part of the Bill is largely amending the 1996 Education Act, passed only last year. Indeed, it was still 1996 when this Bill was introduced. Clause 19 would require all schools to publish a discipline policy. In this Bill, it is for the governing body, rather than the head teacher, to draw up a statement of general principles to which the head teacher must have regard in performing his duty to promote good behaviour and discipline. The head teacher must publicise the measures he is proposing in order to bring them to the attention of pupils, parents and schools.
What we would like to see is for the governing body, when drawing up the statement, to take into account the views of staff, parents and pupils. This would reflect advice in the current government circular 8/94 and the recommendations of the Elton Report. A behaviour code
70
will obviously work better and be respected if it has been produced with the involvement of the whole school community. The rules should promote self-discipline and respect for others, ensure that necessary action is taken to prevent bullying and meet the needs of all children involved in incidents of bullying.
Clause 21, which gives members of staff in independent schools as well as in maintained schools power to restrain pupils, is unfortunately needed and will reassure teachers who could in this litigious climate become victims of assault charges. I am sure that that part of the Bill will please the noble Lord, Lord Beloff.
I am very glad that corporal punishment of any type will remain unlawful in maintained schools. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said that that was following the European Court. A good many of us here feel ourselves fairly responsible for getting corporal punishment banned in maintained schools in this country. I said that corporal punishment is banned in maintained schools. Of course I think that it should be the case in all schools, independent as well. I sincerely hope that no misguided person in this House will produce an amendment to bring back beating. That happened in another place and it was soundly and satisfactorily defeated.
I am not happy with Clause 23 which gives the head the power to detain a pupil after school without the parent's consent. This does seem an erosion of parents' rights. One can see complications, even though travel home is mentioned in the Bill. There could be great difficulty in rural areas for staff as well as pupils.
We then come to exclusions. Of course exclusion must be available as a sanction. Disruptive pupils can be a menace to the whole class, to the teacher and indeed to the pupil himself. Only last Friday the father of a primary school teacher who had a class of over 30 told me how she had one very disruptive pupil—this was a class of eight year-olds—who disturbed the whole class, although there was an assistant in the mornings to help look after him. Not only did he disrupt the class; he would follow her to the staff room, kick her and try to bite her. This teacher managed for the whole of last term and part of this before that child was removed. She felt sorry for the child because he had been rejected by his family and now she said that he had been rejected by the school. It is not a happy situation.
One day that child crawled under the computer table, clutched a radiator and would not come out. No one in the school could move him. The foster father was sent for. He could not get him out. The foster mother came. She said, "Come on, Jamie, time to go home". He came out. I think that they were excellent foster parents. But it is not something that teachers can hope to cope with. What we must have are plenty of special units for this type of child. No one can cope.
We must bear in mind—and this applies to detention too—that a great many of those who are likely to be excluded may be children with special needs—not the 2 per cent. of children with statements but the children who make up 18 per cent. of the school population, who have very definite learning disabilities or who have emotional or behavioural problems. Are they to be treated in the same way as children without those special needs?

71
We need also to take account of the Chief Inspector of Schools when he said that some schools are "trigger happy" on exclusions. We know that Afro-Caribbean children are more likely than white children to be excluded for the same offence. The Commission for Racial Equality conducted research on this, and that is its finding.
I believe that the Secretary of State should make regulations to secure that head teachers take appropriate steps during any period of fixed term exclusion to return the child to school as quickly as possible, including assessing special needs, and meet parents, pupil and staff. I am aware that this costs money.
I am not happy with the extension of the 15 days' exclusion in any one term to 45 days in a school year. This could happen in one term. That means nine weeks out of school. There must be proper education during these periods, not just a few hours a week, as can happen now.
The LEA is at the moment under a duty to provide:
"suitable full-term or part-term education at school, or otherwise than at school".
This is surely unsatisfactory. It contradicts the duty of parents under the 1944 Act to ensure that children have sufficient full-time education suitable to:
"age, ability and aptitude … and any special educational need".
Excluded children are arguably more in need of full-time education than any other group of children, not least because recent Home Office research identified exclusion as one of the main factors leading to juvenile offending. My noble friend Lady Ramsay referred to that also. I very much dislike the term "disqualified person". These children should not be labelled. My noble friend Lady Ramsay and the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, both referred to that. I understand that it is the parliamentary draftsman who wanted the phrase used. It must be deleted, and most certainly it should not refer to primary schoolchildren.
In relation to the whole of Part IV, I agree with the Local Government Association's summing up. It states:
"These are piecemeal actions. We need a national focus on the importance of school discipline, which should be considered in the context of the overall strategic planning for pupils with difficulties. There is much current good practice from which we could learn".
Finally, I turn to Part V, admissions and home-school contracts. As with school statements of policy in Clause 19, the home-school contract—the concept of which I agree with, if not the name—would be much better and more likely to be effective if it was drawn up in consultation with the head, the staff, the parents and the pupils. Research has shown that schools successful in both academic achievement and behaviour have a common feature; that is, good home-school relations. What I totally dislike and disapprove of is Clause 30, which would prevent a pupil being admitted to a school if the parent refused to sign the document. That is selection by the back-door and I hope that we can delete the clause. Admission dependent on signing could conflict with the duty of LEAs and the FAS to secure
72
places for all children. An alternative could be to set out in the Bill a framework for our expectations of all parents' roles in relation to their children's schools.
I have two special worries about these two parts of the Bill and I wish to emphasise them. How will the Bill affect those 18 per cent. of children who have special educational needs but who have no statement? And who is to act in the important role of parent to those children in care who make up a large proportion of children excluded from school and in difficulty with the courts?
I turn to Part VII. Most public discussion on the Bill has focused on education at school level and for young people, but Part VII has wide implications for the education and training of adults and also for higher education. Part VII proposes the merger of SCAA and the National Council for Vocational Qualifications. The merger was recommended by Sir Ronald Dearing and has been generally welcomed in that context.
However, the Bill goes way beyond qualifications for 14 to 19 year-olds and gives to the new body very wide powers over all vocational qualifications, including higher level NVQs, an area which is bound to overlap with universities. The House will recall that Dearing's review of higher education is still in process. Seventy per cent. of further education students, most studying vocational courses, are adults and there are some 20,000 different qualifications. What is more, even before the Bill has been passed, the appointment of Dr. Nicholas Tate, currently head of SCAA, has been announced as its new chief. This smacks of unseemly haste and appears to imply increasing political control of the content of the vocational education system.
There is now widespread agreement on the importance of lifelong learning and the achievement of the national training and education targets for adults as well as for the young. But there has been little discussion about the implications of the proposed changes for adult learners, for further education providers, for awarding bodies or for higher education. And the Bill proposes to give the new body the power to impose payments for the accreditation of qualifications; the phrase, a levy on any "vocational qualification", is used without any definition of vocational qualifications. Unlike young students, many adults pay their own fees and do not use public funds.
Lastly, there is concern about the small size of the board and its composition. The right reverend Prelate commented on that and made a suggestion which I totally support. It needs to be representative of a wide range of interested parties, including FE, HE, professional bodies, employers and adult learners. A number of those questions must be addressed seriously in Committee.
7.14 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, all of us who are concerned with education are delighted that it has become a major factor in the policies of all the main political parties. However, today's debate shows how sad it is that progress and improvement in English education are restricted—dare I say bedevilled?—

73
by arguments that belong to history. Nowhere is this more true than when that frightening, devil-like word "selection" is discussed.
There can be no doubt that in the past—and it is sad that most of the debate has related to the past—selection meant entry to the grammar school without any satisfactory alternative for those who were not suited for that type of education. I point out to your Lordships that that was realised as early as 1938. In 1938 the Spens Report, on which the Butler Act was based, stated that secondary education had come to mean grammar school education, with little being done for children who could not benefit from that style of education. Spens stated:
"the establishment of parity between different"—
I underline the word "different"—
"types of secondary schools is of fundamental importance".
That was in 1938.
We never achieved that parity and, as has been mentioned many times in the debate, unlike the whole of continental Europe, apart from one state of former west Germany, we decided that the answer to these difficulties was the area comprehensive school. It is an interesting historical fact, an interesting tale of what might have been, that, while some of our neighbours—notably the Netherlands and Germany—refined, developed and improved the tripartite system of the Butler Act, we abandoned it entirely. I am honest when I say that my own party bears a large measure of blame, since it did little to refine or improve the tripartite system when it held power in the 1950s. I suggest that many of our problems spring from that decision.
I was a headmaster for 17 years and a school teacher for more years than I care to remember. I can say from my experience that it is difficult in one school to provide highly specialised courses in advanced mathematics as well as to teach a variety of modern languages unless there are sufficient pupils of the ability and interest to benefit from such courses. We are not all capable of learning Russian, French and German. If a set is to be viable there must be enough people in that set to make it worth while to employ a teacher to teach German, Greek, Latin or whatever.
Equally, it is hard to run demanding and expensive vocational and technical courses unless one has a concentration of pupils of the ability and interest to benefit from such courses. Let us imagine a situation in which one is trying to sustain in one institution—as we ought if we are to compare ourselves with our continental neighbours—courses in Russian, French, Spanish and Italian and also to provide courses in technical and vocational subjects which are of the same quality as those on tap in Germany and Holland. The point I am making is that at present in English education the butter is spread too thinly. All education suffers and talk of improving skills becomes mere rhetoric.
As a headmaster I was responsible for specialist subjects as well as the manner of setting and streaming. I can assure your Lordships that, even in a school where the pupils are of broadly similar ability, that is a nightmare task. Imagine trying to do that when one has to cover the whole gambit of education. Of course, the problem is further compounded if schools are required
74
to take all their pupils from one geographical area. Inevitably, the school merely reflects the problems or virtues of the area; Richmond is better than Hackney.
I support the Bill. It is not my ideal Bill—if I were the Minister, I could improve on it in many ways. Vanity makes me say that. But I support it because it sets out to break the rigid structures of the past. My hope is that, by allowing schools more flexibility in their choice of pupils, we shall secure a situation in which especially, and most especially at post-16 level, schools will be able to specialise in different styles of courses. Some may specialise specifically in technical and vocational courses while others specialise in more narrow academic courses such as modern languages and so on. I emphasise what other noble Lords have said: such is the norm in the whole of eastern and western Europe.
I make three points about that. First, apart from that one state which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, mentioned, the whole of Europe has a system of selection and choice. Secondly, it is agreed generally by noble Lords opposite as well as by my noble friends that in many ways, the education system, particularly in Holland and Germany, is better than ours. Thirdly, I assure your Lordships that our continental neighbours, left and right, would be utterly amazed at the way we have argued about these matters. We are uttering the cries of the past when 21 miles across the Channel, people who hold much more radical views than noble Lords opposite are quite happy with a system of selection and choice. Therefore, it is reasonable for those of us on these Benches to ask why noble Lords opposite are so much against that when the French, German and Dutch socialist parties all welcome a system such as this Bill offers us.
We are not talking about the old style of selection. We are not—and I repeat not—talking about grammar schools and nothing else. The idea of sheep and goats has gone. We are thinking of a humane style of analysis so that each person can find an institution and course appropriate to his needs. That is crucial to our society and we should all work to secure that. We should not allow the political nostrums of the past to govern our thinking. We accept that for music and sport; why not for everything else?
My belief is that one school or college cannot cater for all needs. That has been shown to be an illusion. And yet in some eyes that has become more than a mantra. It has become an article of faith which is not open to discussion. At times when I talk to some noble Lords opposite, I feel like Galileo. "Behold it moves", I say, "and yet they will not listen". They have the dogmatism almost of the Holy Father.
The results are obvious to all. When we praise our comprehensive system—and I had sympathy with it when it started—how do we explain that our vocational and technical courses are not as good as those of our neighbours? How do we explain that schools are restricted in their choice of subjects? A school which I govern in Somerset cannot provide more than two modern languages and yet in the modern Europe, we should be teaching our pupils three or four languages.

75
That is particularly true of languages. Your Lordships will notice how Latin and Greek have almost vanished from the curriculum.
I suggest to your Lordships that this Bill offers hopes of a change and I suggest that it will be a change for the better. I urge your Lordships to support it.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, in this Bill the Government have offered us diversity. I hope sincerely that they will offer us also an element of choice on some issues. I can only pick and choose the matters which I think are important in the Bill within the time available to me. First, I should like to ask the Minister a number of questions, simply for the purpose of clarification.
What do we mean by a selective school and by selection for ability and aptitude. Ability for what? Aptitude for what? Are we talking only about doing well in the league tables, because that is what will make schools popular and that is what will make parents choose those schools? That is the only information parents have; that the children who go to those schools do well in GCSEs. Is "success" measured by that limited criterion of success in purely academic subjects? If so, are the Government convinced that that will really prepare children for life and work in the 21st century?
I draw your Lordships' attention to the Government's own White Paper, Learning to Compete. In that there are identified six different characteristics which will give children and young people the ability to compete in the world of tomorrow's business: the ability to communicate, applied number, information technology, working with others, problem solving and self-motivated learning and relearning. I have set those down on the left-hand side of a piece of paper. On the right-hand side I have set down the core curriculum subjects for GCSE. They are English, maths, science, one modern language and design and technology. I identify a mis-match.
I am not saying that good teachers with intelligent pupils cannot use the core curriculum subjects to teach the skills and knowledge which young people will need. But I wonder whether parents who are making the choice about which schools are successful should not be given access to more information. Should they not have information, based on Ofsted inspections, on how well each school is doing not only in relation to academic exams but in relation to preparing its pupils for the portable skills and flexibility which they will need if they are to take up the responsibilities of adult life and be suited to employment in the 21st century?
I should like to ask the noble Lord what the Government mean by a "selective school". I am not entirely sure whether that is the same as a specialist school as defined in Schedule 1 to the Bill. In the Bill, a selective school is defined as what the Secretary of State says or will say a selective school is. The Secretary of State is very coy. Until we have given her authority to implement the decision, she will not tell us what it is to be. It seems to me rather insulting to Parliament that
76
Parliament should not have the opportunity to know what the Secretary of State has in mind until legal authority is given to her to implement the legislation.
I gave notice to the noble Lord that I should be asking about four subjects, and I use them only by way of an example. Can a selective or specialist school be a school which is selective for children with ability in the arts or in music? Can it be for children who are good at football? Can it be for children who are good at engineering? Finally, can it be for children who have an aptitude and a desire to learn the whole range of academic subjects in the context of the Christian tradition? That last question is important.
I turn now to my concerns about the issue of selective admissions. My concern—and in this I join with many noble Lords—regards what will happen to those children who are not selected. My concern is pragmatic, non-political and non-doctrinaire. I want an assurance that the Government will guarantee that enough non-selected places will be available within a reasonable travelling distance for every child who is not selected for a selective school.
My second worry is that the Government are focusing too much on the top 30 per cent. and ignoring the bottom 30 per cent. In that context I take the liberty of quoting from a letter which I received from the director of education of Business in the Community. He says that,
"this nation can no longer afford an education system which is world class for the top 30 per cent. reaching higher education, [but] leaves nearly 30 per cent. functionally illiterate and almost unemployable in the 21st Century. This so called 'tail' of underachievement undermines the UK skills-base for investment, creates a costly dependent group living in relative poverty and threatens social cohesion".
My own experience of working with very deprived children from Tower Hamlets each summer is that when we ask them whether they want to write a postcard home to Mum a significant number have to dictate what to write on the postcard to one of the voluntary helpers. I am talking of 14 and 15 year-old children; in other words, young people. They cannot read or write. I believe that those children have been betrayed by the schools and by the local education authorities. I believe that it could be described as a form of child abuse not to teach those children the basic skills that they will need to survive in our society today and tomorrow.
If some schools have selected pupils, other schools will have a concentration of less able pupils. Can the Minister give the House an undertaking that non-selective schools will get the resources they need to cope with that concentration of less able children? Those children, too, are entitled to an education which will give them a reasonable chance in life.
I turn next to behaviour and discipline. The good behaviour and discipline statement is an admirable idea, though it is in need of one or two improvements. In my view, it is absolutely essential that pupils and staff—pupils in particular—must participate in the formulation of that policy. The report of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to which I believe the noble Lord referred, strongly recommended such participation. It is important because young people then have the feeling of ownership of the

77
policy and it addresses their real needs. There is need for a clear statement of objectives in the policy statement and it must include the legitimate interests of children as well as adults; for example, protection from bullying.
I move on now to sanctions for unacceptable behaviour. In that context I should like to try to distinguish between the two categories of pupils to whom sanctions are particularly applicable. There are those pupils who misbehave, and do so probably regularly, because they have emotional difficulties or because they have an unidentified learning difficulty. Indeed we heard this evening—and I have seen the figure before—that that could amount to as much as 18 per cent. of those who regularly misbehave in school. The other category covers pupils who misbehave simply because they are naughty. They do not have any particular problems but they are tempted; they are naughty; or they are "trying it on". Those two categories of young people need different responses.
Some experts on the sentimental end of the spectrum said in a meeting which I attended recently about this Bill that there was no need for punishment and no need for any kind of sanctions. That is nonsense. All children and, indeed, all of us sometimes overstep the boundaries of socially acceptable behaviour. In that context, I am going to stick my neck out. I will stand any noble Lord a drink in the Bishops' Bar after tonight's debate if he can honestly stand up and say to me that, if there were no penalties for doing so, he would never leave his car on a parking meter over and above the time paid for.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Northbourne: I do not see any takers in the Chamber. So it must be accepted that teachers must not be left entirely without sanctions.
Corporal punishment has rightly been excluded. But I want to say that I believe that exclusion is a lousy sanction; it is a very bad sanction indeed. It is damaging to the child because it interrupts his or her education; it puts the child at risk on the streets; and it is ineffective because it is, in effect, legalised truanting. The suggestion that the exclusion period should be extended by 45 days in any one year is, I believe, a very grave mistake. Structures should have ensured that damaged and emotionally disturbed children and those with special educational needs were picked up much earlier in their school careers. Indeed, they should have been picked up in the primary schools.
Clause 28 designates a twice excluded child as a "disqualified person". That would be a disaster for children and those words must be struck out of the Bill. In my view—and, indeed, that of the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby—those children should never have been allowed to get that far. The fault lies with the adults concerned. Those children who are emotionally disturbed and those with special educational needs should have been identified at primary school level.
I say to the Government, finally, that it would pay much better to provide resources to achieve the identification of those pupils and give them the help
78
they need while they are still at primary school than to have to provide very expensive special education for them when things have gone badly wrong in secondary school.
7.35 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I should like to begin by picking up the gist of comments of a number of my noble friends. I had supposed that Mr. Blunkett's pronouncements last week signified that the policy gonks from Walworth Road had undergone a sudden conversion. However, thanks to the honesty of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, and the elucidation from my noble friend Lord Skidelsky, I see that the instincts of the more cynical side in my nature—that the focus groups at Millbank Tower had revealed some advantage in muddying the water a little—are likely to be a little more reliable.
Having got that off my chest, perhaps I may turn to the Bill. Notwithstanding the putative risks of salmonella advanced by noble Lords opposite, I am broadly content with the Bill in all its parts. I recognise that eggs are a dangerous subject in a political sense but I would even go as far as to say that this particular egg is entirely fit to eat. The basis for my reaching that conclusion stems from my firm belief that the role of parents in the upbringing and education of their children is exceptionally important.
My impression is that there is general agreement about this across the political divide, and, as an aside here, I wonder to what extent the American research highlighted in last week's "Panorama" programme, demonstrating the significance of a mother's role in determining the behaviour and academic performance of her children, especially her sons, may in due course impact upon the development of education policy.
This general precept of the importance of proactive parental involvement in their children's schooling has to be juxtaposed, in policy terms, with the part to be played by the education process with respect to preparing children for adult life. Here, I suspect, I echo some of the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and my noble friend Lady Young. As a parent of school-age children, I sometimes despair at the capacity of our education system to appreciate this. Indeed, at the height of the troubles at the Ridings School, I was quite frankly appalled by some of the bland pronouncements that were bandied about, seemingly implying that schools are not and should not be guardians of their charges' morality.
Above all else, education is concerned with people—real parents and children, with their attendant hopes, dreams and aspirations for the future. With that in mind, it is nonsense to suppose that time spent at school should simply be a matter of acquiring knowledge within the framework of the curriculum. The ethos of a school, pastoral care and the learning of lessons for life are in many respects even more important in so far as they equip our children for adulthood and living usefully within society. In reality, it is the interaction of these elements, together with the purely academic, within the upbringing of our children that makes the individual

79
achievement of our hopes, dreams and aspirations possible. It is just as much nonsense to presume that parents, in sending their children to school, base their judgment on academic criteria alone. Again, the ethos of a school and the ways in which it reflects the values and beliefs of the parent concerned are an equally critical factor.
Accordingly, my judgment of the Bill hinges upon the capacity of its provisions to add impetus to the process of empowering parental involvement in the education of their children, which has been such a significant feature of the Government's previous reforms in this area. I turn, first, to the dread subject of selection. I accept that the evidence as to its merits or otherwise remains inconclusive, although many noble Lords have expressed their support for it within rather than between schools. The observation from Christopher Woodhead that,
"In secondary schools setting by ability, particularly in Years 8 and 9, is leading to more effective teaching and therefore to higher standards",
is of mild relevance here. That said, there is a dichotomy—one that I suspect I share with the noble Lord, Lord Morris—of how best to achieve the aim of driving up standards (no one would dispute the desirability of that) and maintaining choice and diversity without compromising principles of universality and equality of provision.
If I were to analyse the Bill's proposals with respect to selection in an historical vacuum, I could well be drawn towards the reasoning of noble Lords opposite. However, they do not exist in a vacuum. They are underpinned by the Government's previous reforms—league tables and so on—by Ofsted's watch-dog role and by the voluntary nature of the proposals. These mechanisms provide safeguards with respect to the maintenance and improvement of standards among all our schools and the protection and enhancement of parental choice. It seems to me that they go some way towards addressing the concerns of various noble Lords with respect to "sink" schools.
There are more compelling reasons for supporting the Government here. Common sense suggests that disaffection, in an educational sense, is a function of comfort. Any child who is not stretched or engaged by his or her schooling is much less likely to benefit from it than the child who is constantly stimulated by the process. This view is endorsed by Christopher Woodhead who states:
"The classrooms where children make most progress are those where teachers have high expectations of all pupils and where the bulk of the lesson is taken up by the teacher explaining, questioning, pushing back the frontiers of the children's knowledge".
As a principle, selection accedes to the concept of the child as an individual in ways that the comprehensive system is hard pushed so to do. In our modern age there exists a detectable sense in which our children are growing up very much faster and earlier than was the case, say, in my youth. They are perhaps being required to take on the burdens and responsibilities of adulthood at a much younger age. That being so, selection has the advantage of affording schools a mechanism that lends
80
credibility to a child's sense of individuality and independence. This is equally important for parents in so far as it encourages their engagement in the education of their children.
For many of the same reasons, I am supportive of the Bill's provisions with respect to baseline assessment and target setting. The usefulness of these measures lies in their capacity to identify the differences in the abilities and aptitudes of children as a means of planning their future education on an individual basis. The key word here is "difference". What is important above all else is that our education system should recognise the individuality of our children and the individuality of their talents. I am grateful for the confirmation of my noble friend the Minister that this is the intent of the Bill's provisions here.
Finally, I turn to the Bill's provisions with respect to discipline in our schools. There exists a widespread concern that problem behaviour in our children is on the increase. Although it is difficult to quantify this, the circumstantial evidence of recent events would seem to favour such an interpretation.
In this context we should not lose sight of the fact that the causes of ill-discipline and problem behaviour are exceedingly complex, involving a wide range of influences, from the environmental (to include parenting skills and school ethos) through to the neuro-biological. As the recently released POST technical note entitled Treating Problem Behaviour in Children states,
"While there is broad agreement on this long list of contributory factors, there is much scope for debate over their relative importance".
However, there is a growing body of evidence, as exemplified by the American research to which I have already referred, that the role of parents in this area is absolutely critical. In this regard, the POST note further states:
"Home Office studies emphasise the importance of family relationships, parental interest, consistency of discipline, etc. to the behaviour of the children and that deficiencies in these areas predispose towards behavioural problems, delinquency and ultimately crime".
On this basis there is considerable merit in education policy seeking to establish greater levels of partnership between parents and schools in the upbringing of children. I concur with the views of my noble friend Lady Perry here. My interpretation is that the Government's proposals, particularly with respect to the imposition of the duty upon schools to draw up discipline policies and the establishment of home-school agreements, will do much to generate and cement such partnerships.
All in all, the Government's proposals in this Bill are a further step on the road towards establishing a much more parent centred system of education. They add impetus to the principles of enhancing choice and diversity—as in the measures for selection and grant-maintained and grammar schools—at the same time as ensuring that the drive to raise standards yet further (via baseline assessment, the setting of targets and the empowerment of Ofsted to inspect LEAs) will be facilitated. All of these are welcome developments and I am entirely happy to support them.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, in preparing for this Bill I was not certain whether I was to start the proceedings on behalf of these Benches or end them. I therefore started by asking myself what was not in the Bill. It is interesting to note that a number of other noble Lords have started from the same premise and many of us have reached the same conclusion.
A notable exclusion is any reference to the introduction of a general teaching council, which I should have thought was one of the most obvious measures that the Government could support in order to raise the professional standards of teachers. Many noble Lords have emphasised the important role of the teacher in the classroom as the front end of the education system. I am amazed that that provision is not included in the Bill. I hope that it is not too late for the Government to take this on board, given remarks made recently by other education Ministers.
Also absent from the Bill is any real provision for dealing with some of the disorganising influences which will be let loose. My noble friend referred to the difficulties of local authorities as regards planning school places. That point was emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cordoff.
Noble Lords: Cartvale!
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. I cannot read my writing.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It is said with a Scottish accent!
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I do not mind her Scottish accent; it is charming.
I refer to the 50 per cent. enlargement possibility mentioned in the Bill. However, there is another problem here; namely, the interaction of changes in entry qualification and school size with the budgetary process. Can the Minister indicate an annual date in any budget year by which changes for the following school year have to be notified to the relevant authorities? If there is no date, I do not see how local education authorities will manage their budgetary processes.
As regards the more general matters in the Bill, we have had some interesting discussion about choice of schools as against the power of choice by schools. It is my understanding that the Government have admitted that parental choice is overridden by the abilities of schools to select pupils for their academic ability. I do not think there is any reason for us to discuss this matter further as it is set down in the Bill. However, many of us feel that is a dangerous element in the Bill and we shall no doubt wish to make that clear in seeking to amend various parts of the Bill.
I and other noble Lords were concerned about the provision as regards selection and primary schools. That seems to me to be absolutely contrary to the valuable ethos which has been built up by primary schools; namely, they are the basic local schools where children
82
from all social backgrounds and levels of income come together simply because they live in the same area. I admit that may not be the case in the more difficult and dangerous parts of our inner cities. However, that is no reason to set about destroying those schools in the many parts of this country where they achieve exactly the purpose I have referred to.
Who takes the decisions about changes in schools? It is interesting that Mark Carlisle, Secretary of State for Education, said in 1979:
"It is our belief that local education authorities and local people—not central Government—are best placed to determine the most suitable form of secondary school organisation in their area".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/6/79; cols. 1120 to 21.]
That was quoted in the House of Commons briefing on this Bill. I do not think that any noble Lords on this side of the Chamber would quarrel with that. When choice over change is given to parents whose children are currently at a given school, the alteration in school characteristic becomes most dangerous. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, made that point neatly. I shall not emphasise it further.
Some interesting remarks were made—there were not as many as I had hoped for—about the general nature of education. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon raised the point. The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, mourned the decline of community schools and referred to their value as educational institutions. On the whole, perhaps noble Lords felt defeated by the detail of the Bill, finding it difficult to relate that to the broad requirements of education. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, was an exception.
I turn to the clauses which caused the most argument—and most amusing and knockabout argument it was, too. My noble friend Lord Tope expressed fluently our views on the principles of selection. I do not need to repeat them. I am not sure that I join with the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, on the salmonella part of the curate's egg. The noble Lord expressed himself with his usual panache and fluency. No doubt the points will be made again by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton.
However, we had a spirited argument about comprehensive versus selective schools. Many noble Lords who defended the Bill in this argument defeated their own objective. They referred to the fact that the situation was not good when we had grammar schools; we then changed the organisation and it was still not very good; so we propose to change the organisation again. No doubt many noble Lords are familiar with the well known words written by Petronius more than 2000 years ago about reorganisation. He said that reorganisation can be a wonderful method for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation. That is the argument which many hold against the series of Bills since 1979 which have sought to change our educational process. We are not sure whether there were 21, 19 or 18, but there have been too many.
I apply that response to the amusing suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that all noble Lords sitting on this Bench are dinosaurs. I cannot see what good there can be in returning to some previous situation

83
because one is not happy with the current position. Perhaps I may take this opportunity on behalf of the education authority with which I am associated, and most other education authorities with which I am familiar, to deny categorically that there has been any unfair participation of education authorities and their officers in the election processes which have or have not determined movement from local education authority to grant-maintained schools. I believe that it was a most unwise comment from the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I hope that she did not mean it in quite the way it sounded. I shall read in Hansard tomorrow what she said. It seemed an uncharacteristically disagreeable comment.
Rather than changing constantly from one organisational mode to another, I believe that we should concentrate on what is wrong with our educational process today and direct our efforts towards ensuring that some of those wrongs are put right in the classrooms. Noble Lords from all Benches have made a number of suggestions. I agree that the main problem that we face today is under-achievement by those of average and below average ability. I add only one point. We are storing up real problems through the comparative lack of success of boys in our schools. I cannot think of anything more dangerous than to leave large numbers of young men with insufficient educational attainment at the age of 16 or 18. That is dangerous for society and for them. We should ask ourselves why that is occurring and spread good practice to ensure that such under-attainment ceases.
I could continue, but I shall not; I have spoken at reasonable length. A number of interesting points were made. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady David, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, and others suggested that we shall have a considerable number of amendments to the Bill. I began to be thankful that three days have been set aside for Committee stage.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, it is four days.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, four might be better or worse, according to one's point of view; five would be over-egging the pudding.
My noble friend Lord Tope said that we had some reservations about the section of the Bill on discipline. We shall return to them later. Almost everyone agreed that the words "disqualified person" attached to school children are utterly unacceptable. I hope that the Government will respond today by indicating a willingness to consider a better phrase. To describe someone of seven, 12 or 15 as "disqualified" seems terrible. We seek to encourage young people to be good citizens, not to consider themselves as disqualified before they even reach adult life.
On home-school contracts, real doubts must be expressed as to whether or not they will be used as part of the admission process. We believe that those contracts should be part of activity in school after children have been admitted. In that context, I find it difficult to understand what is meant by parent-centred
84
education. I am not sure that education should be centred firmly on a specific aspect of the general partnership which surrounds education. I have no doubt that education is for pupils and not for parents.
The baseline assessment provision has been widely welcomed. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, drew attention again to the danger of the assessments becoming yet another qualification or reason for refusing applicants to a school.
Finally, I cannot bear to use the acronym for the Qualifications and National Curriculum Authority. Someone will have to consider how to improve it. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon referred to it most delicately. He suggested that we should solve the problem by broadening the remit of the new authority to cover the whole of the school's curriculum. That might be a good way round the problem. Like the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington of Oxenford, we hope to improve the Bill.
8 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as a member of a local education authority. The debate has been very wide-ranging and informative. The Bill is one of the major measures of the last Session of this Parliament. Like many other speakers, I shall also refer to the various parts of the Bill.
The Bill's stated intentions are: to provide greater power to extend the selection of pupils by schools and the specialisation of schools in terms of subjects; to allow the funding agency for schools to create more grant-maintained schools; to extend the assisted places scheme to children of primary age; and to change the framework of school discipline.
The Minister intimated that the Government intend to seek to restore Clause 3 at the next stage. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, will forgive me if I ask at this stage whether a similar Labour ambush can be arranged in this House. My understanding is that the Conservative Whip on the Committee was locked out, and then failed to count correctly when it came to a vote. I therefore ask whether it is possible to have similar co-operation from the Government in order to ambush the defeated Clause 3 when they seek to reintroduce it.
My noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris referred in detail to many parts of the Bill which, it is agreed, need close scrutiny. My calculation is that there have been 18 new education Acts since 1979; and, as previous speakers remarked, this Bill includes amendments to the Education Act 1996.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, accused the Opposition Benches of being negative. Perhaps I may remind the noble Baroness that the Government, too, have changed their policy on many occasions, in some cases in line with points raised during the passage of the initial legislation. I refer for instance to the matter of the national curriculum, when the Government had to climb down, having wasted public money and having caused stress and distress to teachers and pupils alike in our

85
schools. On those areas of the Bill where there is agreement, we shall table a range of amendments to secure the best possible success.
Many speakers raised concerns and questions regarding selection and the rejection o pupils because of their lack of ability or aptitude. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede raised an important point about parental attitude to education to which I shall return later. This area also caused concern to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, whose knowledge and background in education will contribute greatly to our debates at later stages of the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, posed a question as to why there were so few girls' schools to meet parental demand. In my experience, parents of daughters are happy for them to be educated apart from boys more frequently than the parents of boys wish their sons to be educated apart from girls. That produces a problem for those who have to provide education. We cannot force girls to be educated with boys at all times; however, their leavening influence is to be desired by those who, like myself, produce only boy children.
The changes proposed and the issues raised were stressed very clearly by my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale. She made an extremely important contribution relating to the way in which schools are perceived by very many parents.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon referred to the large number of church schools in this country and the large number of pupils educated in those schools. It is extremely important that during the Bill's passage something is done to tackle the lack of proper control or consultation that will emerge as a result of the proposals in the Bill as it stands unamended, and were the Government successfully to reintroduce the defeated Clause 3.
Many speakers referred to the report of the Audit Commission and the devastating effect of what has happened. No organisation concerned with the education of our children can fail to share the concern of the National Association of Head Teachers that the sort of proposals placed before us by the Government will lead to gridlock. As my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale said in referring to parents, siblings with special needs need to have access to schools; siblings with special needs need resourcing. How can we justify wasting public money on a system that would increase the problem already referred to by the Audit Commission? Perhaps the commission should do a survey on effectiveness, efficiency and economy resulting from the Government's policies and proposals in the Bill.
The changes will affect all schools; and all schools will suffer if finances are made available to allow schools to extend their premises and catchment area, and, worst of all, if advisory funding is extended to additional schools in a locality. How can it be fair, in an area where parents are already complaining and struggling in relation to the level of resourcing for schools, to allow, without adequate consultation and without heed to the effects on adjacent schools, an
86
increase in assisted places at the cost of existing schools? That cannot be a sensible use of public resources.
The extension of the assisted places scheme to primary school children is proposed as against reducing class sizes for half a million other children over a period of years. As my noble friend Lady David said, those excluded pupils referred to in later clauses include large numbers of children—by Ofsted's calculation some 75 per cent.—who have unmet special needs.
Turning to resources and the result of the proposals before us, it is extremely important to examine whether those resources should be spent on ensuring special needs measures. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred to the importance of tackling problems before they become too great. It is very important that those resources are spent on primary school children and are not dissipated as a result of a government whim to mess up the planning system for schools, affecting 90 per cent. of parents and children in this country.
In seeking to examine the whole issue of pupil exclusion, perhaps the Minister will tell us, at a later stage if he does not have the information to hand, whether any links between family poverty and low levels of achievement in our schools have been detected as a result of HMI or Ofsted work. Has any work been done on the correlation between the number of free school meals and levels of attainment by our pupils? Perhaps we could be given full details.
University entrance figures show that the system is successful. Many speakers referred to the increased number of pupils leaving the comprehensive system, as well as the grammar school and independent systems, who go into higher education. When he replies, will the Minister tell us whether the press reports are correct that the Government's answer to their failure to create a climate of high quality, highly paid, highly skilled job opportunities for graduate leavers is to reduce the number of graduates rather than to carry out the policy which is their responsibility? They have the responsibility to increase the number of job opportunities at that level for graduates.
I ask that because during the debate I have been concerned that some speakers have implied that there is a small amount of butter to be spread either generously for a few or widely and too thinly for the many. From these Benches, we reject that approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, made an important point, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, about the importance of a general teaching council. My noble friends Lord Morris of Castle Morris and Lord Monkswell referred to the need for the overwhelming number of our children to be given good, high quality education. Fragmentation will not achieve that objective. Parents of statemented pupils will have a choice if there is fragmentation and greater selection in the education system: the parents of statemented pupils will have a back-up guarantee. But what about the 18 per cent. of pupils who the Government know have special educational needs? Most, if not all of them, achieve low levels of attainment when measured by selection procedures. Are we really going back to a

87
situation where a family which has regard for its neighbourhood and community and has three children whom it wishes to see educated in the same local schools will no longer be able to do so?
This has been a very sad debate in some ways because it has failed to tackle the reality of the lives of 90 per cent. of parents in the community. They are not concerned about increasing choice, they are concerned that, if money is available, we should not have a situation where people who are not democratically accountable to anyone can, without regard to the needs of the adjacent area, waste scarce capital resources on building schools that are not needed while schools that are used, loved and valued by parents are crumbling from lack of capital investment. That is the kind of issue with which we cannot deal.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, cheered me up because he reminded me of someone for whom I had enormous respect, although I never shared his views on monetarist economic policy. That is the late Lord Joseph. I remember working with him when I represented the ACC on education matters. I discussed with him many of the proposals that went through. I remind your Lordships that Lord Joseph was an extremely interesting speaker on the subject of education. He would have differed from the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and would have shared the views of my noble friend Lady Blackstone. They are that the starting point of education is to motivate and attract the attention of the children whom you seek to educate. Yes, you can teach children to learn numbers by rote. It is possible, it is even essential as part of the learning process and the skills they acquire. But education goes beyond that to self-motivation and self-understanding. I recollect that—
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way and for her comparison with Lord Joseph, which I regard as an honour. However, I did not talk about rote learning.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I apologise if I confused the noble Lord's speech with that of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. It is difficult to read my writing at this stage. However, I intended offence to neither in making that statement. The comment stands, I do not have time to repeat it but I now attribute the remark to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff.
Lord Joseph was of the opinion that the first call on resources ought to be for children who under-achieve and those for whom much needs to be done. From these Benches, our view is that a great deal needs to be done. Some of it will be achieved by co-operation on the second part of the Bill. The first part will neither tackle the problem nor solve it but will make the system anarchic.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to a sort of dying situation. I believe that was her phrase. I take the view that this last gesture towards anarchy and market forces is something that we hope the
88
Government will never see on the statute book. If we were to see it, like so much of the Government's legislation over the years, it would have to be rectified.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to an article which I suspect was in the Guardian. It claimed that the Government proposed to cut the number of students in higher education. I wish to make a brief recommendation to the noble Baroness. I do not often read the Guardian and I suggest she tries another paper. When I do read it, I am always amazed by what I find in it. I can give the noble Baroness an assurance that there is no truth in the allegation. It comes from a complete and utter misreading of the evidence which the Government put forward to the Dearing committee. That evidence is publicly available and the noble Baroness can look at it as and when she wishes.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, posed me a challenge at the end of his fine speech when he mentioned a verse from The Revelation. I was grateful for the presence of my noble friend Lord Elton immediately behind me, who informed me of the content of the verse. If I have got it right, I understand that my response must be to "spew you out of my mouth".
I look forward to the Committee and later stages of the Bill. There is a great deal of discussion that we can have and moments when there will be considerable agreement in the House. It is important that the House should perform its revising function well and properly when we reach those stages. I look forward to the detailed grammatical discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and others. I shall greatly enjoy listening to his drafting skills.
By way of introduction, I wish to say that I note the matters that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, and others raised and what they said about disqualified persons. I also note the comments from the noble Baroness that the provision was likely to have been drafted by a lawyer. She is probably right; most Bills are drafted by lawyers. I speak as one, but not one who could ever draft a Bill. I wish to give one brief assurance to the noble Baroness that I note her concerns and those of others. We shall examine the wording, without getting away from the principle of the clause, to see whether between now and the Committee stage or between the Committee and Report stages we can bring forward something slightly better.
In opening, I wish briefly to check the remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Morris, about lack of funding. I find it quite extraordinary that when he and the rest of his party are trying to establish their credentials for fiscal rectitude, they should complain that there is a lack of funding and say that, should they be in government, they would provide more. Let me make it quite clear that we have increased spending by up to 50 per cent. per pupil in real terms since we came to power in 1979. The party opposite cannot claim that it could increase

89
funding, as I think the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition has done, by taking money away from the social security budget.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. I just hope for the sake of my political reputation that he will agree that at no point in my speech did I make any spending commitment.
Lord Henley: It is not for me to defend the political reputation of the noble Lord. He might not have made any demands for further public spending but he did talk about a lack of funding and lack of resources. I shall look at his precise words in the Official Report. If there were a lack of resources and the party of which he is a member happened to be in government, and if he admitted that there was a lack of funding, surely he would do something about that funding. His right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition in another place has said that yes, they would take money from the social security budget. I should just like to ask how they will do that and why they have opposed every single attempt that we have made over the years to make reductions in the social security budget. I should like to know just how they will manage.
I also make the point that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector made it quite clear that there is no relationship between funding and how well schools do. He made that quite clear in his report. There are schools with quite different levels of spending and LEAs with different levels of spending. Some are doing well and some are doing badly.
In passing, let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, with regard Her Majesty's Chief Inspector's report that I was rather saddened by what the noble Lord said. I recommend him to have a look at that report. He will note that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector in fact goes out of his way to praise those schools that have done well and those that are improving. He lists them by name. Last year we held a number of receptions to praise and thank those schools. I recommend the noble Lord to look at the report, if he has not already done so. I shall make sure that he receives a copy and will personally send him one. The reporting of that report is a matter for the press. Sadly, it will always concentrate on the more lurid aspects rather than point to the successes.
In the brief time available to me, I should like to address a number of questions. I dare say I shall not manage to address them all in the course of this evening. But, as always, I shall write, where appropriate, to noble Lords and try to deal with some of their concerns before we reach Committee stage.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon raised a number of concerns about the provisions in the Bill to extend selection and other measures such as adding sixth-form schools. He asked whether they should apply equally to voluntary schools as well as grant-maintained schools. I was interested in his proposal that voluntary schools should be given the same deregulatory freedom as grant-maintained schools to change their character. But I was not sure whether the right reverend Prelate's colleagues in the Catholic Church shared his views on
90
that. It would be helpful to know just how far a proposal of that sort would have general agreement. Certainly I hope that between now and Committee stage we can come back to it.
Similarly, on the question of whether Church secondary schools would have to consult the diocese, I can give the assurance that Church schools will be expected to consult their diocese before making use of their new powers on selection or on a change of character. That will certainly be specified in guidance. But it would cut across a fundamental principle of the Bill as it stands if schools were required to obtain the consent of the diocese itself.
The right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords also mentioned their concerns about the new successor body to SCAA and NCVQ which at the moment it is proposed to call the QNCA. I gather that there was broadly a general welcome for the concept of bringing together the two bodies. That is very much in the spirit of the merger of the Department for Education and Employment, a merger which has gone very well and one that we should like to see extended.
With regard to the name itself, I quite understand that some people, for one reason or another, are worried about the acronym and how it might be pronounced. The right reverend Prelate quite rightly had other concerns of a more serious nature about its naming. I am prepared to look again at that when we come back to the matter at a later stage.
Perhaps I may just correct one noble Lord who spoke about Dr. Nicholas Tate having been appointed as chairman. He has been appointed now as chief executive designate of the new authority. We shall shortly announce the appointment of a chairman and we are looking very hard to make sure that we have exactly the right kind of chairman who will command respect from both the world of education and the world of work. I can also give an assurance to noble Lords opposite that we have kept their colleagues in another place fully informed about the selection process. In no way will they be seen as political appointments.
I understand that there are a number of concerns over the size and possible representation of the new body. My concerns and those of the department are so far as possible to keep it relatively small and relatively strategic and not to have it take up representatives of specific interests. As soon as one starts to produce a list of all the specific interests, one quickly finds that the body becomes far too large and unwieldy. Again, we can address that matter at later stages. But our desire is to keep it small and we hope that others can be co-opted on to specific committees for that particular body.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, first raised the question of whether the Bill should include a general teaching council. Again, that issue was echoed by many other noble Lords, one of whom was, I understand, my noble friend Lord Beloff, from my own side. We should be happy to see teachers coming together to share examples of good practice and to promote positive images of the profession. But I must make clear that we would not wish to create a statutory body until there is a very clear view of the precise role that it should play

91
and how its membership should be determined. I am not sure that that can be done in the space of the Bill. No doubt other noble Lords will wish to come back to this matter at later stages, as I said. It is perhaps a matter for later discussion.
My noble friend Lady Young raised a number of questions about the extent of the use of physical force and how far parents could go in terms of breaking up fights. Again, that is a detailed point to which I should like to return at a later stage. Clause 21 was added to the Bill in another place and provides clarification of the teachers' proper powers of restraint in that area.
My noble friend also had a number of concerns about assisted places at the British independent schools in Europe and the European schools. These are interesting proposals and it will be interesting to extend the assisted places scheme to give British citizens resident in the EU our support with those at some of those schools. Again, however, there are a number of issues which need to be addressed before we could proceed with such a scheme. In addition to the very great cost which it might have, there are obviously also difficult technical and legal issues, particularly when dealing with the circumstances of residents from so many other countries.
I should now like to say a few words about home-school contracts. I believe that point was first raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, but it might have been mentioned earlier. Again, other noble Lords have concerns about the issue. Let me make it clear that the Bill leaves the details of the home-school partnership documents to the admissions authorities themselves, the LEAs or others which adopt them. Such authorities will be required, first, to consult and, secondly, to have regard to guidance that comes from my right honourable friend. I can assure the noble Lord that the guidance will contain advice on including a clear statement of the school's own responsibilities and on consultation with parents.
I can also make it quite clear, in terms of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, about parents suing for breach of the home-school contract, that the Bill provides—in what I understand is Section 413B, subsection (6) inserted by Clause 30 (which I think must be last year's Bill, the Consolidation Act)—that home-school partnership documents cannot be used as a basis for legal action by the schools or parents.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, outlined his anxieties in relation to the FE sector and said that he would be tabling an amendment. I am grateful to him for giving me notice of that fact. I do not wish to comment in detail at this stage, particularly since his proposal is analogous to one of the recommendations of the FEFC's learning difficulties and disabilities committee—the Tomlinson Committee. The recommendations of that committee, including one that the FEFC should take a wider view of progression within the wording of Schedule 2 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 have now gone out for public consultation. In those circumstances, further comment before that consultation is finalised would be pre-emptive.
92
The noble Baroness, Lady David, voiced a number of anxieties in relation to Parts IV and V, particularly in regard to the Children's Consortium. She is right when she says that the concerns of the Children's Consortium have so far been relatively little discussed. That is not surprising as the consortium only raised those concerns with my department in the past month; that is, as the Bill was leaving the Commons. It has an eloquent advocate in the noble Baroness. I am sure that she will bring forward further detailed discussions on those matters in Committee.
I turn to the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, when he referred to specialist and selective schools. I suspect that there was a degree of misunderstanding by the noble Lord as to what they are. Specialist or selective schools can be different animals. A specialist school is one that has been so designated by the Secretary of State. It is one that will specialise, currently, in up to two—though two more are being added—different areas. First, technology, science and mathematics are specialised in at technology colleges; secondly, modern languages; and to come into existence will be arts colleges specialising in fine arts, performing arts or media arts and sports colleges, but not for one specific sport, so a student could not simply specialise in, say, football. They are secondary schools following the national curriculum but specialising in their own speciality. As specialist schools, if they wish—they do not have to—they will be able to select up to 30 per cent. of their pupils without central approval. They can select on the basis of aptitude in those specialisms or on the basis of more general skills or talents.
I turn now to what might be termed the meat of the Bill; it certainly took up most of the time in another place and has received a great deal of comment in this House. I suspect that it will also take up a bit of time in Committee. I refer to Clauses 1 to 18 or what were originally Clauses 1 to 19. They deal with extending choice, extending deregulation and developing grant-maintained programmes.
Originally I felt that there was considerable clear blue water between ourselves and the party opposite. Its hatred of any degree of choice or selection seemed clear in the statement made 18 months ago by the noble Lord's honourable friend Mr. Blunkett—"Watch my lips", we were told memorably. "Watch my lips. No selection by examination or interview." Since then we have seen a number of changes. We saw the noble Lord's right honourable friend Mr. Blair and his honourable friend Mrs. Harman sending their children to grant-maintained schools, to selective schools. And we have seen in Islington itself—I can pass this figure on to my noble friend Lord Beloff—that some 43 per cent. of the parents, not "barely a third", take their children to schools other than those in Islington.
I felt that possibly we had arrived at the position where the Labour Party was changing. But listening to noble Lords opposite we find that that is not the case; they are not in favour of any degree of choice or selection despite the fact that Mr. Blunkett said only the other day, in relation to grammar schools, that there was no threat to their continuance, their ethos or their quality. I dare say the fact that there is a by-election in

93
The Wirral where there are six selective schools in the constituency may have affected his wording. I am grateful that noble Lords opposite have now made it clear that they still believe in his original remarks: "Watch my lips. Watch my lips. No selection by examination or interview". I imagine that more recent comments did not go down particularly well. We heard Mr. Graham Lane making it clear that he envisages, if Labour takes power, closing down every single selective school by the year 2000. We know therefore the views of the party opposite.
The noble Lord accused us of only being interested in school structure; he seemed to suggest that we had no interest in other matters. We believe school structure to be important and that is why we have done so much to get it right and are doing yet more. This Bill is not designed. as noble Lords implied, to bring back the old grammar school/secondary modern divide. As my noble friend Lady Perry made clear, we are not trying to force schools to go selective. We are trying to create a whole range of different structures. Some schools may want more selection; some may not; and some may wish to stay as they are. Therefore let us have some schools going selective, some going partially selective and some going grant-maintained either as comprehensives or selective schools.
The noble Lord said nothing in relation to the plans of the Labour Party for grant-maintained schools. I say to grant-maintained schools as a whole that if they listen carefully to what the Labour Party plans to do to grant-maintained schools it will make their flesh creep. I remind the noble Lord of what I understand the Labour Party is planning to do by way of taking away their freedoms—two LEA governors on the board and funding by the LEAs themselves—but allowing them to continue to call themselves something like a "foundation school".
Going back to the rich variety that we wish to see, let some schools remain comprehensive if they wish; let some remain grant-maintained comprehensives or LEA comprehensives; let some specialise. Again, we heard nothing from the noble Lord opposite about specialist schools. I have heard occasionally that the Labour Party supports specialist schools, but with the idea of selection coming into selective schools, I would be interested to know what degree of selection would be allowed to operate within a school's particular speciality.
All of us as parents know that children possess different talents and needs. That is why we want variety and choice in schools. There are many parents who want selection and that is why there are so many applicants to existing grammar schools. The simple point is that we want to allow schools to respond to what parents want; we are not suggesting compulsion.
My noble friend Lady Young made an interesting point about the effect of selection in Northern Ireland. We heard interesting comments from other noble Lords about the lack of selection throughout Europe, most of which has been proved conclusively not to be the case. There is selection in places like Germany in a system that is much admired by many in this country. On the subject of selection in Northern Ireland, one interesting
94
piece of evidence in relation to the impact of selection comes from that area. There the system of grammar schools and selection still obtains. In 1996 52 per cent. of 15 year-olds in Northern Ireland gained five good GCSEs compared with 43 per cent. of pupils in England. That seems to indicate that everyone benefits from a degree of selection, not only the elite.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will give way; I have been challenged three times on this point. I do not claim to be a world expert on international education but my firm information is that the majority of the large western European nations—Italy, Spain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and France, together with the USA and Japan—base their education systems on the comprehensive intake system.
Lord Henley: My Lords, if the noble Earl does not profess to be a world expert on these matters, I suspect it would be better if he refrained from making comments such as "every other country has a comprehensive system", as he seemed to imply. It is clear that Germany does not; that France does not. My noble friend made that quite clear.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I happen to know a little about this. The position in France is comprehensive until 16 and then selective after 16. In Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium it is the old tripartite system from 11 or 13. Italy is somewhat the same as France, and Spain is more varied. But it is not a comprehensive system. The French system has certain peculiarities in that the less able are siphoned off at 14.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for adding his world expertise to assist mine.
We have seen a great many changes in education during the past 18 years. We are not ashamed of our record of the number of Bills we have brought before this House and another place. We have done a great deal to increase choice and diversity, to involve parents and to raise standards. The noble Lord, Lord Moms, said that the Bill does nothing to raise standards. But what about all the things we have done? What about the structural changes we have made, with grant-maintained schools, LMS and specialist schools? What about the national curriculum? What about the performance tables? What about testing, regular assessment and inspection—the vast comprehensive framework that we now have in place? That has done a very great deal and virtually all of it—virtually every single Bill that came before this House and another place to bring in those measures—was opposed by the party opposite. This Bill will yet further extend choice and diversity for parents—
Baroness David: My Lords, the Minister must be used to me challenging him on this matter. I was here before him and went through a great many—not quite as many as the noble Baroness, Lady Young—of those Bills. The Labour Party did not oppose everything that was put forward. It accepted some things—LMS and the national curriculum but not the prescriptive variety that

95
was proposed. What happened later? The Government went back on the curriculum. They made it more flexible. They also went back on some of the testing. I hope the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will not continue to make that charge because it is quite untrue.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we shall argue another day about whether the noble Baroness has been here longer than I have. I am not sure whether that is the case. However, the simple fact is that the vast majority of the reforms we have made—the important structural reforms—have been opposed by the party opposite.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I referred to the late Lord Joseph. Will the Minister confirm that Lord Joseph opposed and criticised the Government's proposals for the prescriptive national curriculum in exactly the same way as noble Lords on the Opposition Benches did; that both the late Lord Joseph and those on the Opposition Benches were found to be right; and that the Government, at great public expense, changed back in line with the criticism that was made?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness will frequently find that there are those on her Back Benches who do not necessarily agree with everything her party says. That happens very frequently. What Lord Joseph might or might not have thought is another matter. The point I was trying to get over is that we have brought in a large number of reforms. We have a comprehensive framework in place to raise standards, improve quality and provide a good service for parents and pupils. The vast majority of those reforms were opposed by the party opposite.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall not take any more interventions. I have been speaking for 26 minutes and I see that the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip would like to go home to bed.
This Bill will yet further extend choice and diversity for parents. It will yet further raise standards and improve discipline in schools. It will further promote diversity between schools and thus increase choice by encouraging pupil selection, giving grant-maintained schools more power to develop their identities without central imposition. As I said, the Bill will do much to raise standards and improve discipline. I certainly expect a very lively Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Sundays (Dancing and Licensing) Bill [H.L.]
8.44 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Permitted hours in premises used to provide entertainment on Sundays]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 2, leave out from ("force),") to end of line 3 and insert ("after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the permitted hours on Sundays in any premises or part of premises to which this section applies shall extend until thirty minutes past midnight on Sunday, except that—

(a) the permitted hours shall end at midnight on any Sunday on which music and dancing is not or, in the case of casino premises, gaming facilities are not provided after midnight;

(b) on any Sunday that music and dancing end or, in the case of casino premises, gaming ends between midnight and thirty minutes past midnight, the permitted hours shall end when the music and dancing end or, as the case may be, when the gaming ends; and

(c) in any premises or part for which a certificate is in force subject to a limitation imposed in relation to Sundays in pursuance of section 78A or 81A of this Act, the permitted hours shall not extend beyond the time specified in the certificate.

(3B) In relation to any Sunday which falls immediately before a day which is a bank holiday in England and Wales under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971, other than Easter Sunday, subsection (3A) of this section shall have effect—

(a) in the case of premises which are situated as mentioned in subsection (3) of this section, with the substitution for the references to thirty minutes past midnight on Sunday of references to three o'clock in the morning following, and

(b) in the case of any other premises, with the substitution for the references to thirty minutes past midnight on Sunday of references to two o'clock in the morning following."").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak to the other amendments standing in my name on the Marshalled List. I reflected very carefully on what was said during the Committee stage about protection for residents, and the series of amendments tabled in my name offers three complementary ways of tackling the problems raised. Concerns were expressed by a number of your Lordships about the difficulty for people who live near licensed premises and who want to object to the grant of a licence. It was said that it was very hard for people to persuade licensing authorities that the premises in question could be the cause of disorder or nuisance. Added to that basic difficulty was the sheer effort for an individual to register and support his or her objection. particularly when confronted with a skilful lawyer.
A possible remedy would be to attempt to reverse the burden of proof so that the onus would fall on those applying for a licence and not on those who simply want to ensure that their lives are not unreasonable affected. I made that suggestion at the Committee stage and I have looked carefully at the possibility, but have reluctantly reached the conclusion, after receiving legal advice, that

97
that remedy cannot effectively achieve what your Lordships wish to achieve. I must emphasise that that conclusion had nothing to do with reluctance on the part of the industry to co-operate. In fact the industry was very willing to adopt the proposition. However, as I said, there were other reasons. So we went back, as it were, to stage one and looked at what I think is a more radical step to meet the concerns that were raised in Committee.
My solution is, first, to impose an earlier closing time on premises. After consultation, I have concluded that the fairest answer all round would be to impose a closing time of 12.30. That would be the latest closing time. If any local authority set an earlier closing time the premises would have to close at that earlier time. One could argue that the time should be earlier—it could be 11 o'clock or perhaps even 10 o'clock—but I tried to be realistic. This is a deregulation measure and a balance needs to be struck between removing unnecessary burdens on business on the one hand and ensuring protections for individuals on the other. My proposal achieves that balance. If one compares it with what happens elsewhere on Sundays at the moment, for pubs, last orders are at 10.30, with a closing time of 11 p.m. In restaurants it is 11.30, with drinks finished by 12 o'clock. So 12.30 for nightclubs is not an unreasonable hour.
The details are set out in Amendment No. 1. There is one small exception to which I should bring your Lordships' attention. On the four or five occasions in the year where there is a Bank Holiday Monday, the normal week-day closing time would be retained unless the local authority or licensing court imposed an earlier time. However, the same would not apply to Christmas Eve, or when it falls on a Sunday, or Easter Sunday. So it would not affect any religious holiday. Amendment No. 2 is a technical amendment consequential on Amendment No. 1.
There are two further amendments of substance which address the other concerns that were raised in Committee. Amendment No. 4 is in effect a "Keep Sunday Special" amendment. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Brentford is not in his place this evening. Its effect is to place a requirement on the licensing justices to take particular account of the special nature of Sundays when considering applications for a special hours certificate. The amendment would give the licensing court special powers either to limit the hours of the certificate on a Sunday or to refuse to allow a certificate to operate at all on Sundays if it considered that the special nature of Sunday so required.
The final amendment in my name appears in recognition of the concerns about nuisance to residents. At present a special hours certificate can be revoked on the grounds of disorder or indecent conduct on the premises. The amendment would substitute a much lower test for that revocation and would allow a certificate to be made inoperative on Sundays where disturbance or annoyance is caused to residents. The new provision explicitly extends to disturbance and annoyance caused outside the premises. I think that that deals with the problem that was raised by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes—I am equally sorry that
98
my noble friend is not in her place this evening—about the effects on residents of noise caused by the parking of cars and the coming and going of taxis.
I hope that, taken together, the amendments will deal with all of the concerns that were raised in Committee. We have worked hard to produce them. I hope that we have produced a Bill that will be satisfactory to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I have again tabled an amendment to remove Clause 2 from the Bill entirely. My amendment has been grouped with Amendment No. 1 which my noble friend Lord Astor has just moved. I should say straightaway that my noble friend has done his best to try to meet the concerns that were expressed so forcefully by all sides in Committee. I know, however, that he will not be altogether surprised if I say that I do not think that Clause 2 can be amended to achieve the degree of protection for which residents are looking, especially those who live in close proximity to the premises we are discussing. Such residents are already subject to disturbance from Monday to Saturday. For them, the Bill has become the last straw. I remind the House that in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea there are some 94 such establishments. Even if only one-third of them were to apply for Sunday licences, that must involve disturbance to many hundreds, if not thousands, of residents.
I understand the point that my noble friend makes about limiting the hours. However, although my experience of such establishments is extremely limited, my impression is that, as compared with restaurants, it is likely that clubs and dance halls will create a great deal more disturbance as the evening breaks up and the patrons depart. Therefore, I find it illogical for my noble friend to argue that a 12.30 a.m. finish is all right for dance halls because the hour for restaurants is even earlier. I should have thought that the argument should be the other way round. What happens outside pubs varies enormously, but that is not our concern here. I think that 12.30 a.m.—on a Monday morning—is an unreasonable hour for a dance hall to close, given that the residents will have to endure all that noise and disturbance.
I appreciate also that an effort has been made to keep Sunday special and that there will be a requirement to take account of the special nature of Sundays. That will no doubt have some effect on the way in which the licensing authorities or magistrates make their decisions. I recognise also that by imposing what may well be a lower test—namely, disturbance and annoyance of the public from noise outside premises—we may make it a little easier for those who wish to oppose a licence to make their case.
However, the fact is that none of the measures really addresses the mischief. It will still be necessary for the residents to demonstrate that patrons of a particular establishment cause a nuisance. Where premises with music and dancing licences are conglomerated, as is the case in Kensington and Chelsea, that will still be a substantial hurdle for the residents to overcome. It will be necessary for them to demonstrate that noise levels that may just be tolerable on Friday and Saturday nights

99
would be intolerable on a Sunday night. One has only to state that to realise what difficulties residents would face when making that case.
There is another problem, one which we should perhaps have raised at an earlier stage. One of the ways in which owners of such establishments can get round the way in which the restrictions are intended to operate is by making sure that the clubs change hands. New owners will often promise that the problems that occurred under the dreadful people from whom they finally acquired the premises will never occur under their management. The temptation for the magistrates or the licensing authorities to give the new owners the benefit of the doubt is overwhelming, but there may turn out to be absolutely no change at all. Furthermore, how can a new establishment be challenged, given that there will be no evidence of noise being caused?
Under my noble friend's amendments, the sale of liquor could take place up to 12.30 a.m. Given that patrons are allowed to finish their drinks, they will obviously disperse later than that—at perhaps 1 a.m. or 1.30 a.m. From experience, I must make it clear that I find that totally unacceptable—
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I interrupt my noble friend to correct him on one point. I described what happens in pubs and restaurants, but the specified time of 12.30 a.m. for night clubs is to be the hour of closure. There is no question of anybody then finishing their drink and staying on. I repeat that 12.30 a.m. is the final time.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I accept that that is my noble friend's intention, but one knows what happens. I took some of my family to see Guys and Dolls, a most remarkable show, the other night. When the entire crowd of hoodlums comes into the mission hall with one great oomph, the audience automatically cheers, but if my noble friend thinks that that is the way in which dance hall patrons leave at the end of the evening, he must be a great deal more naïve than I am sure he is. Of course, they do not. They take their time. Residents then have to put up with doors slamming and cars revving up.
Although the amendments are helpful and I certainly would not dream of opposing them, I do not think that they will solve the problem. In fact, I believe that the problem of Clause 2 is insoluble. What I find difficult is the point which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised at an earlier stage. If there is to be further consideration of the results of the consultation and of the responses that have been given to the procedures to allow pubs and registered clubs to stay open until midnight on Friday and Saturday nights, why cannot this proposal be considered within the same procedural ambit? Why do we have to proceed separately with the original deregulation measure and now with this separate Bill, which appears to have the support of my noble friend on the Front Bench, whereas for the Friday and Saturday problem an entirely different procedure, with much greater consultation, is simultaneously being argued for?
100
Only a few weeks ago the Home Office announced that there was likely to be considerable delay and that the proposals would be considered further in the context of the way in which changes in one part of the licensing system impacted on other parts of the system. My honourable friend Mr. Kirkhope said that he expected those considerations to be concluded during the spring. I am sure that that is the right way to deal with this measure. I do not think that Clause 2 is amendable to achieve the purposes of the objectors. I honestly think that this Bill should not proceed any further. I do not intend to seek to divide the House tonight—not many noble Lords are present. However, I do think that the Bill will encounter some considerable difficulties when it reaches the other place.
9 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, my welcome for these amendments is a little less unenthusiastic than that of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, perhaps because I am a fraction of an inch further along the spectrum in favour of allowing people to do on Sunday what they can do on other nights of the week. Perhaps my presumptions are slightly different.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord on the desirability of reviewing all of the procedures together. We have a licensing system which at best is opaque to those who seek a way into it. It must be advantageous, particularly to those who seek deregulation, to clarify all of the procedure in one exercise.
I should like to put some questions to the noble Viscount. I believe he said that in the preparation of the amendments there had been consultation between the stages of the Bill. I would be interested to know who was consulted and who had an opportunity to have an input. I also ask, perhaps rhetorically, why it was not considered that the same hours should apply to clubs as to other establishments. I am concerned about the likelihood that disturbance will be spread over a longer period than would otherwise be the case. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, that it would not invariably be the case that those who emerged from clubs would be worse behaved than those who emerged from restaurants. I hope that I am not too prejudiced in my approach. However, that is certainly possible.
I understand the words "until thirty minutes past midnight on Sunday" to mean Monday, but in other contexts, particularly traffic orders, I have seen the most convoluted language to describe what would be understood to be half past midnight on Sunday, or some other day that has to be described as part of the following day.
I believe that the phrase "the special nature of Sunday" is helpful. Can the noble Viscount give the House any guidance as to where else this can be found in legislation, in particular whether there is any case law on its interpretation. There may be challenges to the application of improper criteria by a magistrates' court or licensing justices in their assessment of that special nature.
Finally, the new clause in Amendment No. 5 enables a chief officer of police to make an application. No doubt the noble Viscount considered whether or not a

101
local authority should be in the same position and discounted it. Perhaps the noble Viscount would explain the thinking behind that amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I suppose that in the spectrum that has been described I am slightly nearer the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, than the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and certainly nearer than the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. I supported the liberalisation of Sunday trading throughout the various proceedings in this House. I still feel the same. I also believe that to treat music and dancing on Sunday differently from other days when all other aspects of entertainment and catering are not treated differently is somewhat anomalous. In the end, I believe that the noble Viscount should recognise that if the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is still against it this measure is dead in the water. If the honourable Member for Colchester North does not shout "Object!" no doubt someone will. At this stage of the Parliament the noble Viscount ought not to expect this measure to pass through both Houses.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, the feeling of the House has been made very clear during the Bill's Committee stage, and in the speeches of the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Jenkin this evening. Further protections following the Committee stage were required to safeguard residents against disturbance and annoyance. I believe that the amendments which my noble friend has moved meet those concerns. They offer a substantial package of extra protections for residents on Sundays, both on the initial consideration of applications for extended licensing hours and subsequently should problems occur. The earlier closing time recognises the special nature of Sundays and would provide incontrovertible protection for residents without requiring any action on their part. It would also go a long way towards meeting the particular concerns expressed at Committee stage about people having to go to work on Monday mornings.
The requirement for licensing justices to consider the special nature of Sundays when considering applications for extended licensing hours on that day would also provide front-line protection for residents by giving the courts greater discretion as to whether to limit further the closing time or refuse an extension for Sundays altogether. The extended grounds for revocation would be an additional safeguard for residents against premises which, having had their Sunday hours extended, subsequently became the cause of disturbance. These measures would substantially increase the protections which would be afforded to residents should this Bill be enacted. They demonstrate great willingness on the part of my noble friend to respond constructively to noble Lords' concerns and to ensure that Sunday dancing can take place without detriment to anyone concerned.
The Government fully support my noble friend's amendments and hope that they will be accepted by the House. In particular, I hope that they adequately meet the concerns expressed at Committee stage, although
102
I have noted the comments made by noble Lords. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am a born optimist and I hope to persuade my noble friend. I understand his difficulty. With great respect to my noble friend, he made what was in effect a Second Reading speech. His speech was not about my amendments but his quite proper objections to the Bill. I have taken account of what my noble friends and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said at Committee stage and tabled amendments which I believe satisfy their concerns. However, my noble friend has not said that my amendments do not satisfy his concerns.
In Committee, my noble friend said:
"Perhaps we can write into the Bill an obligation that the licensing justices or magistrates, as the case may be, should have regard to the special nature of Sunday evening when considering the extension of a licence into the late hours".—[Official Report, 3/2/97; col. 1498.]
That is what we have done. We have taken account of those concerns, but my noble friend does not want any club to be open on Sunday. He particularly does not want any club to be open on a Sunday in Kensington and Chelsea.
That is an extreme view, because there are many areas in the country where local authorities are happy for clubs to be open on a Sunday, because they are in areas where they will not cause disturbance and nuisance to residents. We have built into the Bill a protection for those residents, because we have extended from inside the club to outside the club the protection they can receive. So, if there is noise in the street—to answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—police can move for a revocation, and the public can instigate that move by the police. It is not just the police. Anyone can say that there is noise and move for a revocation.
In my experience, local authorities are susceptible to complaints about noise these days. In Kensington and Chelsea I received a complaint myself this summer because the air conditioning in my flat which had hummed away happily—I have to say fairly uselessly—for the past 10 years suddenly decided to make too much noise. The thing had immediately to be switched off. There are remedies. Those remedies are used. We have substantially increased the powers and protections by the amendments and the Bill. I am sorry that my noble friend has not taken account of that.
My noble friend said the Bill does not address the mischief. I believe that it does. The noble Baroness asked what consultation we had had about hours. We consulted the industry and compared what happens on weekdays where, for example, pubs are open to 11.30 p.m., restaurants until 1 a.m. and clubs of course until 2 a.m. The hours we came to seemed to be a reasonable compromise and used those same staggered times. We used the same basis of stagger for Sunday.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps I may take that point a little further. Did not the noble Viscount find it possible to make a distinction between the location of

103
premises? Points were made at earlier stages about some clubs being in areas where residents are directly affected, while other clubs—I am making a point in favour of deregulation here—are well away from residential areas. I wonder whether consideration was given to allowing those clubs to have a further extension of hours.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, indeed there was. We considered carefully why a club in an out-of-town centre needed to be closed at 12.30 a.m. and why it should not be allowed to open until 2 o'clock in the morning. Because of the concerns expressed in your Lordships' House it was felt that wherever one put the hours clubs could seek to argue to be allowed to open until that time. Therefore, in the spirit of trying to keep Sunday special we felt that an earlier time would be more acceptable to your Lordships, taking into account the special nature of Sunday.
The noble Baroness asked also whether we had thought about defining the special nature of Sunday. I cannot say whether that exists in other legislation. It may or it may not. I shall have to consult my legal advisers and write to her. I think that one of its purposes was to make that statement as wide as possible so that licensing magistrates and justices could take account of all the factors—noise, the special nature of Sundays, and so forth. There is no factor that they cannot take into account when considering whether or not these clubs should be open. That is the point we were trying to make. We have made it open and easy for those objections to be made.
I realise that I have a great deal to do to persuade my noble friend. I am glad that in another place the Member for Colchester is now a PPS. So he may be fully supportive of the Government, as of course he always has been. He will probably be busy in Colchester that Friday. After all, it is an important seat.
I take the point that the promoters must persuade Members of another place of the merits of the Bill and I shall try to do so. I hope that we shall persuade them that the proposals put before your Lordships tonight are satisfactory. I understand the concerns of people who say, "We never want anything open on Sundays". This is a deregulation Bill. In Scotland, clubs have been open on Sundays for 20 years, but I have not been bombarded by letters from people saying, "I have lived in Scotland for 20 years and my Sundays have been ruined". That is not the case.
We have sought to address the situation and dramatically to increase the protection available. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will support my amendment and the Question, That Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 5, leave out ("subsection (1)") and insert ("subsections (1) and (1A)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 4 and 5:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
DUTIES IN RELATION TO SPECIAL HOURS CERTIFICATES EXTENDING TO SUNDAYS
(" .—(1) In section 78A of the Licensing Act 1964 (limitations on special hours certificates), after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) Before granting a special hours certificate which extends to Sundays, the licensing justices or, as the case may be, the magistrates' court shall consider in relation to Sundays—

(a) the exercise of the power to limit the certificate to particular days of the week, and

(b) the exercise of the power to limit the certificate to particular times of the day.

(3B) Subsection (3A) above is without prejudice to the functions of the justices or the court in relation to the exercise of the powers mentioned in that subsection in relation to other days of the week or in relation to the exercise of other powers."
(2) In section 83 of that Act (supplementary provisions as to special hours certificates), at the end there shall be inserted—
"(5) In considering, in relation to Sundays, the exercise of any power—

(a) to attach to a special hours certificate limitations to particular times of the day or particular days of the week, or

(b) to vary such limitations attached to such a certificate,

licensing justices or, as the case may be, a magistrates' court shall, in particular, have regard to the special nature of Sunday.").
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
SPECIAL HOURS CERTIFICATES: EXCLUSION OF SUNDAYS IN CASE OF DISTURBANCE ETC
(".—(1) After section 81A of the Licensing Act 1964 there shall be inserted—
"Special hours certificates: exclusion of Sundays in case of disturbance etc.
81AA.—(1) At any time while there is in force for any premises or for part of any premises a special hours certificate which extends to Sundays, the chief officer of police may apply to the licensing justices, or, if it was granted under section 78 of this Act, to the magistrates' court, for the imposition of a limitation excluding Sundays on the following ground.
(2) The ground referred to is that such a limitation is desirable to avoid or reduce on Sundays—

(a) any disturbance of or annoyance to—

(i) persons living or working in the neighbourhood, or

(ii) customers or clients of any business in the neighbourhood, or

(b) the occurrence in the vicinity of the premises of disorderly conduct on the part of persons resorting to the premises or part of the premises.

(3) If on an application under this section the licensing justices or, as the case may be, the magistrates' court are satisfied that the ground of the application is made out, they shall attach a limitation to the special hours certificate which has the effect of excluding Sundays."
(2) In section 81B of that Act (special hours certificates: appeals)—

(a) in subsection (1)(c), after "section 81A" there shall be inserted "or 81AA", and

(b) in subsection (2), after "section 81A(3)" there shall be inserted "or 81AA".

(3) In section 91 of that Act (procedure of licensing justices) for "or 81A" there shall he substituted ", 81A or 81AA".
(4) In section 92 of that Act (procedure on applications to magistrates' courts), at the end there shall be inserted—
"(d) an application under section 81 AA of this Act.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Criminal Evidence (Amendment) Bill
9.15 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Warwick: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I am grateful for this, my first opportunity to introduce a Bill in your Lordships' House, In doing so, I thank my honourable friend Mr. Nigel Evans, who proposed the Bill in another place. With all-party support, it enjoyed a very speedy passage.
Noble Lords will be aware of the horrific rape and murder of 15 year-old Naomi Smith and the part that DNA played in securing the recent conviction of her killer, Edwin Hopkins. This Bill has the potential to make a significant impact on the fight against crime. Its central purpose is to add the DNA profiles of some 7,750 serious violent sex and burglary offenders who are currently serving prison sentences or are detained under Part III of the Mental Health Act to the national DNA database. All those offenders will have been convicted before 10th April 1995 and therefore escaped the operation of the new powers to take non-intimate samples from convicted persons introduced by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. A number of these people might well, if tested for inclusion on the DNA register, prove to have been involved in other as vet unsolved crimes.
The immediate origins of this Bill are to be found in the Government's consultation document, published in June 1996, on the sentencing and supervision of sex offenders. That consultation document sought views on a number of proposals designed to improve the protection of the public from sex offenders and to enhance opportunities for the treatment of such offenders. The Bill would implement one of those proposals.
Convicted sex offenders have often established a pattern of repeat offending. Research has shown that, when interviewed under confidential conditions, men convicted of rapes have, on average, confessed to having carried out six or even seven rapes as well as other less serious sexual offences. However, the median figure was much lower at one or two rapes, which suggests that a small number of offenders may be responsible for a much larger proportion of sexual offences.
Given that incidence of repeat offending, it is clear that DNA profiling can make an important contribution towards increasing the number of convictions for serious sexual crime. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 extended the circumstances in which the police could take samples for DNA profiling purposes from persons under investigation for a recordable offence. It also created a new power to take such samples from persons charged with or convicted of these offences.
106
Crucially, however, the power to take samples from convicted offenders applied only to those convicted on or after the coming into force of the relevant provisions of the 1994 Act; that is, on 10th April 1995.
The Government's consultation document proposed taking these existing powers one step further. In particular, it proposed that the power be extended to enable the police to take samples for DNA profiling purposes from all sex offenders who were sentenced to imprisonment before the implementation of the 1994 Act and who are still in custody. Such a measure would deter those prisoners from reoffending on release and aid their detection if the deterrent failed. This proposal in the consultation document received widespread support. I understand that the Home Office has received 74 responses, of which 82 per cent. were in support.
I believe that it is equally important for the police to have the power to take a DNA sample from persons who have been convicted of violent and burglary offences. We should take all reasonable measures to assist the police to prevent and detect such crimes. DNA profiling and the DNA database have proved their worth not just in relation to sexual offences but also in relation to violent crimes and burglary. With all those crimes, it is not uncommon for an offender to leave behind a blood, semen, saliva or other body sample which can subsequently be used to link him to the scene of the crime. Indeed, it is those three broad categories of offence which the police service has targeted when building up the DNA database.
The Bill will build on the tremendous success of the DNA database so far. It now contains more than 110,000 samples from suspected and convicted offenders and some 8,900 crime-scene stain profiles. Matches which either link suspects to crime scenes or one crime scene to another are occurring at the rate of 100 per week. To date, nearly 3,300 matches have been achieved.
As I mentioned, the core of this Bill is the extension of the power of the police to take DNA samples from persons convicted before 10th April 1995 of a sexual, violent or burglary offence and who are still imprisoned or detained under the Mental Health Act. That is covered in Clause 1.
Clause 2 enables DNA samples to be taken from certain other detained mentally disordered offenders. Not all such offenders will have been convicted of an offence but will instead have been found either not guilty by reason of insanity or unfit to plead. It is appropriate that the police should have power to take DNA samples in such cases, as in the case of convicted offenders.
Clause 3 enables the powers to take DNA samples from detained mentally disordered offenders and juvenile offenders to be exercised in the place of detention. That mirrors an existing provision in Section 63A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which enables the police to take samples in prisons.
Clause 4 is a tidying-up measure. The new Section 63A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, inserted by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, omitted to impose a time limit on the exercise of a constable's

107
power to require a person informed that he will be reported for a recordable offence to attend a police station so that a non-intimate sample may be taken. Clause 4 corrects that omission by imposing a time limit of one month.
Schedule 1 lists the sex, violence and burglary offences which determine that a detained person may have a DNA sample taken from him under the provisions of Clauses 1 and 2.
Finally, Schedule 2 reproduces Sections 63 and 63A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act as further amended by this Bill. That will be a welcome point of reference, particularly for lawyers—and I am sure that we all have sympathy for lawyers.
In conclusion, this is an important Bill. At the heart of it is the simple objective of protecting society from serious sex and violent offenders. The purpose of the Bill is to build upon the successes already achieved through DNA. Brian and Catherine Smith lost their only daughter, Naomi, at the hands of a sadistic killer, but with the help of DNA testing he was caught and convicted. Accordingly, I commend this Bill to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Taylor of Warwick.)
9.25 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I preface my very brief remarks by saying that, as always, we do not take a collective view on Private Members' Bills and, therefore, I speak for myself and not necessarily for my party. I also preface what I have to say by confirming that we have no objection to the Bill; indeed, we support it and wish it to go through.
That was the nice part of my speech, I shall now very briefly be slightly more sour. The Bill has clearly been drafted by the Home office and I mean no disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Warwick, in saying that. It has all the hallmarks of Home Office drafting and is none the worse for that. However, the real point is that this Bill is simply a reflection of defects in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. All the points concerned ought to have been—and, indeed, could have been—made in that Act.
I find it most unsatisfactory that the very limited opportunities that there are for Private Members' Bills for those who win the ballot in the House of Commons for such Bills should be taken up by government Bills which have been drafted to remedy the defects of their own previous legislation. I believe that Private Members' Bills should be for issues which come from outside government rather than being inspired by government, as this one clearly is.
9.26 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I should like, first, to congratulate my noble friend Lord Taylor of Warwick on introducing the Bill and on doing it so concisely. The development of DNA profiling has made possible a major advance in the investigation of crime. The technique itself is now some 15 years old, and it
108
is with increasing frequency that we read in newspaper reports that some horrific murder or rape has been solved with the help of DNA. The purpose of this Bill is to build on the successes already achieved through DNA by enabling the profiles of over 7,000 of the country's most serious violent and sex offenders to be entered onto the national DNA database.
To put the Bill in context, it may help noble Lords if I explain some of the background to the creation of the national DNA database. The catalyst was the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, which reported in 1993. The Royal Commission made a number of recommendations relating to the classification and taking of samples for DNA profiling purposes and the retention of such samples in order to facilitate the creation of a national database.
In relation to the classification of body samples, the Royal Commission recommended that saliva should be reclassified as a non-intimate sample so that mouth swabs may be taken without consent. As such samples are non-invasive and can be taken easily, the proposed reclassification would greatly facilitate the taking of samples for DNA profiling.
The Royal Commission went on to recommend that the police should have the power to take, without consent, non-intimate samples for the purpose of DNA analysis from all those charged with serious criminal offences, whether or not DNA evidence was relevant to the particular offence. It was also proposed that it should be permissible for the DNA profile to be retained for subsequent use if the person concerned is convicted.
The Government accepted those recommendations, but in one important respect believed that they should go one step further. The Government considered that the power to take non-intimate samples should be available to assist the investigation of a wider range of offences; namely, all recordable offences. That would enable the police to take samples for DNA analysis on essentially the same basis as the power to take fingerprints.
The Royal Commission's recommendations were implemented by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. This amended the relevant sections of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and provided the legislative framework for the national DNA database. As I have indicated, in order to facilitate the taking of samples for DNA profiling, saliva and mouth swabs have been reclassified as non-intimate samples. Mouth swabs are simple to take and hence are the preferred method of obtaining samples. As an alternative, a sample of some 10 plucked hairs are taken. A sample of hair was already classed as a non-intimate sample, but the 1994 Act clarified this to include hair with the roots.
The amendments made to PACE also significantly extended the circumstances in which a non-intimate sample could be taken without consent. Prior to the 1994 Act, the circumstances in which such a sample might be taken were narrowly defined. A non-intimate sample could only be taken from a person without consent if he was in police detention and the taking was authorised by a superintendent or above. The

109
conditions were relatively narrow as the superintendent could only give authorisation where he had reasonable grounds for suspecting the involvement of the person concerned in a serious arrestable offence and for believing that the sample would tend to confirm or disproved involvement.
There are now three broad circumstances in which a non-intimate sample may be taken without consent. First, the original power has been expanded in respect of the offences for which such samples may be taken. Previously it was where a person was in police detention suspected of involvement in a serious arrestable offence. Now a sample may be taken if such a person is suspected of involvement in a recordable offence.
Secondly, a non-intimate sample may be taken without consent from a person if he has been either charged with a recordable offence or informed that he will be reported for such an offence, provided he has not had a non-intimate sample taken in the course of the investigation of the offence, or if he has had a sample taken that was not suitable or was insufficient for analysis.
The third circumstance in which a non-intimate sample may now be taken without consent is where a person has been convicted of a recordable offence. Crucially, this power to take a sample did not apply to anyone convicted of a recordable offence prior to the coming into force of the relevant amendment to PACE; that is, prior to 10th April 1995, as mentioned by my noble friend. It is this restriction which is the genesis of the Bill we are debating today and one I shall return to in a while.
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 also clarified the law in relation to the destruction of samples and the use to be made of information derived from a sample. In particular, the Act provided that the information derived from samples may be the subject of a speculative search. This allows the DNA profile of a suspect to be checked against the DNA profiles derived from crime stains and so reveal whether he has been involved in another, yet unsolved, offence.
As I have indicated, these provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 came into force on 10th April 1995. At the same time the police service launched the national DNA database.
The database, which is operated by the Forensic Science Service, contains the DNA profiles of persons suspected of, charged with or convicted of a recordable offence. In the case of persons suspected or charged with such an offence, I should explain that their DNA profiles are removed from the database and destroyed if they are not proceeded against or found not guilty. The database also contains the DNA profiles derived from crime scene stains.
The database now holds over 110,000 profiles of individuals and nearly 9,000 profiles from crime scene samples. The success and evident value of the database are fully demonstrated by the 3,269 matches
110
that have been thrown up. Over 2,000 of these have matched a suspect to a crime scene and some 1,200 have matched one crime scene to another.
The database itself does not tell the full story of the success of DNA profiling. In an effort to find the perpetrator of a particular crime, mass screens have been conducted on volunteers. In such cases, the profiles are not put on or searched against the national database but are held separately and compared only to the crime stain profile from the case. These volunteer samples and profiles are destroyed once the case is finished.
The 26 mass screens so far processed have resulted in 14 matches. These have all been for serious crimes; namely, murders and rapes. These range from the rape and murder of an 18 year-old woman in West Yorkshire, to the rape of a 78 year-old handicapped woman in her own home in Derbyshire. These are vile crimes and we can take some comfort from the fact that, in no small part due to DNA, the evil people who committed these offences will spend a very long time in prison where they can no longer be a danger to society. My noble friend's Bill will build on these successes by adding some 7,750 serious sex, violent and burglary offenders to the national database.
I have already alluded to the problem the Bill seeks to tackle. Under the provisions of PACE, as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the police have the power to take non-intimate samples from persons convicted of a recordable offence. However, the power applies only in the case of persons whose conviction was on or after 10th April 1995. As a result, the database does not contain the DNA profiles of persons convicted before that date. It is this loophole which the Bill will plug.
While the law as it stands enables the police to take samples from offenders with a post-April 1995 conviction for a recordable offence, in practice, because of the numbers involved, samples are taken only from sex, violent and burglary offenders. A similar approach is adopted in Clause 1 of the Bill. In backdating the power to take non-intimate samples, the Bill targets those sex, violent and burglary offenders convicted before April 1995 and who are still in prison or detained under the Mental Health Act.
Clause 2 of the Bill brings the arrangements for taking non-intimate samples from mentally disordered offenders, dealt with under the criminal insanity legislation, broadly into line with the arrangements for taking such samples from convicted offenders. The clause will enable a non-intimate sample to be taken from certain offenders detained under Part III of the Mental Health Act 1983 having been found either not guilty by reason of insanity or unfit to plead.
I shall not detain your Lordships further by going into the other provisions of the Bill, save to mention Schedule 2. This schedule sets out Sections 63 and 63A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as amended by the provisions of the Bill. It is not always easy finding one's way through legislation which has been amended on a number of separate

111
occasions. I am sure that the sections of PACE reproduced in Schedule 2 to the Bill in their amended form will be a welcome point of reference, as mentioned by my noble friend.
The Bill has the Government's wholehearted support. I once again commend my noble friend for bringing it forward and I wish him every success in securing a swift and smooth passage.
9.34 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Warwick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and my noble friend Lord Courtown for their constructive observations on the Bill. While I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the past, I am delighted that he is now prepared to look to the
112
future. The Bill is designed to protect the public. I am glad that it appears to receive support from all sides of the House. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Horserace Totalisator Board Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

Land Registration Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before ten o'clock.

  Bahrain: Shaikh al-Jamri
  Bahrain: Shaikh al-Jamri
  Bosnia: Human Rights Report
  Bosnia: Human Rights Report
  Turkey and Bosnia: Military Relations
  Turkey and Bosnia: Military Relations
  NATO Enlargement: Alterations to Treaties
  NATO Enlargement: Alterations to Treaties
  NATO and EU Enlargement: Linkage
  NATO and EU Enlargement: Linkage
  NATO Enlargement: Costs
  NATO Enlargement: Costs
  Turkey: Order for Battle Tanks
  Turkey: Order for Battle Tanks
  Continental Shelf
  Continental Shelf
  "Bloody Sunday": Release of Records
  "Bloody Sunday": Release of Records
  Cormorants
  Cormorants
  Listening Devices and Confessionals
  Listening Devices and Confessionals
  Asylum Seekers
  Asylum Seekers
  Prisons: Census of Religious Affiliation
  Prisons: Census of Religious Affiliation
  Prison Rules and Young Offender Institution Rules: Consolidated Edition
  Prison Rules and Young Offender Institution Rules: Consolidated Edition
  Income Tax Thresholds
  Income Tax Thresholds
  "Britannia"
  "Britannia"
  Longer Term Road Schemes
  Longer Term Road Schemes