Sitting of 18 July 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
9.34 am
Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have continually said over the past few weeks that any changes in Government policy should be spelt out on the Floor of the House. We have seen from the newspapers today that there appears to have been a change in Government policy without any statement being made to the House.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a strong statement on human rights and said that arms and equipment would not be sent to countries with bad human rights records that might use them for internal repression. Today, we read in the press that 16 Hawk aircraft are to be sent to Indonesia.
Over the past few weeks, I have tabled 38 parliamentary questions to the Department of Trade and Industry about our arms trade with Indonesia. Until a week ago, I had not even had holding answers to any of those questions; I have now received 12 answers. Six weeks have gone by, and the Department has still not answered the other questions. I feel that I have been misled, and I am sure that many other hon. Members will feel the same. At the very least, we should have a statement from the Government, on Monday if not today.
Madam Speaker: Let me respond to the hon. Lady. She well knows that I am not responsible and have no authority to call Ministers here to make statements, but she was quite correct in what she originally said, in that if there is a change, we in the House should be the first to hear about it. I hope that those on the Government Front Bench will have noted what she said and will report the matter back.
Mr. Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I found out last night that, contrary to assurances given to me and to others, with great duplicity and irresponsibility, Lincolnshire health authority has taken a decision to close the paediatric ward in Grantham hospital. That sets at
594
risk the health of my constituents and the lives of children with acute conditions who need emergency care, and will undermine the obstetric and maternity facilities in the hospital and lead, I fear, in short order, to the end of Grantham hospital as a general hospital.
As you can imagine, Madam Speaker, the matter is causing the greatest anxiety and concern in Grantham. My constituents naturally look to me to do what I can to ensure that it is brought to the Government's attention. Is there some way in which I can ask the Secretary of State for Health to come urgently to the House this morning to discuss the future of Grantham hospital, which is a matter of the gravest concern to the 50,000 or 60,000 people who depend on it?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed at this stage that the Secretary of State or any Minister from the Department of Health is seeking to make a statement. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about the matter, and he may seek an appointment this morning with a responsible Minister in that Department.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) has said. The matter is of grave concern not only to those who live in Grantham, but to all the people of Lincolnshire, because there are knock-on effects.
Many of us who represent Lincolnshire constituencies are getting increasingly fed up with the high-handed way in which Lincolnshire health authority has conducted its affairs over the past 18 months. It sought to close the hospital in Horncastle, in my former constituency, and to close down or affect the accident and emergency department in Gainsborough hospital, in my present constituency.
Those are matters of grave concern. There have been public meetings all over Lincolnshire and hundreds of people have attended and expressed their concern and outrage at the way in which we are being treated. It is therefore important that all of us who represent Lincolnshire constituencies should support my hon. Friend and call on the Government to get a grip on the matter and ensure that the people of Lincolnshire are properly represented and that their interests are protected by the Government.
Madam Speaker: One or other of the hon. Gentlemen, who clearly have an interest in the matter, because it involves a catchment area that affects their constituents, might seek an Adjournment debate on the subject before the recess.

Schools (White Paper)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
9.39 am
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): Ten days ago, the White Paper, "Excellence in schools" was published. I am sure that many hon. Members will welcome the opportunity to discuss in detail some of the proposals and measures contained within it.
The Prime Minister has said on more than one occasion that education is to be the No. 1 priority of his Government. Those are not just fine words; they have been matched with action and with deeds. The first Budget of the Labour Government provided an additional £2.5 billion in revenue and capital spending for our schools—a real investment in our children and in the future of our country. The first White Paper published by the Government has been that which we shall debate today.
The White Paper puts standards in schools and the need to provide high-quality education for all our children at the heart of the Government's programme. It is a White Paper which provides a vision for the future, a future in which everyone has a part to play, whether they are the Government, parents, teachers, governors, businesses, local authorities, Churches and, most important, our nation's schoolchildren. It is a White Paper about equipping our children for the challenges that lie ahead. It also honours the Government's core commitment to excellent education opportunities and high standards.
Perhaps above everything else, this is a White Paper which has the aim of replacing a culture of complacency with a commitment to success. It is for those reasons and based on those principles that the White Paper has been met with such broad acclaim and support across the spectrum of opinion in our country. The leader in The Daily Telegraph states that the Secretary of State
"deserves credit for treading where the Tories would not."
The Independent reported:
"The White Paper is the most grown-up document to emerge from Government for a long time."
The Sun described it as
"A welter of excellent proposals."
The Express has described it as an
"ambitious and admirable White Paper."
A leader in The Times stated:
"The Government has produced policy proposals for improving standards more coherent and all embracing than any of the initiatives introduced by the Government"—
the previous one.
Perhaps more important than those reactions from the newspapers, extremely welcome as they are as an indication of the public mood and the response to the White Paper, has been the reaction from parents, the teaching profession and the wider public. They have recognised that the proposals set out in the White Paper and the principles that underpin them are the right way ahead. They are the way in which we shall raise standards for all, and we shall achieve that in partnership with everyone who shares our commitment to raising standards.
596
Since the publication of the White Paper last week, we have not stood still. The document has been sent to all schools and local education authorities. It has also been sent to key national and regional bodies. Summary versions are widely and freely available, including at a number of supermarkets where parents and others can easily obtain them.
Since the publication of the White Paper, we have also had the first meeting of our new standards task force on 10 July, which was chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. That body achieved some publicity when it was announced that the two vice-chairs were to be the chief education officer of Birmingham and Her Majesty's chief inspector. I must report that they both attended the first meeting of that task force and in their own ways made significant contributions to the discussion. What came out of that meeting of people with different approaches to meeting the needs of our education service was a common commitment to work together to raise standards and to improve the quality of education that our children receive.
The great strength of the task force is that it draws together representatives from the worlds of teaching, communications, local authorities, businesses, academia and the Government. The task force has already identified a number of topics that need to be pursued, for example, how best to celebrate and disseminate good practice and how to break down barriers that too often exist between schools and the wider community.
The task force has already shown that it will be a prime mover in our crusade to raise standards. In many respects, its wide-ranging and diverse membership shows the spirit of partnership that is central to the White Paper and to our overall approach towards raising standards. We believe that the White Paper is significant because, perhaps for the first time, a Government in charge of education have set out a clear, coherent agenda from early years through to secondary schools. It shows in detail how we shall improve the standards of teaching and learning in all our schools for all our pupils.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Has the hon. Gentleman noted that the top 64 schools in the league tables on key stage 2 results were Church schools, many of which are three times oversubscribed? I therefore refer him to page 67 of the document, "Foundation Schools", and wonder whether the Government will consider allowing existing county or private schools to become faith-based schools. That would give a greater opportunity to parents who want to send their children to such schools, which provide such excellent education. Those schools emphasise that good education is not just about academic standards, but about creating a whole person who wants to give to society. Are the Government therefore committed to expanding the Church-based sector?
Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman has said nothing with which I could disagree. I assure him that when we issue our technical consultation paper on the structure of schools, which will address the issue of community-aided and foundation schools, we shall refer specifically to not just the role of the aided sector, but whether schools that are currently maintained could express a preference about which of the three new types of school they may prefer to become. There will be a presumption that certain types of schools will become a certain type under the new

597
structure. That will be a decision for individual schools, and no restriction will be placed upon them. They will have the freedom to choose which of the three new types of school they believe would be in the best interests of the school, the community and the parents.
The White Paper is based on six fundamental principles that are applied across the range of the proposals contained within it. First, education will be at the heart of the Government. That means a commitment by all Departments, not just the Department for Education and Employment. For example, the new Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which is responsible for the national lottery, will provide some funding to train teachers in information technology. It also means working with the Department of Health on our healthy schools initiative. Perhaps above everything else, education will be at the heart of the Government because we have a Prime Minister who values and recognises the importance of education not just to individual children, but to the country.
Secondly, we want policies designed to benefit the many, not just the few. That will mean an end to divisive funding. It will mean making sure that our children can read, write and add up by the time they leave primary school. It means using resources that were targeted on elite entry to private schools in order to reduce class sizes in primary schools for the benefit of all children.
Hon. Members know that yesterday our Bill to phase out the assisted places scheme suffered an amendment in the House of Lords. That amendment would deny the resources to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds and seeks to preserve the existing position. We will overturn it when it returns to this House next week. I have not had the opportunity to discover which of their noble Lords voted for it, but I guess that the majority were hereditary peers. It is a classic example of privilege defending privilege.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Is the Minister aware that many of their lordships pressed for that amendment because they have had correspondence, as we have had, from parents who, before Labour came to power, were given pledges in writing from his colleagues that places between 11 and 13 would be honoured? It is a matter not of hereditary peerages but of keeping one's word.
Mr. Byers: On precisely that point, the hon. Lady may not have read the debate yesterday. When she has time, she will find that a clear pledge was given by my noble Friend Baroness Blackstone that any parents who had relied on the letter to which the hon. Lady referred would have the discretion offered in the Bill exercised in their favour. If, as she says, it is a question of trust, we have honoured the content of the letter. The amendment that was carried yesterday had little to do with trust, and more to do with defending privilege.
Ms Margaret Hodge: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a bit rich for Opposition Members to talk about keeping their word, given their record in government? Is it not for the Government to keep their word and implement our manifesto pledge, which was
598
clearly stated during our general election campaign, to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds by phasing out the assisted places scheme?
Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right. It is a question of keeping our word. It was given in a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), who was then Opposition spokesman, and it will be kept, as Baroness Blackstone said in yesterday's debate. We will keep our word to the electorate and honour our pledge to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds.
Mr. Don Foster: Will the Minister confirm that Baroness Blackstone went even further than he has suggested by stating that there would be a presumption that children in prep schools who expected to go on to the age of 13 would be allowed to do so, subject to the quite proper individual checks that she announced to the Lords?
Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman is right. It has been pointed out to me that the defeat would not have been inflicted but for hereditary peerages. It is a good example of privilege defending privilege. The assisted places scheme is going to go; the sooner we get rid of hereditary peerages, the better.
The third principle that underpins the White Paper is that we have made it clear that standards matter more than structures. It is good teaching and strong leadership by heads that make the difference, not tinkering with school structures. We shall get the structures right, but they are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. Structures alone do not raise standards.
The fourth principle underpinning the White Paper is that intervention will be in inverse proportion to success. We shall challenge schools to succeed. We shall provide advice and guidance. We shall celebrate schools' successes, but where a school is failing, we shall not hesitate to intervene to protect the interests of the pupils. Linked to that is the fifth principle: there will be zero tolerance of underperformance. That applies to teachers, schools, local education authorities and this Government. We intend to create an education service in which every school is excellent, improving or both. Our children do not get a chance to retake their childhood or school years. For their sake, we must not tolerate failure.
The sixth principle is that the Government will work in partnership with all those committed to higher standards. We shall put an end to the divisiveness that has characterised the education world over the past 18 years. The Government will lead, but they cannot succeed alone. We want to take with us parents, teachers, governors, local education authorities, Churches and employers, all of whom have a vital part to play. We are confident that they will want to join us in our crusade to raise standards.
In the time that I have today, I cannot go through all the proposals in the White Paper. I want to highlight two important areas about which there has already been some debate and several important questions raised. The first is the relationship between schools, local education authorities and the Government, and their respective roles in raising standards. Secondly, I want to address the issue of teaching as a profession based on high status and high standards.
The relationship between schools, local education authorities and the Government is important. Several concerns about that relationship have been raised,

599
especially by the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) during the statement to the House on 7 July. I want to take this opportunity to make clear the Government's thinking about this important area and to clarify the way in which we wish the relationship to develop.
It is important to stress that the White Paper must be seen as a whole. Individual sentences should not be taken out of context. In considering the new relationship between schools, local education authorities and the Government, there are three specific matters that I want to address: first, setting targets for Government, local education authorities and individual schools; secondly, the role of local education authorities in school improvement; and thirdly, how we see education development plans working to raise standards.
On setting targets, we propose that, by September 1998, every school will have targets set for it. Every school can and must improve. Even the best schools, with some of the best examination results, can do better. Those schools know that, and we want to set them challenging targets, as we shall challenge schools that are underperforming. The real challenge facing the Government and our country is not the 300 schools that have been identified as failing schools by Her Majesty's chief inspector and that are under special measures as a result; it is the 40 to 50 per cent. of schools that are getting by. They are coasting, doing well enough. Parents may be content, but those schools must be challenged because they could do a lot better. It is those schools, thousands of them, that will play a key part in raising national attainment standards. Every school will have targets set.
If schools are to take their targets seriously, it is vital that they take direct responsibility for them. Individual school targets should be based on national targets and the rate of progress needed to achieve them, benchmark information on the performance of similar schools at local and national level, and the most recent inspection evidence.
The main responsibility for raising standards must rest with the schools. However, if a school begins to underperform, the local education authority has a responsibility to intervene. It can do that in two ways: first, it can raise its concerns with the head teacher and the governors and offer support and assistance; secondly, it can issue a formal warning and request a plan of action, to identify how the school proposes to address those concerns.
Mr. Don Foster: Will the Minister supply a little more information about how he envisages local education authorities monitoring schools, so that they can take the action to which he referred? For example, does he envisage LEA officers visiting schools, sitting in on lessons and commenting on them? If so, do the Government intend to provide guidance to LEAs as to the procedures in that regard?
Mr. Byers: If the hon. Gentleman waits just a couple of minutes, I shall address his point about the appropriate role for local education authorities in improving schools.
I was referring to the part that LEAs can play in providing an early warning system. If there are difficulties, the local authority will have the opportunity
600
to issue a formal warning and request a plan of action from the school concerned. If doubts continue and it becomes clear that effective action is not being taken, the LEA should be able to invite the Office for Standards in Education to conduct a further inspection. It should be able to appoint additional governors and, ultimately, it should have the power to withdraw budget delegation from the school.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), the role of the LEA is to challenge schools to raise standards and to set ambitious but achievable targets. It is not one of control. Those days are gone and will not return.
Under the White Paper proposals, an effective local education authority will challenge schools to improve themselves, but it will be ready to intervene where there are problems. It will not interfere with schools that are doing well. However, the White Paper raises important questions about what the LEA's role should be in school improvement.
All schools must be monitored regularly. The White Paper proposes that there should be two external checks on the progress of individual schools. First, every school will have an Ofsted inspection at least once every six years. Clearly, that is not enough. Ofsted will continue to play an important role in identifying schools that are underperforming and making recommendations on how they can improve, but other external pressures are required between the six-yearly Ofsted inspections. The second external check will be carried out by the LEA, which will need to monitor regularly the performance of each individual school.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: It seems to me that there is a real problem with the Government's proposals. It is unlikely that schools that are monitored so closely and thoroughly by their local education authorities will want to risk trying anything new, so a normal pattern of teaching will be established, without anyone daring to step out of line because of all the heavy-handed checking. As with all systems that are directed from the centre, we shall end up with a second-rate product.
Mr. Byers: As a result of 18 years of Conservative government, all too often we have a second-rate product in respect of education.
The White Paper contains some practical proposals for addressing underperformance in our schools. Schools that are performing well and achieving good results will not suffer the interference to which the hon. Gentleman referred; only schools that are underachieving will need effective monitoring. Under this Government, there will be no hiding place for failing or underachieving schools. We make no apology for that. It is not good enough to rely on a six-yearly inspection. Schools have to be monitored sympathetically and with a light touch. That is what we expect local education authorities to do.
Mr. Phil Willis: We sympathise with what the Minister is trying to achieve and we welcome the fact that LEAs will play a more significant role—albeit with a light touch—in monitoring and maintaining standards in schools. However, he must be aware that, particularly in the past 10 years, LEA inspection and advisory services have been run down

601
to an absolute minimum. Many LEAs contract out their staff to Ofsted inspection teams. As there will be no additional resources to pay for their new inspection and advisory role, how does the Minister expect LEAs to perform it adequately?
Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman knows that there will be additional resources from the next financial year. The Budget makes it clear that there will be additional revenue. I have no doubt that as that money goes into our school system, in the light of the proposals in the White Paper, many LEAs will recognise that they need to re-establish their advisory and inspection services.
The real problem will be finding experienced personnel. As we have given them notice in the White Paper, we hope that local authorities will begin the task of identifying people to carry out that role. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that people who were doing that work five or 10 years ago will have found other occupations and may well have left the service. We recognise that problem and see the need to tackle it. We have already started discussions with the relevant parties, to ensure that there will be personnel to provide advisory and inspection services locally, in order to deliver on the policy outlined in the White Paper.
Between six-yearly Ofsted inspections, there will be LEA monitoring. What do we expect LEAs to do? They should analyse recent test, examination and inspection results and compare them with results from similar schools; they should monitor parental and local concerns and agree annual targets with individual schools. The annual targets will be included in the education development plan of each local authority, to be submitted to the Secretary of State.
There is an issue as to what will happen if there is not agreement between a local education authority and an individual school about the target that should be set. One example was given by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) yesterday in a discussion that we had on television. A local education authority may set targets well below the national average, yet an individual school within that authority may do exceptionally well. However, we shall not tolerate the standards of an individual school being lowered as a result of the targets set by the local education authority. That is why, if there is a disagreement, there has to be a fallback position, and that will be the Secretary of State determining any disagreement between an individual school and its local education authority. We are confident that that approach will ensure that we shall be able to drive up standards for authorities, as well as challenging even schools performing well above the national average to do even better.
The local education authority will also need to check that a school's approach to improvement meets the standards set by the Government. If a school is performing successfully, the local education authority will take no further action.
In the introduction of standards and accountability into our school system, the final building block will be the education development plans that will be prepared by each local education authority. They should be operational by April 1999. Each plan will include the targets set for each school and will be submitted to the Secretary of State for approval. He will then consult Ofsted before making his decision on the education development plan.
602
The merits or otherwise of the education development plan depend on the LEAs functioning effectively. Where they work well—in partnership, not controlling and supporting, not interfering—LEAs can become part of the solution to the problems of our education system. However, when LEAs fail, they become part of the problem. We shall not run away from that. Without fear or favour and no matter what political control an LEA may be under, we shall intervene to stop an LEA failing the children in its locality. That is why, when it was clearly demonstrated that the east London borough of Hackney was failing its children and not delivering the quality of education that parents in Hackney and the Government expect, we invited Ofsted to carry out an inspection of Hackney. That inspection is now under way and we await its report in the autumn.
We shall not stand to one side and see the life chances of our children denied because of underperformance by an LEA, a school or an individual teacher. The reality is that if schools are to succeed in raising standards, they will need support from the local education authority acting sympathetically and from the Government. We will ensure that they receive such support.
The second area I want to touch on is teaching as a profession, which should be based on high status and high standards. High-quality classroom teaching must be at the heart of our drive to raise standards. I have no doubt that the majority of teachers do a good job, often in difficult circumstances; so the time has come to raise the status of teaching as a profession. That is why we intend to establish a general teaching council—a body which will act as a single voice for the profession. Next week, we shall publish a consultation document on the general teaching council. We have no doubt that it will make an important contribution towards the elevation of teaching as a valued profession.
It is currently a great irony that, as things stand, our best teachers are promoted and consequently spend less time in front of a class.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Has the Minister had a chance to evaluate the contribution made to the Scottish teaching profession by the General Teaching Council in Scotland during the 22 years of its existence? If he does so and discovers—as those of us who have examined it have already discovered—that few teachers who are members of that council bother to take part in the votes for its officers or pay any attention to it, will he be surprised by the fact that the General Teaching Council in Scotland has made no contribution whatsoever towards raising standards?
Mr. Byers: If the hon. Lady waits a week, she will see that the proposals contained in our consultation document differ substantially from the model of the General Teaching Council in Scotland. We shall establish such a council as one of our steps towards elevating teaching as a valued profession.
To address the problem of classroom teachers being promoted out of the classroom, the best teachers must be rewarded for staying in the classroom and not escaping from it. That is why we intend to introduce a new career grade—advanced skills teacher. Such teachers will not only provide high-quality teaching in their own school, but play a key role in raising standards, by supporting

603
trainee teachers and those who are newly qualified and going through their induction year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly write to the School Teachers Review Body, asking it to consider how the new advanced skills teacher grade should be introduced.
Although the majority of teachers do a good job, teaching—like any other profession—includes a number of individuals who are not up to the job. Teachers who are failing to deliver must be identified. Hon. Members will know that, earlier this week, Ofsted announced that it intended to adopt a new method of grading teachers, with the present seven-grade system being replaced by one with only three grades. We believe that that change will be helpful, although, as it will be based on limited observation, it clearly has its limitations. We believe that the lead responsibility for identifying underperforming teachers must rest with the head teacher—that is the role of a head teacher who provides leadership in a school. The prime responsibility for identifying underperforming teachers does not rest with Ofsted.
We want a fair and robust regime that recognises success in the classroom, but will also act on failure. That is the hallmark of a profession that sets a premium on standards. In the minority of cases, where teachers are accused of incompetence, they must be given a chance to improve, including training where appropriate. If improvement does not occur, they must be removed from the classroom, to avoid any further damage to their pupils' education.
Mr. John Bercow: It is clear what the White Paper says, although it is not especially encouraging to read its contents. Will the Minister tell the House what time scale ideally he envisages between the identification of a failed teacher and his or her removal from the classroom?
Mr. Byers: I am coming to that point shortly. To achieve a system whereby we can remove the failing teacher from the classroom, we need speedy but fair procedures. That is clearly not the case under the present arrangements, whereby there are at least five separate stages before a teacher can be removed from the classroom. The procedure starts with an informal warning; there is then a formal oral warning, a written warning, a disciplinary hearing and then a final appeal. On average, the process takes 18 months. That is unacceptable. It is understandable that heads and governing bodies are often reluctant to embark on such a complex and time-consuming process. It simply has to change.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) will be interested to learn that, earlier this week, I wrote to the national employers, asking them to establish a working group comprising themselves, the teaching unions and governors under the chairmanship of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, to identify a new procedure for dealing with incompetent teachers—one that is simple and fair and that can be completed within six months.
Mr. Willis: There is a great deal of concern among head teachers about those proposals. Heads object to the fact that the chief inspector of schools is to be required to tell them which of their teachers are failing. It is a failing
604
head who has to be told that his teachers are failing, and the quicker we get Mr. Woodhead out of the process and empower heads to do the job, the better. There should be zero tolerance of Mr. Woodhead as there is zero tolerance in other areas.
There is a real problem in this respect. In many years' experience, I have had to deal with only a few failing teachers, and I am glad that the Minister recognises that most do a good job. However, in all those cases, the teacher went sick with a stress-related illness and ended up with an enhanced early-retirement package on health grounds. That is a source of great concern both to myself as a head teacher and to the rest of the teaching profession. Does the Minister propose to deal with that loophole as well?
Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman has long personal experience as head of a successful comprehensive in Leeds, and has identified a number of issues that I expect the working group to tackle. I have written to the employers about setting up that group. ACAS will chair it. I want the procedure for incompetent teachers to be completed within six months, and I have asked the group to report by 7 October.
I have also asked the group to consider a new category of gross incompetence, to which special fast-track procedures would apply. For example, it would apply if a teacher were unable to control a class of schoolchildren. Grossly incompetent teachers should be removed from the classroom and should have their case dealt with within weeks rather than months. A grossly incompetent pilot would not be allowed to remain in the cockpit of an aeroplane, and a grossly incompetent surgeon would not be allowed to remain in the operating theatre. Teachers should not be treated differently. A grossly incompetent teacher should not be allowed to remain in the classroom, adversely affecting the life chances of the children for whom he or she has responsibility.
We will, however, give support as well. Teachers need support, especially in their first year of teaching. We shall, therefore, introduce an induction year, which will provide structured support during that all-important first year of teaching. Schools will be expected to provide a planned induction programme, with guidance from the Teacher Training Agency. There is a case for confirming qualified teacher status only after the successful completion of the induction year.
The White Paper is about how we as a country and a people face the challenge of the new industrial revolution. The first industrial revolution started here and was based on investment in plant and machinery. The present revolution is about investment in human capital, learning and education. To compete in the global economy, to live in a civilised society and to develop the talents of all our children, we must unlock the potential of every young person. The White Paper provides the means to do precisely that. We are confident that, by improving standards and raising the quality of education, the proposals in the White Paper will command broad and popular support.
10.21 am
Mrs. Angela Browning: As the Minister of State said, the Prime Minister has often claimed that education is the Government's top priority.

605
We applaud that; improving standards in our schools and giving children more opportunity was the top priority of the previous Conservative Government.
Ministers present the White Paper as heralding a new dawn in the country's education system. It seems a little strange, therefore, that the Government have chosen a Friday morning to debate their educational vision expressed in the White Paper. Friday is hardly the prime time in the parliamentary timetable. One would have hoped that it would merit a little more attention from the Government.
On school standards, there is much in the White Paper that we support. There is much in it that is familiar—very familiar—and which bears remarkable similarity to the policies that we have pursued and developed for the past 10 years, often in the face of bitter opposition from Labour Members, who frequently trotted through the No Lobby when those matters were before the House.
We particularly support the commitment in the White Paper to baseline assessments for all children starting in primary school and we welcome the proposals to extend Ofsted's powers of inspection to local education authorities and to reduce the period of notice that it gives schools for inspections. We welcome the extension of local management of schools. Indeed, we promised that in our manifesto. We also welcome the proposal to establish a professional headship qualification.
Of course, we back the Government's intention to make it easier to remove bad teachers. I was encouraged to hear the Minister start to spell out the details of that proposal. On first reading of the White Paper, it looks as though it could mean being stuck in arbitration for many months. I hope that he will resolve that problem.
We also welcome the commitment in the White Paper to our initiative for a core curriculum for teacher training colleges to ensure that teachers receive rigorous training. We planned for that to be introduced from this September and we are concerned that the Government would rather wait another year. That is wrong.
The fact that much of the language and content of the White Paper on educational standards can be welcomed by the Conservative Opposition is a sign of the sheer distance that the Labour party has travelled on education. The White Paper's embracing of testing, the national curriculum, the merits of Ofsted and the schools performance tables demonstrates that it is the mother of all U-turns, but we welcome it.
There are aspects of the White Paper that we do not welcome, however, and I shall spell them out. I hope that that will give the Under-Secretary the opportunity to put a little more detail behind some of the proposals when she replies. While "Excellence in schools" may contain some positive measures on improving standards, the real meat and substance would have the opposite effect.
At the heart of the White Paper and the Government's policies, lies a deep contradiction that should give cause for concern for schools, teachers, parents and hon. Members. The Government miss the point entirely when they claim that standards matter more than structures. The two go hand in hand. By making schools responsive to the wishes of parents and allowing professional teachers to chart the course of their schools, standards rise.
The Conservative Government provided the freedom for schools to develop their strengths and respond to the needs of their pupils and local communities. We placed
606
responsibility for high standards and professional teaching firmly on individual schools. The White Paper will reverse that process. Individual schools will find that power and responsibility have been removed from them and returned once again to the hands of bureaucrats in county halls and to the Department for Education and Employment.
Although much of the detail of "Excellence in schools" remains unclear, the centralising strain running through the document is evident for all to see.
Ms Hodge: I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady and there seems to be a contradiction in what she is saying. On the one hand, she welcomed the increased local management of schools that the White Paper heralds—something which the previous Government failed to implement when they had the opportunity to do so in the Education Act 1997. Giving additional local management to schools enables them to run themselves better. It does not centralise, but decentralises.
Does the hon. Lady understand that when one decentralises, which is what the White Paper intends to do, it is incumbent on the Government and local authorities to ensure that standards are maintained by monitoring, not running, those schools?
Mrs. Browning: The hon. Lady is right. I said that we welcome local management of schools because it gives schools more decision-making powers. The contradiction is in the White Paper. It is warm on the sort of words that make people think that there will be decentralisation, but it is riddled—I am coming to examples if the hon. Lady will bide her time—with yet more powers transferred to local education authorities and the Department.
County halls will find that they have more power and more responsibilities and they will need more resources to remain at the centre with them. The Minister outlined many things that LEAs will have to do. I will refer to resources in a moment, because, with changes of this sort, there is always a cost attached.
Labour education policy has always been statist and egalitarian. Nothing has changed there in this White Paper. Labour just does a better job of disguising it. As a result of the White Paper, the structures of education in England and Wales will become centralised and more bureaucratic.
First, the White Paper proposes to increase the power and role of LEAs. The Government are trying to reassure us by saying that intervention will be in inverse proportion to success—the Minister repeated that this morning. However, the Government then set out proposals to require every school to produce an annual plan for improving its performance, which would need LEA approval. That requirement would give LEAs massive scope for intervening in schools, overruling head teachers if they took their schools in a direction that did not accord with the LEA's ethos.
Mr. Byers: I thought that I had made it clear in my speech—in any case, I want to place it on the record—that if there is a disagreement between a school and the local education authority with regard to the setting of targets, the local education authority will not impose its will. The disagreement will be registered, and it will be for the Secretary of State, in approving the plan,

607
to determine whether the school's or the local education authority's view of the target should prevail. However, the important principle is that the targets will be challenging for the local authority and the individual school.
Mrs. Browning: That is exactly my point. If the LEA does not decide, the state will. It is statist. It is like a communist five-year plan. If the LEA does not agree, the Secretary of State will take the powers himself. That bodes ill, especially for the 1,100 grant-maintained schools. The hon. Gentleman may contradict me if he intends to make an exemption for GM schools; I am saying that the plans and targets of GM schools will require LEA clearance and approval, which would mean that those schools would return to the yoke of the local bureaucrats from whom they thought that they had escaped by voting for GM status. The White Paper is the writing on the wall for GM schools. I hope that the Minister will be honest enough to admit that.
The proposals in the White Paper would create a ridiculous situation. I told the Minister that in a television discussion yesterday, but I shall repeat my argument because I do not believe that he got the point. Of course, even in a good school there may be room for improvement, but that was not my argument. I was arguing that a school such as the London Oratory, which is a favourite school of many senior members of the Labour party, a very good school—
Mr. Byers: But could do better.
Mrs. Browning: I would not disagree with that. But what an anomaly it would be for such a school to be obliged to submit its improvement plans to a comparatively poorly performing LEA. The Oratory gets 70 per cent. A to C grade passes at GCSE. Its LEA, which will now have to approve or disapprove what it does, is the Hammersmith and Fulham local education authority, which presides over a 30 per cent. A to C grade pass rate at GCSE. It would be better if the Hammersmith and Fulham LEA submitted its plans to the Oratory so that standards might be improved.
LEAs will also be given a role in implementing the Government's policies to improve standards. Back in the driving seat of education, their role will be clear. It will be
"to help schools set and meet their targets."
The Government also intend LEAs to co-ordinate and allocate nursery places, believing that the abolition of nursery vouchers means that, instinctively, LEAs are better placed to make decisions than parents are. The White Paper not only puts LEAs back in the driving state of education, but will lead to a massive increase in bureaucracy, paperwork and state plans, none of which have ever raised standards or improved efficiency.
It would be interesting to be told by the Minister how much of the education standard spending assessment for the coming financial year will be clawed back and retained in county halls so that the LEAs may perform all those tasks. He has already mentioned that the Chancellor of the Exchequer provided additional money in the Budget for education, to countrywide acclaim. Expectations are running high in every school in the land.
608
The Minister cannot do the loaves and little fishes act. Either the money will be required by the LEA to perform the additional tasks or it will go to the sharp end—into the classroom. Which is it to be? In what proportion will that money find its way into the classroom and how much of it will be retained by LEAs, as is their wont, to provide services from the centre?
The Government's latest buzz word, again mentioned by the Minister this morning, is "partnership". It crops up frequently in the White Paper. Reference is made to "a partnership for change", to "work in partnership" and to
"a partnership between Government and the education service",
to
"effective partnerships at local level",
to
"partnership with local schools"
and to "school-parent partnerships". We have even been told that
"good discipline also depends on partnership".
When the Government talk about partnership, they mean more paper, another consultation exercise, more bureaucracy and the return of state planning. For anyone working in the education service, the Government's "partnership for change" will mean a great deal more time and effort, churning out paper and mastering the detail of the latest guidelines to be issued by the Department for Education and Employment, to meet the endless stream of plans that the Government have in store for the education service.
I have already mentioned that every school will need to introduce its own plan. Every LEA will need an education development plan. Schools that want to diversify and become specialist sports or language schools, for instance, will have to produce a three-year plan. Nursery education will be subject to early years development plans—parents could not possibly be trusted—and the Department will instruct LEAs to come up with action plans to cut class sizes.
The White Paper is a bureaucrats' dream. They will love it at county hall—their futures are secured—but it is the nightmare of parents and schools.
Another disturbing feature of the White Paper is the power that will be given not only to LEAs, but to the Department and the Secretary of State. A few moments ago, when I said that the LEAs would claw back power, the Minister leapt to his feet and said that, oh no, if there were a dispute the Secretary of State would decide—as though we should take comfort from that.
Power in the education service will be massively centralised. Locally, the LEAs will start to take control and, nationally, the Department for Education and Employment will start to do so. Two bodies have been—
Mr. Willis: I cannot control myself any longer. I presume that the hon. Lady worked in a different Department in the Conservatives' years in office, because I seem to recall that the previous Government produced at least one major Act of Parliament on education every year and that they took it upon themselves to centralise more powers than any Government in the history of education since 1870. How does she reconcile that with the comments that she is now making?
Mrs. Browning: Very easily, because we were the party that allowed more schools to have control, and which gave

609
governing bodies and head teachers more control. We set up grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges. All those measures were opposed by the Opposition.
Mr. Willis: The Conservatives did that by diktat.
Mrs. Browning: No, not by diktat; by Divisions of the House, in which Labour Members and many of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in the Liberal Democrat party trotted through the No Lobby. Now, suddenly, they tell us that they believed in those measures all the time.
I wish to discuss the two bodies that have been established since the general election, which will have national control of what goes on in our schools. On the face of it, the standards task force will meet and, drawing on a range of expertise, give advice to Ministers, but if it is to be instrumental in raising standards, it will need to overcome a great difficulty. It is obvious from the detail of the White Paper that it will have difficulty in balancing the need for raising standards and the drive for equality, which will act as a brake on raising standards.
Paragraph 12 on page 11 says:
"The demands for equality and increased opportunity in the 1950s and 1960s led to the introduction of comprehensive schools. All-in secondary schooling rightly became the normal pattern, but the search for equality of opportunity in some cases became a tendency to uniformity. The idea that all children had the same rights to develop their abilities led too easily to the doctrine that all had the same ability."
It is hardly surprising that the Government have ended up with uniformity, when their objective was equality. We shall watch closely to see how much diversity will emerge, and what they will do to ensure that children have the same rights to develop their abilities. Developing rights and equality is not quite the same as raising standards.
Ms Rachel Squire indicated dissent.
Mrs. Browning: The hon. Lady fails to realise that although equality sounds like a good, fair word—she is nodding—it has been demonstrated over the years that when equality becomes the pervasive requirement, as it clearly is for the Government, that entails looking beyond the individual child's ability. All too often, the result is a loss of opportunity for the individual child. When the individual child loses opportunity, a brake is put on standards, because those children who are able to go forward, as many are, fail to do so.
The hon. Lady is nodding. Let me give her an example from the White Paper. The Government say that they want to promote specialist schools. Whatever subject—sport, music, ballet, languages—such a school specialises in, one would imagine that in order to raise standards in that discipline, there would need to be some criteria at the point at which the child enters the school, in order for the pursuit of excellence to be realised when the child leaves the school.
Although the Government say that that is what they want, the White Paper states that, on entering a school, a child can be interviewed only on religious grounds. Suppose a specialist school for the arts—ballet and music, perhaps—were set up. Are we to believe—I am willing to be corrected by the Minister, if he has further information—the admission of children to such a school will be focused on
610
egalitarian objectives? In other words, any child who wants to be a ballerina or tennis star can come to a specialist school, but those children cannot be interviewed at the age of 11 except to find out what their religion is.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): That is silly.
Mrs. Browning: No, it is not silly. Let us hear what the admissions criteria will be for specialist schools. That is what it comes down to.
The White Paper is good on soft language, but there is a paucity of detail in it. The Government have the opportunity to spell out the detail to the House this morning. They have written the White Paper and published it; now let us have some detail.
Ms Hodge: I am genuinely shocked by what the hon. Lady has just said, and by her understanding of equality. I do not see anywhere in the White Paper or in what Ministers have said anything that suggests that equality means that every child will achieve the same. What we want, and what the Government are determined to achieve, is equality of opportunity, which the previous Government failed to achieved. That has left us with one of the worst educational records as a nation, especially among our OECD comparatives.
Mrs. Browning: With the indulgence of the House, I shall run the hon. Lady through my concern about admissions policy and the concept of equality to which the Government are determined to adhere.
The Government say in the White Paper that they will establish specialist schools in disciplines such as sport, ballet and languages, yet, in order to achieve excellence and opportunity for young people, they propose to curtail the opportunity for the schools to interview children as to the appropriateness of their admission into such a school. The White Paper states that children can be interviewed for admission only to discuss their religious affiliation. How will the Government raise standards in specialist schools if there are to be no admissions criteria?
Hon. Members are nodding behind the Minister for School Standards. I hope that he will clarify the matter before the debate is over. If there is to be no admissions policy to identify the potential tennis stars and prima ballerinas of the next generation, how will it be possible to raise standards, and how can specialist schools be successful? I hope that one of the Ministers will explain when winding up the debate.
We hear at national level about the standards and effectiveness unit. That has a huge remit to intervene throughout the education service. It is accountable to the Secretary of State. In the education service, it will develop an omnipresence, given that it will lead the "drive for school improvement", direct
"the implementation of the literacy and numeracy strategies",
and ensure that
"the Government's policy of zero tolerance of underperformance is applied to schools".
It will also implement and run the proposed 25 education action zones.

611
The main problem with the centralised structure that the Government want to create will be its power and influence over what goes on in our schools. It will give educationalists and the followers of the latest theories and fads—as though we have not had enough of them—the opportunity to dream up their ideas in academic ivory towers. They will have the full support of the Department behind them.
It has been demonstrated that the White Paper is strong on warm words and overfills its quota of rhetoric. It is somewhat vague, however, and we are all anxious to hear the missing detail. I hope that Ministers will give us more detail this morning. To use the old cliché, the devil is in the detail, and the White Paper is positively satanic, given the number of devils lurking in the pages.
The White Paper dodges the fate of grammar schools; we want to hear what that is to be. It skirts over the Government's plans for grant-maintained schools. It reiterates the Government's pledge to maximum class sizes of 30 for five, six and seven-year-olds.
As the Minister said, the presumption is that the money from the soon-to-be-abolished assisted places scheme will be enough to pay for that pledge, but there is a fundamental dishonesty in that. As we have discussed in previous debates, the money from assisted places will not be enough to reduce class sizes. We have been saying that for a long time, and we have recently been joined by the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office.
The Government should come clean and say whether they still believe that they will be able to deliver that commitment with assisted places money. If there is to be additional money from elsewhere, or if it is a matter not of funding, but of filling up the empty places in other schools, they should tell us. It is important that the point is clarified.
Mr. Byers: I am content to give that clarification. It is worth reminding hon. Members that the class size issue in Scotland is quite different from that in England and Wales. In Scotland, it is a conditions of service issue for individual teachers and is dealt with in that way. I can confirm our commitment to reducing class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds and confirm that the money will be available as a result of the phasing out of the assisted places scheme.
A total of £100 million will have accrued by the turn of the century. Thereafter, there will be annual savings in excess of £100 million a year. The two independent surveys examining the costs of abolition of the assisted places scheme and reducing class sizes both come up with an annual figure of £65 million in terms of costs, so there is ample finance to honour our class size pledge. We will reduce class sizes for every five, six and seven-year-old.
Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to the Minister for stating that he still believes that he is on course to deliver that promise. I shall write to him for further clarification, unless he wishes to reply this morning. Many hon. Members represent large rural constituencies. It is common in many rural primary schools for teachers to teach across an age range, especially in the lower ages. What will happen to a reception class of 40 five and six-year-olds in a village school? If that class is to be
612
reduced to 10 pupils, does it mean that people will not be able to access their local primary school in future, and may face the difficulty of bussing their children to other schools some distance away that older siblings may attend? Is the Minister suggesting that those primary schools will somehow get additional classrooms and additional teachers so that the original classes may be split and the numbers reduced? Those are the sorts of questions that people in rural areas are asking.
Even if the Government intend to provide an extra class and an extra teacher in such circumstances, I know that many village primary schools—which are old Victorian schools situated on very small campuses—could not accommodate an additional classroom if they wanted to. Will the Minister confirm his intentions? Will there be extra classrooms and teachers or will parents have to send their children away from their villages to schools elsewhere?
Mr. Byers: The hon. Lady has moved from the funding issue—where there is no problem—to wider issues of admissions policies and school organisation. She has touched on several practical questions that I have raised within the Department.
As part of the White Paper consultation, we shall publish a technical consultation paper—probably some time in August—that will examine the details of admissions policies and standard numbers for schools. In that consultation paper, we shall address specifically the concerns that the hon. Lady has raised today.
We are already discussing those matters with shire counties, particularly in the context of relatively small rural primary schools. I am very conscious of the issues involved. Small rural primary schools play a vital role in the wider community. The Department is considering carefully how we can assist those small primary schools not just to remain in existence, but to flourish. We are confident that our class size pledge will assist them in that endeavour. The details will be released if not today, certainly within the month.
Mrs. Browning: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ensure that his officials send me a copy of that document. As shadow spokesperson and as a representative of a rural community, I shall wish to participate in the consultation exercise.
We do not have the details of many proposals in the Government's White Paper. As with the previous matter, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will ensure that full details are provided in good time. As I have said, the devil is in the detail.
The Opposition welcome parts of the White Paper, but many questions remain unanswered. For example, I do not believe that there is no cost attached to the White Paper. However, the document does not mention how the costings for its proposals will be accommodated. Will there be additional new money? Will it come from the additional funding announced by the Chancellor or will LEAs have to find it from existing resources?
As to the literacy and numeracy strategy, the White Paper mentions that consultants must be in place by April next year, and that LEAs will be charged with finding the resources needed to put those consultants in place. That funding must come from this year's budget. We want to know how the Minister has costed the

613
proposals and from which budgets the funding will come. How much do the Government estimate spending on training in order to prepare primary school teachers for the introduction of the literacy and numeracy strategy? How much do the Government envisage spending on the standards and effectiveness unit? How many extra staff must the Department employ in order to accommodate the unit's workload?
Have the Government considered the likely cost implications for LEAs of preparing education development plans, monitoring schools and scrutinising schools' annual plans? Will that not fuel LEA demands for more cash from central Government? How much will it cost to set up and manage an education action zone? The Government propose establishing specialist status schools in those zones. We must know the cost implications of that measure. Who will finance the general teaching council?
The White Paper refers also to independent schools offering children extensive facilities in sport, music and other arts. I am sure that the Minister is aware of newspaper comments yesterday regarding the likely role of the independent sector. It was suggested that if independent schools did not co-operate, their charitable status could be affected. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head: I seek his assurances on that point. Although I do not object to an independent school assisting with provision, I think that the hon. Gentleman should seek legal advice about penalties regarding that school's charitable status. I am not a lawyer, but I imagine that he may be on rather uncertain legal ground. Will he clarify his plans in that regard?
The Government must iron out many details and answer many questions. We believe that the general thrust of the White Paper is wrong in principle, as it will take powers from teachers, governing bodies and parents and give them to LEAs and the centre. The White Paper talks about improving standards and suggests that that may be achieved by central planning and bureaucratic diktat, but it cannot and will not.
10.56 am
Mr. Don Foster: I listened to the speech by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) with a mixture of incredulity and admiration. I was particularly incredulous about her numerous criticisms of the White Paper's centralising tendencies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) pointed out, the previous Government had a penchant for centralisation. However, my hon. Friend did not refer to the Education Reform Act 1988, which contained no fewer than 500 additional powers for the Secretary of State. If ever there were centralising tendencies, they were demonstrated by the previous Government. I do not believe that such tendencies are displayed in this White Paper.
I was also incredulous that although the hon. Lady attended the Convention of Local Education Authorities conference yesterday and listened to my speech, she was not visible to me. I share some of her concerns about the White Paper, but I adopt a different attitude to the paper overall. I am concerned about the devil in the detail—as the hon. Lady put it—but the Liberal Democrats support the broad thrust of the paper and I shall raise my concerns in that context. I got the impression from the hon. Lady's speech that she does not share my attitude.
614
I must admit also to a degree of admiration for the hon. Lady. She came up with one or two of the best one-liners that we have heard for some time during an education debate in this place. I share her view that the education budget announced by the Chancellor—which the education spokesmen have tried to defend—is an attempted loaves and fishes act which will not work. The hon. Lady referred also to the satanic nature of the White Paper. I commend her on her one-liners, if not on the broad thrust of her opposition to the White Paper.
Broadly speaking, my party welcomes the White Paper. We welcome particularly its frequent references to re-establishing partnership and its move away from the sterile debate about structures towards a debate about school improvements and children's needs. Many White Paper proposals enjoy our full support—for example, from the establishment of the general teaching council to the probationary year for new teachers, from the inclusion of citizenship and parenting in the curriculum to developing work-related training in schools, from baseline assessment to changes in the school leaving date.
The Minister will accept that in areas where there is general support between us there are still a number of details to be worked out. He referred to a technical consultation paper on class size reductions. We welcome the fact that those details will be consulted on, but it would be helpful if the Minister agreed to publish a list of the intended consultations, with a timetable.
Mr. Byers: I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we shall publish a list identifying the measures in the White Paper that will be subject to their own consultation documents, and we shall provide a timetable to state when those consultation documents will be published.
Mr. Foster: I am most grateful for that assurance. I am sure that the House will receive the documents with interest when they are circulated.
I wish to raise some points about the White Paper. Perhaps the Minister or his colleagues will respond to them. If they are not able to answer all of them now, perhaps they will write to me with their responses.
I begin with early years education. The House will be well aware of my party's absolute commitment to ensuring high-quality early years education in this country. We would have gone further than the Government to ensure that it is available for three as well as four-year-olds as quickly as possible. I hope that we shall hear the Minister's views about the likely timetable for the provision of early years education for three and four-year-olds.
There is no clear statement in the White Paper about the Government's attitude to the provision of early years education through early entry into reception classes. It is my party's view that, generally, high quality is not easily provided through early entry into reception classes, which often do not deliver an appropriate curriculum. They certainly do not have the same staffing ratios, and they often do not have the facilities that we believe are necessary. I shall be grateful if the Minister will tell us the Government's view on that, and whether, in receiving various plans from local education authorities, they will ensure that the delivery mechanism is not predominantly through that route.
I should also be grateful to hear from the Minister whether the Government intend to announce the minimum space standards for early years education. Given the

615
Labour party's opposition—when it was in opposition—to the Conservative Government's abolition of minimum space standards, the House will be interested to know whether the Government intend to re-establish at all stages minimum space standards.
The Minister has, in a number of debates over the years that I have shared with him, made clear his view that early years education has an important additional function: the early identification of children with special education needs. Yet there is no reference in the White Paper to how that might be done. The House will be interested to know whether there are plans to issue guidance to those involved in early years education.
The shadow Minister raised her concerns about class size reductions. I share her view that the money to be released from the abolition of the assisted places scheme will be insufficient to deliver the Government's promise. I am encouraged to that view still further, I fear, by the Minister's answers to some of her questions. If the Government do not even know how they are to deliver that commitment, particularly in relation to the problems in rural areas, I find it very difficult to understand how they can be so categorical in their assurances that the money will be sufficient. I am pleased to hear that the Minister is taking on board the concerns that many people have, particularly about the problems in rural areas. What will happen when the 31st child in a particular age group arrives at a local village school and the nearest alternative is 10 miles away? That is the type of question that I hope the technical paper to which the Minister referred will address.
There are further concerns in relation to the commitment to reduce class sizes that were not touched on by the shadow Minister. The commitment is to reduce the class size for five, six and seven-year-olds, but the Minister will be well aware that, in many parts of the country there will be classes that contain four and five-year-olds. The House will wish to know whether the commitment will extend to reducing the class size for mixed-age classes which contain four and five-year-olds.
The Minister has my party's full support for the desire to lever up standards. We particularly welcomed the fact that he said that standards have to be levered up not just in schools that are known to be failing but in all schools, including those that are currently doing well. There is no doubt whatever that we must at all costs avoid complacency in our education system. It is vitally important that all of us—that is, Members of Parliament, the Department, Ofsted, school governors, head teachers, teachers, members of the local community, local education authorities, their officials, their elected members, and many more—work together, in partnership, to ensure that standards are raised everywhere.
To that end, my Liberal Democrat colleagues have no fear about proposals for every stage of that process to be monitored and inspected. It is very instructive for me to look at what some of my Liberal Democrat colleagues in local government have been doing to lever up standards for people in various situations. I was interested to read recently of an inspection of Cornwall local education authority, which submitted itself to be one of the trial
616
inspections under the proposals for inspection by Ofsted. The report said:
"Most of the schools visited in the review are improving their standards and quality—some from a very high base. In most of these the LEA 'contribution has been influential and sometimes it has been critical."
Certainly Cornwall LEA has no fear of inspections to see what it is doing to raise standards.
I am delighted that even in very new local education authorities where Liberal Democrats have influence or control we are taking the issue of raising standards very seriously. Bournemouth borough council came into existence only from 1 April this year, but it has already set up plans for early learning centres. It plans to develop parenting skills, to set up learning centres for children already in schools, to establish an education directorate on lifelong learning, and to establish a training and support strategy for school improvements. I am sure that the Minister will welcome each and every one of those initiatives.
I also congratulate the local education authorities under Liberal Democrat influence that have been in operation for some time. Of those, I pick, for no particular reason, the London borough of Richmond on Thames. I am sure that the whole House will be delighted to know that when Richmond's chief education officer retired and the borough sought a replacement, the authority went out of its way to make clear in the advertisement how important standards were to it.
It is worth reflecting on what the advertisement said, because that picks up the Minister's point about partnership:
"Richmond upon Thames has a national reputation for the delivery of high quality educational services. This is the direct result of a commitment to planning and developing services by working in close partnership with headteachers, parents and governors. In this sense it is the product of a meeting of minds.
As the Council's lead officer on all educational matters, you will be responsible for shaping future policy development and ensuring high standards are maintained throughout the borough."
I am sure that the whole House, including the Minister, will welcome the form of words used in that advertisement.
The Government are keen to raise standards and intend to set tough targets both for LEAs and for schools. However, I have one big disappointment about the way in which the White Paper refers to targets. It appears constantly to assume the continued use of the existing SATs.
SATs are not an appropriate basis for the setting of targets; they are crude and simplistic. The debacle that has taken place over the marking of the English SATs this year illustrates the fact that they should not form the sole basis of a set of targets. I hope that we shall have assurances in due course about a detailed review of SATs. Certainly, I hope that targets will not be based on SATs alone.
As the Minister says, if we are to raise standards we need to focus on some of the key issues such as literacy and numeracy. However, I must tell him that, just as we would not plan the pedestrianisation of a city centre without first working out where the traffic is to go instead, it is difficult to tell teachers, "You must spend more time on this in the classroom," if we do not first work with them to slim down the national curriculum and find the additional space needed to deliver what we ask.

617
Of course, the Minister is right to say that we must examine areas of particular deprivation, areas with educational difficulties and other problems, and provide support for them. In that sense, the Government's proposals for education action zones may be an appropriate way forward. However, the assumption in the White Paper is that the zones will be set up only in inner cities. There are many rural communities with equal deprivation and equal need for such support.
Even if the Minister goes ahead with that form of support, he will still have to deal with the problems that used to exist with, for example, social priority allowances. Schools immediately outside the boundary of the designated area did not get the allowance, and felt deprived.
Even if the Government deal with that question, the House will still want assurances from the Minister that the money for education action zones will be new money, not top-sliced away from already deprived local education authorities that will not benefit from the zones.,lb/>
We certainly agree with the Government, and with what is in the White Paper, about the need to involve parents. Indeed, the White Paper goes further and mentions the involvement of grandparents where possible. We also support proposals such as the establishment of family literary centres.
My party fully accepts the need to come to grips with the issue of parental responsibility, and to develop working relationships between schools and parents. We fully support the idea of working together to develop a home-school parental partnership agreement.
However, in opposition the Labour party proposed that when schools had established those agreements they would require parents to sign the contract before a child was allowed to enter the school. The White Paper is silent on that issue. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the new Government do not intend to carry that idea forward. It would add a wholly unacceptable dimension to admissions procedures—rather like asking a couple to sign a pre-nuptial agreement before they have even met.
Much is said about the raising of standards and partnership, and one of the ways in which we can ensure that that will happen is by making data freely available to all the partners. I therefore specifically ask the Minister to ensure that all the data held by Ofsted is made public, so that everyone has access to it and can use it in the development of plans. The information will, of course, help to check whether the chief inspector's sums add up, but there are also far more important reasons for wanting it to be made public.
The Minister will tell local education authorities, as he said today, that they are to play a key role to levering up standards in schools. I fully support him in his desire to reinvent and reinvigorate local education authorities, and to give them a key role in levering up standards, but, rightly, not the role of controlling schools. But that is an additional task. It is therefore vital that we ensure that LEAs, as well as schools, are given the funds that they require to do the job that they have been given.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough rightly pointed out that local education authority advisory services have been decimated, and the few remaining staff spend much of their time bidding for Ofsted inspections, with little or no time to help their local schools.
618
If LEAs are to do the task that the Minister has rightly set them, they, too, must be funded to do it. So I hope that we shall no longer have sterile debates about what the ratio of delegation between schools and LEAs is to be—whether it is 85:15, 90:10 or even, as the Secretary of State once suggested, 95:5.
In reviewing standard spending assessments and the local management of schools procedures, we should identify what the key roles of schools and LEAs are, and work out what they need to carry them out. Then there should be 100 per cent. funding and 100 per cent. funding, not an arbitrary split of some undefined central pot. I hope that that will be borne in mind when the Secretary of State considers the SSA and LMS proposals.
I have two or three more points to raise quickly with the Minister. I welcome the proposal in the White Paper to reduce red tape and bureaucracy. However, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, the shadow Minister, pointed out that the White Paper itself contains several measures that will add burdens to the work of individual schools and local education authorities.
I therefore hope that, in reviewing the impact of the proposals, the Minister will have particular regard to the many two and three-teacher schools with teaching heads. If the issue is not properly considered, the burden for them could be intolerable.
As for the proposals affecting teachers, the Government say that they are keen to raise standards by tackling initial teacher training. I must tell the Minister, perhaps more in sorrow than in anything else, that I am surprised that he is still not prepared to deliver what was, in effect, a pledge in all the speeches made over the past few years on that subject, in which the Labour party made clear its absolute opposition to school-centred initial teacher training. Yet now that Labour is in government it seems totally unwilling to do anything about the abolition of school-centred initial teacher training.
The Minister is, however, prepared to do a number of things that we welcome, such as the setting up of the general teaching council, which I have mentioned already. We also welcome the proposal to reward excellent teaching. The proposal to set up an advanced skills teacher will, we think, be one which we can support, but there is considerable confusion about it at present. Some people are not even certain whether the advanced skills teacher is to be a post or an award. If someone becomes an advanced skills teacher and moves to a different school, do they continue to be an advanced skills teacher? Clarification would be very helpful.
Mr. Byers: It is important as we set up the new career grade of the advanced skills teacher that we get it right. As I said in my speech, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly be writing to the School Teachers Review Body and we shall expect it to do some of the detailed work on the practicalities of establishing such a grade, which will address a number of the issues about whether the advanced skills teacher is a post or an individual. It would be premature today to close down any options. We will ask the review body to give detailed consideration, to consult interested parties and then to bring forward proposals for the Secretary of State to consider.
Mr. Foster: I am sure that the House is grateful for that explanation and we look forward to hearing further details.

619
There are two sections of the White Paper that my party finds particularly disappointing. The first relates to school admissions, which is the black hole in the White Paper. I understand that there is to be a further consultation paper on the issue and I hope that that will be published soon because in many ways, the question of admissions is central to many of the other parts of the White Paper. Without knowing the Government's intentions in relation to admissions procedures, it is difficult to address some of the other questions. How will admissions procedures interrelate with specialist schools and education action zones? What do the Government intend to do about the difficulties that result from the Greenwich judgment?
The White Paper is, however, slightly clearer than the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton gave it credit for. She spent a good deal of her speech going on about the admissions policy in relation to specialist schools. I do not want to take up the House's time in reading out the relevant section to her, so I recommend that she reads paragraph 33 on page 71 of the White Paper. I am surprised that the Minister did not draw her attention to that section, so I am doing it for him. Paragraph 33 answers all the hon. Lady's questions in a single sentence, so she could have left out that part of her speech relatively easily.
The worst part of the White Paper is the section on the status of schools. The Minister will be well aware of my party's clear view that the introduction of grant-maintained schools created a divisive, two-tier education system. We wanted grant-maintained schools to be brought back into the light-touch local education authorities. The Minister has not been prepared to accept that and has now established a bolthole for former GM schools—the foundation schools. Those boltholes for former GM schools will mean that they are outside the local education authorities. They will still be involved in many of the activities of the LEA, as the White Paper makes clear. If some schools are holding on to all their assets and employing their teachers directly, they will be very different from schools where the assets are held by the LEA and the staff are employed by the LEA. Strategic planning involving both types of schools as well as the aided schools will be very difficult.
Our big concern is that it is proposed in the White Paper that existing local education authority schools will be able, even under a Labour Government, to opt out of the LEA and into foundation school status. We fear that many schools will do that just to avoid what they fear may be damaging local education authority reorganisation schemes. How is that to be handled? The White Paper is silent about how the issue of strategic planning is to be resolved. Focus groups may be suggested as a way forward, but we would be unhappy with that. The Secretary of State may come forward with proposals for a planning application procedure, but that strikes us as legalistic, time consuming and undemocratic. The best people to make decisions on strategic planning are the LEAs and that is what we would much prefer to see.
I have raised those points in the spirit of support for the broad thrust and principle of the White Paper and I assure the Minister that my party will work with him and the Government generally to bring about the raising of standards in our schools which is the kernel of the
620
White Paper. All of us should aim to get on with that as quickly as possible because our children deserve nothing less.
11.25 am
Mr. Tony McNulty: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on a constructive and responsible contribution to the debate, which contrasted with that made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). When preparing for the debate, I was reminded of a conference I was at recently where Tim Brighouse gave a speech in which he talked about energy creators and energy consumers. We have seen from the Conservatives, in terms of their response to the White Paper, a lot of energy consumption.
Mr. Brighouse described the energy consumers as nasty little men and women who sat in the corner of the staff room saying, any time something was announced, "No, can't do that. Haven't got the resources. There must be another way. There is nothing wrong with the way we are doing it already." Such people generally dampen down any initiative in schools. The energy creators said, "Great! How can we do it? If we haven't got the resources, what can we prioritise? How can we do what we already do better to make room to go down this road?" Such people are really enthused by the new initiatives, rather than dampening them down.
We have seen from newspapers, teachers and local government associations—in fact, from everybody bar the Conservatives—a response to the White Paper that has shown real energy creation. As the hon. Member for Bath has just said, although people may not agree with all of the White Paper, they are asking how we can move on, how we can raise standards, how we can excel and how we can do the best for our children.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his statement on the White Paper, the response from the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), was instructive. It was energy consumption, and he seemed to be saying, "You can't do that. Where are the resources? Where is the money? All the best ideas are our ideas anyway." He did not welcome anything and he did not say that he would put aside partisan considerations because what happens in education and what happens to our children matter most. He looked at the matter only from a partisan angle. What we got today was the Browning Version of that. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton did things down, rather than looking at how we could move forward together on a consensual basis, as we can with this White Paper.
Mrs. Laing: My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) whole-heartedly welcomed quite a lot of the proposals in the White Paper, simply because they are a version of Conservative policy, reflecting exactly the energy production that has gone on in education for the past 18 years.
Mr. McNulty: Whatever welcome the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton gave in the early stages was lost in the partisan ramblings that followed, some of which I noted down. She talked about the mother of all U-turns and about satanic influences. The comment that I liked best, because it harked back to old memories, was about statist five-year plans. Apparently my hon. Friend the

621
Minister is the Stalin of Sanctuary buildings. That comment may please some older colleagues who look back with far greater reverence than I do to the old days.
The shame of it all is that, even at this stage, a partisan flavour is being introduced into the debate. Even the most right-wing Conservative—I am not casting aspersions on the three Conservative Members who are with us today—would agree that education matters, that education means something to all our children and that the state has a role to play. Most of us start from that and, if the devil is in the detail, perhaps the divergence of opinions is in the detail, too. If we agree with the guiding principles, that is at least a starting point on which to build a consensus. Many hon. Members do agree with those. Certainly people in the education service outside the House do. There are few siren voices in the education service when those people consider the real principles that underlie the White Paper, which has been welcomed in all quarters.
I have already had a meeting, the first of many, with some secondary and primary head teachers in Harrow, which, I happily say, as I said in my maiden speech, was for some eight of the 11 years I was on the council an extremely successful local education authority. It was run by Conservatives, with, so long as it stayed on the path that it was on, full support from the Labour group, of which I was the leader, and the Liberal Democrats.
Harrow has a vibrant LEA which works in partnership with all the key players in the education service in the borough. Because the partisan dimension was stripped out of the education service in Harrow, it was allowed to get on with the job and perform as well as it did, regularly turning in 55 per cent. plus in terms of GCSE results, always vying with Richmond, which was mentioned earlier, to be the leading London borough.
One reading of the White Paper may suggest that it does not offer much to Harrow, because Harrow is already doing all that it needs to do at the moment—it is nice, leafy suburbia and is meeting all the education needs of its children. I was extremely pleased to hear the Minister say that that is not the case. As has been said by others, and certainly by the head teachers whom I met last Monday, all schools—every school—can and should improve.
The head teachers also welcomed the guiding principles in the White Paper. I have to say, if I were reporting back honestly from the meeting, that, yes, they were a wee bit jaundiced and there were perhaps elements of cynicism, but, given where they have been for the past 18 years, I am not surprised. They are still waiting for the detail. I am sure that they will be extremely surprised to learn that, for the first time in a long while, they will have a White Paper on which there will be full and comprehensive consultation and that proper note will be taken of that consultation. They welcome the consultation process, tight though it is around either side of the summer holidays, and know that it will be demonstrably different from what has happened in the past.
All the head teachers welcomed the six underlying principles and the focus, which is there—I think that the shadow Minister is entirely wrong—on standards, partnership and excellence. Above all, they welcomed the inclusive nature of the document and its key underlying principle that all children and all schools matter.
Over the past 10 weeks or so, we have already seen that the first of those principles—that education is at the heart of Government—is not merely empty rhetoric. We
622
have shown by our actions since the Queen's Speech that that is a real principle, which will guide the Government over the life of this Parliament, up to and beyond the recess. There is growing recognition—certainly in the education service and among parents and governors—that the Government should provide the overall framework for the education service and that head teachers, teachers, parents, LEAs and governors should work together locally to deliver that service, but it must be within a strategic and planned context, which is why the role of LEAs is so important.
One of the key difficulties that the Conservatives had over their time in government was in the notion that they could introduce numerous reforms, and the LEA, rather in the old Marxist sense, would wither away on the vine and no longer be necessary. Even they realised that that was not the logical extension of their reforms and that the LEA does, and must, have a key role.
It is easy to pooh-pooh the notion of partnership and to say that it is mentioned this many times or that many times in the document, but partnership is crucial. To date, it has been the key to the success of education in Harrow and it will continue to be so. The new partnership announced in the White Paper is the foundation on which education success and improvement throughout the country will be built.
It was instructive that, when talking in any detail about schools, I do not think that the shadow Minister ever mentioned children. I apologise up front if she did. When she talked about schools, she specifically mentioned assisted places, grant-maintained schools and grammar schools. In the wider scheme of things, those are but a pin-prick on the national education service and are rooted in privilege. Perhaps her comments would have been listened to with more respect if she had spoken about all our schools, the comprehensive nature of our education service and what it does for our children throughout the country.
What this White Paper is not about, rightly, is elitist selection for the few and mediocrity, or whatever else is left, for the many. That is important. It is not—although perhaps it has already become a cliché—a policy cliché to talk about the many and the few. The White Paper recognises, as I have said, that every single school can and must improve and that—this is not controversial in any way—no school is good enough. For some people, that might sound strange or offensive, but anyone who works in and is rooted in education will accept that straight away.
Of course, no school is good enough. One can and must get away from any notion of complacency. I certainly will in terms of that suburban version of complacency that says, "Well, 55 per cent. in Harrow is wonderful. We'll try to get 56 per cent. next year. If we get 50, no one is going to complain. It is still better than any number of other LEAs every year bar three or four." As a councillor, I have railed against that, because complacency, along with ignorance, is the last thing that our children need.
There is, therefore, room for improvement in schools in Harrow, Harrogate and Hackney and in all other LEAs. Everyone accepts that and that is at the core of the White Paper. That is why its emphasis on standards is so important. All schools and all LEAs must improve on their last best performance. I have a worry that, until now,

623
there has been a notion that suburban mediocrity will do—hit somewhere in the 50s and it is okay and does not matter—and that, at the other end, the Darrens and Sharons cannot achieve; that is an offensive phrase heard at a recent teachers' conference. There is an acceptance that, in some LEAs, because of deprivation and socio-economic conditions, 20 per cent. is good enough. Well, it is not. It is not good enough in inner-London LEAs and 50 or 60 per cent. is not good enough in outer-London suburban schools or in the best LEAs. All can and should improve.
The White Paper—it is not mistitled—is about excellence in all schools, not excellence in some schools or in some schools that get 10 per cent. of their children through. It is not about giving children in deprived areas a few bob more and a few structures to help them out and to raise expectations; it is about excellence in all areas in terms of children's performance.
It is right, too, that the White Paper focuses on standards and not structures. The shadow Minister is right, to some extent, to say that the two go together. We cannot have one without the other. I was going to say we cannot have eggs without bacon—we can, but it is not as nice. The point is that structures and standards both matter. With the best will in the world, over the past 18 years we have had some sort of anally retentive fixation with structures and how to serve the most privileged within those structures, and standards have fallen off the agenda. That is the key. There is a relationship between standards and structures. All our children can benefit by standards going up, but we must define the structures. That is the right way around for that relationship.
Education is not about a grammar school in every town for the top 5 per cent. of our children; it is about the highest possible performance by education services for all schools. At its core, that requires a light, strategically focused touch by LEAs to support that in each area. I nearly made a Freudian slip: I almost said control that in each area, but I am talking about support.
LEAs will welcome a debate that focuses on school improvement and outlines how they will intervene, but not interfere, by working with all partners. The hon. Member for Bath was right to say that there could be an aberration. For my sins, I am a member of a European Standing Committee and I get thick piles of paperwork. Do we want a White Paper that is the size of the "Children's Encyclopaedia Britannica", all 30 volumes of it, going out to consultation? That is what would be required for all the subsequent detail.
There must be clarity about the role of LEAs, but there is a need for strategic underpinning. That is a key element, but only one element, in the overall partnership that is needed to secure our children's future. I think that those issues will be elaborated in the consultation. Although it is useful shorthand, the phrase "zero tolerance" is rather ugly and clumsy, but that is what we are about if we agree that all schools can and should improve. I should rather be more positive and say that all must excel and improve and that there must be robust intolerance of failure.
All partners have a role in a new and mutually supportive partnership. The shadow Minister is fundamentally wrong. I agree that all those partners have rights, but they also have responsibilities and they must be accountable. The White
624
Paper goes into some detail on that. We rightly afford parents codified rights and responsibilities and they must be held accountable for those. The same applies to teachers for what they do in the classroom, to heads in the context of their management of schools and to LEAs.
None of those key partners, given the seriousness with which they view education, will worry about being held accountable for their roles. LEAs will certainly not worry about that. The work of the best LEAs shows that they would welcome the notion of an external review and some of them sought to carry out their own external reviews long before such reviews became policies.
The LEAs are publicly elected bodies charged with looking after public money. They must be accountable for education development plans and be subject to external review by the Office for Standards in Education and the Audit Commission. The task forces, the units that are to be set up and the Government should also be accountable. We shall be accountable: if we wax lyrical and focus on and emphasise education for the next four or five years, parents will know, come 2002 or in whatever year the next election is held, whether we have delivered and will judge us on that. We shall be happy to go into that election on our record.
The White Paper is about new partnerships and new deals and it is a shame that the shadow Minister chose to adopt a partisan, knockabout party conference mode, rather than treating the subject more seriously. There are elements for concern in the document, but it is about future partnerships, with all the key players energised to play a role in an education service that matters. I am surprised that the shadow Minister did not notice that the White Paper plainly states that LEAs are not to be afforded a direct, managerial role, which would have been a return to a "Stephen the Stalinist" little plan. The document clearly states that LEAs must earn their place in the partnership. That is right, and LEAs recognise it.
There is a new optimism. It is easy to be cynical and to personalise the debate by speaking about a key personality in a senior role in education who is not necessarily elected, or to pass motions against such people at National Association of Head Teachers conferences. It is easy to be petulant and sceptical and to say that we want everything up front now and cannot wait because we have waited long enough. It is right for the Government to exhort all the key partners to join in the success that will flow from the White Paper. There is no room for smugness or complacency in the Harrows, Hackneys or the Harrogates.
The core elements for a new dawn for education are in the White Paper. We must all work together to avoid complacency and we must shun mediocrity, which in the past has often served as a measure of performance. All partners should start from the premise that they should never write off a child like Darren or Sharon.
It is not too late for Conservatives to leave their partisan mode. I know that they learn in opposition, because I saw that happening in Harrow in 1994 when they were wiped out. Only 16 of 63 were left, and for a while they wandered around looking a bit lost. Eventually, they found a role that occasionally was productive. Education is far too important for people to drop back into partisan roles. We need to work together within the framework of the White Paper to do the best for our children.

625
It has been said that the targets in the White Paper and those in pronouncements since 1 May are too ambitious. I have been in education for 14 years, albeit in higher education, and I can say that one can never be over-ambitious. If the aim is to excel, one tries to stretch a little bit beyond what might seem to be the easiest and simplest option. Let us grasp the "passion in action", as The Times Educational Supplement characterised it last week, that is outlined in the document and let an energised can-do teaching profession get on with the job that it knows best, which is teaching our children to excel and stretching for more. If teaching is not about stretching for more, the job is not being done.
Excellence in all our schools is not simply about ambition: it is about rights, and our children have a right to expect excellence in all schools. We must not fail them because education matters to everyone. If we go forward together—I do not mean everyone but the Conservatives—children and parents will thank us. That is the way forward and it is the foundation that is outlined in the White Paper.
11.47 am
Mr. Piers Merchant: The White Paper boasts that it is the Government's first and it makes a virtue of excellence and standards. If it reflects the standard of subsequent White Papers, I am severely disappointed. It raises more questions than it answers. Rather than being a policy paper, it is more of an examination paper; that is peculiar for a White Paper and leaves an air of mystery over many of the most important areas of education policy. Many of the policies that are revealed seem to be rather contradictory.
There are some extremely important issues to tackle, and I should have thought that the Government, rather than hurrying as they have done in an effort to produce a glossy publication, would feel it better to wait a while, consult more widely and think through the subject in more detail before publishing the White Paper. We could have got our teeth into a more serious, detailed and heavyweight document, which would have tackled the real problems that exist in education.
I do not want to be uncharitable towards the Government. They said that they would prioritise education, and we shall see whether that happens. I shall keep an open mind. Education needs prioritising, but the White Paper does not make it clear whether that will happen.
I do not want to throw away the entire contents of the White Paper, although I have criticisms of many parts of it. There are positive aspects, many of which are built on the work of the previous Government: the White Paper, at least in rhetoric, still supports the emphasis on standards, diversity and choice. I welcome the baseline assessment for new entrants to primary schools; the emphasis on improving standards of literacy and numeracy in 11-year-olds; the extension of local management of schools; the extension of Ofsted inspections to local education authorities; and the new emphasis on ensuring that poorer teachers are weeded out and that heads have proper qualifications.
On page 66, we read:
"Our priority is standards, not structures",
yet further down the same page we find the ominous phrase, "a new framework". In other words, having talked about standards, the White Paper puts the emphasis on
626
structure, reorganisation, bureaucracy, paperwork and centralisation, rather than on what really matters: what happens at the chalk face.
In detail, some of the planned reorganisation seems even more stark. We get the distinct impression that decisions on education will be given to bureaucrats rather than professionals, to councillors rather than parents and governing bodies. That will most definitely be to the detriment of education and schools.
That process will carry in its train centralisation of the kind so ably referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), in which local education authorities will have to come up with education development plans. What that will achieve remains to be seen; it will certainly involve a great deal of resources, time, effort and cost, and will be another external influence on schools that have in the past few years had the freedom to develop and improve themselves.
We read about the annual plan that schools will have to produce, but in which LEAs will clearly intervene—another sign of a return to centralisation. If the new centralisation involved in giving extra powers to LEAs is not enough, the Department, as always, ends up grasping the lion's share of decision making and intervention, with its plethora of new units and proposed abilities to intervene.
Mr. Willis: I have difficulty following the hon. Gentleman's argument. Under the previous Government's arrangements, Ofsted was to inspect schools once every six years, so, in theory, there would be five years without anyone inspecting standards in those schools. The Government propose that LEAs should play an important role, but if, as the hon. Gentleman seems to want, that did not happen, who would maintain standards? Without an overall plan, what could those standards be judged against?
Mr. Merchant: There is a massive difference between inspections as part of a system that ensures that schools themselves maintain standards and reach for the highest of their own volition, and a system that imposes organisation from without and tells schools and the professionals within them how to manage and how to teach.
As I understand the White Paper, it seeks to move a long way from the laudable objective of having proper systems of inspection towards systems of control and direction. I know that the rhetoric is about partnership, a light touch, advice and so on, but the essence of the detail looks to me as if it is going back to the days when the power lay with the LEA or the Department. That is the real danger in the White Paper.
I am anxious not to prejudge the Government and I am trying to read between the lines of what is, in fact, an extremely vague document. It leaves some important areas of education policy extremely vague. For example, the future of grant-maintained and grammar schools is dealt with in a mere paragraph. There is also much vagueness on admissions policy, problems of exclusion and other matters.
I welcome the emphasis on excellence and standards. I hope that it is not merely rhetoric. I come from an area where standards are high and there is diversity and choice. That is welcomed by the vast majority of parents.

627
I welcome the idea that the same excellence should be extended to other parts of the country where local education authorities have not been so successful.
Mr. James Wray: The hon. Gentleman says that he comes from an area where standards are high. Does he agree that the Conservative Government, who were in power for 18 years, created nothing but fragmentation and inequality, with a top-heavy emphasis on assisted places? While millions of pounds were being paid out, they were trying to save thousands of pounds in Labour-controlled authorities and closing schools down. Does he agree that, because of lack of investment in education, we have inherited a dreadful situation and we have to do something about it?
Mr. Merchant: I do not accept that. From my experience, high standards have been achieved in education and those standards have improved immeasurably in more than 10 years because of the previous Government's efforts. I accept, however, that those standards must continue to improve, because they are vital to our future. That is why I do not offer a blanket condemnation of the White Paper; if the Government are serious about improving standards, I welcome it.
I was merely arguing that I should like the high standards achieved in my constituency to be mirrored in other parts of the country where, for one reason or another, it has not been possible to achieve such standards. I do not believe that that will be done through rigid centralisation; it will be done by enabling the schools and the professionals to be free to do their best to produce the quality of education that best suits the children.
It is a shame that although the White Paper mentions Bromley, it does not draw attention to its high standards, but refers to the confusion surrounding its admissions policy. I accept that there are difficulties, but the White Paper misinterprets the reasons for that. It fails to mention that the principal cause of the problem in Bromley is that its schools are so popular that they attract a large number of pupils from neighbouring boroughs, where, over the years, Labour-controlled local authorities have been unable to offer education of the same quality.
According to next year's admissions, 820 out-of-borough pupils will attend Bromley schools. That is a result of the Greenwich judgment, which, as hon. Members are aware, prevents schools from exercising any preference for children from their own locality. The Greenwich judgment is at the heart of the admissions difficulties of Bromley. The Government need to consider it carefully and attempt to find a solution. I should prefer the judgment to be overruled, but that requires primary legislation. I should be interested to hear what the Government have to say about that. If they are not prepared to introduce such legislation, they will have to consider alternative solutions to the problem, which will inevitably grow year after year.
The sheer number of pupils—educational refugees—from other boroughs who attend Bromley's schools renders the White Paper's aspirations about the community nonsense. It repeatedly argues that the community should be directly involved in the provision of local education, but the community of Bromley and of
628
my constituency, Beckenham, is losing out as a result of the Greenwich judgment, which has distorted and toppled any ability to maintain a coherent admissions system.
I should like a system that operates fairly, transparently and swiftly. It breaks my heart that I am visited every year by parents whose children still, this late in the academic year, do not have a place for next year. That problem is getting worse every year. I would far rather that we had an admissions system that delivered swift decisions much earlier in the year, and which perhaps limited the options that are currently available, than one which, year on year, is confused and changeable. Parents are left confused and uncertain. Their children are left, this late in the academic year, without a secondary school place; in the worst cases, every other child in the primary school has a place.
The Government should consider whether it is possible legally for secondary schools to use a primary school feeder system as a possible means of overcoming the confusion caused by the Greenwich judgment. In the past, I have been advised by departmental officials that unless a feeder system is already in place, its establishment might not be legal as a result of the Greenwich judgment. I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that.
I should like an admissions system that more or less can guarantee every child a place at the local school, in the absence of any other place, but which does not require the child to go to that local school. It should offer choice and diversity should parents and children want it. That would offer the best of both worlds—choice and diversity would be available to parents, as it is to parents in my borough, but children would also be guaranteed a place. That would prevent local children from being pushed out of the borough's schools, as they are now, by children crossing the boundary from other boroughs.
I do not want to be parochial and I am not suggesting that I would not want any children from other boroughs attending schools in Bromley. I can see that that flow offers positive advantages to everyone. I do not want to have a rigid system, but if community is to mean anything, if parents are to have a say and if we are to have a smooth-running, coherent admissions system, we need clarity. The problem involves admittedly limited areas, but, unfortunately, my constituents have been especially affected.
Sadly, education has always been a political football. I would most like from the new Government a break with the past and an attempt to forge more of an all-party consensus in education, to achieve stability in the system in the interests of standards and of the more positive things that the Government preach in their White Paper. I fear, however, that lurking behind their positive words is the dragon of state planning, of a rigid system enforced on all schools for reasons of political prejudice, correctness and ideology. I hope that they will not be, but I fear that the Government will be increasingly dragged down that road, as all Labour Governments have been in the past on education. If they fail to make a break with the past, they will find not only that their aspirations for standards, excellence and so on will fail, but that they will reap the condemnation of people of all political views among the electorate.
Parents are not interested in political ideology, correctness or theories on education; they are interested in their children getting the maximum quality of education

629
and a choice that enables them to match the needs of their children with what education should provide. That is what the Government should aim to achieve.
12.6 pm
Mr. Keith Darvill: I welcome the White Paper, "Excellence in schools" and the fact that it has been prepared and presented so quickly. I associate myself with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty).
I have had some experience in this area, although I am not a teacher. I have been a school governor for more than 15 years, working with both primary and secondary schools and I have been governor of a sixth-form college. I have chaired an independent appeals committee. Drawing on those experiences, as well as on my experience as a parent, I have some contribution to make to the debate.
On the points raised by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), one problem of the past 18 years has been the hijacking by the Conservative party of the word "choice" in education. All parents want choice for their children and when they look for schools, they make those choices. In reality, there are few choices. The White Paper tries to make choice more relevant, by ensuring that standards are improved across the board. Grant-maintained schools, the few grammar schools and the assisted places scheme do not affect the majority of parents. The White Paper aims to do that.
School governors play an important role, but not much has been said about it today. It would be useful to focus on their role, because there are more than 300,000 of them. We have already spoken about partnership, and that genuinely applies to education. Opposition Members have suggested that the White Paper contains an element of statism. I do not agree. That is certainly not relevant to the work of the school governors.
School governors welcome the local management of schools and the delegation of school budgets. They like to influence the planning and management of schools. Over the years, governors have contributed a great deal to many schools, but schools also require the support of their local education authorities. We need to get the balance right. I hope that the Opposition agree. In my experience of working with Conservative representatives on school governing bodies and local education authorities, there is usually a great deal of consensus. Most school governors and members of local education committees work hard for the benefit of children in the borough. Members of LEAs often have specialist skills, and schools rely on having quick and easy access to their expertise. If we diffuse the structure of our education system, we may lose much of that expertise, which is a great advantage.
Local political parties stand on their education policies and they go to the electorate regularly. To that extent, they are accountable. There is much to be said for developing the partnership between everyone involved in education—local education authorities, schools and school governing bodies. Through partnership, accountability and placing emphasis on standards, we can make a serious attack on the inherent problems in our education system. I am sure that the bipartisan approach of many LEAs is the best way forward.
I am also concerned about the burden being placed on school governors. As a school governor, I often receive big wodges of paper. All school governors are voluntary
630
and most of them have other jobs. They have to prepare for and attend meetings at schools and put decisions into effect. If we place additional burdens on them, they will become less effective.
The position of school governors has changed remarkably over the years. When I first became a school governor 17 or 18 years ago, the termly meetings used to consist of a report from the head teacher and a discussion of events at the school, followed by some light chat. The meetings would take about two hours. Now, we meet three or four times a term. The board of governors might be broken down into sub-committees and working parties involved in budgets, the maintenance of premises, and so on. If legislation continues to place more burdens on school governors, there is a real danger that schools will not get the support that they need. We must consider that when we develop the detailed legislative proposals that will result from the White Paper.
There are also dangers in involving school governors in the achievement of standards in schools. The White Paper specifically states that governors should demand various pieces of information from head teachers, in an attempt to drive up standards. I welcome the main thrust of the White Paper, but there is a danger that school governors will become too involved in the day-to-day management of schools. There has always been a grey area between the management of schools and the responsibilities of school governors. In my view, a code of practice should be produced and sent to all schools. Of course, it should be the subject of consultation first, but it would be helpful if the White Paper resulted in a code of practice.
I have one or two other points to raise. Since the election, I have continued to visit schools in my constituency and to seek the views of teachers generally. There is a danger that the messages that we send to schools and the language that we use will attack teacher morale. Although there is clearly a need to attack low standards where they exist, that must be done sensitively, because teachers worry about how action taken by this place, parents, and local authorities undermines their status. We must give careful consideration to that issue.
The assessment of children when they first go to school is an important move. I should like there to be much earlier screening, especially for learning difficulties such as dyslexia. The learning difficulties of many children throughout the country are not identified early enough in their school career. Local authorities and schools should become more responsible for that. Identification of such problems and the training of teachers to identify them is an important matter.
I have already mentioned the role of local education authorities. Some of the rhetoric used by Conservative Members sends out the wrong messages. Local education authorities have a firm role to play in the development of our schools, and I am sure that they will continue to play it.
I welcome the White Paper, although I have slight reservations about the consultation period. The paper went out last week and hit local education authorities and schools just as schools were breaking up for the summer holidays. For the consultation to be wide ranging, it needs input from LEA committees and school governing bodies. They will be coming back in the first week of September and will have only four weeks to consider the matter. It

631
would be helpful if the consultation period could be extended, perhaps by a week or two, so that as many LEAs and schools as possible could participate. We are told that the White Paper has been circulated as widely as possible, but if the window of opportunity for schools to contribute and make representations is narrow, we might miss out on some valuable contributions.
12.17 pm
Mr. Graham Brady: We have heard some excellent and constructive contributions from hon. Members of all parties and I hope that I shall continue in the same vein. I have followed my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) before—as chairman of Durham University Conservative Association—and I am especially pleased to be following him today, albeit after a slightly shorter interval.
I am delighted that the White Paper states that it focuses on standards and not on structure. That is something we can all welcome, although the White Paper raises many questions and leaves the way open for many new structures to be introduced. Whether or not they are to be subject to consultation, we are told to expect a new White Paper on structures in the near future.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) referred to a sterile debate on structures and I agree that that is largely unhelpful. The people I represent are keen to move away from that debate, because we have a local education system which is tried and tested—we have grammar schools, high schools and a variety of other schools. It is a popular system, it works and it does not consign any of our children to failure.
I find it objectionable when hon. Members occasionally utter the outdated cliché that the 11-plus consigns some children to failure—it does not. If there are good high schools and good grammar schools, we can select and provide good education for all children, and that is what we do in the borough of Trafford. All too often, the experience of Labour in government—whether central or local—has been about levelling down in education, not levelling up. I devoutly hope that the White Paper is, indeed, a departure from that experience.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) referred to the distance that has been travelled by Labour. If it really has been travelled, I welcome it. We can perceive another distance, however, between the utterances of Ministers and the behaviour of Labour-controlled local authorities. I certainly want that distance to be closed, too. I am reminded that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment used to preside over schools in the city of Sheffield, where no great renaissance of standards took place. Indeed, the reverse was perhaps the case. I hope that that experience has taught him something.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to grant-maintained schools. Many schools in my constituency are grant maintained—not merely the grammar schools, but the high schools. Parents voted for their status, in some cases by large majorities. Many of those schools felt a particular urgency about achieving that status when, sadly, the borough of Trafford fell under Labour control for the first time last year. We regard that as an aberration. I hope that it will not persist for too much longer.
632
The fact that the parents and schools felt that they had to seek sanctuary in grant-maintained status is worthy of note. I am confident that that status will protect those schools and will continue to allow an improvement in standards.
Ms Linda Perham: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments about grant-maintained schools. Does he agree that the vast majority of parents have chosen not to go for such status? Out of 25,000 schools, only about 1,100—I think that that was the figure mentioned earlier—have gone grant maintained.
Mr. Brady: Progress has to take place by degrees. The grant-maintained schools in my constituency are great examples to all schools. The improvements that have taken place in good schools since they became grant maintained have been remarkable and a model for others.
It may not surprise hon. Members who have heard me talk on education if I turn my attention to what the Liberal Democrat spokesman referred to as the "black hole" in the White Paper—admissions policy. That is a major concern. The White Paper refers to the importance of allowing as many parents as possible to achieve their preferred choice of school. That is somewhat at variance with the Government's early attack on the assisted places scheme which limited parental choice.
There is also cause for concern in the proposed reduction in class sizes. How will it be done? I am not merely concerned about the 31st child applying to a small rural school. What will happen in popular schools that have no room to expand? Is there not a danger that the number of parents and children who have to make do with second or third choices will increase? People will be forced to send their children to the less good and less popular schools because those are the only ones with places available.
Again, I think that there may be a marked difference between what the White Paper sets out to achieve and the results of Government policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton referred to the importance of specialist schools, which is flagged up in the White Paper. How can they select, if not by interview or exam? I am concerned to read in the White Paper the phrase:
"There will be no going back to the 11-plus."
Where does that leave those of us who still have it, where it works effectively?
The White Paper also states that the local education authorities will not institute any changes. If grammar schools are to go, it will be from the choice of local parents. That begs a large and important question for my constituents. Which parents will be consulted? On grant-maintained schools, it has been vital that the parents of children at the schools have been the ones to vote on their future. I very much hope for an assurance from the Minister that if a ballot is to be held on the future of grammar schools, it will be a ballot of the parents of children at those schools, not of a wider section of parents who may have no interest in those schools. That is a marked concern of schools in my constituency.
Although we know that the LEA may not take a decision about the future of grammar schools in my constituency, I should welcome an assurance—as would my constituents as local taxpayers—that LEAs will be

633
prohibited from using public funds to campaign for the end of grant-maintained schools. That is an important point. I should say that my Labour local authority is pledged to rid my constituency of grammar schools in a way that the new Government say they are not, so that is another disparity between what we hear from Labour in local government and in Parliament.
I read that the Secretary of State will set out national guidelines for admissions policy. As the Secretary of State has said that he does not personally approve of grammar schools, will the national guidelines allow for the continuation of grammar schools and, if they do, under what circumstances and in what way? Will the guidelines exclude reference to grammar schools? Will guidelines be set for grant-maintained schools or—if they are created—for foundation schools? Those very important questions remain to be answered. They are certainly not answered in the White Paper.
Schools would be expected to discuss their admissions policies and their plans with the LEA. The White Paper tells us that it is hoped that agreement will be reached in the vast majority of cases. If agreement is not reached, there will be recourse to an independent adjudicator. That implies that, as in most adjudication processes, some type of agreement would be expected to be reached at the end of that. Would an agreement be forced on schools and local education authorities if they failed to reach agreement of their own volition? I should welcome a response on that point.
The White Paper rules out partial selection and says that the adjudicator will have the power to end partial selection where it already exists. Will that power extend to those schools and systems where full selection already exists? I hope that the Minister will reassure me about that.
How will the adjudicator exercise that seemingly arbitrary power? The White Paper contains the bald statement that the adjudicator will have the power to end partial selection where it already exists. Will that power by exercised by diktat? By whose authority will it be exercised, and following what consultation? Will it apply in all circumstances? If partial selection is to be ended in all schools, why leave it to the adjudicator to end it? Why not come clean and say that the Government intend to abolish the right of schools to select part of their pupil numbers?
I hold no brief for independent schools—I am an old boy of Altrincham grammar school, a school of which I am extremely proud—but I find the references in the White Paper to independent schools most interesting. I read:
"The educational apartheid created by the public/private divide diminishes the whole education system."
Again, I refer to examples from my constituency experience. In the borough of Trafford, the Labour local authority has just voted in principle, and as a point of principle, to end the borough's practice, over many years, of funding places for Roman Catholic children at a co-educational Catholic grammar school, St. Bede's college, outside the borough, at a cost not much greater than that of places in the maintained sector. That will limit parental choice. It will restrict choice for Catholic parents in my constituency, end the availability of co-educational grammar school places for their children and lead, in many cases, to significant personal problems. I am receiving many letters from constituents on those matters.
634
For example, a lady who wrote to me from Timperley is a single mother with daughters. She decided that instead of her daughters being educated in a single-sex environment, they should go to a co-educational school. They are being educated at St. Bede's. She is worried about the possibility that that facility would be withdrawn, which would be a negative move. If parents make such a choice, it is important that co-educational schooling should be available for their children. I am concerned that, under Labour control, the borough of Trafford is taking a different view.
Another family in Timperley has two children already at St. Bede's college, and a younger son and daughter. If the council's proposals go ahead, the parents would be forced to send the younger son and daughter to two different single-sex schools, leading to the difficult situation of four children in the same family being obliged to go to three separate schools—a logistical problem which the borough of Trafford must address.
At present, some 60 pupils a year go to St. Bede's college from the borough of Trafford. Those pupils cannot readily be absorbed by the other Catholic grammar schools in the borough which have recently joined the grant-maintained sector. The fact that St. Ambrose college and Loretto convent school both chose to opt into the grant-maintained sector, having previously been independent grammar schools, is a clear example of the success of grant-maintained schooling and its attractiveness for many parents.
The cost of education at St. Bede's is virtually the same as in the maintained sector. There is no financial reason for the borough council's action, which will limit choice and return to the educational apartheid referred to in the White Paper. It is claimed that greater partnership with independent schools is welcomed, but, in practice, where the real choices are being made, that option is being removed from parents, whether through the abolition of the assisted places scheme or through the removal of access to denominational schools.
Parents in my constituency view the White Paper with trepidation. It leaves more questions to be answered than it answers. It sets out many threats to the schools that we hold dear. I should welcome assurances from the Minister on the issues that I have raised, especially an assurance that the grant-maintained schools and the grammar schools in my constituency will remain.
12.32 pm
Ms Margaret Hodge: It is a privilege to take part in the debate, even though the Chamber is extremely cold. For that reason, I shall keep my contribution brief.
When we had the opportunity to question the Secretary of State in the Chamber after publication of the White Paper, I said that I believed that it heralded a new era for education in Britain. The White Paper, the legislation that will follow it in the autumn, and the culture and practice that it must engender in our schools are vital ingredients of the Government's crusade to raise educational standards and opportunity, not for a few children, but for every child in every school in every part of Britain.
The White Paper is a defining moment for British education. It brings to an end the sterile and divisive debate on educational structures which, I am afraid, was reflected again in the old Conservatism in part of the

635
contribution of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). The White Paper opens a much more vital and fertile debate on educational standards.
The contribution from the shadow education Minister, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), revealed the huge difference between the Conservatives and Labour. For 18 years, we had a culture of blame. The Government blamed the LEAs, the schools, the teachers and even the children for failures.
Through many ministerial statements, this Government have boldly created a culture of responsibility to replace a culture of blame. We accept responsibility for standards in education and we have set out the roles of LEAs, schools, teachers, parents and children in raising standards.
Mrs. Laing:It is true that the Conservative Government blamed certain local education authorities for many things that went wrong with education—as the hon. Lady is well aware. However, can the hon. Lady give any examples of anyone blaming children for problems in education? That is what she asserted.
Ms Hodge: I can remember many instances when Ministers did just that. Even this morning, the Opposition education spokesperson referred to equality and said that some children could not achieve. That was part of her thesis on why equality would reduce, rather than raise, standards. Children are being blamed for not achieving. There are many other examples of the previous Government apportioning blame: they never accepted responsibility for raising educational standards for all children in Britain.
The new agenda defines the end of an era when success was measured only by the undoubted success of a few children in a few schools. It highlights the Government's determination that all children in all schools can, and will, succeed. That is a real change of emphasis. It also heralds the end of an era when people thought that input—how much money was spent in schools—was the only variable that affected educational standards. The obsession with input, admissions policies and children's backgrounds has bedevilled education debates for too long.
The White Paper introduces the idea that outcomes count and that whatever a child's background, he or she can and must achieve more. That is a vital point.
Another crucial principle underpins the White Paper and, I think, strikes a chord with many parents in Britain. We hear much about the schools that excel and those that are failing. However, most children attend schools where they just survive: they just get by. They may achieve a little, but they fail to achieve their full potential. I know that from my experience of my four children who have attended a range of primary and secondary schools in London.
My children have had head teachers who are inspirational leaders of their schools, and head teachers who refuse to recognise that there are any problems and allow their schools to decline or not achieve their capacity. I have seen class and subject teachers who, through their teaching, have enthused my children and others and have brought out the best in their students. There are other teachers for whom the children have no
636
respect and in whom they have no confidence. Those teachers succeed merely in turning children off a particular subject.
As the Minister said, we have only one chance at childhood and one chance to learn in childhood. We must not throw away that unique opportunity by tolerating failure or mediocrity. That is what the White Paper is all about—promoting excellence for all.
The White Paper covers a range of issues, but I shall focus on just two, not because they are the only two that matter but because I believe them to be of crucial importance. The first issue is head teachers. The second is children in their early years.
There is widespread recognition that the role of head teachers is crucial in raising the standard of education. That is not a big surprise, as any organisation will prosper depending on the quality of its leadership. Quality of leadership is the most essential ingredient in any successful organisation, including schools. It is a necessary condition to achieve success. Without a first-rate head teacher, one cannot achieve all the other things that we know make up a good school—a culture of excellence, the recruiting of other good teachers in the classroom, good management, both financial and administrative, and effective partnerships.
Yet only now, under the Labour Government, are we really beginning to take seriously the business of raising the quality of our head teachers. We need to reflect a little on the legacy that we inherited. In its 1995–96 annual report, Ofsted said that leadership was poor in one in seven primary schools, and in one in 10 secondary schools. I have not included the category of "satisfactory", because we should be going for excellence of leadership. The fact that so many schools have poor leadership is an indictment of the current system.
I was looking recently at figures on recruitment compiled by the Teacher Training Agency, which undertook an analysis of advertisements for head teachers in the national press. From 1 January to 30 May in the years 1995–97, the number of advertisements for primary school head teachers increased by 61 per cent. That tells us something about what is happening to the confidence of people in the job. In the same period, the number of advertisements for secondary school head teachers increased by 51 per cent. Worse still, in January 1997, 21 per cent. of the advertisements that appeared in the national press for primary school heads, were readvertisements. Schools have been unable to recruit people to run those schools from the supply of teachers. In London, 50 per cent. of advertisements for primary heads that month were readvertisements.
Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Lady is raising an issue which concerns all of us. I have just received a written answer from the Minister which tells me that the number of premature retirements of head teachers has continued to increase. In 1996–97, a total of 1,283 heads and 1,089 deputy heads took premature retirement. That figure is up on that of last year, which was also very high.
Ms Hodge: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving the House those figures. I was, of course, aware that the previous Secretary of State's announcement of the ending of the facility for early retirement led to an immediate influx of head teachers choosing to retire. That has created

637
a massive crisis for the incoming Government—an enormous challenge for them if they really wish to make a reality of raising education standards.
There is not only a crisis in head teacher recruitment; the situation has not been helped by the attacks on teachers that took place under the previous Government. That is why I warmly welcome some of the measures in the White Paper, and the fact that we have put education at the top of the agenda. That, in itself, sends a message to all the professionals working in the field that we care about the job that they do for our children and for future generations.
Mr. Don Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way to me a second time, and I promise not to intervene again in her speech. She talked about the attacks on teachers, but does she agree that the Minister for School Standards was right to say that the best person to judge teachers and their performance is the head teacher? Does she agree that it does not serve the profession well if, as announced by the chief inspector only two days ago, a crude three-point scale is to be used to judge teachers' performance? In particular, is it not wholly wrong for a teacher to be graded in the bottom of those three categories on the basis of what could have been observation of only one lesson, possibly not even the whole of that lesson? Does the hon. Lady agree that a stop must be put to that immediately?
Ms Hodge: I agree entirely that, in the end, the judgment of whether a teacher is competent must be made by the head teacher. However, various mechanisms can be used to encourage the head to have a look at the performance of a particular teacher and come to that judgment. One of those could be an Ofsted inspection. An inspector could draw a head's attention to what he or she believed was an inadequate performance, but, in the end, the judgment must be that of the head teacher.
I shall digress slightly, to tell the hon. Gentleman a story about my own children. Two of the siblings, who were at the same school, came home and complained about the quality of a teacher who taught them both for a certain subject. One child found the quality of teaching so poor that I was having difficulty in getting her to attend the school. She felt that her time would be better spent in working for her GCSEs in the library than in attending the class.
I therefore wrote to the head teacher, which was an appropriate thing to do. I drew her attention to the fact that my daughter felt that the teacher lacked quality. I was an external person, a parent, and I had never observed the teacher. I was simply responding to my child's views and drawing the head's attention to the quality of the teaching.
I think that that was an appropriate thing to do, and I would not put it in a category very different from what is done by an inspector who may spend an hour or so observing a teacher and then draw the head's attention to the quality of the teaching.
In my case, the head wrote back saying that I had made a serious allegation, which I had better substantiate. I replied with an angry letter saying that it was not my task to substantiate the allegation, but the head's task to observe the teacher in the class and find out whether there was any substance in my daughter's feeling that she was not being properly taught. There is a role for the inspector, but, in the end, the responsibility is that of the head teacher.
638
I said earlier that putting education at the top of the agenda would inspire renewed confidence and, I hope, ease the way to our being able to recruit better head teachers. Introducing a general teaching council will be vital if we are to restore self-confidence in the profession and encourage competent teachers to come forward and become heads.
The extra money that this new Labour Government have injected into the education service is vital as part of the restoration of confidence and, therefore, of our ability to raise standards. The support that we have given does not, however, mean that we can tolerate mediocrity or failure. That is why the introduction of a statutory qualification for head teachers is welcome and crucial. I hope that Ministers will consider widening the field from which we recruit head teachers.
Recent research shows that head teachers spend only a small amount of time teaching in the classroom. A primary head will spend about 12 per cent. of his or her time on teaching and a secondary head half that.
Ms Estelle Morris: If that.
Ms Hodge: If that, indeed. Do we need good teachers to make good heads? Should we not look at the advanced skills teacher post as a way in which to keep good teachers in the classroom and, therefore, look at a wider range of skills when we recruit heads? People with other skills and other backgrounds could make excellent heads and managers of their schools. The skills required to run a school are not the same as the skills required to be an effective classroom teacher. I urge Ministers to explore options.
At present, the appraisal system for head teachers varies in its effectiveness and we need to revisit that point. It is odd that the chair of a governing body is not included in the appraisal system. The chair may be consulted and asked for information, but, outside GM schools, he or she plays no role in the appraisal system. If the chair of a governing body is to fulfil his or her job, he or she must be incorporated into the process.
I find it odd that a head teacher can cross off the list heads by whom they do not want to be appraised. Again, that denies the objectivity that we seek in the appraisal system. As we define the new role of the local education authority in the White Paper, we should define more closely the role of the LEA in appraising head teachers and taking the task more seriously. If the LEA is there to raise educational standards, it should play an active role in the appraisal of head teachers.
What do we do about poor head teachers? There are huge difficulties in removing head teachers who are not up to the job. It is difficult to remove them, yet it is easy to destroy the standards in a school if poor head teachers are not removed quickly. The removal of a head is more important than the removal of an individual teacher.
The only way in which a poor head teacher can be removed quickly is if everybody agrees—if the head agrees to go quietly and probably at great expense, if the chair of governors and the governing body agree that the head should go and if the LEA is willing to assist. If those three parties do not agree, it can take not just 18 months but years to remove a head teacher from a school where he or she is not providing excellent leadership. That undermines the school and damages the life choices of

639
a generation of children. I urge Ministers to review that procedure so that we can look, as we have with teachers, at a mechanism that is fair to teachers, but, most important, fair to children and ensures their rights.
The White Paper also deals with education in the early years. I very much welcome the speed with which Ministers have acted on nursery vouchers. I welcome the decision to phase them out and replace them with a nursery place for all four-year-olds. We all know that the nursery voucher scheme has been wasteful and bureaucratic, as we said it would be when we were in opposition. It has led to a cut in the number of places available to young children and to a decline in standards, partly because four-year-olds have been pushed into over-sized reception classes and partly because of the low expectations associated with the desirable outcomes.
I congratulate the Government on moving fast on a number of issues. About 50 to 60 LEAs have already established early years forums and brought in early years development plans. We have already issued guidance so that all LEAs will have an early years development plan for 1998–99, working with the voluntary and private sectors. Despite rumours to the contrary, there will be nursery places for all four-year-olds in 18 months, as promised in our manifesto.
I welcome the introduction of early excellence centres, because those will be the start of our bringing together child care and education, a move which is long overdue in education policy. It is important to do that because 50 per cent. of the intellectual development of a child takes place in those first crucial five years and because the nature of families is changing so fast.
However, if we are to achieve real progress in the early years, the Government need to take some action in the legislation that they will be developing in connection with the White Paper. I urge Ministers to further the integration of child care and education in the forthcoming Bill. We need to legislate to create a unified statutory framework for that integration.
At present, local authorities are required to produce two reports, one for the early years forum, which will give them an early years development plan, and one under the Children Act 1989 for the early years service—one for up to five-year-olds, and one for up to eight-year-olds. Those have different standards and different child-adult ratios, which is a recipe for confusion rather than integration. We need one framework and one Act that will contain a common framework for registration and for inspection, and common standards in terms of child-staff ratios, space, qualifications and other such issues. We must define that carefully to ensure that we maintain, as a social services function, a rigorous and effective framework for the protection of children at risk.
I urge Ministers to take on board the legacy that they have inherited in relation to four-year-olds in schools. Most of those four-year-olds are receiving an inappropriate education in an inappropriate environment, with an inappropriate curriculum.
This is an exciting time in education. It is a time for new thinking and a new approach. It is a time when no holds will be barred in the pursuit of excellence. It is a time for a new partnership to be constructed between parents, children, teachers, schools, LEAs and the
640
Government. It is a time when the nation's children can look forward to educational opportunity of a quality that every parent, employer and politician knows is right and important. I congratulate Ministers on publishing this important White Paper and look forward to the legislation that it will bring in the autumn, in the hope and confidence that it will facilitate in Britain's schools a better future for all our children.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Several hon. Members are trying to catch my eye and if there is some restraint on the length of speeches, I hope that they may all have the opportunity to speak.
12.58 pm
Mr. John Bercow: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for enabling me to contribute to this debate on the most important domestic issue that our country faces in the years ahead.
At the heart of Conservative education thinking was a recognition that giving schools freedom combined with responsibility would lead to improved standards, greater choice and extended accountability of the education service, both to the consumers of the product and to the wider community. In substantial measure, that philosophy worked. The outputs were favourable. The score sheet is positive. My fear is that the consequence of the present White Paper, whatever good intentions may underlie it, will be to drive the process backwards and to reverse the accomplishments of the past 18 years.
In the presence of the Under-Secretary of State, I shall begin on what I hope will be accepted by the House as a genuinely charitable note. In a limited number of important areas, the Labour party at national level has undergone an apostolic conversion. It has moved from hostility to the national curriculum to welcoming it. It opposed league tables, but now supports them. After ridiculing the notion that there was scope for improvement in literacy and numeracy standards, it now embraces the cause of improvement in that sphere. It had an absolutely derogatory attitude towards Ofsted, but now recognises the merits of that body and its important role in education. The Labour party had a palpable disregard for the appalling standards in many teacher training establishments, but it now recognises that the reform of teacher training has to be at the heart of educational advance.
Labour has travelled a long way, at least in terms of establishing a superior rhetoric and that is welcome. In so far as that can be followed through by practical initiatives, by attention to detail, by an understanding of the targets that need to be set and by an appreciation of the ways in which they will be met, the country will applaud the Government. In so far as they are not able to follow through, we shall see that they are exposed as believers only in the theory who cannot grasp the essentials of what is required in practice. At this stage, I acknowledge that there has been some change.
My overall concern about the White Paper spans many elements. There are several problems in the document, the first of which is that at its heart there is an innate contradiction. Ministers have said that they wish to raise standards and that they charge schools with the primary

641
responsibility for achieving that outcome. However, they afford to local education authorities a centrality in the process which many of us believe that the experience of recent years does not warrant. Many of us contend that, given the prevalence of Labour LEAs, the situation is not that they can provide a solution but that they are part of the problem of endemic low standards in many parts of our country. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will address that point as it worries not just Conservative Members but many parents and governors and others with a genuine and continuing interest in the quality of public sector education that we offer.
I have a vested interest in the subject. I cannot comment on the expense incurred in the education of the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) as it is not a subject on which I am an expert, but I say categorically that I have an interest in the quality of state schools because I went to one. I attended a relatively modest comprehensive school in the Finchley constituency of my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher, and I have consistently maintained that I got to university despite, and not because of, my attendance at that school. I had a few outstanding teachers, but there were serious problems in the state-funded service. I am therefore committed to the dramatic enhancement of the quality of the state service upon which, realistically, the vast majority of our children will depend. There is no doubt about my objectives in this matter.
My first concern relates to local education authorities, to which the White Paper proposes to grant more powers. Each school will be obliged to prepare a plan which will be submitted to and be subject to the approval of the LEA. The Minister of State, who is not in his place, took pains to assure us earlier in the debate that the capacity of an LEA to intervene would be limited. He said that there would be benign, harmless intervention, only when it was essential, but he did not persuade Conservative Members because he did not deny that LEAs will be able to challenge the views of schools in their local education plans and interfere in the contents of plans. That rings alarm bells in my head and in those of many other hon. Members. If Ministers are anxious to disprove that point, they must assuage our fears in their response to this debate.
It is simply not true that intervention, as is said in the White Paper, will be in inverse proportion to success. The point was eloquently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) at the outset of the debate, but it bears repetition: successful schools will be obliged to seek the approval of unsuccessful education authorities for the school plans that they have devised. The chronic illogicality of that is so apparent that only an exceptionally clever person could fail to see so simple a point.
Why should the London Oratory school, a school of considerable interest to a number of Labour Members, be obliged to seek the approval of Hammersmith and Fulham education authority—a gold star performer seeking the approval of an authority in the lowest rank of education administrators anywhere in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Brady: Does my hon. Friend agree that the idea is particularly illogical in the case of grant-maintained schools, which were desperate to get away from their LEAs in the first place?
Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful point to which, if he will forgive me, I shall allude further later, because it concerns one of the key differences between Conservative and Labour Members.
Another major concern is that the White Paper will result in more bureaucracy. That is clear beyond peradventure. It is littered with references to plans: school plans, local education authority plans, Department for Education and Employment plans, early years forums plans—plans, plans, plans. I am concerned that the end result will be a profusion of paperwork and a paucity of practical work that is of benefit to the schools that are at the heart of our debate. Clearly, plans involve costs—opportunity, time, staff and governor costs—and parental involvement is required. My anxiety is that we should have a good education service, not a high-quality bureaucracy with jobs for the boys and girls.
I am also concerned that the Department and the Secretary of State will be afforded greater powers that are not justified. A massive centralisation is proposed, involving an unjustified arrogation of new authority to the Secretary of State. It appears on initial inspection that the standards task force is to be largely a talking shop, but there is also to be a standards and effectiveness unit. That rings alarm bells in the heads of Conservative Members, because it is not clear what resources that body will have, how many staff it will employ or to what extent, if at all, it will be able to interfere in individual schools' affairs.
There is a reference to the Government's desire to create a national database with individual identification numbers for every pupil in the country. That worries me, and I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me. It is not clear to me why that amount and specificity of information should be required centrally. That has an Orwellian ring about it and it is not justified in any way. It leaves schools and local education authorities both dependent upon and vulnerable to the whim of the Executive power.
One of the gravest defects of the White Paper is the scant attention paid to the intended treatment of grammar schools and grant-maintained schools. I speak with particular interest in both. I have an excellent grammar school in my Buckingham constituency, the Royal Latin school, where 98 per cent. of the children score grades A to C in five GCSEs. It has a superb head teacher, quality governors, motivated staff and assiduous pupils. That school is achieving and I say to the Under-Secretary of State in all candour that I hope that that it is not the intention of the Government to interfere with or detract from the autonomy of that school. If that is what is intended by the Government—the subject is to be farmed out to some subsequent consultation paper—Ministers will discover that those schools will not lightly give up the freedom or the excellence which they have secured for themselves.
If the Government are genuinely interested in the creation of a new consensus in education they must respect the autonomy of those institutions and appreciate their importance. The same goes for grant-maintained schools. There are a number of extremely competent ones

643
in my constituency, for example, the Waddesdon Church of England school. Since it became grant maintained, it has built a new science block and, to its credit, 58 per cent. of its pupils scored grades A to C in five GCSEs. That is an excellent record. Similarly, Brookmead combined school in the eastern part of my constituency has an excellent record. Since becoming grant maintained, it has built a science block and a swimming pool and has secured excellent results at key stage two. A situation to be admired—72 per cent. of its pupils score to the accepted standard in English, 78 per cent. in mathematics and 81 per cent. in science.
The final example of a grant-maintained school is that of Overstone school, with which I am particularly familiar, and which I have visited. It is an excellent institution with a superb headmaster and an excellent chairman of governors. It, too, has not only improved its facilities since becoming grant maintained, but its pupils have secured far better results than the national average at key stage two—68 per cent. of its pupils score to the accepted standard in English; 66 per cent. in mathematics; and 68 per cent. in science.
The Under-Secretary of State and her colleagues consistently emphasise that their preoccupation is with standards and not with structure. I suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that there is a problem between what they say and what the reality demonstrates. They cannot conceivably be objecting to the standards that those schools are delivering: rather, the objection is to their structure, and it is with their structure that the Government wish and intend to interfere. The Government are talking about replacing them with foundation schools and about fiddling around with the funding formula.
The hon. Member for Barking sniggered and sneered about grant-maintained schools throughout the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). That is not justified. Even changing the name means new notepaper, additional costs, a greater burden and a diversion of time and resources away from the important subject of delivering quality education on to the needless frippery of educational administration. All because of Government decisions. I hope that Ministers will reflect upon that.
I welcome the fact that in the White Paper the Government have embraced the cause of the reform of teacher training. That is to their credit. I hope that it will work effectively in practice. It is, however, worth reminding ourselves of the background to the situation in which we now find ourselves. Within the "psycho-semiotic framework", the shared reading lesson is viewed as an "ideological construct" where events are layed out and children must learn to position themselves in three interlocking contexts. The Under-Secretary of State will be relieved to know that those are not my words, and I do not for one moment suggest that they are hers or those of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister: they are the words spewed forth from the pen of Kimberley, Meek and Miller, three practitioners in teacher training.
It is precisely that sort of unintelligible jargon, combined with growing evidence that a significant minority of children were underperforming in the three Rs, that provoked national alarm at the beginning of the 1990s. The former Secretary of State for Education and
644
Employment, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), responded to that concern. The former Government established the Teacher Training Agency. Earlier this year, she made proposals for a core curriculum for teacher training. It appears that the Government intend to build on that. I welcome that decision, but I regret the delay in implementation of the curriculum.
I strongly counsel Ministers to ensure that the huge number of failing and inadequate Labour local education authorities, which are addicted to the egalitarian nostrums of the trendy teaching of the 1960s, do not get their hands on the process and prevent the use of the most effective methods of teaching, especially of the three Rs, in our schools. If they can implement the proposed reform of teacher training in the way that we would hope, there should be a consensus, which will be welcomed.
Several hon. Members mentioned the debate on class sizes on which I need touch for only a few moments. It seems clear—there has been a signal to that effect—that in Scotland at least, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) recognises that it will not be possible to deliver on reducing class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. Whether that will apply to England and Wales remains to be seen, but it is important that Ministers avoid two pitfalls.
First, we do not want increased central direction of admissions policy, which would mean that individual parental choices are no longer respected. Secondly, and this is especially applicable to hon. Members who serve rural constituencies, we do not want a forced exodus of pupils from popular but often small and overcrowded village schools to urban institutions that neither they nor their parents want. If that is what is afoot, and the Government think that the likely existence of surplus places will allow them to fulfil their general election pledge at the expense of the education opportunities and life chances of many children in rural areas, they are running a big risk.
Several hon. Members discussed the costs of the White Paper. Costs there will be, and I doubt whether they can be met. It is not with that that I want to detain House; that is the Government's responsibility. We wish the Government well in so far as their objectives are to extend standards, improve choice, and bolster accountability—it would be wrong for us not to do so—but we have grave doubts about their capacity in practice to meet their aspirations.
Although the Labour party is currently very jaunty, it would be unwise simultaneously to raise expectations and to put into effect policies that will dash the hopes of large numbers of parents and children. If that happens, the scale of disappointment will be all the greater. The Government must resist that temptation. If they can, the country will benefit; if they cannot, education will suffer and, ultimately, they will suffer the political penalty.
1.18 pm
Mr. Tony McWalter: I shall try to be brief so as to give other hon. Members the chance to speak. In the interests of brevity, I shall resist the temptation to launch an encomium of the White Paper, which I regard as excellent. It is called, "Excellence in schools" and itself makes the point that excellence can still be improved on. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not mind if I mention a couple of things that I believe could improve it.

645
In particular, I should like to draw the attention of the House to two omissions in the White Paper which concern my constituents. The first relates to what might be termed input and the second relates to output.
In respect of input, parents in Hertfordshire do not want their children to go to schools covered by another local education authority, but the education system there is in chaos as a result of the policies of the Conservative Government. When their child is three years old, parents are reduced to begging for a place at a school that is higher up the league table than another school, knowing that it is a feeder school for the secondary school that they want their child eventually to attend. Parents of children aged three and four are engaged in a terrible fight for school places.
As has been said already today, there is no real choice. The parents of children aged four and 10 trek around local schools, trying to make an informed decision about where to send their children, only to find that the number of applicants is sometimes double the number of available places. Many of them turn to the appeals process, which is conducted on the sly by an independent panel, before being told that there is no place for their children at the school of their choice as it was full before the panel met. If they had applied for a place at a popular school, their application falls through the system and large numbers of them feel dumped on.
Many parents who are sufficiently wealthy then say, "A plague on this rotten system—I am going to take my children out of it and pay for them to go to a private school; I will then insulate them from being put into a school that does not meet their educational needs."
The Conservative Government devised a system without much thought or planning. They despised education experts and, as a result, hundreds of parents felt it necessary to pull their children out of the public education system as it did not respond to their needs. The White Paper makes it clear that the system that we have inherited is intolerable and must be changed and that we must seek to provide the resources, encouragement and support that schools require so that the needs of disappointed parents and their neglected children will be met.
My constituents are also concerned about the output of schools. I received a letter from a Roman Catholic priest in my constituency saying that his church is has been repeatedly attacked by youngsters aged 12 or 13 throwing stones at the windows and daubing paint on the building.
Many people feel rightly that parents have a significant responsibility for the unconstrained behaviour of their children. The White Paper makes the point that the way in which children turn out results from a partnership between parents and schools. Many people feel that schools are failing children in that respect. We have to ensure that schools play their part in seeking to change the unacceptable behaviour of their pupils. Some will say that it is a matter for the police, but the problem is not simply that certain kids behave in an unacceptable way which threatens to destroy their welfare and the fabric of their lives; it is that they do not realise that what they are doing is wrong.
That brings me to a very important perspective on the White Paper, in which there is a tiny section on citizenship. Truth to tell, one role that most schools accept is not only to train people in the art of citizenship, but to
646
train them to think about whether what they are doing with their lives or their time is right or wrong. That is not a simple matter: all of us, both inside and outside the House, in our personal lives, are involved in a moral journey to try to improve our understanding of the ethical dimension of life. The White Paper, however, does not specifically address that dimension: it does not ask schools to do something that the national curriculum fails to do, which is to embed into the schooling process an enhancement of moral understanding, so that at the very least if children in the later stages of their school career behave badly—as we all do, from time to time—they will know that they have behaved badly. They will understand what it is to treat others with respect and to have a moral conscience. That matter is not addressed in the White Paper, and nor are many others.
I conclude by pointing out that the form of the paper asks people to make a contribution to the debate and gives a reasonable time scale for doing so. I do not understand why Conservative Members cannot make constructive criticisms when the form and structure of the White Paper encourages such comments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) said, let us try to get a sense of agreement about the direction of policy on schools. Our schools are in a mess, both in terms of structure and, in many cases, in terms of output. We can do better and, with many of the ideas in the White Paper, we will do better.
1.26 pm
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I shall be brief, because I am aware that several hon. Members still wish to speak. In particular, I do not wish to deprive the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) of the opportunity to say a few words, because for many years she has been involved in the provision of education in my constituency.
I planned to begin by saying that, of course, we are all in agreement that education matters and is a very high priority in the political outlook on both sides of the House, but, in noting the number of hon. Members present, it occurs to me that it is a great pity that we are having such an important debate on a Friday. I am sure that many colleagues on both sides of the House would have liked to be present to discuss education, but there are even fewer hon. Members on the Government Benches than on the Opposition Benches. Before you criticise me for my arithmetic, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should say that I was taught proportional fractions at a very early age and I am quite certain that, proportionally, there are more Conservative Members than Labour Members here today.
Mr. David Heath: There are even more of us.
Mrs. Laing: I concede that there are also proportionally more Liberal Democrats than Labour Members here. I am sure that they give high priority to education, as do we all.
In the interests of brevity, I shall confine my remarks to the issue of grant-maintained schools. Some Labour Members have said that the White Paper marks the beginning of a new era of ideas and energy. I am afraid that they are wrong. The ideas and energy in education policy were there throughout the years of Conservative government.

647
One of the most successful policies that we introduced was the introduction of grant-maintained schools, which was welcomed by hundreds of thousands of parents. In the past eight years, the policy has revolutionised the attitudes and achievements of hundreds of schools and thousands of pupils.
The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), who is no longer in the Chamber, criticised people who sit in the corner and say, "No, you can't do this and you can't do that," and take energy away from the provision of education. Grant-maintained schools are one policy through which we brought in energy, but Labour Members said, "No, you can't do that." I remember clearly the Minister for School Standards in another role before he came to the House, trying to stop the setting up of grant-maintained schools in his part of the world at the time, as did others. He did so by such petty actions as stopping the football teams of maintained schools playing against those of grant-maintained schools.
Mr. Bercow: Spite.
Mrs. Laing: I entirely agree. If that is not stopping energy coming in to help education, I do not know what is.
Likewise, we introduced assessment and testing, which are important and which the White Paper welcomes and wants to build on. We shall not forget that if it had not been for our policies and the determination of the Conservative Government, there would be no assessment and testing. Teachers would not be able to tell what a child can do, but also what they cannot do, and have the means to assist a child who needs extra help, which is extremely important.
I want to pay a short tribute to the work of the Grant-Maintained Schools Foundation and, in particular, its chairman, Sir Robert Balchin, who has not had enough recognition for his contribution to the education world in the past eight years. He has given his time and energy in an entirely voluntary capacity, to help improve the education of hundreds of thousands of children.
The White Paper talks about the involvement of parents. Grant-maintained schools were the very engine that involved parents in their children's education. By encouraging them to become involved, to sit on the governing bodies and to choose the direction of their children's school, we were giving all parents—not merely those who could afford to pay for it or those already involved in the teaching profession—involvement in their children's education, and giving them the choice that matters so much.
That is not a side issue. Hon. Members have said that what matters is the way in which the White Paper deals with issues that involve everyone. Of course, that matters, but the minorities matter, too. Children who need extra help, those who are particularly talented, children at grant-maintained schools and those in rural as opposed to urban areas all matter, and it is wrong to look only at the generality and ignore the particular.
What worries my constituents and me most is that the White Paper contains no clear proposal for how grant-maintained schools are to go forward. Parents are very concerned about that. Before it came to government,
648
the Labour party led many of them to believe that they had nothing to fear if they sent their children to grant-maintained schools. Some parents trusted that undertaking, as the result at the ballot box showed us. Their trust on that, as on so many other policies, has been betrayed now that the Labour party is in government.
I want to make three brief points about the way in which grant-maintained schools are treated in the White Paper. The first concerns funding. The White Paper proposes that funding, instead of going directly to grant-maintained schools through the funding agency, should go via local education authorities. As a result, funds will go to bureaucrats, not to children—into offices, not into classrooms.
Bureaucracy is growing again. Instead of concentrating policies on schools and education, we are again talking about who will lay down the rules and what the bureaucrats will do. Power is flowing back to local education authorities and away from parents, teachers and governors.
Non-grant-maintained schools lose about 10 per cent. of their funding to pay for the overheads of local education authorities; grant-maintained schools keep that 10 per cent., but spend only about 5 per cent. of it on overheads and bureaucracy, so they spend the remaining 5 per cent. on providing extra members of staff. Can the Minister give an assurance that schools that are now grant maintained and which may, under the proposals in the White Paper, subsequently be called foundation schools, will be able to keep that 10 per cent? If they lose it, how will he justify the inevitable consequence—that they will make members of staff redundant? Heads and governors of grant-maintained schools want to know that, and that is what matters for the future education of the children in those schools.
My second point is that grant-maintained schools will lose the freedom that has brought them so much success in the past eight years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said. How much time and how many resources will those schools need to devote each year to producing a plan for submission to the local education authority—putting time, energy and funds into bureaucracy, instead of into the education of the children for whom they are responsible?
My third point concerns admissions policy. I do not want to overplay the question of the London Oratory school, but it is an extremely good example.
Mr. Byers: Try using another example.
Mrs. Laing: I defend the right of the Prime Minister and some of his colleagues, as I defend that of thousands of parents throughout the country, to choose which school to send their children to. I shall continue to defend that right, but will the Minister defend it?
Can parents who currently send their children to grant-maintained schools outside their area or who exercise other choices in education, which they were given by our policies, continue to do so? If they have one child in a grant-maintained school outside their area, will parents be able to exercise that choice in future for the child's younger siblings? I believe that the Minister is not listening; perhaps he is not interested in my question. I defend not only the Prime Minister's right to choose,

649
but that of hundreds of thousands of parents throughout the country. It would be interesting to know this afternoon whether parents will continue to have that right.
I have another question to ask about admissions policy. Heads and governors may be quite happy with a class of, let us say, 32 or 33 pupils. Will the LEA or the Department for Education and Employment tell the heads and governors of a grant-maintained school that they may not keep 32 or 33 pupils in a class? I do not believe that the matter will arise in practice, because I do not believe that the funding will be available to produce the additional teachers and classrooms that will be necessary. However, if, in theory, the funding were to become available, would heads and governors be told that two or three children must leave the school because a class contained more than 30 pupils?
It is nonsense to say that the quality of education depends on the number of children in a class. Hon. Members of my generation should think back to their own childhood. I was taught in a class of 40 from the age of five to the age of 10, and there was nothing wrong with the way in which I was taught or what I was taught. Many who were in that class with me have gone on to be extremely bright and high-achieving people. It did them no harm to be taught in a class of 40. There is too much emphasis on such bureaucracy.
The White Paper is full of fine platitudes and vivid pictures. It is full of words such as "crusade", "pledge" and "passion", but it says nothing that will lead to higher standards, apart from the fact that, as I pointed out earlier, there are certain policies that started off as our policies and which have been given different names. They are still the same policies, however, and I do not blame the Government for taking them forward, but I condemn the Government's hypocrisy. For 18 years, they criticised us for doing the very things that they now want to do.
We also see in the White Paper plenty of old Labour—many of the principles that have always been in Labour's education policies. What the White Paper really says is that if all children cannot have the very best of education, no children should have it. That is what it is saying by ignoring parental choice and grant-maintained schools, and by ignoring particular instances and always speaking about the generality.
That is the policy through which the previous Labour Government, under whom many of us were educated, let standards fall. I remember it because that is when I was educated, and so do my hon. Friends, who are agreeing with me. That is the attitude that let standards fall. It is sad that after so many years of achievement, widening of freedom and choice, and lifting of standards for children, the new Labour Government are looking back to those old attitudes.
1.41 pm
Ms Oona King: The White Paper is an attempt to bring a more level playing field to our children. I hesitate to talk about playing fields, however, because in Tower Hamlets in my constituency, not one single school has a playing field, never mind a level one. The disparities at every level in the education system are great and must be overcome. That is what the White Paper sets out to do.
My mother was a teacher who taught in inner London for more than 20 years. She often lamented the fact that many children arrive at school unteachable. We have
650
heard much talk about fitting school leavers for society, but less talk of making our society fit to educate our children.
William Blake's dictum that we become what we behold is as probable as it is chilling. That is why we must acknowledge that responsibility for education goes beyond the school gates—and, indeed, beyond the front door. Heaping all the blame on the education system, as Conservative Members often do, is analogous to blaming the current deficit in the water supply on that liquid's malicious tendency to find its own level, rather than on the water companies' failure to mend their own pipes.
I applaud the Government's commitment to raising educational aspirations and to placing education at the heart of society's agenda. My generation wants training and high-quality education to equip us for the skills revolution that is already taking place. The rate and the speed of change is phenomenal. My generation has the weight of history on our shoulders and the light of the next millennium in our eyes, but we need the force and the strength of government behind us. That is why I am grateful to the Government for putting education at the top of the agenda. Let us make no mistake: we can deliver for Britain only if Britain delivers for us. That means an education system for the many, not the few, which involves the many, not the few.
That is what we have done in Tower Hamlets: we have reached out to a wide range of companies and City institutions and to families and parents, because we realise that it is everyone's responsibility. Improvements can be seen everywhere in my constituency in terms of staying-on rates, the number of children passing examinations, nursery education and school attendance rates. The number of 16-year-olds with five or more GCSEs has trebled in Tower Hamlets since 1989. We also have the highest level of nursery provision of any London borough.
We are doing what we can, but it is unfair that we must still battle against the vagaries of inner-city deprivation that set back so many of our children. I have some experience of the difficulties facing children in those schools, because I am the only Member present in the Chamber who endured the Thatcherite experiment in education in the mid-1980s. You—I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker—Conservative Members have talked about how wonderful that experiment was. I suffered through it. My school saw class sizes increase and teacher numbers cut. I could choose from a diminished number of subjects. It is no good Conservative Members telling me that that did not affect my education—it did. I believe that you—if I do that once more, I am sure that I shall receive a severe reprimand. You are being exceptionally indulgent, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am most grateful.
My point is that my state comprehensive gave me a good education in spite of—not because of—the Government's actions at the time. That is why we must bolster and modernise the comprehensive principle. That is exactly what the White Paper does: it sets the goal of raising standards for everyone, which means equal opportunities for everyone. That brings me back to the question of level playing fields, or lack thereof.
It costs more to deliver education in Tower Hamlets. For example, the children in our classrooms speak 79 different languages, and a large proportion speak English as a second

651
language. Can we imagine teachers in Surrey having to deal with those problems? No, we cannot, because they do not. One in three children in my constituency come from a family where no one is in work. There is no culture of learning, which makes it more difficult for teachers.
This White Paper will find the political will to bring excellence to all our schools. I have learnt one lesson from my more senior colleagues. Most hon. Members on both sides of the House begin each 20-minute speech by declaring their sincere intention to be brief. I, too, shall be brief. I conclude by quoting the 19th-century French historian, Jules Michelet. In 1846, he said:
"What is the first part of politics? Education. What is the second? Education. And the third? Education."
I am delighted that, 150 years later, this White Paper is putting those ideas into practice.
1.48 pm
Mr. David Heath: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), not only for being my Member of Parliament in London but for meaning it when she said that she would be brief.
I intend to be rather positive about the White Paper throughout, but I start with a note that is a little less positive. I received a letter yesterday from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, which in normal circumstances would have been extremely welcome, but in this circumstance suggests that perhaps he has a sense of irony that I had not suspected, because he invited me last night to go to the Department to talk about the future of education in my constituency.
I had to reply to the right hon. Gentleman to say that I was afraid that I could not do so, because I would be in the Chamber discussing the capping order for Somerset, which will result in the loss of 90 teachers and in our class sizes going up, and will do immense damage to the education of children in Somerset. I speak with some passion about this, as a former leader of Somerset county council and former chairman of education in Somerset, and, indeed, having children now in Somerset schools. It seems an odd way to start the Government's mission to improve education standards, that their first executive action is to cut education in Somerset and thereby maintain the eighth year of real-terms cuts in the education service in the county.
That is the negative point. Now I move to the positive, because there is much in the White Paper to be commended. Indeed, much of it picks up points that came from people in my own area, when we launched a little consultation exercise in Somerset last year, which we called—not very imaginatively—2000 and beyond. It sought to put the local education authority in the context of the new millennium, and to look at what was happening in our schools, at people's aspirations for the education service in Somerset and at how we could meet those aspirations and find better ways of providing an education service.
Much of what is highlighted in the White Paper picks up on themes that were suggested in that consultation process. We heard the notion expressed this afternoon that class sizes do not matter. I have to say that they do. Of course, it is possible to have good teaching in a large
652
class, just as it is possible to have poor teaching in a small class, but, on the whole, smaller class sizes mean more attention for the individual child and a better standard of teaching.
To bring down class sizes, a variety of measures will need to be taken—not just revenue should be available to employ teachers, but capital should be available to provide classrooms. That is a big problem in much of the country. In Somerset, we currently have 900 temporary classrooms, which is a ridiculous state of affairs. No one would run a commercial estate in that way, yet that is what Somerset is required to do. The capital that is needed to provide smaller classes and high-quality teaching is an essential element.
There is a call to address better the issues of citizenship, parenting and life skills. Those points came from parents, teachers and other people who are interested. The dissemination of good practice is another vital point. So often we seem to find LEAs and individual schools busy developing their own theory and practice without exchanging ideas and best practice. Surely the Department and LEAs play a vital role in ensuring that good practice is disseminated more freely.
I was so pleased to hear a Minister say a good word about teachers. It has been a long time coming in recent years. Teachers, by and large—with a few exceptions, of course—do an excellent job. Unless we say that every now and again, it will be hard to maintain the morale that is so essential if we are to have excellence in our teaching community.
I am pleased to see the progress—although, as I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), it is limited—that is being made on early years education. Like many other people, I am convinced from my own experience that the quality of early years education is essential to the rest of the educative process. We must put the investment in at that point—but properly, not through the voucher scheme, which not only failed to create a single extra place for four-year-olds in Somerset, but put into reverse the existing process of providing specialist nursery classes. If we can provide quality nursery education, we shall be making the investment that this country so desperately needs.
I am pleased to see that there is to be some reinforcement of the role of local education authorities. I believe that they have an important role to play, not in terms of controlling and managing what happens in schools, but in providing quality assurance, support and advocacy not only for the process of education, important though that is, but for the individual child within the school. That is the role of the LEA, and that is what good local education authorities are already doing. Let us see that buttressed by Government support.
I was pleased to hear so many hon. Members on both sides of the House warn against complacency in our schools. The Minister for School Standards concentrated on that in his speech. Standards must be raised in all schools, however well they may be achieving already.
It is easy to identify failing schools and to say that those are the ones that need the attention. However, it is more difficult to tell a school that is doing well—a school that may have a predominantly middle-class clientele and sail through its Ofsted inspection with a satisfactory report—"You, too, should be doing better, because, with the assets and skills that you have, you could get more out of each individual child." It is essential that that should happen.

653
I hope that the Minister will take proper account of the Audit Commission report, "Trading Places", in whose production I played a part, as I was member of the Audit Commission at the time. The policy gridlock described in the report is still in place and I see nothing in the White Paper to remove it. Indeed, there is a possibility that the reduction of class sizes will make things worse by adding to that gridlock. I do not know quite how one adds to a gridlock—perhaps by putting roadworks in the way. None the less, there is an added dimension there, which Ministers need to address.
I shall finish soon, because I am aware that the time is approaching when the debate must be summed up, but first I should like to say a word about education in rural areas—a topic which touches on some of the points made by, among others, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench.
Much of what we see in education policy, as in so many other areas of social policy in recent years, is based on a suburban model, which assumes that there is a choice of schools within easy walking distance and that there is social interaction between different education communities. It also assumes that unit costs are largely comparable across the whole of a local education authority's area and that transport costs are not a major element within an authority's costings.
In rural areas, none of those assumptions applies. In rural areas, we have what are effectively monopoly suppliers, in the form of secondary schools that may cover a hinterland with a radius of 10 or 15 miles. That means that there is no easy option, no easy choice.
Specialist provision is more difficult, too. We have small village schools, which I value enormously both in Somerset and elsewhere, because small schools are often excellent. None the less, they have their own problems. Small secondary schools serving areas of low population have their problems too, especially for the sixth form. How are they to provide the width of curriculum adequately to cater for the education of their children? That is an area in which IT may play an additional part. The introduction of extensive IT could help provide children with a wider range of curricular experience and opportunity. As of yet, that opportunity is not available.
In rural areas, transport becomes a significant factor and we pay an awful lot to bus children around. It is a growing and hardly a marginal cost in rural education. Capital provision is more difficult in rural areas and reliance on the private finance initiative will not be the answer. As we have discovered to our cost, trying to arrange a suitable package for the PFI in a rural area is extremely difficult. Special needs teaching becomes more difficult. The number of children who are available for social interaction is another difficulty, and unit costs are higher.
All those matters need to be addressed, so that we have excellence in education right across the country. The rural areas must not be forgotten in the equation.
2 pm
Mrs. Browning: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I promise to be brief in my summary, as I have already had one opportunity to outline the fact that the Opposition support some of the measures in the White Paper and to flag up our concerns.
654
One point that has come up many times in the debate—I hope that the Minister will take this comment in the spirit in which it is meant—is that there is still worry about the detail. Labour Members also mentioned that. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), for example, mentioned that head teachers in his constituency had said that they wanted the details of many of the White Paper proposals.
The point was best summed up by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) who suggested to the Government that putting in more of the detail by consulting before producing the White Paper would have allayed many of the worries and would have enabled Ministers to come to the House with more detail and more answers to the many questions that the White Paper raises.
Many points were raised about particular concerns, one of which was admissions. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham explained how admissions procedures affected his constituency. He referred to educational refugees from London boroughs. I hope that the Minister will take on board the point that, in many cases, schools that have gained a good reputation have done so because people have been concerned about education in their local schools and have preferred their children to travel some distance out of the London boroughs to have access to what they consider to be a suitable education, whether because of the school's standards or because they want to exercise a preference in terms of religious denomination.
I was particularly concerned to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) speak of the worries of parents who can at present access an education for their children in a Catholic environment, but who see that option under threat. That is not the only example of the worries of parents who are currently able to access Catholic schools. As the Minister will know, because I have raised the matter on the Floor of the House, we have had a similar problem in Exeter. I have had correspondence from parents in Merseyside about a forthcoming problem with maintaining an option for education in a Catholic school. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West was speaking not only about his own concerns, but about concerns being raised around the country about what will happen if parents are denied their choice of school, especially when that choice is based not on standards alone, but on religious denomination.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) raised clearly the problems of existing grammar schools and grant-maintained schools. He also asked about the future role of LEAs, which I raised in my introductory remarks. If LEAs are to take on more powers and more responsibilities, we should like to have full details. When the Under-Secretary replies, she may be able to tell us what will be the power of the LEAs if they are to have control over or to scrutinise the plans of individual schools.
Will the powers be advisory, or statutory—which would enable LEAs to overturn specific details in a school's plan? Rightly, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham raised the concerns of both grammar and GM schools about what might happen to them when the LEA has control of scrutinising or even overturning those plans.

655
Equally, my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) outlined her concerns in relation to GM schools. I know that Labour Members have castigated Conservative Members for daring even to mention grammar schools and GM schools. Of course, they are not the only schools, but, at the moment, they appear to be the only ones under threat, and parents and pupils are worried—I return to that word "worry". The White Paper has worried many people. If they are worried unnecessarily, the Minister will have an opportunity to allay those fears. We would welcome that.
Various Labour Members criticised me and my colleagues for not participating in this spirit of partnership and co-operation. That is not true. We have been straightforward about the parts of the White Paper that we support and will continue to support, but, again, one of the issues that worry people, as has been demonstrated in the debate, is where the additional funding will come from, particularly the additional funding that will evidently be required by LEAs to carry out all the new responsibilities that the White Paper will empower them to carry out.
I invite the Minister, in a spirit of co-operation, to participate in some partnership with Conservative Members. I am aware that the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who is not here today because he is speaking at an education conference, is writing to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions inviting him to announce immediately what the education part of the standard spending assessment for LEAs will be for the next financial year.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that there will be additional funding on top of the funding that was already stated in the Red Book. Therefore, there is no need to delay announcing what LEAs will have in their budget for the next financial year. If the Chancellor is as good as his word, that detailed information could be given to them now, so that we could allay the concerns of teachers and governing bodies. They have, of course, welcomed the fact that the Government have announced more education expenditure for the next financial year, but the big question is how much of it will be held back by LEAs to perform their own duties and exactly how much of it will go into the classroom. That question applies also to the amount of additional money that the Chancellor has earmarked for capital expenditure for the repair and maintenance of schools.
Now that the funding has been put into the public domain, there does not seem to be any reason why the Government cannot inform each LEA what its budget will be for next year, so that it can start to inform schools exactly what their budget will be next year. Otherwise, I fear, we shall have yet another few months of more worry, more fear and more uncertainty for teachers and governing bodies. There is an opportunity for the Minister, in partnership with the Opposition, to persuade the Chancellor to make that information available as quickly as possible.
2.8 pm
The Parliamentary Under—Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the
656
debate. The White Paper contains our plans for this Parliament and, I hope, beyond and we welcome contributions, from whichever quarter they come. Many of them have been good. I acknowledge that many Opposition Members have welcomed aspects of the White Paper and, rightly, been critical of other parts. That is their role in the House and outside, but I welcome the spirit in which many of them have come to the House: with a concern for education and children and a willingness to look at the White Paper. That is the feeling that we want to create over the consultation period. The White Paper sets out our ambitions for education, and describes the policies that will help to realise those ambitions. By proposing to engage in the widest possible consultation, we have acknowledged that the only way in which we can ever get it right is by using the energies, ideas and commitment of all partners in the education service, no matter what their political background.
As well as writing to every school, asking teachers to consider the White Paper, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has invited schools to hold meetings with parents to make sure that they are fully aware of the Government's wishes and are fully involved in contributing to what I hope will be a national debate.
We recognise the important role of governors. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) praised the new role of governors and rightly reminded us that they have many responsibilities. Although I heard what he said, I am afraid that we have put a further burden on them because the Secretary of State has asked that they, too, should meet to discuss the White Paper. We acknowledge the work currently done by governors. When the relationship between the governing body and the school is right, it is a tower of strength for the good of the children. When it is not right and when governors feel that they are burdened down with paperwork, it is a matter for concern. Governors play a special role in our education service and I hope that they will comment on the White Paper.
Ministers and officials in the Department have already started to present the White Paper's ideas at events throughout the country. After people have had time to read it and think about its ideas—over the summer holidays, if they have nothing else to do—we plan to hold several regional conferences in September at which I and fellow Ministers will be present to listen and discuss further.
I hope that if local consultations take place, hon. Members will want to take part in them. I am sure that even hon. Members who do not belong to the Labour party will want to listen to teachers, parents, governors, industry and employers in their areas. We shall treat comments from them in the same spirit of partnership and hope for the education service as comments from my hon. Friends. We shall use the results of the consultation to build on the White Paper's proposals, and the legislation that we shall need to implement some of those proposals will be formulated in the light of consultation responses. However, there are actions that we can take without legislation that will allow us to act quickly and effectively in focusing on some of our priorities.
I should like to go into greater detail on an aspect of the White Paper that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) and, I think in my absence, for which I apologise, by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). I shall respond to some of the issues

657
that they raised. They spoke about early years education. We must get that right. It is no coincidence that we lag behind some of our major competitors in terms of the percentage of children who receive early years education and in the percentage of our young people who gain external education qualifications.
The evidence about the importance of a child's early years is clear and has been there for some time. Despite that, for 17 years the Conservatives failed to do anything to promote good quality early years education. What action they did take, they got badly wrong. I should have preferred them to carry on doing nothing, but what they did resulted in the mess that we have picked up. Answering the needs of young children and their families is not done by leaving them to the market or by setting up expensive bureaucracies. The nursery voucher scheme wasted millions on bureaucracy and advertising, and resulted in providers competing for children, and parents scrabbling for places.
Pre-school facilities in some of the pilot authorities closed down and, throughout the experience, there was no evidence that a single extra place was created for three and four-year-olds. To put matters right, an essential first step was to abolish the nursery vouchers scheme, and that is what we have done.
The White Paper outlines what we will do next. The world has changed since the previous expansion of nursery education, which was as long ago as the 1950s and 1960s. The traditional nursery provision of half a day a week is no longer suitable for many parents, who have to or choose to work.
When my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards opened the debate, he said that investment in learning in the 21st century was the equivalent of investment in the machinery and technical innovation that were essential to the first industrial revolution. That is why the highest quality of education must remain at the centre of our early years programme and why the White Paper says that staff training and qualifications for early years providers, as well as ensuring that a qualified teacher is involved in each early years setting, is a matter of importance on which we want to seek views in the next few weeks.
Our early years service must support families as well as children. We must begin to try to bring together day care and early years education to create an integrated early years provision. I readily accept—perhaps this is the worry factor that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) referred to—that there is much in the White Paper that is ambitious and sets high standards.
If we are to achieve those standards, we must have a new approach, based on collaboration, partnership and accountability. That is why each local authority, together with local private and voluntary providers, will set up an early years forum to plan—yes, to plan—the provision of local education and child care.
The forum will need to represent all who have an interest in early years education, including employers, health workers and parents. Our plans for early years aim high and are, quite honestly, more far reaching than those of any previous Government, but we can demand no less if we are to do the best for the next generation of children.
To deliver our pledges, we must bring together all the providers, from whatever background, and all the skills and interests that are involved. I want to reassure hon.
658
Members, especially Conservative Members, that no providers from any sector—from the private or the voluntary sector—need fear being squeezed out in our approach to planning early years provision, as long as they offer the quality that we are looking for.
When the early years development plans come to the Department for approval, as happened with the 79 interim early years development plans that we announced on Monday, we will be looking for evidence of that partnership and that consultation. No interim plan was approved that did not make it clear that it involved in its partnership all those providers, in the voluntary and private sectors as well as the public sector, that had been in receipt of what I call voucher-bearing children.
That is a sign of our intent. It is not about squeezing out, but about planning and working together so that we do not have provider competing with provider for a child to come through its doors. I make no apology for planning in that respect; it is in the interests of the children whom we seek to serve.
I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Bath about some of the four-year-olds in reception classes, but I would not say that it is always wrong for four-year-olds to be in a reception class. We must ensure that their experience there is appropriate to both their age and their stage of development.
I want to approve plans not on the provider's label but on the quality of provision. We would not approve the plans of any local authority that seeks to meet our demand for places for four-year-olds by hoovering them all up into reception classes, regardless of the quality of their education. Early years development plans that offer nothing more than that will be sent back rather than financed. The 79 that I have looked at in the past two weeks did not do so; they reveal a spirit of partnership and the desire to get early years plans right.
Perhaps I should apologise for spending more time on this issue than on others, but, for the first time in our history, we could be about to tackle the real issue that could help our under-eights—I choose that year advisedly because the early years continuum does not stop at the age of five.
There are three things that we should try do. We should try to get the quality of education right for our young children to give them the best start. We should support parents in the difficult task of parenting so that we can renew communities. We should support parents who want to work. If we do those things, we will do an awful lot not just to improve the quality of our education service but to help re-establish the fabric of our communities and meet the hopes and aspirations of many parents for their children and their own working intentions.
Mr. Brady: I have a particular interest in the subject, as the father of a four-year-old daughter and as one of the beneficiaries of the nursery voucher scheme. I thought that it was excellent, as did the other parents who send their children to my daughter's private nursery. I am slightly baffled by the Minister's remarks. If the only plans that are to be approved are those that include the private providers who have been involved in the nursery voucher scheme, can the Minister explain the precise difference between a voucher scheme and a certificate of entitlement scheme?
Ms Morris: It is true that, in the interim plans for this year, we do not want to disrupt children's education.

659
Those who are in nurseries this term in the private and voluntary sectors on the voucher scheme, as the hon. Gentleman's daughter may be, will be able to continue as such if they are still attending the nursery in the autumn and spring terms.
One of the vagaries of the voucher scheme was the fact that 80 per cent. of children were in maintained provision. Their parents found that they had to give a voucher over for an education which previously they had just turned up at the school to receive. There was no justification for that. For those 80 per cent. in the maintained sector there will be no vouchers, no paperwork, no bureaucracy and no time, money and effort wasted. Within a year, we will be able to make sure that that is true for all children because we will have a development plan in every local authority area.
We accept that we gave local authorities just six weeks to prepare their interim plans. We did not want them to do that badly and to start off on the wrong foot. If there is an interim plan, the problem has been solved because the money will go straight to the voluntary and private-sector providers. In those areas that do not submit an interim plan, and because we want to honour our pledge of continuity of education for four-year-olds, we must have a short-term mechanism to operate until the next year when they have such plans. That will ensure that the money gets to the private and voluntary sectors. That is where the certificate of eligibility comes in; it is a short-term solution to a short-term problem and is not part of our long-term plans.
In the time available, I will be unable to answer all the points that have been raised today, so I will endeavour to respond by letter to those that I fail to mention. A number of hon. Members spoke about the notion of equality. If there is one thing that splits the Conservative and Labour parties—I am sure that the Liberal Democrats are with us, although they might sit on the fence—it is what equality means.
I have never thought that all children are the same, that they will reach the same standard of attainment or that they have the same skills or knowledge, but I have always been opposed to a structure that does not offer them equality of opportunity. That is what we are about. We want to try to create a structure—in this sense structure is important—to make sure that there is equality of opportunity. This country has never managed to achieve that. Historically, we had a structure that gave opportunity to the wealthy, and then one that gave opportunities only to males; it would have ignored me and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton.
When I was at school, in a highly selective system, the structure valued some children more than others by having better qualified teachers in grammar schools than in secondary moderns and by not allowing children who failed at 11 to take examinations at 15. That is a thing of the past, but even in the structure set up by the previous Government, there was unfair funding in the grant-maintained sector and a belief that we needed only some children to succeed to survive as a nation. We want a structure that ensures equality of opportunity for every child, but we acknowledge that every child will achieve to different levels and show different skills and talents.
660
We received some criticism from the Opposition about targets, which are crucial to the work that we want to do. I go back to a comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking, which was supported by the Liberals. She said that part of the problem in the education system is the complacency of schools that are doing just about all right. They languish in the middle of the league tables; they manage by getting kids through their doors and churning out enough to get reasonable reputations in their communities. We must target our wish for improvement on them as much as on our best and worst schools. The only way to do that is to make schools set targets year on year, so that, each year, they aim to surpass their previous standards. There probably is a limit to the height that a school can reach, but that glass ceiling is always higher than the school thinks. Targets must notch standards up year after year.
Mr. Bercow: We do not tackle the problem of failing to meet targets by levelling down and treading on institutions that are already doing well. Nothing in the Minister's speech so far has allayed my concern about the Government's likely treatment of grant-maintained schools, of which the Minister for School Standards is a long-time sworn enemy. Is there the slightest prospect that she will say something to allay my grievances?
Ms Morris: I shall first continue to discuss targets. I cannot imagine how anyone could have interpreted what I have described as levelling down. It is about notching up. Local education authorities are important in target setting. Schools run, and are responsible for, themselves. They carry the burden of raising standards. The very fact that there are so many complacent schools means that we need a mechanism, a voice over the shoulder to say, "Come on, that target is not good enough."
Schools are setting targets that are too low. We have to make them set higher targets if we are to rock them out of their complacency. The role of a good adviser and of good local authorities is to do that and give schools benchmark information. To answer the hon. Member for Bath, that is why it is important that the information collected by Ofsted is made available to all concerned to notch up expectations. Unless we all, central Government and local authorities, work together to persuade schools that they can do better, we will not make it. The Opposition call that centralisation; we call it harnessing the forces for school improvement. Through our standards and effectiveness unit and the standards task force that is what we seek to do.
I value the standards and effectiveness unit and the standards task force highly because they are not there as a bureaucracy but as a bridge between central policy making and the schools that are delivering the goods to ensure that never again will a Government Department become so removed from the people affected by its decisions. We will form policy by listening to what is said out there. The standards and effectiveness unit has one leg in central Government, but a fair bit of the rest of its body out there with real schools, pupils and teachers.
There are some excellent grant-maintained schools. Long may they continue to be so. There are some excellent local authority schools, but there has been

661
unfair provision in terms of both capital and revenue. It was interesting that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) talked about the problem of admissions caused by people coming over the border into his area.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) was concerned to ensure that his children could attend a school in another local authority area. There are problems involving admissions that need to be addressed. They were caused by the fact that individual schools were allowed to make separate decisions.
I shall address in due course other issues that have been raised in the debate. I thank hon. Members for contributing to the debate, which will be the first of many. Now is the time for us to join in a common agenda of raising standards. If Parliament and politicians do no more than attempt to give each child in every school the best possible education, we will have achieved a fair deal for children, parents and employers.
Mr. Greg Pope: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

DOMESTIC COMMITTEES
Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 142 (Domestic Committees) be amended, in line 9, by leaving out the word 'seven' and inserting the word 'nine'.—[Mr. Pope.]

FINANCE AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 144 (Finance and Services Committee) be amended, in line 18, by leaving out the word 'nine' and inserting the word 'eleven'.—[Mr. Pope.]

MINISTERIAL AND OTHER SALARIES BILL
Ordered,
That, in respect of the Ministerial and other Salaries Bill,—
(1) notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time; and
(2) if the Bill is committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed; and that, as soon as the proceedings on any Resolution come to by the House on Ministerial and other Salaries Bill [Money] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. Pope.]

LAW OFFICERS BILL [LORDS]
Ordered,
That in respect of the Law Officers Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Pope.]

Area Cost Adjustment
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that is of great importance to my constituents and to other hon. Members. My predecessor in the House, Sir Anthony Grant, raised the issue in the House with Ministers on several occasions and I pay tribute to his efforts in that regard. At the time of the last revenue support grant allocation, he received positive indication that action would follow from the Elliott review of the area cost adjustment. I now wish to encourage Ministers to grasp the nettle and implement the review.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I explain briefly why the review was needed and why it should now be implemented. It is generally agreed that the standard spending assessment system needs to adjust for unavoidable, externally generated—that is, external to the management of the local authority—differences in cost between different parts of the country. The area cost adjustment within the SSA formula is intended to adjust for differences in employment costs, reflecting real differences between earnings in different areas. However, in effect the current system assumes that there are no differences in cost between local authorities outside the boundaries of London and the south-east. Within London and the south-east, differentials are allowed in three broad areas—inner London, outer London and the south-east counties.
The present system has led to substantial differences in SSA and, hence, in revenue support grants between authorities. Those differences are insupportable in relation to the relative costs in those areas. Those "cliff-edges" between authorities create enormous discontent. The Elliott review team pointed out that
"a particularly strong criticism of the present arrangements was the phenomenon of 'cliff-edges' whereby adjoining authorities, which were perceived to have similar labour markets with comparable cost levels, received markedly different labour cost adjustments."
To those who live in Cambridgeshire, especially South Cambridgeshire, the proposition that local labour market costs are higher in Bedfordshire than Cambridgeshire is obvious nonsense.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) was Minister with responsibility for local government, he rightly commissioned Professor Elliott and his review team to look again at the area cost adjustment. The Elliott review concluded that regional pay premiums could be identified using labour force survey data adjusted for factors such as education, qualifications and the industrial or occupational make-up of an area and that this could be disaggregated down to county level outside London.
The approach that the Elliott review advocates, known as the general labour market approach, is based on the proposition that local authorities compete for staff in the general labour market. That is intuitively right and is supported by evidence that was adduced by the Elliott review that pointed to ways in which authorities used the flexibility in national pay scales to adjust to local labour market conditions or accepted differences in employee qualifications and tenure in order to make such adjustments.
664
On 27 November last year, the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), acknowledged that the review was
"the most comprehensive examination of the subject that has been undertaken".—[Official Report, 27 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 339.]
He accepted that further technical work was required before the review could be implemented. On 3 February this year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon reinforced the then Government's intention of proceeding towards a workable mechanism to be included in the standard spending assessment as soon as possible.
Two elements of further research are under way. One deals with obtaining labour force survey data for the relevant base year. That should be technically achievable, either directly or by close comparators. The second element, concerning the geographical definitions used for these purposes, is the more significant in policy terms. Although there is every reason in equity to pursue a solution at district level—for example, within the current county boundaries of Cambridgeshire, to assume that labour costs are higher in south Cambridgeshire than in Peterborough—implementation of geographical definitions down to district level should not be used to hold up implementation of a more workable solution at county level.
One piece of research not being undertaken is the question of the interaction of national pay scales—for example, for police or teachers—and local labour market conditions. It may be that the adjustment in costs and quality is not so great as the general labour market approach implies and may not go as far as if no national pay scales existed. Therefore, there may be some differences between authority costs where national pay scales apply, just as there would be in an open labour market in which no national pay scales applied. However, that a substantial adjustment towards local labour market conditions is undertaken by authorities is undeniable. That can be seen in the way in which, within national pay scales, staff move between authorities, and in the way in which certain bodies such as teachers' employers have to employ more junior staff or release more expensive teachers. Interestingly, the national health service revenue resource allocation system has an equivalent to area costs, which is adjusted for national pay scales. Even if there were to be some subjective abatement of the result from the general labour market approach advocated by the Elliott review, that is again not something which should prevent the acceptance and implementation of the review more generally.
That brings me to the current position. In May, the Minister for Local Government and Housing courteously met an all-party delegation from Cambridgeshire, but was not then in a position to offer any specific assurances. I hope that, in reply to this debate, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), will be willing to say more and put on record the Government's intention to implement the review in time for the next financial year. That would simply be to give effect to the commitment made on 30 April 1997 by the current Prime Minister when he was still Leader of the Opposition. When asked by the Cambridge Evening News whether he would reform the area cost adjustment, he replied:
"We will review the Area Cost Adjustment in time for the next financial year."

665
In relation to Cambridgeshire, he added:
"Changes in line with the recent Elliott review would bring the county an extra £10 million."
Moreover, it is not only Cambridgeshire that would benefit, but many other authorities that have not received the grant support that they deserve.
Mr. Edward Davey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the borough in which my constituency lies would benefit significantly from the Elliott review? Indeed, it would benefit by £2.7 million under one of the geographical proposals put forward by the review. Although he has been advancing the case in favour of the counties, many outer London boroughs such as Kingston-upon-Thames are manifestly prejudiced by the current area cost adjustment.
Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Indeed, I was about to refer to it. Even in the outer London borough of Hillingdon, which is a beneficiary of the current area cost adjustment as it falls within the London area, implementation of the Elliott review, which would mean labour costs could be disaggregated to a lower level, would add £5 million to the SSA. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that part of the argument is that there should be such adjustments and that the present area cost adjustment does not take that into account.
Other authorities would lose out. It is often said that this is a zero-sum game, but that is no reason to do nothing. There is every point in getting on with this. The standard spending assessment system is intended to evaluate the cost of providing a given level of service and enabling grant to be distributed to equate that to a standard council tax level. If the SSA is not accurate in measuring the costs falling on an authority, it will be wrong; hence the grant received will be inadequate to maintain that given level of service.
It is no surprise, therefore, that Cambridgeshire has to spend over its SSA and has done continuously over the years, but struggles to maintain service levels. As the SSA underestimates the real cost of providing services in Cambridgeshire, those services are under pressure. It is right and necessary, therefore, to implement those changes. Not to do so is justice delayed, and justice delayed is justice denied.
I hope that the Local Government Association will have regard to our debate and support my proposal. Before the election, Ministers were inhibited from proceeding with the Elliott review not only because of the need for further technical work, but because local authority associations disagreed—two were convinced by the methodology of the review and two expressed themselves unconvinced. Having created a single voice for local government within which the issues can be resolved, it is important that the Local Government Association looks beyond the parochial interests of given sets of authorities to what is an obvious fairness in the system, which is to make the SSA and the area cost adjustment within it, more equitable in the treatment of labour costs.
I also hope that the Minister will today give us a commitment to implementing the review and will respond positively to my argument. I am grateful to the House for this opportunity to make the case for a fair deal for Cambridgeshire.
Mr. Graham Brady rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. For the hon. Gentleman to intervene in an Adjournment
666
debate, he has to have the permission of the mover of the motion and the Minister. If he does not have that permission, I must call the Minister.
2.41 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) for raising this important subject and I congratulate him on his good fortune in securing the debate.
The area cost adjustment is an important part of the standard spending assessment. The Government are committed to a fair distribution of Government grant and we want to ensure that we have an area cost adjustment mechanism that works correctly.
I realise that issues connected with local government are of particular importance in Cambridgeshire at the moment as the county prepares for local government reorganisation. My Department has recently published indicative SSA figures for all reorganising local authorities, which should help Cambridgeshire county council and the new Peterborough unitary council in their planning.
Before I discuss the area cost adjustment, I must remind the House of some of our other actions on local government finance issues. In that area, as in so many others, we are pressing ahead with important changes to honour our commitments.
First, on local government spending, if we are to have high-quality local services, local government needs adequate resources. The previous Government left plans for total local government standard spending that were inadequate. We have responded to that challenge.
In the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that an additional £835 million would be taken from the contingency reserve for 1998–99 and passed on to English local government in education SSAs. That is a huge boost to local government and to education. It has been achieved within the overall spending plans left to us by the previous Government. I trust that local government will make the best possible use of those extra resources.
We also recognise that capital spending is needed as well, and £1.3 billion from the welfare-to-work programme will be spent on improving school buildings and equipment during this Parliament. At present, we are legislating to clarify local authority powers to enter into public-private partnerships and we are enabling local government to use nearly £800 million of additional resources for housing in England, through the Government's capital receipts initiative. Those initiatives will ensure that local government has the financial resources required, this year and next, to provide local services—especially education—to the high standard that we all expect.
In central-local government relations, we intend to forge a new relationship with local government. We have signed the Council of Europe's charter on local self-government. That is a pledge of our commitment to forge a new and constructive partnership with local government at home.
Local government has a central role to play in tackling many of the problems of local communities that we want to overcome. We recognise and believe in the importance

667
of local government as an independent democratic institution. We want to reinvigorate local government in ways that encourage increased democracy, giving local people the chance to have more of a say in the affairs of their council; ways that encourage increased autonomy, giving authorities more freedom to take their own decisions; ways that encourage increased accountability, making elected representatives more visibly accountable for their actions; and ways that encourage increased partnership between central and local government and among local authorities and people, businesses and other groups in their area.
The Government are committed to building a new relationship between central and local government and to genuine co-operation and partnership. That was demonstrated on the morning of Wednesday 16 July 1997, at the first central-local partnerships meeting, at which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, six of his Cabinet colleagues and many Ministers—including me—met local government leaders for a wide-ranging and wholly positive discussion on several concerns and major issues involving local government.
The Government as a whole are committed to creating that spirit of partnership, and Ministers throughout Whitehall are involving local authorities in discussions on their policies and recognising the important role that they can play in helping to deliver the Government's programme.
I shall now discuss standard spending assessments. In our manifesto, we recognised that the changes in relationships that we envisage could not take place without changes to the local government finance system. We have set ourselves a challenging programme, on which we are making progress.
As part of that programme, we are examining standard spending assessments in the light of our commitment to a fair distribution of Government grant between local authorities. We are already discussing a range of options for change with local authority representatives in the SSA sub-group. If a good case is made for making changes, we shall in due course propose to make changes that will affect the 1998–99 standard spending assessments.
Although I am keen to make standard spending assessments fairer, I want to be sure that any changes are a genuine improvement and that they will be durable, before we put them in place. The last thing that the Government should do is to make hasty changes that prove unsatisfactory and need later amendment. That brings me to the area cost adjustment.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire has set out a strong case for the way in which the area cost adjustment, as it is currently organised, works to disadvantage Cambridgeshire. He suggested that introducing the proposals of the Elliott review, which examined the area cost adjustment last year, would make the system fairer. I know that that issue is taken very seriously indeed in Cambridgeshire.
The hon. Member said that he and some colleagues had met my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing in, I believe, May 1997 to discuss that issue. I believe that the discussion was constructive, although, as the hon. Gentleman said, my hon. Friend was unable to give commitments, because of factors to which I shall refer later.
668
For many years, hon. Members representing Cambridgeshire have consistently expressed concern that Cambridgeshire falls just outside the south-east region and so does not qualify for the area cost adjustment. As the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said, that is referred to as "the cliff edge phenomenon". I find it slightly ironic that what is probably one of the flattest counties in England should be treated as part of a cliff-edge group, but I understand that in this case the cliff is metaphorical. I understand the concerns of hon. Members representing Cambridgeshire and other areas that fall just outside—
Mr. Brady: I thank the Minister for his kindness in helping me through the procedural ignorance that I demonstrated earlier. I am keen that he should appreciate the case that can be presented by authorities lying some way away from the cliff edge. My own borough of Trafford would benefit to the tune of £2.36 million on this year's SSA under the Elliott proposals. I am keen that the case for the north should be heard.
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. In arguing the case, he further reinforces the fact that we are talking about a metaphorical cliff, rather than a cliff that occurs around any one region. There are authorities in the north that would stand to benefit from the changes proposed by the Elliott report. The new map that would apply would not have the same simple cliff edge that applies currently with the area cost adjustment.
I understand the concerns about areas beyond the current cliff edge, although that is a problem that cannot be avoided when boundaries are drawn. One of the pieces of research that my Department has commissioned this year examines issues specifically relating to the geography of the area cost adjustment. We need to take account of those factors before reaching firm decisions about the future.
The area cost adjustment element of standard spending assessments seeks to allow for higher unit costs faced by local authorities in some parts of the country. If allowance is not made for extra costs, an authority will be less able to meet the needs of residents than authorities elsewhere with lower costs. Equally, we must be careful not to overcompensate authorities with higher costs, as that would inevitably work to the disadvantage of authorities elsewhere.
As the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire pointed out, we are dealing with a zero sum process. Therefore, an adjustment that increases the allowance for one area will work to the disadvantage of others. That is why we must be extremely careful not to overcompensate. We see the need for compensation, but it must be a scrupulously fair arrangement, or it would rightly prompt expressions of concern from authorities that stood to lose.
The current method of calculation considers higher costs only in the south-east region relative to the rest of England. It looks at information from the new earnings survey on the relative level of earnings in a series of occupations relevant to local government employment. These are taken as estimates of the extra costs for which local authorities in the south-east should be compensated.
This method of calculating the area cost adjustment has been the subject of much criticism—much of it entirely justified—from various groups within local government.

669
To seek a way forward on the area cost adjustment, the previous Government commissioned a review of the area cost adjustment, chaired by Professor Robert Elliott of Aberdeen university.
The review reported in July 1996. It considered a wide range of issues. It involved the local authority associations in its work, it invited all local authorities in England to comment and it commissioned several detailed studies from consultants. The review recommended a new method of calculating the area cost adjustment—the regional pay premium approach.
However, the proposals did not meet with agreement in local government. As the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire acknowledged in his speech, unhappiness was expressed in various quarters. All four local authority associations asked that the review's recommendations should not be implemented for 1997–98 SSAs. There were three broad issues on which the review did not produce a generally acceptable conclusion.
First, the review did not convince critics that the system recommended by the review team would not overcompensate some authorities. Concerns remain in local government about exactly how far variations in labour costs depend on wage scales, and how far they depend on other costs of employment. That is a complex and difficult subject, but, given the zero sum process, it is understandable that those concerns must be given serious weight. Secondly, the geography of the review's proposals proved contentious. Thirdly, there was a technical concern about the correct data to use in the statistical analyses underlying standard spending assessments.
670
In response to those concerns, my Department has commissioned additional research to examine the issues involved. That research is due to report soon. Once we have the results, we will discuss them with the local government associations. We shall need to see how far the concerns expressed last year have been dealt with adequately by the further studies. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, as I have not seen the research—it is not yet available, although it is expected imminently—I cannot provide the commitment that he seeks. However, I assure him that we shall study the further surveys carefully and discuss them, as a matter of urgency, with the local government associations. We shall not be precluded from taking decisions at the earliest opportunity about possible adjustments that might be appropriate.
As I have said, we will need to be convinced that any changes and improvements to the system are durable and well grounded technically. At present, it is too early to say whether the further research we have commissioned will meet those criteria. I cannot, therefore, give a commitment that we shall move to adopt the Elliott review's recommendations, or any proposals arising from them. However, I repeat my conviction that a fair distribution system for government grant is a very important goal. If a strong case can be made for a change to standard spending assessments, we will seriously consider implementing it.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Three o'clock.

HEALTH

  Members' Interests
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what occasions(a) Ministers and (b) officials have refused to (i) arrange and (ii) attend meetings with hon. Members to discuss matters relating to interests registered by those hon. Members under categories 1, 2, 3, 4(b), 8 and 9 in the Register of Members' Interests. [8093]

  Ms Jowell
  The First Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Cm 2850) made it clear that, when Members are meeting Ministers or others on topics in which they have an interest, the onus is on the Member to declare that interest not the Minister to know (paragraph 63 of Cm 2850). It is not practicable for Ministers and officials, amongst their other duties, to vet requests for meetings against the Register of Members' Interests. It is for the Member, and not the Minister, to ensure that the rules of the House are complied with.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department refuse requests from hon. members to (i) arrange and (ii) attend meetings relating to interests held by those hon. Members under categories 1, 2, 3, 4(b), 8 and 9 in the Register of Members' Interests. [8090]

  Ms Jowell
  The First Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Cm 2850) recognised the value of enabling members to retain interests outside the House, provided these were properly declared, both in the Register of Members' Interests and on other occasions. Subject to these requirements, and to the rules of the House relating to delegations to Ministers, Members are free to seek meetings with Ministers and officials, who will consider such requests alongside the many other approaches from individuals and organisations concerned to press their own interests or those of others. It is for the Member, and not the Minister, to ensure that the rules of the House are complied with.

  Private Health Treatment
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to establish patient-GP contracts to ensure that all patients have agreed to private health treatment before undergoing that treatment. [8345]

  Mr. Milburn
  The General Practitioner's Terms of Service, as set out in Schedule 2 of the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992, makes clear that GPs must not charge or accept a fee for 336
  any treatment given to patients who are registered with them for NHS treatment except where the Terms of Service specifically allow them to do so. It is open to Fundholding GPs to refer patients, free of charge, for treatment in private hospitals but this needs the agreement of the patient. Where a private fee can be charged or the patient can be referred for private treatment, the patient has to be informed and his or her consent secured.

  Waiting Times
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he will take to reduce waiting lists for elective surgery at the Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust. [8730]

  Mr. Milburn
  The extra £1.2 billion for the National Health Service that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 2 July proves our commitment to the NHS. The extra money will enable us to treat more patients from waiting lists and will help us to end waits for cancer treatment. The legacy we have inherited from the previous Government is record numbers waiting for treatment and longer waiting times. We look to health authorities to maintain downward pressure on waiting times. In Somerset the health authority and hospitals are working to treat all patients within twelve months of a decision to admit.

  Child Care
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost of providing(a) local authority accommodation and (b) a foster care place for one child per year. [8752]

  Mr. Boateng
  The latest available information on gross expenditure on residential accommodation and foster care for children, by local authorities in 1994–95, was published via the "Key Indicators 1997 Graphical System", copies of which are available in the Library. The figures for England were £1,151 and £157 per week, or about £60,000 and £8,200 per year for residential and foster placements respectively.

  Health Authority Deficits
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the deficit of each English health authority which has overspent as a per capita figure against the population of the area. [9084]

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

  Patient Lists
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been removed from patient lists in the last year by(a) general practitioner fundholding practices and (b) general practitioner non-fundholding practices. [9467]

  Mr. Milburn
  The number of patients removed from general practitioners lists in 94–95 is shown in the table. It is not possible to distinguish between those removals which relate to fundholding and non-fundholding general practitioners.
  337

  England

  11994–95

  Patients removed from GP list because of act or threat of violence

  692

  Patients removed from GP list at request of GP

  82,139

  Patients transferred at the request of the patient

  875

  Bulk transfers on resignation or death of GP

  2,518,124

  Patients transferred for all other reasons

  2,284,010

  Total

  4,885,840

  1 Latest data available Data is published in "GMP Census Additional Data Collection 1994–95", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Source:

  GMP Census.

  Pay and Conditions
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to restore the system of national negotiations on pay and conditions in the national health service. [9767]

  Mr. Milburn
  We wish to see a national system of pay determination, for those on national terms, supported by appropriate local flexibility. We have made a commitment to consult widely on possible changes to the National Health Service national pay system and our intention is to engage with all key stakeholders shortly.

  Debt Payment
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the policy of his Department on the timely payment of debts; and what is his Department's record on the payment of debts in the current financial year. [9530]

  Ms Jowell
  All departments are required to pay all their bills within agreed contract terms, or 30 days from receipt of the goods or service or a valid invoice, whichever is later, where no such terms exist. Information on payment performance for the current financial year could only be provided at disproportionate cost. The Government will publish a league table of departmental payment performance for 1996–97 in the autumn.

  Care (Legal Description)
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the present legal description of care came into force. [9593]

  Mr. Boateng
  The present system for provision of residential accommodation by local authorities derives from the National Assistance Act 1948. This provides for residential accommodation for certain persons in need of care and attention but the word "care" is not defined in the legislation. The term "residential care home" is defined in the Registered Homes Act 1984.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many and what percentage of employees in his private office are(a) of Asian origin and (b) of Afro-Caribbean origin. [8940]
  338
  Dr. David Clark
  There are no employees in my private offices that are of Asian origin and three employees who are of Afro-Caribbean origin representing 16 per cent. of the total staff complement.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many and what percentage of employees, in each payband, in the quangos for which his Department is responsible, are of(a) Asian origin and (b) Afro-Caribbean origin. [8941]

  Dr. Clark
  The quangos for which my Department is responsible are purely advisory and do not directly employ any staff.

  Debt Payment
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the policy of his Department on the timely payment of debts; and what is his Department's record on the payment of debts in the current financial year. [9521]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  All Departments are required to pay all their bills within the agreed contract terms, or 30 days from receipt of goods or service or a valid invoice, whichever is the later, where no such terms exist. Information on payment performance for the current financial year could only be provided at disproportionate cost. The Government will publish a league table of departmental payment performance for 1996–97 in the Autumn.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Parades and Marches
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the decision was made to allow the Portadown Orangemen to march down the Garvaghy Road; and what were the criteria used for that decision. [7480]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 10 July 1997]: The Chief Constable concluded on the night of Saturday 5 July that the parade should be permitted to proceed along its notified route on Sunday 6 July was made.

  He based his decision on the criteria set out in the public order legislation, in order to preserve public safety, only after all efforts to find an accommodation agreeable to both the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition and the Orange Order had failed.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what decision her Department has taken with regard to the routing of Orange marches pending at(a) Bellaghy, (b) the Lower Ormeau Road and (c) Derry City. [7481]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 10 July 1997]: As my hon. Friend will be aware the Orange Order decided not to parade along the lower part of the Ormeau Road on the 12 July, and to switch their planned march from Derry to Limavady. The Orange Order in Bellaghy decided to shorten their morning parade and not to parade, as provisionally planned, through the village in the evening. Because of these most welcome and significant decisions

  339
  by the Orange Order my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was not required to make any decisions on the parades in question.

  Plastic Bullets
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many plastic bullets were fired in Northern Ireland on(a) 6 and (b) 7 July. [7482]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 10 July 1997]: Between 6 am on 6 July 1997 and 6 am on 7 July 1997, a total of 1,608 plastic baton rounds were fired by the security forces; and between 6 am on 7 July 1997 and 6 am on 8 July 1997, a total of 820 were fired.

  Valuation and Lands Agency
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Valuation and lands Agency for 1997–98. [10166]

  Mr. Murphy
  For 1997–98 the following key performance targets have been set for the Agency:

  1. To complete 54,000 rating cases—equivalent to 33,600 work units.

  2. To complete 30,000 client service cases—equivalent to 15,000 work units.

  3. To have completed by 31 March 1998 an overview database of the public sector property estate in Northern Ireland.

  4. To achieve a productivity for caseworking valuers of 342 work units.

  5. TO achieve at least a 2.5 per cent. efficiency saving on the 1996–97 allocation in real terms.

  6. To achieve a unit cost of casework no greater than the 1996–97 unit cost in real terms.

  7. To achieve a standard in domestic rating valuations such that 88 per cent. of those determined on appeal are within plus or minus 10 per cent. of the initial assessment.

  8. To achieve a standard in non-domestic rating valuations such that 80 per cent. of those determined on appeal are within plus or minus 10 per cent. of the initial assessment.

  9. To complete 85 per cent. of domestic rating appeals within 6 months of receipt.

  10. To complete 80 per cent. of non-domestic rating appeals within 6 months of receipt.

  11. To complete 93 per cent. of a representative sample of client services casework within agreed time limits.

  Full details are set out in the Agency's Corporate and Business Plans, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Tapestries
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will encourage public bodies to commission tapestries for their buildings. [7922]

  Mr. Fisher
  British crafts makers and artists are among the best in the world and their works can illuminate and enhance our built environment and public spaces. Tapestry is just one form of craftsmaking but can add obvious and immediate value to the experience of public buildings. I know that a splendid tapestry hangs in the 340
  office of my hon. Friend the Scottish Office Minister for Health and the Arts. A tapestry will enhance the entrance hall of the new British Library.

  Tapestry is not the only medium for public art works: all of us can think of works that have impressed us, whether sculpture, ceramics, ironwork or electronic images. I consider them an excellent investment, in terms of quality of life, for those who commission and build with public money.

  Chess
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received urging him to make chess an olympic sport; and if he will make a statement. [8551]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 16 July 1997]: I am not aware we have received any, but I do know how popular chess is and am pleased that my Department is able to provide support to the game in England through the British Chess Federation. I have received a number of representations from hon. Members and members of the public who are concerned that chess is not an activity recognised by the English Sports Council and the Lottery Sports Fund. I am sympathetic to the difficulties this creates, particularly in respect of providing access to additional sources of funding. The English Sports Council's recognition rules are kept under review and revised from time to time. The question of chess becoming an olympic sport is, however, a matter for the International Olympic Committee.

  Employment Advertisements
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, media and Sport how often since 1992 his Department has been responsible for employment advertisements which contained age restrictions upon those who could apply. [9505]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  Age restrictions are not specified in employment advertisements for this department.

  National Endowment for Science and the Arts
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, media and Sport what proportion of the planned National Endowment for Science and the Arts will be funded by national lottery money; and from which other sources funding will be sought. [9170]

  Mr. Fisher
  The Government has announced its intention to establish a National Endowment for Science and the Arts (NESTA) to be funded initially from the National Lottery. Our proposals for NESTA, including possible sources of funding in addition to the Lottery, will be set out in a white paper which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be publishing on 21 July.

PRIME MINISTER

  Minister without Portfolio
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the persons who were not established civil servants on 2 May whose salaries are currently being paid by Government Departments, identifying those who
  341
  previously assisted the campaigning activity of the Labour Party under the present Minister without Portfolio; and if he will list the current salaries and positions held by each of these persons. [5421]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 June 1997]: It would be impracticable to list all persons who were not established civil servants on 2 May, whose salaries are currently being paid by Government Departments, since this would include all civil servants recruited since this date. In respect of Special Advisers, I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave to the hon. Members for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) on 2 June, Official Report, columns 97–99. In addition, my right hon. Friend, the Chief Whip, has now appointed two Special Advisers, Mr. Tom Greatrex and Mr. Kieran Simpson and my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, has appointed Mr. Hilary Benn. All paid Special Advisers have at some stage in their careers been employed either by the Labour Party or by individual members of a Labour Shadow Cabinet except:

  Huw Roberts

  Norman Warner

  Damian Welfare.

  As regards the current salaries of Special Advisers, I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on 10 June, Official Report, column 390.

  Devolution
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Prime Minister when the Devolution White Paper will be published. [8465]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: The White Paper relating to Welsh Devolution will be published on 22 July, and the White Paper on Scottish Devolution will be published on 24 July.

  Pension Schemes (Corporate Dividends)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 July,Official Report, column 44, if he will make a statement on (a) the recommendations relating to pension fund income contained in the documents cited and (b) the advice taken in respect of the review of corporation tax; and what statements his Department has made relating to the measures. [9116]

  The Prime Minister
  Our manifesto and business manifesto made clear our intention to review the corporate tax system. The changes announced in the Budget are consistent with our manifesto objective to promote greater long-term investment. The Budget promotes greater economic stability and provides a boost to quality and long-term investment which should benefit pension funds and other investors.

  In the run up to the Budget advice was provided to the Chancellor by his civil servants. He also received a large number of representations from individuals, businesses and representative bodies. The Budget measures on corporation tax were set out in the Budget statement on 2 July. The details were published in the Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 11 July,Official Report, column 626, what was the policy of the South African Government towards Libyan sanctions and Lockerbie, as set out at his meeting with President Mandela. [9018]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 17 July 1997]: I have nothing further to add to the reply that I gave my hon. Friend on 16 July, Official Report, column 388.

  Official Histories
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Prime Minister what further official histories have been commissioned. [10008]

  Mr. Prime Minister
  I have appointed Professor Lawrence Freedman, Head of War Studies at Kings College, London as an official historian with effect from 1 July 1997 to write the official history of the Falklands Campaign.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Domestic Workers
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many overseas domestic workers have been admitted to the United Kingdom in each year since the 1979 Immigration Rules concession came into force; and if he will make a statement. [8525]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Comprehensive information on domestic workers admitted to the United Kingdom is not available. Information is available on domestic workers granted entry clearance in 1995 by the 21 posts in the Middle East and Far East which are likely to have dealt with the vast majority of applications by domestic workers. Some 14,000 entry clearances were issued by those posts to domestic workers, the great majority to servants accompanying their employers on a visit to the United Kingdom. I regret that corresponding information for other years is not available.

  Departmental Budgets
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new plans he has to introduce cuts and savings in his Department as a result of the effect on his Department's budgets for 1997–98 and 1998–99 of the upward revisions to the GDP deflators in the Budget on 2 July; and if he will make a statement. [8292]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: All Departments are reallocating spending within their Departmental ceilings as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, following the recent Budget, he will give his estimate of the total real level of his Department's budget, in 1995–96 prices, in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99; if he will estimate what such figures were for (1) 1997–98 and (2) 1998–99 following the November 1996 Budget on the basis of the estimates of the GDP deflator contained in that Budget; and if he will make a statement. [8291]
  343
  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: Following the recent Budget, my Department's spending plans within the Control Total in real terms using 1995–96 prices are (a) £6,517 million in 1997–98 and (b) £6,269 million in 1998–99.

  The corresponding figures following the November 1996 Budget, based on the GDP deflator contained in that Budget, were (1) £6,484 million in 1997–98 and (2) £6,385 million in 1998–99.

  In comparing these figures the following points should be noted. The Home Office Annual Report 1997 (Cm 3608), published in March this year, announced a cash increase of £110 million in Home Office spending plans for 1997–98 compared with those set out in the November 1996 Budget. That increase reflected the inclusion of new provision for firearms compensation and related costs. Since then, a change in the way that certain receipts are handled has resulted in a cash decrease, incorporated in the recent Budget, of around £8 million on previous Home Office spending plans for each of the years 1997–98 and 1998–99. Because of these changes, the real terms figures shown at (a) and (b) are based on different underlying cash totals to those at (1) and (2).

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria govern the choice of the veterinary surgeon and the person responsible for day-to-day care of laboratory animals, in connection with premises registered to perform animal experiments under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [8678]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The named persons responsible for day-to-day care of animals and the named veterinary surgeons are extremely important to the operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The criteria for their selection are derived from their roles and responsibilities which are detailed in sections 2.9 to 2.15 of the "Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986".

  Named veterinary surgeons must also be members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. The College has published a Code of Practice for named veterinary surgeons and, in 1995, the Home Office introduced mandatory training to ensure that new named veterinary surgeons are made fully aware of their duties under the Act.

  The Institute of Animal Technology has published guidance notes for named persons responsible for the day-to-day care of animals.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports have been published by the Animal Procedures Committee since 1986; and when it plans to publish its next report. [8685]

  Mr. Howarth
  Section 20(5) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 requires the Animal Procedures Committee to publish a report on its activities each year. Reports for every year between 1987 and 1995 have been published and the report for 1996 will be published in September. It will include a section on the Committee's review of the operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
  344
  In addition to its annual reports, the Committee published a report on regulatory toxicity in 1994.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what account is taken of the therapeutic necessity of new products in the procedure for issuing licences for experiments on animals under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [8667]

  Mr. Howarth
  Section 5(4) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 requires that, when determining whether and on what terms to grant a licence, the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned must be weighed against the benefits likely to accrue. The need to find better medical and veterinary treatments constitutes one of the potential benefits which can be considered when this assessment is made.

  Work would be licensed only if there was no alternative means of meeting the objective; if the programme of work is likely to be successful; and the protocols have been refined as far as is practical to minimise the number of animals used and the suffering caused.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many laboratories the Animal Procedures Committee has visited since 1986; and on what dates. [8683]

  Mr. Howarth
  Historical information is not available but in the last year Members representing the Committee have visited three laboratories. These visits were made on 20 November 1996, 5 March 1997 and 5 June 1997 and will be discussed in the Committee's annual reports for the relevant years.

  Two more visits are planned for this year, one to an establishment designated as a breeder and supplier of laboratory animals and one to another laboratory.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inspectors are currently employed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [8666]

  Mr. Howarth
  There are 17 inspectors and one vacancy which is expected to be filled in September. We are currently considering ways of strengthening the Inspectorate without adding to the demands on the public purse.

  Information on the complement of the Inspectorate at 31 December each year is published in the "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain".

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress the Animal Procedures Committee has made in assessing the use of animals in painful psychological and behavioural experiments. [8682]

  Mr. Howarth
  The Committee and its predecessor, the Advisory Committee on Animal Experiments, considered psychological and behavioural research in the 1980s. The outcome of these considerations was published in the 1989 annual report of the Animal Procedures Committee. No further consideration has been given specifically to this area since then.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what organisations the Animal Procedures Committee has consulted since 1986; and on what dates. [8684]
  345
  Mr. Howarth
  A part of its review of the operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, the Animal Procedures Committee wrote in March 1996 to all designated establishments1, to a number of animal welfare groups and to other organisations with an interest in the operation of the Act. One hundred and fifty-seven responses were received.

  The Committee holds hi-annual meetings with the Farm Animal Welfare Council.

  Less recent information about organisations the Committee has consulted can be acquired only at disproportionate cost.
  1Establishments certified under section 6 of the 1986 Act as places where scientific procedures may be carried out, or as breeders or suppliers of laboratory animals.

  Perjury
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 July,Official Report, column 470, on perjury convictions, what was the average length of time between commitment of the offence and the charge being brought in the last year for which figures are available. [8689]

  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is not available centrally. Information on time intervals for proceedings completed in magistrates' courts is collected by the Lord Chancellor's Department in selected sample weeks in February, June and October of each year. This includes the period from offence to charge or summons. Information for specific offences is not collected, as the sample size is not sufficiently large. In 1996, the average period from offence to charge or summons was 45 days for indictable offences (including triable either way offences).

  Probation Service
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the serious incident reports procedure was set up for the Probation Service in England and Wales. [8900]

  Joyce Quin
  May 1995.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many serious incident reports from each probation service in England and Wales have involved assaults against staff since May 1995. [8902]

  Joyce Quin
  One.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason no press notice accompanied Probation Circular 00/97. [8903]

  Joyce Quin
  Formal press notices are not issued on each occasion that circulars are issued but on this occasion, as on others, guidance was given to the press to put the circular in context.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Ministers assessed the contents of the Probation Service circular on serious incidents reports issued on 30 June. [8905]

  Joyce Quin
  The material in the circular was submitted to us shortly before issue.

  Murders
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the murders reported as serious incidents by each probation service in England and Wales during 1996 were classed as(a) domestic, (b) in the furtherance of theft or gain, (c) suspect described as mentally disordered and (d) against a child under the age of one. [8904]

  Joyce Quin
  In the period 16 November 1995 to 17 December 1996, at least 27 of the offences reported involved a victim who was a relative or a partner; and 27 of those charged with serious offences were described as mentally disordered to some extent. The other information sought is not available from the reports submitted by probation services. More detailed reporting requirements now apply.

  Firearms
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many murders and acts of manslaughter have involved the use of illegal and unlicensed firearms in each of the last five years. [8809]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 16 July 1997]: In the past, information on whether firearms used in the crime are legally held or not has not been collected centrally in England and Wales as a matter of routine. However, a special exercise was conducted last year to obtain further information on homicides involving firearms. This covered the three years 1992 to 1994, and out of a total of 196 homicides involving the use of a firearm, information was available in 129 cases to show the weapon was illegally held.

  These figures refer to offences initially recorded as homicide. Information was not collected on whether the final classification was murder or manslaughter, which is not available until a court decision is reached. Nor do all offenders come to court, or the offence remains undetected.

  In 1995, the last year for which figures are available, 398 burglaries and thefts of handguns were reported, and 3,517 of other firearms. This demonstrates that legally held firearms can become a source for illegal weapons and used in serious crime.

  Task Force on Youth Justice
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of the Task Force on Youth Justice have previous experience of youth and community work; and if he will make a statement. [9136]

  Mr. Michael
  A number of the members of the Task Force on Youth Justice have direct experience of working with young people within the youth justice system as distinct from within the youth service. There are no youth workers among them. The role of the Task Force, and the names and professions of those appointed to it, were set out in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) on 17 June,Official Report, columns 99–100.

  Homosexuality
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which European Union countries have
  347
  higher age limits for mutual consent for homosexual acts in situations where the older person is in a position of authority, influence or trust. [9161]

  Mr. Michael
  No European Union country makes specific provision for a higher age of consent for homosexual acts involving persons in positions of authority, influence or trust. Although it is difficult to make direct comparisons between countries with different legal systems, the following countries have special provision to deal with circumstances where one of the participants is older than the other:

  Austria
  The age of consent for sexual acts is 14. However, it is illegal for a male over 19 to commit homosexual acts with a male between 14 and 18.

  Belgium
  The age of consent for sexual acts is 16. Heavier penalties are available for those who abuse a position of authority.

  Italy
  The age of consent for sexual acts is 14. However, if one of the participants is an older family member or guardian, the age of consent is raised to 16.

  Netherlands
  The age of consent for sexual acts is 16, but a person between the ages of 12 and 16 who commits a sexual act with another person between those ages, cannot be prosecuted unless there is a complaint from the other participant, a parent or guardian. A person over 16 who commits a sexual act with a person under 16 is liable to prosecution regardless of whether a complaint has been made.

  Portugal
  The age of consent for sexual acts is 16. However, it is illegal for a person of 18 or over to commit sexual acts with a person under 18.

  Spain
  There is no statutory age of consent. In general, consensual sexual relations are not penalised from the age of 12, although a person aged over 16 who has sex with a person between 12 and 16 may be liable to prosecution.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he proposes to introduce changes in the age of mutual consent for homosexual acts in the next Criminal Justice Bill. [9160]

  Number of males aged 21 and over prosecuted for certain sexual offences by type of offence 1979–1995

  England and Wales

  Offence description

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 Section 12 as amended by the Sexual Offences Act Section 3(1)

  Buggery with a boy under 16 or with a woman or an animal

  119

  178

  167

  119

  167

  142

  155

  Buggery by a man with a male of the age of 16 or over without consent

  20

  25

  12

  14

  11

  15

  19

  Buggery by a man with another male under the age of 21 with consent

  22

  20

  17

  12

  19

  12

  19

  Attempt to commit buggery with a boy under 16 or with a woman or an animal

  15

  6

  8

  5

  8

  11

  13

  Attempt by a man to commit buggery with a male of the age of 16 or over without consent

  —

  2

  3

  3

  —

  1

  1

  Attempt by a man to commit buggery with another male under the age of 21 with consent

  4

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 Section 12 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Section 143

  Buggery by a male of a male under 16

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Buggery by a male with a male aged 16 or 17

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 Section 15

  Indecent assault on male under 16

  449

  431

  429

  463

  450

  442

  475

  348
  Mr. Michael
  The Crime and Disorder Bill is intended to deliver our manifesto commitments on tackling youth crime, disorder and sentencing. The Government have long held the view that setting the age of consent for consensual homosexual acts is a matter for Parliament to decide, and that it should be the subject of a free vote at a suitable opportunity. It seems unlikely that the scope of the Crime and Disorder Bill will be wide enough to provide that opportunity.

  Age of Consent
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the dates of legislation currently in force relating to the age of mutual consent in respect of sexual acts between(a) males and females and (b) males and males. [9157]

  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Males and Females
  Sexual Offences Act 1956 section 6. This makes it an offence for a man to have unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 16. A statutory age of consent at 16 was first enacted in 1885.

  (b) Males and Males
  Before 1967, all homosexual acts were illegal. The current controls are set out in the Sexual Offences Act 1956: section 12 and the Sexual Offences Act 1967, section 1 (both as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 section 143). The age of consent for consensual homosexual acts in private was set at 21 in 1967 and reduced to 18 in 1994.

  Sexual Offences
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been instigated for sexual offences against males under the age of 18 years in each of the last 20 years; and how many of these offences were committed by older men in positions of authority, influence or trust. [9159]

  Mr. Michael
  Limited information, for the years 1979 to 1995, on the number of males aged 21 and over prosecuted for sexual offences involving younger men is given in the table below.

  Information regarding the status of a defendant is not collected centrally. Also, offence information is not available to the detail required for the years prior to 1979.
  349

  Number of males aged 21 and over prosecuted for certain sexual offences by type of offence 1979–1995

  England and Wales

  Offence description

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 Section 13 as amended by the Sexual Offences Act 1967 Section 3(2)

  Indecency by a man with another male under the age of 21

  235

  268

  230

  210

  227

  221

  196

  Man procuring or attempting to procure or being party to the commission by a man under 21 of an act of gross indecency with another man

  31

  25

  39

  29

  33

  15

  106

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 Section 12, Schedule [16] as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1964 Section 144

  Gross indecency by a male with a male aged under 18

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Male procuring or attempting to procure or being party to the commission by a male under 18 of an act of gross indecency with another male

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1 Not applicable

  Offences description

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 Section 12 as amended by the Sexual Offences Act Section 3(1)

  Buggery with a boy under 16 or with a woman or an animal

  145

  213

  267

  238

  279

  247

  290

  257

  291

  110

  Buggery by a man with a male of the age of 16 or over without consent

  22

  13

  26

  21

  21

  26

  36

  33

  23

  3

  Buggery by a man with another male under the age of 21 with consent

  19

  17

  9

  4

  9

  15

  12

  7

  4

  1

  Attempt to commit buggery with a boy under 16 or with a woman or an animal

  18

  15

  18

  26

  20

  20

  22

  9

  17

  6

  Attempt by a man to commit buggery with a male of the age of 16 or over without consent

  3

  3

  3

  2

  3

  —

  2

  2

  1

  —

  Attempt by a man to commit buggery with another male under the age of 21 with consent

  1

  1

  5

  2

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 Section 12 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Section 143

  Buggery by a male of a male under 16

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  41

  Buggery by a male with a male aged 16 or 17

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1

  Sexual offences Act 1956 Section 15

  Indecent assault on male under 16

  393

  446

  461

  450

  470

  449

  371

  358

  361

  334

  Sexual offences Act 1956 Section 13 as amended by the Sexual Offences Act 1967 Section 3(2)

  Indecency by a man with another male under the age of 21

  227

  254

  269

  384

  420

  182

  191

  88

  71

  47

  Man procuring or attempting to procure or being party to the commission by a man under 21 of an act of gross indecency with another man

  37

  40

  61

  89

  71

  19

  14

  11

  13

  8

  Sexual Offences Act 1956 Section 12 Schedule 2(16) as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1964 Section 144

  Gross indecency by a male with a male aged under 18

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  10

  Male procuring or attempting to procure or being party to the commission by a male under 18 of an act of gross indecency with another male

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1

  1 Not applicable

  Proportional Voting
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce a proportional voting system for the 1999 European election. [10066]

  Mr. Straw
  Legislation will be brought forward this session to enable the 1999 European elections to be conducted by a regional list electoral system.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what his Department's outturn expenditure was in 1996–97 under the headings Health, Other Central Government Services, Local Government Capital, Local Government Current, Total for Local Government, Miscellaneous and Overall Total; and what the planned overall change in expenditure is in(a) money and (b) percentage terms under each of these headings between 1996–97 and 1999–2000. [8129]

  Mr. Dewar
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, The Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper (Cm 3696) published on 3 July gives the provisional 1996–97 outturn figures on the Control 350
  Total and includes information on individual Votes, cash limits, running costs limits and EFLs for nationalised industries, other public corporations and trading funds.

  The Appropriation Accounts, to be published later this year, will contain a further analysis of voted expenditure.

  Rat Infestations
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) in total and (b) by local authority the number of rat infestations recorded in each year since 1990. [8446]

  Mr. Chisholm
  The available information, drawn from reports prepared annually by the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland on a variety of environmental health matters, is set out below.

  The total number of rat infestations dealt with by local authorities in Scotland is reported as follows:

  Number of infestations

  1990–911

  12,714

  1991–92

  11,312

  1992–93

  10,997

  1993–942

  Not collected

  1994–952

  Not collected

  1995–962

  Not collected

  1996–97

  Available December 1997

  351
  A breakdown by individual authority is not available.

  1 Change from calendar year (January to December) to financial year (April to March). The figure relates to the period January 1990 to March 1991.

  2 Information not collected due to local government reorganisation.

  A1 (Lorries)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the average and maximum number of weekly lorry movements on the Al road in East Lothian expected to be generated by the use of the new landfill facility at Oxwell Mains for rubbish from Edinburgh. [7698]

  Mr. Chisholm
  [pursuant to his reply, 14 July 1997, c. 65]: No lorry movements to transport land waste by road from Edinburgh will be permitted until such time as road improvements being carried out as part of the A1

  Persons convicted of selected serious assaults receiving (a) a community service order or (b) custody, Scotland 1991–1995

  Main offence

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  Assault to:

  (i) severe injury

  66

  191

  92

  218

  85

  249

  93

  209

  84

  203

  (ii) permanent disfigurement

  33

  91

  32

  115

  34

  123

  29

  128

  32

  132

  (iii) disfigurement and danger of life

  1

  14

  1

  15

  3

  22

  1

  24

  1

  14

  Offences are categorised under the most serious offence; for example a person convicted of "Assault to severe injury and permanent disfigurement" will be included in category (ii) but not in category (i).

  Devolution
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the proposals for devolving some social security matters to a Scottish Assembly. [9156]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 17 July 1997]: The Government's proposals, including those for social security, will be set out in the White Paper to be published on 24 July.

  Marine Cage Fish Farming
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current financial budget of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency for the regulation of marine cage fish farming; and what is the expected budget for the following financial year. [8214]

  Mr. Chisholm
  The Scottish Environment Protection Agency does not have specific budgets for individual regulatory functions.

DEFENCE

  Baton Rounds
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many baton rounds were issued in 1994; how long they would have lasted at 1993 rates of usage; and what were the reasons for issuing this number. [8531]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: Our records show that, in 1994, 33,000 baton rounds were issued to the Army in Northern Ireland and 51,000 were issued to the RUC.
  352
  Oswald Dean to Innerwick dualling scheme are completed later this year. Thereafter an average of 400 lorry movements per week are expected.

  Stabbing Offences
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have been sentenced to(a) community service orders and (b) custody in Scotland after having been convicted of stabbing offences involving (i) severe injury, (ii) permanent disfigurement and (iii) disfigurement and danger to life in the current year and in each of the previous four years. [8778]

  Mr. McLeish
  Information collected centrally on assaults resulting in conviction does not indicate whether these involved stabbing. The following table sets out the available information for 1995 (the most recent year) and each of the previous four years.

  The numbers of baton rounds held by the Army must be sufficient to cover both training and operational requirements, as well as the maintenance of an adequate reserve. It is not, however, possible to say how the rounds issued in 1994 would have lasted at 1993 rates of usage because records of training usage for that year are no longer available.

  Details of RUC usage and operational requirements are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what percentage of civil servants in each of grades 1 to 5 in his Department are of(a) Asian origin and (b) Afro-Caribbean origin. [9570]

  Mr. Spellar
  The number and percentage of permanent civilian staff in my Department and its Agencies in each of the grades 1 to 5 who have indicated that they are of(a) Asian origin and (b) Afro-Caribbean origin in the MOD's ethnic origin survey are shown below:

  Grade level

  Asian origin

  Afro-Caribbean origin

  Percentage of staff in grade

  Grades 1–4

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Grade 5

  6

  Nil

  3.2

  Reserve Forces
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what expenditure was on the reserve forces in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) is projected for 1998–99 in the categories (i) man training days, (ii) ammunition, fuel and other training expenditure,

  353
  (iii) equipment, purchase and spares, (iv) full-time military personnel costs, (v) NRPS/PSA0 personnel costs, (vi) civilian personnel costs and (vii) buildings and building maintenance; and what was the expenditure in man training days by district command in the case of the TA. [8827]

  Dr. Reid
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what mechanism exists for checking whether money allocated to the reserve forces by Ministers is spent on the reserves by districts and their formation councils. [8826]

  Dr. Reid
  Responsibility for expenditure on all defence operating costs, including those related to the Reserve Forces, is delegated to top level budget holders to enable them to achieve the objectives required of them. They in turn delegate funds and responsibility to levels at which the priorities for expenditure can best be assessed. A fundamental principle is that operational and financial responsibility should be linked, which means that commanders must have flexibility over how they spend money. They are best placed to judge where priority should be given, so that they meet the objectives they have been set. Whether they have achieved their objectives is assessed regularly by means of formal performance reviews.

  Manpower
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present manpower strength of Her Majesty's(a) Royal Air Force, (b) Navy and (c) Army; and what percentage of full manning these figures represent. [9202]

  Dr. Reid
  The trained strengths of the regular Armed Forces as at 1 June 1997, the latest figures available, were as follows;

  Number

  (a) Royal Air Force

  53,769

  (b) Naval Service (RN and RM)1

  41,368

  (c) Army12

  101,372

  1 Excludes Locally Entered Personnel.

  2 Includes trained Gurkha strength but excludes Royal Irish Regiment (Home Service).

  These figures represent (a) 95 per cent.; (b) 97 per cent.; and (c) 95 per cent. of the trained requirement.

  Military Services (Loan and Hire)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidelines apply to the loaning or the hiring of military personnel or equipment to the private sector; and if he will make a statement. [9203]

  Dr. Reid
  The use of military personnel or equipment in aid of the private sector is not, as a general rule, encouraged as Defence funds are not granted for such a purpose. Where the Ministry of Defence makes goods or services available to commercial organisations, they are normally charged for at a rate which covers the full costs. This reflects Government Accounting principles. One example of assistance which might be provided is the 354
  provision of military resources in a civil emergency to help return a community to normality, which might include the restoration of commercial viability.

  My Department also recognises that there may be value and benefits to the country from military participation in commercial projects from time to time. Any request would be considered on its merits and would not be accepted at the expense of a unit's operational or training duties.

  Infantry Battalions
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the manning levels for infantry battalions; and how many battalions are at full strength disregarding personnel posted away from their unit but included in the strength figures. [9201]

  Dr. Reid
  The strength of the Army's Infantry Battalions at 1 June 1997 is shown at Table 1. The figures include only those personnel serving with their parent units. There are at present eight Battalions either at or above full strength as shown at Table 2.

  Table 1: Infantry

  Strength

  Surplus deficit against establishment

  Household Division

  1st Battalion, Grenadier Guards

  433

  -125

  N Company, Grenadier Guards

  98

  -2

  1st Battalion, Coldstream Guards

  580

  -48

  7 Company, Coldstream Guards

  113

  +13

  1st Battalion Scots Guards

  440

  -83

  F Company, Scots Guards

  84

  -16

  1st Battalion, Irish Guards

  447

  -76

  1st Battalion, Welsh Guards

  497

  -25

  Total

  2,692

  -362

  Scottish Division

  1st Battalion, Royal Scots

  408

  -174

  1st Battalion, Royal Highland Fusiliers

  519

  -107

  1st Battalion, King's Own Scottish Borderers

  441

  -79

  1st Battalion, Black Watch

  453

  -70

  1st Battalion, Highlanders

  507

  -76

  1st Battalion, Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

  471

  -87

  Total

  2,799

  -593

  Queens Division

  1st Battalion, The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment

  413

  -126

  2nd Battalion, The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment

  518

  -37

  1st Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  504

  -51

  2nd Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  607

  -18

  1st Battalion, The Royal Anglian

  531

  +12

  2nd Battalion, The Royal Anglian

  570

  +9

  Total

  3,143

  -211

  Kings Division

  1st Battalion, The King's Own Royal Border Regiment

  533

  -92

  1st Battalion, The King's Regiment

  543

  +4

  1st Battalion, The Prince of Wales's Own Regiment

  537

  +18

  355

  Table 1: Infantry

  Strength

  Surplus deficit against establishment

  1st Battalion, The Green Howards

  611

  -14

  1st Battalion, The Queen's Lancashire Regiment

  489

  -90

  1st Battalion, The Duke of Wellington's Regiment

  573

  +54

  Total

  3,286

  -120

  Prince of Wales Division

  1st Battalion, The Devonshire and Dorset Regiment

  577

  -48

  1st Battalion, The Cheshire Regiment

  486

  -69

  1st Battalion, The Royal Welch Fusiliers

  507

  -12

  1st Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Wales

  477

  -45

  1st Battalion, The Royal Gloucester Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment

  523

  -58

  1st Battalion, The Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment

  634

  +9

  1st Battalion, Staffordshire Regiment

  528

  +9

  Total

  3,732

  -214

  Light Division

  1st Battalion, The Light Infantry

  466

  -73

  2nd Battalion, The Light Infantry

  524

  -31

  1st Battalion, The Royal Green jackets

  489

  -90

  2nd Battalion, The Royal Green Jackets

  567

  -58

  Totals

  2,046

  -252

  The Parachute Regiment

  1st Battalion, The Parachute Regiment

  506

  -38

  2nd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment

  463

  -81

  3rd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment

  437

  -82

  Total

  1,406

  -201

  Royal Irish Regiment

  1st Battalion, The Royal Irish Regiment

  436

  -145

  Total

  436

  -145

  The Brigade of Gurkhas

  1st Battalion, The Royal Gurkha Rifles

  632

  -11

  2nd Battalion, The Royal Gurkha Rifles

  749

  +10

  Total

  1,381

  -1

  The figures shown above exclude the re-inforcement of 1st Battalion Royal Scots, 1st Battalion The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment and 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment by the Gurkha Re-inforcement Companies totalling 300.

  Table 2

  1st Battalion The Royal Anglian

  2nd Battalion The Royal Anglian

  1st Battalion The King's Regiment

  1st Battalion The Prince of Wales's Own Regiment

  1st Battalion The Duke of Wellington's Regiment

  356

  1st Battalion The Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment

  1st Battalion The Staffordshire Regiment

  2nd Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles.

  Royal Hospital, Haslar
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to change the laundry arrangements at the Royal Hospital, Haslar; and if he will make a statement. [3534]

  Dr. Reid
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Secondary Care Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ron Smith to Mr. Peter Viggers, dated 18 July 1997:
  Royal Hospital Haslar: Laundry Arrangements
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the laundry arrangements at the Royal Hospital Haslar as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Secondary Care Agency. I apologise for the delay in responding.
  As you will recall from my letter of 20 March 1997 we have been conducting a very thorough appraisal to identify and evaluate the options for providing both laundry and sterile supplies services into the next millennium. The options considered included contractorisation, PFI, and rebuilding one or both facilities and continuing to run them as integral parts of the Hospital. The conclusion reached was that, in the case of the laundry, switching to a commercial laundry service would allow quality levels to he maintained whilst saving an estimated £60,000 a year in running costs alone, with further substantial economies accruing from avoiding the need to invest in capital infrastructure and equipment. The position on the sterile supplies department, the expansion fo which is critical to the wider development of the Hospital itself, is rather different. The capacity of the local NHS market to absorb extra contract work from Haslar is extremely limited and, given the need for a responsive service that can deal with fluctuating demand from the operating theatres, the balance of advantage lies in providing a new in-house sterile supplies department, although we are not yet finally committed to that course of action.
  Some 60 civilian staff work in the two departments and, in accordance with Ministry of Defence policy, their views have been sought through the Trades Unions. Whilst the proposal to rebuild the sterile supplies department has been welcomed, considerable concern has been expressed about the contractorisation of the laundry service and a counter proposal has been made to retain the current in-house facility. I have considered the arguments very carefully, and have met with representatives of the Transport and General Workers Union (T&GWU) to discuss their concerns. The union response centres on two main areas: quality and cost. On the subject of quality, the unions have suggested that a commercial laundry service could not provide the standard of service that the Hospital requires. However, this does not accord with experience in the National Health Service where a significant proportion of hospital laundry is now done by private companies and no compelling reasons have been put forward to explain why such an arrangement would not work at Haslar. On the financial front, I have to say that accepting the union line would prevent me from delivering substantial savings that are on offer and, thereby, providing the taxpayer with the best possible value for money.
  At present the T&GWU and I have agreed to differ on these points and, since the unions have registered formally their disagreement with Agency plans, the issues must now be the subject of further discussion between management and unions through the Department's Whitley machinery. Until this has been done and the disagreement resolved one way or the other, MOD policy obliges me to put into abeyance all action to implement the proposals.
  I realise how much of a disappointment our plans might be for laundry staff who have served the Royal Hospital loyally over the years. I do hope, however, that they will understand that my Agency

  357
  must recognise and respond to economic pressures if we are to maintain the high standard of clinical service to which we are committed whilst meeting our fiscal duty to the taxpayer.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Historic Buildings, Greenwich
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current state of the historic buildings at Greenwich in the ownership of the Ministry of Defence. [7818]

  Dr. Reid
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence holds the freehold of the historic buildings of the Royal Naval College at Greenwich, together with the Dreadnought Seamen's Hospital and the Devonport Nurses' Home, on behalf of the Crown for the benefit of Greenwich Hospital. Of these, the Royal Naval College, which is occupied by the Ministry of Defence is, with the exception of King William Building and the external areas, in a fair state of repair. The Dreadnought Seamen's Hospital and the Devonport Nurses' Home (neither of which is leased to my Department) are unoccupied and are in a less satisfactory condition. I understand that Greenwich Hospital has been encouraging the tenants, which have full responsibility for repairs and maintenance, to take measures to prevent further deterioration.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Organic Farming
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of organic farmland on farmland bird populations. [7478]

  Mr. Morley
  A MAFF funded research project on this subject, undertaken by the British Trust for Ornithology and the Institute of Arable Crops Research, was completed in March 1995. The report provided some evidence that organic farming can lead to an increase in the number and diversity of bird species compared to conventional farms. We are aware that organisations such as the British Trust for Ornithology consider that more research into this issue is justified. We will consider any proposals for future research from such organisations alongside other research priorities.

  The Department also funds a wider-ranging programme on the effects of agriculture on the environment including research on the impact of agricultural intensification on farmland birds. These projects are contributing to a better understanding of the possible causes of difference found in bird populations on organic and conventional farm-land.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the research into organic farming methods conducted at his Ministry's plant breeding stations; and what proportion of his Department's research budget for organic farming is constituted by funding allocated to these establishments. [7474]

  Mr. Morley
  The Ministry has no plant breeding stations. However, we are currently funding some research on plant varieties suitable for organic farming.358
  This is being undertaken by the National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB). This work will cost approximately £29,000 IN 1997–98, and it represents about 3 per cent. of the total annual budget available for organic research and development.

  Live Animal Transport
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to EU partners to persuade them that long distance live animal transport should end. [8655]

  Mr. Morley
  We shall take every opportunity in contacts with our EU partners to press our view that a trade in meat is preferable to the long distance transport of food animals. In support of this we shall now be pressing our partners to implement and enforce the new EU rules on journey times which we ourselves have introduced as a priority, and are seeking improvements in these rules in ongoing EU discussions.

  Cattle Slaughtering
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment he has made of the provision of slaughter facilities for OTMS cattle in the county of Shropshire; [9457]

  (2) if he will list the abattoirs available for the slaughter of OTMS cattle emanating from Shropshire farms. [9453]

  Mr. Rooker
  Contracts for the slaughter of OTMS cattle have been awarded to 26 abattoirs in Great Britain. None are in Shropshire, but seven are in counties neighbouring Shropshire and are available to producers in Shropshire. These include:

  North West Meats

  F. Redfern

  Bradeley Meats

  R. B. Elliot

  Nottingham Processing Co.

  ABP Nuneaton

  The Baker Group.

  This does not preclude cattle from the county going further afield if appropriate. As such, I am satisfied the producers in Shropshire are well served under the new arrangements.

  Vitamin B6
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his proposals to limit the availability of vitamin B6 to 10mg per tablet or capsule. [9425]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have received advice recently from the Food Advisory Committee that the level of vitamin B6 in dietary supplements should not exceed 10 milligrams per daily dose, and that such supplements should carry a warning label about the harmful effects of high intakes. I have accepted this advice and have instructed officials to draw up legislation under the Food Safety Act 1990 to control dietary supplements containing vitamin B6.

  Debt Payment
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his Department's policy is on the timely payment of debt; and what its record has been on debt payment in the current financial year. [9323]

  Mr. Morley
  All Departments are required to pay all their bills within agreed contract terms, or 30 days from receipt of the goods or service or a valid invoice, whichever is later, where no such terms exist. Information on payment performance for the current financial year could only be provided at disproportionate cost. The Government will publish a league table of departmental payment performance for 1996–97 in the Autumn.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Budgets
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, following the recent Budget, he will give his estimate of the total real level of his Department's budget, in 1995–96 prices, in(a)(b) 1998–99; if he will estimate what such figures were for (1) 1997–98 and (2) 1998–99 following the November 1996 Budget on the basis of the estimates of the GDP deflator contained in that Budget; and if he will make a statement. [8316]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: The figures requested for this Department's spending plans within the Control Total in £000,000 and expressed at 1995–96 prices are as follows:
  (a) 1,021, (b) 990, (1) 1,036, (2) 1,013.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new plans he has to introduce cuts and savings in his Department as a result of the effect on his Department's budgets for 1997–98 and 1998–99 of the upward revisions to the GDP deflators in the Budget on 2 July; and if he will make a statement. [8317]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: All Departments are reallocating spending within their departmental ceilings as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Mr. Danny Woodier
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the statement of 9 July,Official Report, columns 1044–52, what was the purpose of the visit of Mr. Danny Woodier to Caracas in January 1997. [8897]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Mr Woodier, Consular Protection Desk Officer for South America, visited the Caracus area in March 1997 as part of a familiarisation visit to South America. The purpose of his visit was to gain first hand knowledge and experience of his area of responsibility.

  Quota Hopping
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) for what reasons the agreement reached on quota-hopping was not included in the Amsterdam treaty; [9080]
  360
  (2) if the recent agreement reached on quota-hopping is legally binding. [9079]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minster for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the House on 18 June,Official Report, column 331.

  Amsterdam Treaty
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Human Rights article contained in the Amsterdam treaty. [9117]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We welcome the reference to fundamental rights in Article F of the Treaty on European Union. The new article re-states the principle that acts of the Union and of the Community must respect the existing fundamental rights of EU citizens, which are an essential feature of the responsibility which states bear towards their citizens. We also welcome the new Article 6a to the Treaty of Rome permitting (but not obliging) the Council, acting unanimously, to take action at Community level to combat discrimination.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those areas where the European Court of Justice has gained jurisdiction as a result of the Amsterdam treaty. [9077]

  Mr. Henderson
  Because the Court has a full role in the European Community pillar, extensions of the EC Treaty provisions at Amsterdam also involve an extension in the jurisdiction of the Court. Article K.7 of the Amsterdam Treaty will also give the Court a limited role in relation to the Justice and Home Affairs pillar of the Treaty on European Union: the Court will have a preliminary rulings jurisdiction for those Member States which choose to accept it; jurisdiction to review the legality of framework decisions and decisions adopted by the Council; and jurisdiction over certain disputes between Member States and between Member States and the Commission. Under Article K.12 the Court will have jurisdiction to review the operation of the Justice and Home Affairs pillar flexibility procedure. The Court will also have jurisdiction, through Article L, over the fundamental rights implications of action of the institutions within the Justice and Home Affairs pillar insofar as it has wider jurisdiction in that pillar.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the impact of the Amsterdam treaty on the work of the European Court of Justice. [9076]

  Mr. Henderson
  There is likely to be some increased workload for the Court of Justice deriving from the extension of its jurisdiction under the Treaty of Amsterdam. However, the impact of the new Treaty on the Court's workload will not become clear until sometime after the Treaty comes into force.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the terms of the flexibility clause agreed at Amsterdam; and if it will be enacted by qualified majority procedure. [9092]
  361
  Mr. Henderson
  The draft Treaty of Amsterdam (CONF 4001/97) has been placed in the Libraries of the House. The decision to use the flexibility provisions will be taken by Qualified Majority Voting, but with an "emergency brake" clause, which states that a Member State may "for important and stated reasons of national policy" prevent a vote being taken by QMV; the decision may then be referred to the European Council, for decision by unanimity.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional powers will be granted to the European Parliament by the Amsterdam treaty. [9124]

  Mr. Henderson
  A full list of the powers of assent and co-decision granted to the European Parliament can be found on pages 115 to 117 of the draft Treaty of Amsterdam (CONF 4001/97), copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House. I also refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) on 30 June,Official Report, column 38. New powers for the European Parliament in the Third Pillar are dealt with in Article K.11 of the draft Treaty; those in the new free movement title of the European Communities Treaty (TEC) in Article G. In addition, the European Parliament will exercise certain powers in the application.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what areas the Amsterdam treaty extends co-decision making; and if he will make a sttaement. [9091]

  Mr. Henderson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) on 30 June,Official Report, column 38.

  Botswana
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of Botswana to express concern at the forced expulsion of the Khwe Bushmen from the Central Kalahari Game Reserve. [9125]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have made representations to the Botswana Government, who have assured us that the Khwe Bushmen would not be evicted from the Central Kalahari Game Reserve. Our High Commissioner visited the central Kalahari area earlier this month and found no evidence that Bushmen had been forced away from the reserve. He is, however, pursuing with the Minister of local Government the need for better planning for managing the move of those bushmen who elected to leave the reserve.

  Social Chapter
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will implement measures brought under the qualified majority voting section of the social chapter, in circumstances where these are contrary to Government policy. [9081]
  362
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We will negotiate constructively with the aim of ensuring that any EC legislation adopted by QMV takes into account UK policy.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of the social chapter on the competitiveness of British companies. [9075]

  Mr. Henderson
  Only two directives have so far been adopted under the Agreement on Social Policy. These simply introduce minimum standards which reflect good business practice and we do not believe that they will damage competitiveness.

  We will use our influence in the EU to promote employability and competitiveness.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs what percentage of social chapter legislation is subject to qualified majority voting. [9123]

  Mr. Henderson
  Both the two directives so far adopted under the Agreement on Social Policy were subject to QMV. The voting procedure for the draft directive currently under discussion (Burden of Proof) would also be QMV.

  It is not possible to predict what percentage of future legislation under the Agreement will be subject to QMV.

  European Parliament
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what circumstances the European Parliament acting through co-decision making procedures is able to veto measures from the Council of Ministers. [9078]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The European Parliament is able to veto any legislative measure made through co-decision where agreement cannot be reached with the Council of Ministers.

  Common Foreign and Security Policy
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those areas under common foreign and security policy which will operate under qualified majority voting. [9082]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Under the common foreign and security policy provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty, the Council will act by qualified majority when taking decisions on the basis of common strategies adopted unanimously by the European Council; and when adopting decisions implementing joint actions or common positions. Any Member State may, however, prevent such a vote being taken for important and stated reasons of national policy. In these circumstances the matter may be
  363
  referred to the European Council for decision by unanimity. Qualified majority voting will not apply to decisions having military or defence implications.

  Iraq (Sanctions)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will investigate details provided by the Iraqi National Congress, a copy of which has been sent to him, of sanctions breaches in contravention of United Nations resolution 986. [9590]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Yes. We take seriously all reports of violations of sanctions against Iraq. We remain committed to maintaining these sanctions, while alleviating the suffering of the Iraqi people through the mechanisms established under SCRs 986 and 1111.

  Debt Payment
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of his Department on the timely payment of debts; and what is his Department's record on the payment of debts in the current financial year. [9532]

  Mr. Fatchett
  All Departments are required to pay their bills within agreed contract terms, or 30 days from receipt of the goods or service of a valid invoice, whichever is later, where no such terms exist. Information on payment performance for the current financial year could only be provided at disproportionate cost. We will publish a league table of departmental payment performance for 1996–97 in the Autumn.

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the audited accounts and Annual Report of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy will be available; and what subject matter they will cover. [9995]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Copies of the Foundation's Annual Report for 1996–97 have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The Foundation received £2.5 million from this Department for its activities in 1996–97. With this grant it supported 278 projects in 58 countries. It directed most of its funds to supporting democratic institutions in Central and Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and Anglophone Africa, and also supported worthwhile projects in other parts of the world. It makes a valuable contribution to the promotion of democracy overseas. Projects have included work with political parties, parliaments, the independent media, trades unions, human rights groups, women's groups and other non-governmental organisations involved in political development.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Debt Payment
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what his Department's policy is on the 364
  timely payment of debt; and what its record has been on debt payment in the current financial year. [9321]

  Dr. Howells
  All departments are required to pay all their bills within agreed contract terms, or 30 days from receipt of the goods or service or a valid invoice, whichever is later, where no such terms exist. Information on payment
  performance for the current financial year could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Government will publish a league table of departmental payment performance for 1996–97 in the Autumn.

  School Inspections
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the average cost of an OFSTED inspection for a primary school with a roll of 200 pupils. [8343]

  Mr. Byers
  The cost of school inspections is a matter for HMCI. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member, placing a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the schools in the constituency of Torbay with pupils on the assisted places scheme, indicating in each case the number of pupils and the income which the school receives under the scheme in 1997–98. [8757]

  Mr. Byers
  There are no schools participating in the assisted places scheme in the Torbay constituency.

  Youth Service
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what the expenditure on the Youth Service was(a) in total and (b) per area in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; what is the planned expenditure for the next two years; and if he will make a statement; [9132]

  (2) what was the percentage change in Youth Service funding in (a) cash terms and (b) real terms, in each of the last 10 years; what is the planned percentage change in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms in the next two years; and if he will make a statement. [9479]

  Dr. Howells
  The following table sets out net current expenditure for the Youth Service from 1989–90 to 1995–96, the latest year for which figures are available, and the percentage changes in cash and real terms from 1986–87 and 1995–96 for the all-England totals. Information for each Local Education Authority prior to 1989–90 is not readily available. There are no planning figures for the next two years; LEAs' Standard Spending Assessments are not hypothecated and expenditure will depend upon decisions made at the local level.
  365

  Youth Service—Net current expenditure

  1986–87 £000s

  1987–88 £000s

  1988–89 £000s

  1989–90 £000s

  1990–91 £000s

  1991–92 £000s

  1992–93 £000s

  1993–94 £000s

  1994–95 £000s

  1995–96 £000s

  All England Cash Terms

  143,730

  170,862

  198,622

  235,303

  241,717

  249,515

  273,850

  275,443

  281,825

  279,137

  Year on Year difference percentage

  —

  18.9

  16.2

  18.5

  2.7

  3.2

  9.8

  0.6

  2.3

  -1.0

  Real Terms (1997–98 prices)

  234,428

  238,677

  262,163

  319,241

  303,646

  297,261

  307,241

  303,329

  305,746

  271,034

  Year on Year difference percentage

  —

  1.8

  9.8

  21.8

  -4.9

  -2.1

  3.4

  -1.3

  0.8

  -11.4

  LEAs—Cash Terms

  Corporation of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  8

  43

  Camden

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,846

  2,176

  2,313

  Greenwich

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,966

  1,627

  1,832

  Hackney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,413

  3,133

  2,807

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,924

  812

  794

  Islington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,386

  3,448

  3,701

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,280

  2,259

  1,785

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,474

  2,742

  3,479

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,231

  601

  5

  Southwark

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,531

  2,615

  3,004

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,421

  4,462

  4,159

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,132

  3,202

  3,140

  Westminster

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,390

  2,453

  2,697

  Barking and Dagenham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,387

  1,280

  1,218

  Barnet

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,239

  1,156

  1,458

  Bexley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,321

  859

  1,057

  Brent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,764

  3,495

  2,672

  Bromley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  914

  869

  876

  Croydon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,648

  1,640

  1,685

  Ealing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,096

  1,057

  1,226

  Enfield

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  677

  738

  692

  Haringey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  771

  813

  805

  Harrow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  736

  772

  908

  Havering

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,041

  1,020

  906

  Hillingdon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,220

  941

  1,287

  Hounslow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  918

  858

  869

  Kingston upon Thames

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  739

  712

  883

  Merton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  924

  823

  522

  Newham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,291

  2,055

  1,106

  Redbridge

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,310

  1,320

  1,374

  Richmond upon Thames

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  749

  855

  926

  Sutton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  991

  1,109

  1,222

  Waltham Forest

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,144

  1,855

  1,912

  Birmingham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,782

  6,868

  6,684

  Coventry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,749

  1,751

  1,832

  Dudley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  945

  1,043

  1,096

  Sandwell

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  690

  729

  875

  Solihull

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  750

  698

  623

  Walsall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,021

  1,297

  308

  Wolverhampton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,625

  2,733

  2,828

  Knowsley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,034

  1—

  1—

  Liverpool

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,514

  6,215

  6,527

  St. Helens

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  347

  435

  643

  Sefton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,411

  1,464

  1,435

  Wirral

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,351

  2,295

  2,251

  Bolton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,642

  1,438

  1,571

  Bury

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  825

  895

  1,087

  Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,220

  2,548

  2,812

  Oldham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,074

  1,220

  1,199

  Rochdale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,308

  1,414

  1,440

  Salford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  937

  972

  946

  Stockport

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  772

  1,112

  1,146

  Tameside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,838

  1,685

  1,789

  Trafford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,073

  1,026

  1,017

  Wigan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  861

  1,002

  1,106

  Barnsley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  781

  986

  1,212

  Doncaster

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,657

  1,706

  1,892

  Rotherham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,023

  2,117

  2,176

  Sheffield

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,828

  4,133

  4,290

  Bradford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,002

  4,887

  4,641

  Calderdale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,669

  1,801

  1,890

  Kirklees

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,211

  3,758

  2,851

  Leeds

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,656

  4,055

  4,350

  Wakefield

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,367

  1,308

  1,345

  Gateshead

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,155

  962

  897

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,598

  2,355

  2,439

  North Tyneside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  296

  265

  258

  South Tyneside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  873

  836

  899

  Sunderland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,858

  1,832

  1,902

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1

  0

  Avon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,244

  6,421

  6,815

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,369

  2,288

  2,299

  Berkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,222

  4,464

  4,779

  366 367

  Youth Service—Net current expenditure

  1986–87 £000s

  1987–88 £000s

  1988–89 £000s

  1989–90 £000s

  1990–91 £000s

  1991–92 £000s

  1992–93 £000s

  1993–94 £000s

  1994–95 £000s

  1995–96 £000s

  Buckinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,247

  3,831

  3,965

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,093

  4,521

  3,864

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,901

  4,788

  3,906

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,684

  5,015

  5,151

  Cornwall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,797

  1,895

  2,382

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,641

  1,454

  1,552

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,413

  5,716

  5,613

  Devon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,258

  3,492

  2,966

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,294

  3,465

  3,714

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,504

  4,319

  3,737

  East Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,923

  2,086

  2,213

  Essex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8,616

  9,311

  8,926

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,787

  2,864

  3,058

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,911

  4,263

  4,129

  Hereford and Worcester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,139

  2,141

  2,106

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,629

  4,967

  4,869

  Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,093

  5,964

  6,378

  Isle of Wight

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  985

  1,008

  944

  Kent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,664

  7,122

  4,439

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9,898

  10,261

  10,758

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,279

  6,048

  5,211

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,994

  2,095

  2,014

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,940

  3,218

  3,025

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,844

  2,892

  2,747

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,630

  2,686

  2,916

  Northumberland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,364

  1,758

  2,005

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,469

  6,610

  6,999

  Oxfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,691

  3,131

  3,473

  Shropshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,823

  2,807

  2,720

  Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,999

  1,942

  2,036

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9,859

  9,404

  8,849

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,405

  1—

  1—

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,511

  5,281

  5,195

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  636

  769

  751

  West Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,132

  4,046

  3,988

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,935

  3,875

  4,025

  Total

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  275,443

  281,825

  279,137

  1 Information not available

  Mr Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to make provision of the Youth Service a statutory responsibility; and if he will make a statement. [9137]

  Dr. Howells
  Local authorities already have a duty under the existing Education Acts to secure provision in their areas of adequate facilities for further education, of which the youth service is a part. However, the Government is committed to raising the profile of the youth service which it values as an important provider of personal and social education for young people. Further details about my right hon. Friend's proposals for legislation to place the youth service on a clearer and more specific statutory footing will be included in the White Paper on Lifelong Learning in the autumn.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Skipton Benefits Agency
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what plans exist to reduce the staffing levels and ranges of services at Skipton Benefits Agency; [9104]

  (2) which existing occupiers of Cavendish House in Skipton intend to vacate the premises; and what new occupiers she expects will move in; [9106]

  (3) what is the catchment area of the Benefits Agency at Cavendish House, Skipton; [9105]
  368
  (4) if the present level of service and staff presence will be maintained at Skipton Benefits Agency during the current review. [9107]

  Mr. Field
  One of our key aims is that delivery of service should be simpler and more efficient. In order to maintain and improve the level of service whilst keeping within announced spending totals, managers have decided to move the processing of benefits from the Benefits Agency office at Skipton to the Keighley office. Queries on operational matters are for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Peter Mathison. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member directly and for his reply to be published with the answer.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. David Curry, dated 17 July 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions concerning the Benefits Agency (BA) office at Cavendish House in Skipton.
  The BA is currently undertaking a radical reappraisal of its services and the way they are delivered, in order to maintain and improve the level of service provided whilst keeping within the spending targets that have been set for the next two years.
  The Agency is committed to ensuring that people will get the help they need to claim the benefits they are entitled to. The Yorkshire Area Directorate remains committed to providing a high level of service to its customers and equal access to the benefit system for all members of the public.
  It is expected that all benefit processing work will be transferred from the BA office at Skipton to the Keighley office by 15 September 1997. There are currently 27 staff based in Skipton

  369
  of which 6 or 7 will remain. The range of services offered to the public will be unaltered and customers should not notice any difference in the level of service.
  As far as the BA is aware the other occupants, currently Inland Revenue and Employment Services, intend to remain in Cavendish House.
  The Skipton catchment area incorporates Bolton Abbey, Buckden, Cowling, Cray, Crosshills, Gargrave, Grassington, Hellifield, Kettlewell, Long Preston, Malham, Ribblehead, Settle and Skipton.
  I can confirm that the present levels of service of staff presence have remained unaltered during the review.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Debt Payment
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the policy of her Department on the timely payment of debts; and what is her Department's record on the payment of debts in the current financial year. [9524]

  Mr. Field
  All departments are required to pay all their bills within agreed contract terms, or 30 days from receipt of the goods or service or a valid invoice, whichever is the later, where no such terms exist. Information on this Department's record in the current financial year is not yet available. The Government will publish a league of departmental payment performance for 1996–97 in the Autumn.

  Benefits Offices
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to visit the Uxbridge Benefits Agency; and if she will make a statement. [9335]

  Mr. Field
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, intends visiting the Uxbridge office in the near future.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to review the previous Government's rationalisation of benefits offices; and if she will make a statement. [9331]

  Mr. Field
  We are working to deliver our aim of modernising social security delivery so that we offer a better, simpler and more efficient service. As a key part of this, we will be looking at all proposals affecting national and local delivery to ensure that they meet these criteria.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Indonesia (Exports)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the(a) number and (b) categories of export licences granted to Greys Defence Systems Ltd. since 1988 for the export of military, security, police equipment and services to Indonesia; and if she will make a statement on the equipment and services provided. [3688]

  Mrs. Roche
  Companies House records show that Greys Defence Systems Ltd. was incorporated on 20 September 1994. Readily available records show that no export licences have been granted to this company for Indonesia.
  370
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the export licences granted to(a) Procurement Services International and (b) Greys Defence Systems Ltd. for (i) the export of police and security vehicles to the Indonesian Road Police and (ii) the transfer of 8x8 armoured vehicles to Indonesia. [3635]

  Mrs. Roche
  Four export licences have been granted to Procurement Services International for the export of police and security vehicles to the Indonesian police. None of the applications has referred to Road Police, all exports have been destined for Sabhara—the traffic police, Dalmas—local police or Brimob—police mobile brigade. The Department does not maintain records of the actual transfers made under the export licences it issues.

  No export licences have been granted to Greys Defence Systems Ltd., for Indonesia.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment her Department made of applications from GKN Defence for the export of MOWAG armoured or internal security vehicles to Indonesia. [3640]

  Mrs. Roche
  Release of the information requested is being considered under the Code of Practice for access to Government Information and a substantive reply will be made as soon as possible.

  Armoured Vehicle Exports
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if she will make a statement on the export licences granted to Transac International for the export of armoured or internal security vehicles since 1988, indicating the amounts involved, export licence category, countries and security forces units of destination in each case; [3641]

  (2) if she will list (a) the export licences granted to Gulf Transac for the export of armoured or internal security vehicles since 1988 and (b) the amounts, export licence category, countries and security forces units of destination in each case. [3524]

  Mrs. Roche
  Release of the information requested is being considered under the Code of Practice for access to Government Information and a substantive reply will be made as soon as possible.

  Petrol Prices
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Competition and Consumer Affairs will meet the Highland and Islands Action Group to discuss the effect of the increase in petrol prices resulting from the Budget. [8350]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding
  answer 14 July 1997]: My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) has already arranged for me to meet the Highlands and Islands Action Group. If the hon. Member has any interest I would be delighted if she could join us.

  BT (School Internet Services)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he has reviewed the competition policy
  371
  consequences of the Government agreement with BT to provide free Internet services to each school; and if he will make a statement; [8916]

  (2) when every school will have access to the free Internet service for all schools which the Government are planning; [8918]

  (3) when Oftel will announce its findings concerning the Government's agreement with BT to provide free Internet services to each school in return for permitting BT earlier access to the broadcast market. [8919]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government welcomes BT's proposal of a special deal for schools, and the offers which the Cable companies have brought forward. These initiatives, which aim to offer schools access to advanced on-line services at affordable and predictable rates, will be of key importance in fulfilling the Government's commitment to wire up schools to the Information Superhighway free of charge, and to make access charges as low as possible.

  There are issues relating to BT's proposal which require Oftel to consult others in the industry, in line with its regulatory duties. We are pleased that Oftel has now published its consultation document, proposing options specifically designed to encourage participation by all telecommunication companies, and competition between different telecommunications companies and Internet service providers. This illustrates the way forward, with all operators working in partnership. Oftel will work towards a final conclusion in September.

  It is of course up to individual schools to decide whether or not to take up the cable industry's offer, or BT's proposal when it is available, and it is therefore not possible to indicate when every school will connect to the Internet. The Government will publish in the Autumn a consultation paper on the National Grid for Learning which will address key issues including network links, ICT infrastructure, software, services, teacher training and technical support.

  The Government is, in line with its manifesto commitments, separately considering the way forward on questions relating to the regulatory restrictions on BT and other Public Telecoms operators. Oftel is involved in that process. The issues involved are complicated—relating not just to competition in telecoms but also to wider broadcasting issues—and must be considered carefully. The Government would expect to publish proposals on the way forward in the Autumn.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what are the costs of the English BCCI liquidation to date; [9145]

  (2) what are the fees and expenses of Deloitte and Touche in the English liquidation of BCCI to date. [9144]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Total expenses brought to account in the UK liquidation of BCCI up to 15 January 1997 (the date to which the last Annual Report of the joint liquidators was made up) were US$567 million and the realisations totalled US$2,445 million. Further details of the expenses and receipts can be found in the joint liquidators' report to the Secretary of State pursuant to Regulations 14 of the Insolvency Regulations 1994 for the 372
  period 16 January 1996 to 15 January 1997, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House and a copy of which I sent to the hon. Member on 30 May 1997.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many and what percentage of civil servants in each of grades 1 to 7 in her Department are of(a) Asian origin and (b) Afro-Caribbean origin. [9565]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The figures for the DTI, on a headcount basis and excluding Executive Agencies, on 17 July 1997 are as follows:

  Asian origin

  Afro Caribbean origin

  Grade level

  Number of respondents

  Percentage

  Number of respondents

  Percentage

  Senior Civil Service

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grades 6 and 7

  8

  1.2

  1

  0.15

  The figures for grade levels include all equivalent grades. About 8 per cent. of staff have chosen not to respond to the Department's ethnic origin survey.

  Employment Advertisements
  Ms Perham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how often since 1992 her Department has been responsible for employment advertisements which contained age restrictions upon those who could apply. [9506]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Consistent with a long standing Departmental policy, since 1992 there have been no age restrictions in advertisements for any posts in the DTI.

  Secured Loans Market (Unfair Practices)
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to prevent unfair lending practices in the secured loans market. [10067]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  I am concerned over some of the allegations I have seen about practices adopted by some lenders and brokers.

  I warmly welcome, and support, the guidelines which the Director General of Fair Trading published today to lenders and brokers in this market. I urge all businesses in the sector to follow these guidelines on good business practice which the Director General advocates. Now that the industry has these guidelines I hope this will put an end to concerns about its business practices.

  Space Programme
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to maintain the ESA science programme as the basis for United Kingdom space science activities; and what plans she has for bilateral co-operation and missions. [9435]

  Mr. Battle
  The ESA science programme is the main plank of UK space science. UK space scientists also participate in bilateral or multilateral missions which supplement collaboration through ESA. These include
  373
  Spectrum-X with the Russian Space Agency and opportunities are being sought to participate in missions led by Japan, NASA, Eire and France.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what preparation she is making for the ESA ministerial meeting in 1998; what plans she has for consultations with the space industry, commerce and academic similar to those which were undertaken before the last ESA ministerial meeting; and when she plans to start those consultations. [9456]

  Mr. Battle
  The European Space Agency will establish a working group in the autumn, on which the UK will be represented, to prepare for the planned Ministerial. I intend to keep in touch with this work and arrange timely consultation with the space sector on proposals as they take shape. Depending on progress, this could be in early 1998.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she plans to update the British Space Plan and publish it before the ESA Ministerial meeting next year. [9426]

  Mr. Battle
  The British National Space Centre is committed to an open planning process and will be preparing an updated Plan in consultation with the space sector. I would expect this to be completed before the planned ESA Ministerial.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what role the United Kingdom will play in the proposed ESA Mars Express mission; and what assessment she has made of the contribution of United Kingdom scientists to Mars science. [9436]

  Mr. Battle
  The precise nature of the Mars Express mission and the roles of ESA members states within it are still under discussion. UK space science generally is world-class, as shown by the success of British scientists in international competition. No specific assessment has been made of their contribution to Mars science but UK scientists have built instruments for the NASA Mars Global Surveyor, due to reach Mars in September, and have collaborated with NASA in the study of Martian materials transported to Earth in meteorites.

  Observatory (Edinburgh)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representatives the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry received from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) on the Royal Greenwich Observatory in Edinburgh. [9431]

  Mr. Battle
  I met my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South, together with representatives from the ROE, to listen to their view on the future of the Royal Observatories on 10 June. I held a similar meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on 12 June.

  Aluminium Industry
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what response her Department has made to the proposals from the European Commission on energy taxation in relation to the United Kingdom aluminium industry. [9438]
  374
  Mr. Battle
  I have received a letter and a position paper from the Aluminium Federation (ALFED) concerning the implications of energy taxation for the UK aluminium industry. I intend to reply to this correspondence shortly. My officials are aware of the aluminium industry's concerns and are keeping in close touch with them on developments at EU level through ALFED.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Debt Payment
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the policy of his Department on the timely payment of debts; and what is his Department's record on the payment of debts in the current financial year. [9528]

  The Attorney-General
  All departments are required to pay all their bills within agreed contract terms, or 30 days from receipt of the goods or service or a valid invoice, whichever is later, where no such terms exist. Information on payment performance for the current financial year could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Government will publish a league table of departmental payment performance for 1996–97 in the autumn.

WALES

  Off-road Cycleways
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of Stae for Wales (1) how many miles of off-road cycleways there are in each county in Wales; [7907]

  (2) what is the projected increase in off-road cycleways over the next (a) five, (b) 10 and (c) 15 years for each county in Wales. [7906]

  Mr. Hain
  Although information requested is not held centrally, I welcome the expansion in provision of off-road cycleways.

  Rat Infestations
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many rat infestations were recorded(a) in total and (b) by local authority for each year since 1990. [8444]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I have received no such notifications since 1990.

  Local authorities are responsible for taking steps to secure, as far as practicable, that their districts are kept free of rats.

  Subsidised Meals (Children)
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment his Department has made of means by which subsidised meals for children may be provided outside school terms; and if he will make a statement. [9134]

  Mr. Hain
  None. Entitlement to free school meals and milk operates only in the context of the provision of education.

  Debt Payment
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the policy of his Department on the timely payment of debts; and what is his Department's record on the payment of debts in the current financial year. [9522]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  All departments are required to pay all their bills within agreed contract terms, or 30 days from receipt of the goods or service or a valid invoice, whichever is later, where no such terms exist. Information on payment performance for the current financial year could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Government will publish a league table of departmental payment performance for 1996-97 in the autumn.

TREASURY

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account is taken in calculating the percentage of public expenditure and its control within the deficit limits of the Maastricht Treaty convergence criteria of that part of public investment projects co-funded by national or local government and funds of the European Community; and if he will place in the Library documents showing the relevant methodology and the outturn calculations for the last available three financial years. [5565]

  Mr. Darling
  The Maastricht Treaty convergence criteria set a reference level for the general government financial deficit of 3 per cent. of gross domestic product. All general government investment expenditure is included in the calculation of the deficit, irrespective of source of funding, as are net contributions to the European Union.

  Local Government Finance (EU)
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which countries in the EU include local authority self-financed expenditure or an equivalent category in their national control total or its equivalent. [8195]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Treasury does not hold comprehensive information about the budgetary control totals of other member states. All countries in the EU measure the General Government Financial Deficit, which takes account of local authorities' current and capital expenditure on sectors outside general government.

  Pensioners (Tax Credits)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of(a) how many pensioners with no tax liability reclaimed a tax credit on dividends paid in 1996–97 and (b) the average amount re-claimed. [7555]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The latest available information is derived from 1995–96 Survey of Personal Incomes. It is estimated that some 300,000 non-taxpayers aged 65 or over made claims, averaging £75, for payment of the tax credit on dividends paid in 1995–96.

  Budget (Environmental Impact)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish his assessment of the environmental impact of tax and spending charges outlined in his Budget. [8347]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that the net effect of the increase in the road fuel duty escalator from 5 to 6 per cent. (assuming this is applied for the life of this Parliament), the reduction in VAT on domestic fuel and power, and abolition of the gas levy will be to reduce carbon emissions by 2010 by around 2 million tonnes annually. A number of other tax changes—including the reduction in VED for low emission buses, and the freeze in road fuel gas duty—will also reduce emissions, but effects will be dependent on take up. The Environmental Task Force, set up as part of the New Deal for the unemployed, will help in meeting the Government's target for heat conservation and efficiency, and thus will also help in reducing emissions.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to publish the Green Book on the environmental implications of the Budget. [8674]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are no plans to publish such a "Green Book" for the recent Budget which was not a full Budget. Information on the environmental implications of the Budget is contained in the Financial Statement and Budget Report—the "Red Book"—and in further press notices issued on Budget day.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those proposals in the Budget which may lead to(a) a reduction and (b) an increase in carbon dioxide emissions in the United Kingdom; if he will estimate by how much carbon dioxide emissions will change in each case; and if he will make a statement. [8636]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that the increase in the commitment to increase road fuel duties from an average of at least 5 per cent. a year in real terms to 6 per cent., will—if maintained for the life of this Parliament—produce additional savings, by the year 2010, of around 21/2 million tonnes carbon annually; the reduction in VAT on domestic fuel and power will increase emissions in 2010 by around 0.24 million tonnes carbon; the cut in the gas levy will have a minimal effect.

  Strip Searches
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria are used by Customs and Excise officers to determine reasonable grounds for suspicion prior to strip searching; and if there is a code of practice by which officers can be held accountable. [8524]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs and Excise follow the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Code of Practice on intimate and strip searches.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of people strip searched in the custody of Customs and Excise officers(a) were not charged with any offence and (b) were not subsequently convicted of any offence, in each of the last three years. [8522]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Information in the form requested is not readily available.

  Environmental Taxation
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set up a green tax commission to advise him on the subject of environmental taxation. [8346]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The statement of intent on environmental taxation, issued at the time of the Budget, said that "the Government will explore the scope for using the tax system to deliver environmental objectives". In taking this forward the Government will consult on potential environmental taxes on a case by case basis, for example as it is now proposing to do on measures to reduce water pollution. The Government has no present plans to establish a Green Tax Commission.

  Advance Corporation Tax
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations took place between his Department and the pensions industry prior to changes to advance corporation tax in the Budget. [7648]

  Dawn Primarolo
  None, as it would not have been appropriate to do so at that stage as indications to this possibility would have been market sensitive.

  Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the meetings involving discussion of the Budget attended by the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe; and what(a) papers and (b) correspondence were circulated to him on the Budget prior to the Budget statement. [7426]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  Lord Simon took no formal part in the pre-Budget decision process and attended no formal Budget meetings. No Budget correspondence was circulated to him.

  Local Authority Pension Funds
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representatations he has received from local authorities about the removal of dividend tax credits from their pension funds. [8137]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 11 July 1997]: We have received some representations from local authorities on this point.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect of local authority-funded pension schemes of the removal of dividend tax credits. [8136]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 11 July 1997]: The extent to which the abolition of payable tax credits will affect contributions to the local government pension schemes will depend on the overall judgment made by schemes' actuaries when undertaking the next actuarial valuation.

  Gas Levy
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the estimated savings per week resulting from the abolition of the gas levy for(a) the
  378
  average household, (b) those in the lowest decile of income distribution, (c) those in the highest decile of income distribution and (d) old age pensioners. [8652]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated average savings from the proposed reduction of the gas levy to zero from April 1998 are given in the following table.

  Household type

  Saving (£ per week)

  As a percentage of net income

  Average household

  0.10

  0.03

  Households in the lowest income decile

  0.10

  0.09

  Households in the highest income decile

  0.15

  0.02

  Pensioners

  0.10

  0.05

  Figures for pounds per week gain are rounded to the nearest 5p. Household incomes are adjusted for differences in composition before allocating households to deciles of net income.

  Tax Evasion (Construction Industry)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the annual loss of revenue caused by tax and national insurance evasion in the construction industry; what plans he has to reduce that evasion; and what additional resources he will deploy for that purpose. [8686]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is no official estimate of the loss of revenue caused by evasion in the construction industry, or any means of arriving at a reliable estimate. Legislation contained in the 1995 and 1996 Finance Acts will greatly reduce the opportunities for evasion by bringing considerably more subcontractors within the scheme for deductions on account and tax and national insurance contributions and by requiring them to carry registration cards. A new computer system is being developed to support the scheme. Additional resources have also recently been made available to help to enforce compliance within the construction industry.

  Trusts
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the tax treatment of income arising out of discretionary and accumulation trusts. [8733]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The tax treatment of all income is kept under review.

  Charities
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration is being given to the interests of small high street businesses in relation to the current review of the tax status of charities. [8478]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: The review of charity taxation invites representations on all aspects of the taxation of charities.

  Pensions
  Mr. Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the financial impact of the Budget measures on pensions in the self-employed sector. [8471]
  379
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: The Budget promotes economic stability and encourages long-term and high quality investment. This is good for the UK economy including the self-employed and the pension funds through which they invest for their retirement.

  Medical Insurance (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of people receiving tax relief for private medical insurance who will terminate their current policies as a result of the Budget measures to terminate such tax relief. [8701]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 July 1997]: There is no reason for anyone to terminate a policy which was current at the time of the Budget, because tax relief continues to be given on eligible policies until they fall due for renewal.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what percentage of employees, in each payband, in the quangos for which his Department is responsible, are of(a) Asian origin and (b) Afro-Caribbean origin. [8935]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The advisory bodies and tribunals for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible do not employ any staff of their own.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants there are on each payband in his Department. [8936]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The number of civil servants working the Treasury by payband is:

  Pay band

  Number

  £7,400–£14,121

  87

  £11,000–£17,973

  224

  £14,000–£23,046

  142

  £19,000–£33,655

  225

  £28,000–£50,000

  164

  £32,054–£50,430

  18

  £38,000–£67,200

  48

  £55,900–£90,000

  19

  £67,000–£106,900

  2

  Total

  929

  Parliamentary Groups
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria his Department applies in awarding grants to all-party Parliamentary groups. [8798]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 16 July 1997]: The level of grants to Parliamentary bodies is assessed annually in accordance with their Financial Memoranda, in the light of submissions from them as to the level of funding which
  380
  they require. Their expenditure in previous years and the level of any reserves available to them are also taken into account.

  The current level of grants is as follows:

  Grant in aid 1997–98

  £

  Inter Parliamentary Union

  834,899

  British Irish Inter Parliamentary Union

  149,601

  Commonwealth Parliamentary Association

  88,750

  British American Parliamentary Association

  70,170

  The level of future grants will be set in the light of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason his Department makes an annual grant to the British-American Parliamentary group. [8797]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 16 July 1997]: Grant in aid is issued to the British-American Parliamentary group so that it can foster better relations between Members of Parliament and parliamentarians in the United States. As with all Government spending, this grant will be examined as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review which I announced to the House on 11 June.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements his Department has for monitoring the use of the annual grant it makes to the British-American Parliamentary group; and if he will make a statement. [8796]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 16 July 1997]: Expenditure by the British American Parliamentary group is governed by its financial memorandum. Its level of grant is monitored in accordance with the Treasury's usual arrangements for the in year control of expenditure. As with all Government spending, the grant will be examined as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review which I announced to the House on 11 June.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Department spends on biking press releases to(a) hon. Members and (b) other individuals or groups, each time his Department issues a press release; how many such press releases were issued by his Department (i) in the period 1 May to 1 July and (ii) in the period 1 January to 1 March; and if he will review his Department's use of couriers to deliver press releases and investigate the possibility of using fax or e-mail. [8812]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 17 July 1997]: The Treasury uses various distribution methods for its press releases including fax, postal deliveries, and online databases. The Treasury does not bike press releases to Members of Parliament or individual groups. Press releases are distributed by post to hon. Members and other individual groups on request. Press releases are also issued to the Parliamentary Online Information Service which can be accessed by Members. Treasury news releases are widely accessed via our World Wide Web site on the Internet.
  381
  The Treasury issued 34 press releases in the period from 1 May to 1 July 1997 and 22 press releases from 1 January to 1 July. As part of our distribution mechanism, the Central Office of Information send press releases to media organisations on our behalf to ensure that they receive releases promptly. The cost of biking releases to COI is £5.95 (excluding VAT). It is not possible for our service suppliers to provide a separate breakdown of the cost of delivering releases to the media. However, the Treasury reviews these services regularly to ensure that the most cost effective delivery mechanisms are used at all times.

CABINET OFFICE

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will list the cost overruns to date in the contracts for site clearance and preparation for the Millennium Experience. [6441]

  Year

  Total

  Department's decision upheld by the court

  Court found for the applicant

  Department submitted to the judgment

  Department appealed against the decision

  Withdrawn

  Pending

  1995

  9

  6

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  1996

  8

  5

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  1997

  5

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  3

  In the past, it was not considered necessary for this sort of information to be held by the Department of the Environment and the information is not held in a form which would enable this Question to be answered except at disproportionate cost. I have asked officials to ensure that, in future, information of this sort will be kept for the whole of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  Soundproofing
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the building regulations in order to improve soundproofing; and if he will make a statement. [8344]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Each part of the Building Regulations is kept under review and revised when the need is identified and adequate technical solutions are available. The Building Regulations Advisory Committee has advised the Department that there is a need to revise and strengthen Part E—Resistance to the passage of sound, and my officials have begun a review of the options available. Any changes made will draw on the results of research when this is completed.

  Debt Payment
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the policy of his Department on the timely payment of debts; and what is his Department's record on the payment of debts in the current financial year. [9531]

  Angela Eagle
  All departments are required to pay all their bills within agreed contract terms, or 30 days from receipt of the goods or service or a valid invoice,
  382
  Mr. Caborn
  I have been asked to reply.

  There have been no cost overruns to date on the contracts placed by English Partnerships for site clearance and infrastructure works for the Millennium Experience.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Judicial Reviews
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many decisions by his Department were challenged by way of judicial review in each Parliamentary session since 1994–95; and if he will list in how many cases(a) the Department's decision was upheld, (b) the court found for the applicant, (c) the Department submitted to the judgment and (d) the Department appealed successfully against the judicial review decision. [7834]

  Angela Eagle
  Figures are available for the former Department of Transport for the calendar years 1995 and 1996, and for 1997 so far, as follows:

  whichever is later, where no such terms exist. Information on payment performance for the current financial year could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Government will publish a league table of departmental payment performance for 1996–97 in the autumn.

  Offham Marshes
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the protection afforded to the site of special scientific interest at Offham Marshes, near Lewes. [9519]

  Angela Eagle
  Under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 SSSIs are protected from damaging operations by requiring owners and occupiers to notify English Nature if they wish to carry out any listed operation that might damage the special interest of the site. Notification allows for a period of negotiations. In respect of Offham Marshes there is a management agreement in place which protects the special interest for which the site was notified.

  Rochfort Healthcare
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he will take on the planning application in Roxby from Rochfort Healthcare approved by North Lincolnshire Council (96/2067). [9594]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The local planning authority, North Lincolnshire UA, granted planning permission for this development on 30 May 1997. Once planning permission has been granted, the Secretary of State has no power to call in the associated application.

  Cyclists
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the relevant responsibilities, in respect of the interests of cyclists, of(a) the Rail Regulator and (b) the Franchising Director. [9099]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Franchising Director's Objectives, Instructions and Guidance require him to take into account all relevant Government policies, including the Government's support for the aims of the National Cycling Strategy. The Franchising Director has included in all franchise agreements a provision requiring facilities to be made available, as far as practicable, for the carriage of cycles on trains.

  The Rail Regulator has no specific responsibilities in relation to the interests of cyclist. However, he has a general duty to protect the interests of railway users and to promote the use of the railway network.

  Oil Tanker Traffic
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures the Government are undertaking to protect the Atlantic Frontier region from the effects of increased oil tanker traffic following Lord Donaldson's recommendations of 1993. [8987]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government is committed to protecting all of the UK coastline and all UK waters from the harmful effects of shipping. We have introduced several measures which go beyond the recommendations 384
  of Lord Donaldson's Inquiry. We are pressing for the designation of all waters around the UK as a special area for discharges of oil from ships. This will prohibit all discharges from oil tankers. We will shortly increase the maximum fine which magistrates may impose for illegal discharges of oil five-fold to £250,000. Several internationally agreed routeing and reporting measures have been introduced to enhance the safety of navigation around the UK coast. The effectiveness and scope of these measures are kept under review.

  Salisbury Bypass
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what conclusions he has reached following his accelerated review of the proposed Salisbury bypass and associated roadworks in the Wessex Link design, build, finance and operate project; and if he will make a statement. [9309]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  An announcement on the accelerated review will be made shortly.

  A40
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends that work will commence on lane separation projects on the London section of the A40. [9326]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Schemes to separate the main and side roads at the junctions on the London section of the A40 are included in the A40 Western Approach DBFO project. This is one of the projects in the Accelerated Roads Review. An announcement on this will be made shortly.

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

Plant Varieties Bill [H.L.]
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to implement the 1991 revisions to the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants—or the UPOV Convention as it is commonly known. I understand that in the other place UPOV was described as a French acronym. In fact, boringly, it stands for the Union for the Protection of Varieties. At the same time, it will align the standards of protection offered by the UK national system of plant breeders' rights with those already available under the parallel, but separate, European Community plant breeders' rights regime established in September 1994.
Plant breeders' rights are a form of intellectual property, similar to patents, which enable plant breeders to obtain protection for new varieties and an income, through royalties, on their commercial exploitation. They are underpinned at international level by the UPOV Convention. The UK played a major role in the development of the first UPOV Convention, signed in 1961, and was a founder member of the union which it established.
A vibrant and successful plant breeding industry committed to investment in developing new, improved varieties is vital to the success of the UK agriculture industry and the nursery trade. A robust system of plant variety protection is essential to provide the necessary incentives to investment in plant breeding in this country.
The plant breeders' rights regime established by the 1964 Plant Varieties and Seeds Act implemented the first UPOV convention. But technology has moved on apace since 1964 and this was the driving force behind the revisions in the 1991 convention.
As well as enabling the UK to ratify the 1991 convention, the Bill will bring our national system of protection into line with that provided by the Community regime. Plant breeders have a choice between national systems of protection and the Community system which offers a right valid in all 15 member states. The Bill will put an end to the confusion which can arise when two systems which are different, but each of which have the same users (plant breeders, nurserymen, farmers and seed processors), operate side by side.
Before I turn to the detail of the Bill, when it was debated in another place some concerns were voiced about the safety and environmental impact of plant varieties developed by genetic modification. It is of
1122
course essential that these matters are addressed. This is why stringent statutory controls already exist which govern the release of all genetically modified organisms into the environment. But I should like to emphasise that this Bill is concerned only with plant breeders' rights. It does not have any implications for the regulation of releases of genetically modified plant varieties.
The statutory controls on releases, which include releases of genetically modified plant varieties, are quite separate from the Bill. Their effect is that a consent must be issued by the Secretary of State for the Environment, if the release is in England, or the Secretaries of State for Scotland or Wales, as appropriate, each acting jointly with the Minister of Agriculture in matters of joint interest, before any genetically modified organism can be released into the environment. No consent can be issued without the agreement of the Health and Safety Executive.
The independent expert members of the statutory Advisory Committee on Releases into the Environment—or ACRE as it is known—consider applications to release and market genetically modified organisms. ACRE advises Ministers whether a consent should be granted and which conditions should be attached to any consent. The Plant Variety Rights Office cannot undertake the tests necessary to establish whether a variety meets the criteria for plant breeders' rights unless and until the necessary clearance has been obtained. Nothing in the Bill alters or affects this position in any way.
Perhaps I could also emphasise that plant breeding is fundamentally about genetic change, whether that change is brought about through traditional methods of crossing and selection, or through genetic modification. The Bill does not favour or encourage one method of plant breeding over the other.
There are also concerns in some quarters about the development of genetically modified crops by multinational companies. There is an international dimension to plant breeding. This is recognised in the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The WTO agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property requires member countries to protect plant breeders' rights by patents, or a separate effective system. The Bill provides an effective system of plant breeders' rights, but it does not favour one type of company over another. Instead, it seeks to provide the basis for plant breeders from large and small companies to obtain a fair return on their investments.
Specific concerns have also been raised about the development of genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops and their management on the farm. MAFF published a discussion document on this subject on 10th July. This in my view is the more appropriate vehicle for dealing with this topic, not the Bill we have before us which is concerned only with intellectual property protection.
To turn to what is in the Bill, although it is a long one, many of its provisions do no more than re-enact and, where appropriate, clarify equivalent provisions from the 1964 Act. Given its length, I shall concentrate

1123
on describing the more fundamental changes it makes to the 1964 Act, rather than detaining the House with a clause-by-clause explanation of the detail.
The fundamental changes are in Clauses 6 to 10 which are about the scope of plant breeders' rights. The basic right in the 1964 Act is the exclusive right to sell propagating material of a protected variety, or produce propagating material for sale. The key change in Clause 6 is the much wider scope of things which a breeder can prevent others from doing with propagating material of a protected variety, without his authority. This includes, for example, any production or reproduction of propagating material, conditioning—which means preparing for planting—import, export and so on. Taken together, provisions in Clause 6(1) give the breeder control over all the things necessary to exploit a variety.
UPOV found it impossible to define "propagating material" in the 1991 Convention. The nature of plant material, and the technology, are such that a variety may be propagated from a much wider range of material than seeds or cuttings. Plant material which is commonly disposed of as the final product may be used as propagating material. For example, tissue culture techniques mean that a plant of a vegetatively propagated variety may be obtained from a cut flower. A whole plant or bush which is sold to the public may alternatively be used as propagating material to produce more plants. The Bill, like the 1991 convention, does not include a definition of propagating material - any material which is actually used as propagating material is propagating material for the purposes of Clause 6(1).
The breeder can authorise others to undertake any of the acts in Clause 6(1), and may make his authority subject to conditions. This is the basis for plant breeders' rights licences, which are the means whereby the breeder gives permission to others to exploit the variety, subject to payment of a royalty, while at the same time retaining overall control of it.
The control which the breeder has over his variety is-as with other forms of intellectual property-wide ranging, but it is not unlimited. Acts done for private, non-commercial purposes or to breed another variety, for example, do not come within the breeder's control. Above all, the breeder must act reasonably in taking commercial decisions on whether to issue licences and on what terms. If he does not do so, the controller has powers to issue a compulsory licence and to set the terms, provided that it is in the public interest.
In normal circumstances, as Clause 10 makes clear, the breeder's right is exhausted once propagating material is disposed of with his consent to produce a commercial crop. However, if material sold with the breeder's authority for a purpose which results in exhaustion of rights is used for another purpose, then the breeder's right may not be exhausted. For example, if a finished pot plant is used as source material for vegetative propagation of further plants, then the breeder's right is not exhausted.
The ability of the breeder to take action against infringement of his rights has been strengthened by extending his rights to harvested material which has
1124
been obtained from the unauthorised use of propagating material in those circumstances where the breeder has not had a reasonable opportunity to exercise rights against the propagating material before the point at which it is harvested.
(My Lords, when reading a brief such as this, I have the feeling that the original Sanskrit was probably easier to understand!)
The Bill also includes an optional provision from the 1991 Convention which allows Ministers to extend rights, by regulations, to specific products made directly from harvested material of particular types of varieties which have been obtained through unauthorised use of propagating and harvested material where the breeder has not had reasonable opportunity to exercise his rights at an earlier stage. I should add that Ministers will use the discretion to extend rights to directly made products only where they are satisfied that plant breeders are suffering significantly from pirating of a particular group of varieties with special properties of value, for example, for industrial use.
I should like to emphasise that the extension of rights to enable a breeder to act against harvested material and, where provided for in regulations, directly made products does not give plant breeders a choice between acting against propagating or consumption material. The breeder must always act against infringement of his rights at the earliest possible stage. The most obvious instance where a breeder might not have reasonable opportunity to exercise rights at an earlier stage is unauthorised use of propagating material outside the UK, in a country which does not offer protection to it, followed by an import of the harvested material or, possibly, a product made directly from the harvested material.
Clause 7 extends the breeder's right in a protected variety to encompass a second variety dependent on it. The 1964 Act already recognises that there is a form of dependency in production of hybrids which can only be obtained through repeated use of parent lines. The concept of essential derivation, however, is a new one, introduced to address developments in plant breeding technology.
It can take many years and a heavy financial investment to develop a commercially successful new variety using traditional breeding techniques. Newer techniques in plant breeding, or natural mutations, may result in very small changes to a protected variety in a relatively short time. The change may be only one characteristic of no commercial significance, but it may be freely commercialised in competition with the initial variety, without any acknowledgement of the contribution made by the latter.
Clause 7 provides that where the resultant change is sufficient to make the second variety distinct, but in all other respects the second variety expresses the same characteristics as the initial protected variety, then it may be essentially derived from the initial variety. Clause 7 extends the umbrella of protection in the initial variety to cover the essentially derived variety. In consequence, the breeder of the initial variety has the right to prevent anyone doing any of the acts in Clause

1125
6 in respect of the essentially derived variety. In other words—and your Lordships will be waiting for this!—he can prevent its commercial exploitation.
This enables the breeder of a protected variety to obtain a fair return on his investment. In practical terms, those working on a breeding programme which may result in an essentially derived variety can be expected to reach agreement on its commercialisation with the owner of the initial variety, otherwise there would be little point in their work. I can tell your Lordships that I did not expect a laugh a line while reading this speech!
I have already touched on the exceptions to the breeder's right in Clause 8 which enable the use of protected varieties for private, or other non-commercial purposes, or for experiments, or in a breeding programme. These are compulsory exceptions in the 1991 convention.
The 1991 convention also allows contracting states to restrict the breeder's right in respect of farm-saved seed, subject to safeguarding the legitimate interests of the breeder. I know that several noble Lords are interested in that aspect. Income from royalties is essential to encourage continued investment in UK plant breeding. Use of farm-saved seed without payment denies breeders income from their investment and restricts their ability to invest further in development.
In broad terms, Clause 9 exempts the use of farm-saved seed of species or groups prescribed in regulations from the breeder's right. But farmers who save seed of a protected variety or an essentially derived variety are liable to pay the breeder for that use. A similar provision permitting farmers to use farm-saved seed without the breeder's prior permission is in the Community regime and UK plant breeders have been collecting payment for the use of farm—saved seed of Community protected varieties since last autumn.
Ministers intend to exempt from the breeder's right all those species and groups which may be farm saved under the Community regime. Farmers will therefore be able to farm save seed of these species for use on their own holdings without the breeder's authority. But unless they come into one of the exempt categories, this will be balanced by a requirement to pay the breeder "equitable remuneration" which is "sensibly lower" than the royalty charged on certified seed of the same variety in the same area.
The requirement to pay will apply to varieties protected under the 1964 Act, as well as new varieties which come into protection after the Bill comes into force. But small farmers as defined in the Community regime are permanently exempt from the requirement to pay. There is a further exemption for farmers who have saved seed of a particular variety before the Bill comes into force, who may continue to save that variety, free of charge, until such time as Ministers discontinue this provision by order.
A similar "prior use" exemption is in the Community regime. This expires on 30th June 2001, though the Council regulation makes it clear that this date is subject to review in the light of a report which the Commission
1126
is required to make before then, and may he extended on a variety, group or species basis, depending on the findings in the report.
It is our intention to discontinue the prior use exemption at the same time as the corresponding provision in the Community regime is discontinued. This will not be before 30th June 2001, which means that the majority of farmers who have saved seed of older UK protected varieties before this Bill comes into force may continue to do so free of charge until 30th June 2001.
When the Bill was debated in another place, there was some concern at the absence of any reference in the Bill to the 30th June 2001 date. The reason for this, as my honourable friend the Minister of State made clear, is to ensure that the prior use exemption will not expire on 30th June 2001 if the corresponding date in the Community regime is extended.
Nevertheless, we recognise the concerns that have been raised on this point. The Government will therefore bring forward an amendment at Committee stage to put the 30th June 2001 date on the face of the Bill. I hope this will reassure farmers who save seed that they may continue to use varieties they currently save, free of charge, until that date. I understand, too, that the British Society of Plant Breeders has publicly stated that it does not propose to collect any payment on older UK protected varieties before 30th June 2001. I welcome this assurance.
I know that some sectors of the industry, particularly those representing the mobile seed cleaners, are concerned at the prospect of Ministers discontinuing the prior use exemption at any time in the future. It remains our intention to discontinue the exemption at the same time as the corresponding provision is removed in the Community regime. I hope the assurances I have given, combined with the amendment we shall bring forward in Committee which ensure the exemption will continue until at least 30th June 2001, will also give them some reassurance.
As regards level of payment, this is for breeders and farmers to negotiate, taking account of the requirement that the charge must be "sensibly lower" than the royalty on certified seed. The Bill gives guidance on what is meant by "sensibly lower" by reference to the Community regime. But it does not put any figure on it, and indeed the Government do not intend to intervene in what we believe are essentially commercial matters between breeders and farmers. I am impressed at the constructive way in which representatives of breeders, farmers and seed processors approached the farm-saved seed issue when it was first broached for Community protected varieties. I hope a similar constructive approach will prevail with this extension of the farm-saved seed provisions to UK protected varieties.
As your Lordships will realise, this is an extremely technical measure but it is of considerable importance to the agriculture and horticulture industries. I am aware that the National Farmers Union, the National Association of Agricultural Contractors and the British Association for the Representation of Breeders and others have views about particular aspects of the Bill.

1127
Because of the very technical nature of the Bill, I am more than happy to meet colleagues from all parts of the House with officials to discuss any relevant matters before we reach Committee stage after the Recess.
That brings me to the end of the most significant elements of this somewhat technically complex Bill. To summarise, it sets the framework for a national system of plant variety protection which should provide the basis for a healthy UK breeding and farming industry in the years to come. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Carter.)
11.25 a.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, your Lordships may be surprised to know that this is not the Royal Variety Show! I welcome this Bill with one exception. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has spoken of the negotiations which took place some time ago concerning the EU law relating to seeds and in particular to farm-saved seeds. As a MAFF Minister at that time, I was involved in the many discussions regarding that subject.
The principle that holders of plant variety rights are entitled to royalties was agreed as a result of the UPOV Convention of 1991 and by the European Union in the European Directive 8167/94 on 1st September 1994.
The directive also allows exemptions from royalty for small farmers, and limits the rights to newer varieties only. Difficult trade negotiations decided rates of royalty and collection methods. The royalty-free status of older varieties was an important element in those negotiations.
Clause 9(3) of the Bill seeks to extend the royalty scheme to all protected varieties, including the older ones which do not enjoy such protection under the European scheme. I am advised by such organisations as the National Association of Agricultural Contractors that that provision will destroy a cornerstone of the trade agreement. The agreement in relation to rates of royalty and collection methods worked smoothly in 1996–97 and is about to enter its second year. This new provision will upset the balance of market forces which helped to determine overall royalty rates. It will increase farmers' costs and erode hard-won confidence in certain sectors, particularly, I am told, among farmers in the north of England and in Scotland.
I know that I am a dumb bunny, but I must ask whether the government amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred, ensures that the exemption for older varieties remains; in particular, that no variety registered before December 1991 should, for the rest of its protected life—25 years in total—be liable for royalties when used as farm-saved seed.
I mention 25 years because, with older varieties, a minimum of six years and a maximum of 24 years has already expired. Large-scale use is usually limited to about 8 to 10 years. The exemption for older varieties would minimise the effect on breeder income. If the Government's amendment does not fulfil my criterion
1128
I am afraid that, in my view, it will not be adequate. I await with anticipation the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
11.29 a.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I rise with some trepidation to speak on a subject on which I am not normally known to speak. However, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on a right tour de force, frankly. I met my noble friend Lord Donoughue this week and asked him why he would not be dealing with this matter today. He said that he had a much more difficult job; that is, visiting the farmers and fishermen of Cornwall. Having heard my noble friend's tour de force this morning, I am not sure who drew the short straw.
I am no agricultural specialist and I am not an expert on genetically modified organisms. But I have concerns about some parts of this Bill from a competition and environmental point of view. At first sight, the Bill appears to be fairly non-contentious and highly technical. But having had some matters drawn to my attention—I have received a number of papers from different organisations and representations about the potential consequences of the legislation—I feel it is necessary to voice two concerns.
First, the Bill appears likely to encourage a concentration of the seed market into a few multinationals, creating what I see as possible monopoly situations. That would also tie the seed market into the use of specific fertilisers and weedkillers from the same manufacturers.
Secondly, in encouraging farmers to buy seeds which may well require regular chemical treatment—weedkillers or fertilisers—the measure is likely to increase ground and water pollution. To reduce the variety of plants promoted to be grown would seem to contravene commitments made at the Rio Summit a few years ago.
I start off with the question: why is the Bill necessary? Why is it so urgent, and who stands to gain and lose from its coming into force? What are the likely consequences of its coming into force and are those very different from the consequences if it did not? It seems to me that it has been put together in rather a rush, with all the stages in another place taking place on the same day.
My noble friend the Minister said that a successful plant breeding industry committed to improving varieties is vital to the success of UK agriculture, and the industry needs incentives to invest. Very laudable objectives, but what difference will the Bill really make, and do we need it anyway? Are we short of food? I do not believe that we are in the UK, nor indeed in Europe. Since the last war there has been a fourfold increase in food production and efficiency in the agricultural industry. If there are food shortages in other parts of the world—and there certainly seem to be—I believe that they are caused more by war or other problems than by lack of agricultural support.
In Europe we still suffer from serious overproduction of food, at present bolstered by the CAP. In my view, that is a very good reason for the European Commission

1129
to propose a wholesale change to the CAP before further members join from the East. Indeed, I believe that it would probably be better to abolish the CAP completely and put some of the money saved directly into the countryside and the regions.
I was interested to read an article in yesterday's Independent which said:
"As for the CAP as a tool of environmental protection, that is risible. It is a scheme for subsidising over-production and. in certain areas, that has meant the ruthless exploitation of land for a single crop".
Strong words indeed. So we already subsidise overproduction, and this Bill seems to be designed to encourage new types of seed, which will only exacerbate the situation, as well as reducing the diversity of plant life.
Do we need new types of seed, perhaps genetically engineered? How quickly must they be introduced, if at all, and what enforcement of checks is available? Those are some of the key questions. I understand that, whereas a few years ago crop varieties were mainly developed by plant breeding stations with government finance, both across Europe and here, they are now developed by multinationals. It is great to get the private sector involved. However, when the American company, Monsanto, claims that it will be the main provider of agricultural technology in the future, and Rhone Poulenc and Merck MSDA have merged to become the world's largest poultry genetics and health business, one can be quite clear as to who stands to gain from the Bill and the relevant EU legislation. These companies control the research, the development, the marketing, the sales and what one might euphemistically call, "the after-sales service", which seems to comprise the sale of essential chemicals and the collection of royalties for farm-saved seed.
Consequently, the amount of independent research has fallen and is falling; the companies no doubt employ the best scientists, but are they able to discuss and debate their findings, their concerns and their conclusions openly and freely? Or are they gagged by their contracts with their employers? That is question which needs debating. If such companies bring efficiencies to the industry on such an unprecedented scale, one would expect that they might pass on some of them to the farmers, and might not worry too much if farmers continued to use a little farm-saved seed, on which they have already paid royalties. Figures I have received indicate that they sell seed barley at £320, whereas a farmer might sell his crop for £70. That is quite a mark-up for research and treatment. I quite understand why farmers might prefer to use last year's model of seed. They could argue that they have paid for the use of it once. Why should they not carry on as they choose? It might actually suit their land to continue to use that seed. I see a lack of competition appearing here. I suspect that the manufacturers want the law tightened up so that they can control the market even more effectively.
More serious still, in my view, is the fact that these new genetically-engineered seeds—as an engineer, I do not like this use of the word "engineering"; but there we are, that is what the process is apparently called—are only likely to thrive if they are treated with the fertilisers and weedkillers manufactured by the companies that produces the seeds. The farmers may find that, if they choose products from another
1130
company, or none at all, they will have a disaster on their hands. So farmers are tied into one manufacturer's seed at possibly inflated prices, as well as his fertilisers and weedkillers, which have been genetically modified to keep other companies products away. Fertilisers and other chemicals become a requirement as opposed to an option.
Therefore, what are the likely environmental effects? The preamble to the Bill on page V says: "There are none". I am not sure that that is quite the whole story. My noble friend the Minister described it briefly, but I believe that we need to explore it a little further. It seems to me that the Bill is likely to cause an increase in the overall level of chemicals used on the soil. What happens to the soil, the runoff and the watercourses with all this? What are the other environmental effects? It appears that the Bill will also reduce biodiversity by encouraging the development of plants by fewer and fewer companies. Therefore, as I said earlier, it may contravene the Rio Convention—certainly in intent—as well as many other environmental policies to which both sides of the House—both parties and both governments—have been committed for some time. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can let me know in due course what work has been done to study the possible effects of such new, genetically modified organisms on the watercourses and water supplies.
We have seen such a situation before with nitrates pollution. I do not wish to dwell on that issue, but there was a lot of argument that nitrates were essential for food production; indeed, they may well have been, but the problems still remain and no one is paying much towards the clean-up. If we cannot be certain, should we rush ahead at quite such a break-neck speed to give the multinationals the legal comfort necessary to grasp hold of more of the market? Can we really be certain that the plants developed will not have a serious, adverse effect on the environment, because it is all happening so quickly? Further, can we monitor what is going on?
Can we monitor genetically-engineered maize? We have heard the American industry saying that it cannot be bothered to separate genetically from non-genetically engineered maize when it comes in for processing and saying, "If you don't like it, tough". When there was a shortage of food, one could understand some of these developments. However, whether one could accept it is a matter for debate. But do we need this increased food production now? Surely we need more environmentally-friendly farming with a system to enable farmers to make a decent living, without being forced by such measures to increase chemical application and increase pollution for no particular purpose? It certainly seems to me that some farmers do not want it, and there is mounting concern from many environmental groups. I believe that the Government said yesterday in another place that they wished to encourage organic farming, but how will that be achieved if the chemicals effectively become part of the new seed package?
I am not persuaded about the urgency of this measure. It may be fine for the UK to lead the rest of Europe—and I strongly support the Government's more positive working arrangements with European institutions—but,

1131
with that more positive arrangement, there is also the opportunity for constructive criticism which is equally valid.
Perhaps my noble friend the Minister could tell me how many member states have ratified the 1991 revisions to UPOV. It would be interesting to consider the suggestion that this Government should not ratify until many other member states, perhaps all of them, have ratified it. I understand that several member states, including Italy and Luxembourg, have already banned genetically-engineered maize. Are they likely to ratify UPOV if they have already banned it?
I conclude by thanking the Minister for attempting to make me understand the Bill. Indeed, he tried very hard to do so and I understood most of what he said. However, I do have these environmental and competition concerns on which I look forward to hearing his comments.
11.40 a.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I thank the Minister for making a complicated Bill understandable. I apologise for not having added my name to the list of speakers. That was an oversight. I shall speak within the four minutes that are allowed.
I wish to underline what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has just said. There are distinct worries about genetic engineering and about the concentration of seed companies which are genetically engineering seeds which will only react to their own fertilizers and sprays. That is an anti-competitive practice. However, at the same time we must also realise that without those seed companies and without the agrochemical industry we would not have been able to increase our food production to the point where, from an agricultural point of view, starvation need never occur. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, famines are caused by incompetent and greedy people. If a farmer is shot when he is planting his seeds he will not be able to return to harvest them. That is what causes famine, not the non-availability of proper, well thought out seed and fertilizer policies.
I wish to emphasise what I believe to be a danger of some of the genetically engineered plants. We may all be singing from the same hymn sheet in this regard. A document was sent to me which struck me so forcefully that I thought I should bring it to your Lordships' attention. It may not strictly appertain to the Bill but it is worth quoting. It states,
"The failure of a genetically engineered cotton crop in Texas which suffered a severe attack of boll worm which it was modified to resist; increased cyanide content in one potato variety; the lack of marker gene in modified soya due to a gene not staying on the chromosome on which it was placed, the allergenic effect on babies of honey produced from genetically engineered rape pollen;—
and this seems to me important—
"the spray resistant weeds produced by cross-pollination with a modified sugar beet and rape grown some distance away in the European Union trials are a few instances that illustrate the present problems that go with the technology of genetic engineering. In addition there is the inclusion of antibiotic resistant marker genes in genetically engineered crops. This can be passed on to the consumer producing bacteria resistance".
1132
We all know that bacteria are becoming progressively more and more resistant. I raise these points for the attention of your Lordships' House. The document came through the post. I believe it is worth while raising these points. The Government say that they are environmentally sensitive and I take that at its face value. I am talking about excellent companies here but the more power is concentrated in those companies, the more we have to be vigilant. It is a case of quis custodiet ipsos custodies—who guards the guards themselves? We must be careful about this matter. I hope that this three minute intervention has had a minor impact on the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
11.43 a.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I hope I may speak for one minute to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on his mastery of this extremely complicated Bill. As he said, the matter concerns intellectual property rights. If genetically modified plants had not been introduced by large companies, this Bill would not be necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Onslow have clearly stated all the problems associated with genetically modified plants and the dangers that arise when spray resistant weeds are produced. The Soil Association and organic farmers are as concerned about this matter as those who have spoken today. I hope that we shall discuss those anxieties when we discuss the measure that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned.
11.44 a.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the way in which he introduced the Bill. I assure him that, as with all great performers, it was not so much the jokes as the way in which he delivered them that was important.
This Bill forms part of the battlefield on which the transnational corporations are conducting their campaign to dominate the agriculture of the world. Noble Lords may think that that is an exaggerated way of putting a simple little Bill, so simple that the Government thought that they could get it through another place in 24 hours. Given their majority there, they thought rightly; but if they thought that they could get it through without protest they had another think coming.
Nor is the argument that this Bill is merely the implementation of European law a reason for not considering it carefully. No one has accused my party—at least for the past 40 years—of being anti-European but my colleagues in another place thought the Bill raised such difficult and unthought through issues that they voted against it on Second Reading. Unfortunately convention forbids my attempting to do the same here.
As the NFU has stated in a brief, the Bill should not only mirror EU legislation but should also reflect the considerable changes in commercial practice and market pressures which have occurred within the industry since the introduction of the plant varieties Act in 1964. My honourable friend the Member for

1133
Lewes, Mr. Norman Baker—what pleasure it gives me to deploy that unaccustomed phrase, "my honourable friend the Member for Lewes" —drew the attention of the House to the issues involved and tabled a number of amendments, as I may well do in your Lordships' House, following consultation with the National Farmers' Union, the Soil Association and Greenpeace. Noble Lords will note that is a wide spectrum of concerned bodies.
The seed business is big business. For instance, this year alone Monsanto has bought up three seed breeding and marketing companies for more than £1 billion. The Bill acts in some ways as a catalyst and facilitator for transnational companies to exert unprecedented control over the seed industry—a control which I consider unacceptable here in the developed world and positively appalling in the context of the third world where so many of the genetic resources are found, while the technology for the most part rests in the north. It has been said by the Minister that the whole question of genetically modified seed is not within the scope of the Bill. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and others have shown that it is a matter which must be included. Therefore I intend to speak on it briefly. I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time on something which is not a major part of the Bill but which I nevertheless consider is a part of it.
There is widespread concern about these matters in western Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, spoke about the reservations of others of our European partners—for example, where there are bans on the planting of genetically modified maize. As the noble Lord said, one of the main reasons for the enormous investment is to produce genetically modified seed that is tied into the use of pesticides—and even to produce non-genetically modified seed that is tied into the use of pesticides—so that farmers are obliged to buy those companies' products. Some pesticide patents are due to end shortly; how convenient to be able to patent seeds that are dependent on such pesticides, thus giving them a new lease of life. Often this can be extremely dangerous. Roundup Ready soya may flourish, but the glyphosphate which is involved may pose a serious danger to all surrounding flora as well as to ladybirds and earthworms. Did your Lordships know that there are 32 distinct varieties of ladybird in this country? I advise noble Lords to read Gardening Which? this month which contains a fascinating article on the subject.
Another main reason is to enable the seed cartel to levy a sum on all farm-saved seed. It is indeed right that breeders and innovators be modestly rewarded for their work and be funded to pursue further work. But what is being engineered here are vast profits way beyond anything which could reasonably he called "earned", with rights being given to extend claims beyond 30 years and other rights being given to the ownership of seeds that occur naturally.
The greatest threat posed by this Bill is that it seems to be another step along the road of decline of genetic diversity—that was another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—one of the great threats to the sustainability of the planet. Quite apart from the monopoly problem, the environmental consequences of
1134
the fast move towards genetically modified crops gives cause for grave concern. The note attached to the Bill, which states that it has no environmental impact, is one of the most astonishing misstatements to have been placed before your Lordships' House by otherwise respectable civil servants.
First, there is the creation of a permanent reliance on pesticides. The Government have stated that they are committed to the support of organic farming, as we have been told and is welcomed. However, the Bill raises doubts as to whether there can be any guaranteed organic crops with the risk of airborne spread of material from genetically modified crops next door.
Secondly, there is a danger that a modified crop might become a devastating weed. Many of the traits that geneticists seek to engineer in crops are geared to dominance of and resistance to the normal controls of natural life.
The third environmental point is that there is a danger of increased pesticide residues in the crops of genetically engineered plants. Fourthly, there is the problem of marker genes which can cause resistance to antibiotics—already a problem. There are no end to the problems and the dangers. However, there is the ethical problem of the private ownership of genetic material which is encouraged by the Bill and which, I believe, is ethically unacceptable.
An important point made by the Minister was that the Committee stage will be after the Recess. If that is so, that is indeed welcome. From the speeches made, and the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, I am sure that amendments can usefully be put down at Committee stage. We on these Benches will join in that process. With those major reservations, I welcome the Bill.
11.51 a.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we too welcome the Bill, having been the people who signed up to UPOV in the first place. We are delighted that the Government support UPOV to the extent of bringing forward the Bill. I hope that the Minister will confirm also that he supports the sister organisation, UPOHP—the Union for the Preservation of Hereditary Peers!
As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, we have three months between Second Reading and Committee stage. I believe that that will prove a useful period. The Bill follows legislation which lasted over 30 years. We expect the Bill to last over 30 years in its turn. Therefore the more consideration and care we can give to it the better. I shall ask the noble Lord a number of questions. I very much hope that he will not reply to many of them. I do not want the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to put forward anything in Hansard which will make our discussions over the next three months more difficult. I hope that he will merely confirm what he has already said: that he will be open to representations and will listen carefully to what we and others say to him.
Perhaps I may give some indication of the principal concerns we have at this stage, in no particular order. First, as the Minister said, it is probably impossible to define propagating material these days. It can be

1135
anything; it can be a single cell. One can imagine producing a Dollyanthus from a petal that one picked up in a florist shop. Under those circumstances, what is and is not propagating material becomes fuzzy. One can see a difference in the systems. With ornamentals, the breeder will retain control of the process to the point where the pot plant is sold to the supermarket. With grain, the breeder loses control rather earlier. He does not control the grain up to the point where it is sold to the miller but to the point where it is sold to the farmer. There is a propagative step which in conventional terms is outside the breeder's right.
It is a matter of concern to the National Farmers' Union that the Bill may be written in a way which, over time, will allow the multinationals to extend their control over the grain, potato and other trades—it has been achieved in horticultural and ornamentals practice—to the end point. If one has an integrated company, which includes millers or end users, it can enforce the sale of a product to a miller or end user. It can control the way that farmers farm. Farmers will wish to preserve the freedom to operate they now have. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, supports that aim in his heart. We shall have a happy time ensuring that the Bill allows that right to continue.
Clause 15 is an important safety valve. It allows the controller to insist that licences are granted. That provision is in current law. However, it has some deficiencies. If a farmer is arguing with a supplier of a specific variety, in particular if that supplier is, and increasingly will be, a large, widespread company—in farming it is likely to be an agricultural seed merchant or someone of that kind—he will have a wide range of business with the supplier. If that company says, "No, we shall not let you have that variety," and the farmer replies, "I shall stump off to the controller and obtain an order that we shall have it", he had better watch out for the remainder of his business with that supplier. There will be few cases where a supplier will wish to bring a case against the breeder or his agent to obtain supplies. He will usually be frightened off at a much earlier stage.
In essence Clause 15 protects the national interest. As I shall mention when considering other points, there are circumstances where it is important for the nation that plant varieties are properly licensed and available to farmers or whoever needs them. I shall propose that the right of appeal to the controller be extended to organisations which are able to seek from the controller a general ruling that a specific variety be licensed more widely or on more commercial terms. I do not specify any person to whom it should be licensed.
For example, it may be necessary for my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam to use a particularly old variety for organic farming because it is best for that purpose. But the company may wish to withdraw that variety because it wants its main customers, the farmers, to obtain a new variety which requires the use of its own insecticide or fertiliser. It is in the national interest that the old variety continues to be licensed. We want effective use of Clause 15. I am concerned that the old system—it is reproduced in the Bill—will not sufficiently meet the
1136 condition, well described by the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Beaumont of Whitley, of increasing domination by multinationals.
I turn to farm saved seeds. We welcome the assurances given by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. At first sight they meet the points raised. I shall be interested to hear his reply to my noble friend Lady Trumpington on that matter.
We wish to take a little further the phrase "sensibly lower". As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, the phrase is now a year or two old. Through a series of tortuous negotiations, it has been expanded into a rather complex formula so that "sensibly lower" is dealt with variety by variety. However, we should like a reserve power in the Bill, intended never to be used but there in case things get out of hand, so that at no time over the next 30 years can multinationals, or whoever controls the seed trade, make unreasonable demands regarding "sensibly lower" and say that 95 per cent. is sensibly lower rather than the general figure which, I believe, is now 42 per cent. We should like some long-term protection to ensure that negotiations continue to be conducted on a reasonable basis.
Clause 11(2) puzzles us somewhat. It allows for the extension of plant breeders' rights beyond the 25 or 30 years, apparently without limit. The Government could decide to give a 150-year protection on a given variety without either consultation or limit. If the Government can justify having this power to grant enormous extensions, we wish to see the requirement for extensive consultation before that occurs. Alternatively, we wish to see the power limited to the figure of five years in the EC directive, under which circumstances we shall be happy for the Government to have the discretion without consultation.
Schedule 3 sets up the tribunal and states how it should work. The tribunal is composed of a chairman—who is clearly likely to be legally or similarly qualified and a "lay" person in the sense of not being involved in the seed industry—and one person who is likely to know the way round either side of a dispute. We are concerned that paragraph 7(1)(a) as written could mean that the person chosen, as it were, to represent the farmers (though "represent" is the wrong word) and having that kind of understanding might not necessarily command the confidence of farmers; that he or she might just be any academic or an agricultural consultant of no particular reputation. I should appreciate the Government's assurance, which is all that we seek, that the person chosen under paragraph 7(1)(a) will be someone expected to command the confidence of the farming or forestry community. We seek an assurance that that is the way in which the Government will seek to act.
A substantial point was raised, principally by the British association representing breeders (BARB) regarding traceability of product. The association is principally concerned with ornamentals. When dealing with farm product, there are controls on seed and the whole area is documented and controlled. That is not the case with ornamentals. We are dealing with a product of fundamentally higher value, one that can be produced,

1137
as it were, in secret and then reappear at any number of widely spread outlets such as garage forecourts or the displays of people on the side of the road selling cut flowers. A producer may suddenly find that his or her variety is being offered widely for sale without having any chance of discovering where it is coming from. People clearly do not want to be faced with proceeding against a large number of small operators; they want to find out who is behind the operation.
BARB, quite reasonably, seeks the same rights as breeders in relation to farm-saved seed; namely, the right to information, to find out where the produce is coming from, and then to take appropriate action against, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, the lowest possible point in the chain. Without the right to information (this would also apply to farm-saved seed) enforcement becomes impossible. We should like to see the problem addressed in the Bill. France and Germany have offered that sort of protection—Germany, I am told, to the extent of making it a criminal offence to indulge in such activities. I do not see that that would be appropriate in this country; however, it shows that our competitors take the matter very seriously. If we try to enact a measure that is noticeably weaker, we may well find that, over time, the ornamentals breeding industry, which is very strong in this country, will tend to move elsewhere.
There would also be some useful applications in other fields. One matter raised with me by, for instance, the NFU, is that of the problems in the potato market where supermarkets have taken to insisting on a particular variety. The immediate response of the breeders or their agents has been an enormous hike in the costs of buying seed of that variety. That has led to a large black market developing among those who produce the seed, small ware, or whatever form it might take. People can plant without paying the royalty and make the operation very uneconomic for those who obey the rules. If the people who had the rights—breeders or their agents—knew that they could go to any outlet selling potatoes and end up knowing who had supplied them they would be in a much better position to insist that royalties were paid and might even persuade supermarkets to do what they do not do at present; namely, take the sensible step of making sure that payments required of the producers by the breeders are reasonable before the supermarkets specify that a particular variety is the only one that they will buy.
I listened with considerable interest to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, my noble friend Lord Onslow and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on the general problems surrounding the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, is right: the Bill does not go far into that territory. However, there is a strong argument for making sure that the measures in the Bill do not inhibit our dealing with the real problems which may exist (I do not want to go further than that) and which have been outlined by noble Lords.
I return to Clause 15, which gives those in the industry some control over what breeders do with their rights. It is enormously important that old varieties are kept in the market and that we are not deprived of them and forced to use material that is heavily dependent on
1138
agrochemicals or, in particular, on farming practices which may be undesirable. It is likewise important, and another matter that we should pursue, that the country has access to the genetic material represented by the older, unmodified varieties in case we have to "back-track" and return to their use because of disadvantages unrecognised now but possibly presenting difficulties in the future.
I have received a helpful paper from MAFF on the work being done on genetic resources. It is clear that a good deal is being done, but in a rather ad hoc sort of way, and that the work could be wiped out by the Chancellor "blowing his nose too hard" on Budget Day. It would be a very good idea to anchor in the Bill an obligation to keep and preserve for a considerable length of time, certainly beyond the expiry of their paper rights, as it were, the genetic material of all varieties licensed in this country.
Finally, I turn to the Scottish question. The Bill incorporates the unusual term, "Ministers" rather than "Minister". I refer to Clause 46 of the Bill, where "the Ministers acting jointly" have to take action under the Bill. What will be the arrangement post-devolution? I do not really expect the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to be armed with an answer now; but we shall certainly expect an answer in Committee. We ought to anticipate the changes which may take place in this area. We should not leave the matter merely to be dealt with in a consequential amendment at the back end of some gigantic devolution Bill when such a Bill comes before us. We ought to consider it now.
12.7 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to your Lordships for this constructive and very wide-ranging short debate on a highly complex, technical Bill. I am beginning to understand why my noble friend Lord Donoughue was anxious to do the regional trip to Cornwall today and leave me to deal with this measure!
I believe that we all agree that the health of the plant breeding industry is fundamentally important to the future success and competitiveness of UK agriculture and the nursery trade. The debate wandered just a little wider than the Bill itself. I will deal with some of the questions raised; however, owing to the time and the fact that it is Friday, I will write to noble Lords with answers to the other points.
The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, asked whether the government amendment will permanently exempt the older varieties. I know that there is a problem here. I have already had discussions with the NAAC about this matter. At the moment, the Bill as drafted and the amendment that we shall bring forward in Committee will not meet the noble Baroness's point. I undertake to discuss the point with her and others between now and Committee stage since I know it gives rise to concern.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley asked: why is the Bill necessary? It was put together in something of a rush. The UPOV convention was signed by the UK in March 1991. This Bill is required in order to implement it.

1139
There was wide consultation during the development of the convention. Furthermore, the proposals in the Bill were widely circulated in November 1994. A draft Bill was published in February 1997. Therefore I do not believe that it has been rushed. New crops will be developed with or without the Bill. The importance of the Bill is that it will provide a basis for the development of varieties in the UK.
There was concern expressed by a number of noble Lords about the effect of GMOs, but this is not the place to go into that because the Bill has nothing to do with GMOs. However, there is clearly a need for a debate in this House on the subject. If noble Lords would like to suggest such a debate, I shall do my best through the usual channels to ensure that time is found for it. What one should understand is that GMOs will happen, with or without the Bill. I shall write to noble Lords about the checks which exist on the environmental effects and aspects of GMOs.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked how many states have ratified UPOV. I am told that Israel, Denmark and the Netherlands have implemented it and a number of other countries are well advanced in their preparations. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and others made the point about the lack of diversity that could result from the development of GMOs on plant breeding and the concentration of the power of the plant breeder. Although I have already said that it is outside the scope of the Bill, it struck me when I was considering the Bill that biodiversity of the genotypes, certainly with cereal crops, is much wider than it used to be. When I started farming there was one variety of winter wheat which was Cappelle Desprez, there was one variety of spring barley which was Proctor, one variety of spring oats, S172—I am showing off here—and one variety of oilseed rape, Primor. They have long gone and there are now hundreds of varieties. It is true that some of the varieties are fairly close to others and one sometimes wonders whether they have been developed for marketing reasons. However, I honestly think—and I have had it checked—that we will find that the diversity of the cereal genotype is much wider than is generally recognised. There is another point about pesticides. One of the arguments for herbicide-tolerant GMOs is the fact that they require the use of less pesticide rather than more.
The point to remember is that the principle of royalty on plant breeding has long been recognised and the principle of the protection of intellectual property has also been recognised. All the Bill does is to put the two together. There was something of an element of conspiracy theory behind the remarks of my noble friend Lord Berkeley about the multinationals. I often wonder who is behind all these conspiracy theories!
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and others, were concerned that a few multinational companies would dominate the market and force farmers to use their pesticides. I touched on the question of multinational companies in my opening speech. We must recognise that plant breeding is an international activity and that many plant breeders have interests throughout Europe, North America and worldwide. The Bill does not alter
1140
that but it ensures that plant variety protection in the UK is as good as elsewhere, so that breeders can continue their important contributions, bringing forward new varieties which are suitable for UK conditions. It therefore provides a sound basis for investment in developing new varieties for the UK market, which is vital for the success of UK agriculture.
I was struck by the Latin quotation from the noble Earl, Lord Onslow: quis custodiet ipsos custodies. I think it can be freely translated as: who looks after those who look after the others? As Chief Whip, I should love to know.
A question was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the extension of rights. Under the Community regime, rights can only be extended for up to five years for a particular species or group. The Bill allows Ministers to extend rights for any length of time. We agree that this open-ended provision is unnecessary. We shall bring forward an amendment at Committee stage which will provide that Ministers may extend rights to a maximum of five years for any specified species or group.
There was also a question on whether compulsory licences could be amended to enable an organisation such as the NFU to seek a compulsory licence on behalf of its members. I do not believe that we can agree with that. A compulsory licence has to be sought by a particular person. A provision enabling the controller to direct a breeder to make his variety more widely available to an undefined group would not be in keeping with the UPOV convention and would be interventionist in the extreme. If, for example, there were 10 growers who each submitted a compulsory licence application in respect of the same variety, there is nothing under Clause 15 which prevents the NFU, for example, from speaking on behalf of those 10 growers. In addition, Clause 23 makes specific provision for an organisation such as the NFU to make representations and applications for compulsory licences where the licence is issued by a breeders' organisation such as the BSPB. That right exists, regardless of whether an applicant for a compulsory licence asked for NFU assistance in preparing a case.
There was also a point about representation on the tribunal. The Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal has a chairman and one person drawn from a panel of individuals with a wide knowledge of agriculture, horticulture or forestry and one person with a specialised knowledge of a particular species or the seeds industry. Panel members are selected for their particular knowledge and skills not to represent a particular sector of the industry. If we go down the road of saying that the tribunal should always include a farmer, then we should have to include all the other sections of the industry: the plant breeders, the seed processors, the seed growers, and so on. The tribunal would be unwieldy and unworkable. However, as regards the panels, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that at the moment two of the six members of the general knowledge panel and two members of the specialist panel are farmers.

1141
On devolution, I believe the subject will come up in almost everything we discuss in the foreseeable future. I was asked whether the work of the PVRO on plant breeders' rights should be devolved. The plant breeders' rights are applicable to the UK and the system is administered on a UK basis. The controller is appointed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It would be a duplication of effort and resources for rights to be administered separately in the different regions. Those remarks have been in answer to a few of the questions and I shall write to noble Lords on the other points.
In conclusion, although the Bill is long, I believe that we can agree that most of the provisions re-enact those of the 1964 Act, with necessary updating and clarification. The major changes all flow from the UPOV convention of 1991 to which the UK is a signatory. The passage of the Bill will enable the UK to join the growing number of UPOV member states able to ratify the 1991 convention. Officials have carried out long and detailed consultations on the draft Bill. While inevitably not every comment can be reflected in the Bill, all comments have been carefully considered and there has been significant redrafting in a number of places. As I said, we shall bring forward further amendments at the Committee stage. Also, I should be extremely happy to convene a meeting before the Committee stage when all these various concerns can be discussed. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Fossil Fuel Levy Bill [H.L.]
12.16 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a second time.
In contrast with the Plant Varieties Bill, I am pleased to say that this Bill has only two clauses. It is concerned with the fossil fuel levy, which has an influence on electricity prices to consumers, a matter on which we on this side of the House are very concerned. The Bill is also important because the fossil fuel levy is the main means of raising money to support renewable technology for the generation of electricity.
The arrangements for supporting renewables in Northern Ireland are different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom and the Bill will not extend there.
The stimulation of generation from renewables is an important part of the Government's policy to achieve diverse, secure and sustainable supplies of electricity. Renewables generation also has an important part to play in securing the Government's target to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 20 per cent. by the year 2010.
However, the provision of support for renewable generation has not always been the main purpose of the fossil fuel levy. In the past, the greater part of the levy in England and Wales has been used to provide support for the nuclear electricity generating industry. That is no
1142
longer the case. The fact is that the nuclear generation industry received over £7 billion of support from the fossil fuel levy before the newer parts of it were privatised. It is now able to compete in the market with other generators. So apart from some money still collected for British Nuclear Fuels, and for Magnox Plc to repay them for under-collections in previous years, proceeds of the levy are now used to support renewables. From next year, all the levy income will be used for that purpose. In the current year, the fossil fuel levy is expected to raise approximately £266 million. Around 60 per cent. of that will be paid in support of renewable technologies.
Under the present arrangements, two types of electricity supplied by electricity suppliers licensed under the Electricity Act are subject to the fossil fuel levy: first, electricity from fossil fuel sources and, secondly, electricity produced under the terms of non-fossil fuel orders which are made under Section 32 of the Electricity Act 1989. These are called NFFOs. In Scotland, the arrangements are made under SROs (Scottish Renewables Orders) but in fact all the output of nuclear generating stations in England and Wales is contracted under the primary nuclear contracts, which itself is a NFFO arrangement. Consequently, this nuclear electricity is subject to the fossil fuel levy. However, the primary nuclear contract is due to expire on 31st March 1998 and if no action is taken the nuclear electricity currently generated under that contract will no longer be subject to the levy. Surprisingly, that will result in a slight upward pressure on the price of electricity in England and Wales and it is that small upward movement in electricity prices that the Bill seeks to avoid.
To prevent a distortion in favour of nuclear generators, the Fossil Fuel Levy Bill amends Section 33 of the Electricity Act, so that all electricity from nuclear sources supplied by licensed electricity suppliers will be subject to the fossil fuel levy. That will result in nuclear generators competing on equal terms with fossil fuel generators.
In Scotland, the position of nuclear generated electricity is different from that in England and Wales. Nuclear sourced electricity in Scotland is not subject to SRO or NFFO arrangements and so currently is not subject to the levy. Instead, Scottish Nuclear has a contract, the Nuclear Energy Agreement, with ScottishPower and Scottish Hydro-Electric, under which it is required to provide all the electricity it generates to ScottishPower and Scottish Hydro-Electric. The contract expires in 2005.
We are committed to the support for renewables. The Prime Minister, speaking at the Earth Summit in New York, underlined the Government's determination to put environmental concerns at the heart of the Government's decision-making process. We have set ourselves challenging targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is interested in this matter and I can inform him that last year renewable generators supplied about 2 per cent. of the UK's total demand for electricity. The majority of renewable electricity is supplied by hydro-generation, mostly based in Scotland.

1143
Generation from renewable sources, other than large-scale hydro, increased by over 7 per cent. in 1996 compared with 1995. In England, Wales and Scotland there are currently 195 renewables generation projects generating electricity under NFFO and SRO contracts, with a total capacity of 456 megawatts. Further projects are planned and under contract. We intend to ensure that there is continued growth in generation from renewables.
To meet our aims, the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry announced on 6th June that the Government propose to undertake a new and strong drive to develop renewable energy sources in line with our manifesto commitment. To determine how we will provide targeted and effective support for renewables technology in the future, he has announced a review of new and renewables energy policy. The review will include an examination of what would be necessary and practical to provide 10 per cent. of the UK's electricity from renewables by 2010. We do not intend that productive avenues of support should be rejected or that sensible reforms should be ignored. However, the Government do not intend to make decisions on such reforms until the results of that review are known.
For those reasons, the Fossil Fuel Levy Bill contains a power for the Secretary of State to make all electricity supplied by licensed electricity suppliers subject to the levy. The power would enable the scope of the levy to be extended to include renewables electricity produced outside the NFFO and SRO arrangements, such as large-scale hydro. No decision has been taken on the circumstances in which that power might be exercised and none will be taken until the review of support for renewables is complete.
When reading through the Bill, it struck me that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, as part of the review, could consider a more suitable name for the fossil fuel levy which more accurately would describe its purpose and effect.
Although this is a small Bill of only two clauses, it is important. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Haskel.)
12.25 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, for giving the background to this short Bill. I quite understand that with the termination of the primary nuclear contract an anomaly would arise which could lead to a small increase in electricity prices when spread over the whole market and that the immediate purpose of the Bill is to avoid that. Naturally, we support that necessary correction due to the termination of the contract.
The Bill is concerned with the levy and how it is to be collected in the future. It does not deal with how the levy is to be spent. The noble Lord gave an assurance that an inquiry is being carried out into how the stimulation of non-fossil fuel sources of energy can be increased and that, when the inquiry is completed, proposals will be put forward. Will there then be
1144
legislation to amend the arrangements? I believe that the non-fossil fuel arrangement—I entirely agree with the noble Lord that we should think of some other name for it—is laid down in legislation and presumably, if there is to be any change, we can expect a further Bill. It is unfortunate that the Bill does not in any way, even in general terms, indicate the intentions of the Government in that regard, but if there is to be further legislation following the review I accept that situation.
The review, I suggest, should be accompanied by a similar study of energy efficiency measures. If the objective of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. by the year 2010 is to be achieved, a very wide range of measures will have to be introduced very quickly. Therefore, I hope that the review being carried out will not be exclusively restricted to the stimulus of non-fossil fuel sources. There is a good deal that can be done by introducing measures to increase the efficiency with which energy in general is used, whether derived from fossil or non-fossil fuels.
I have in mind in particular combined heat and power, a process with which your Lordships are familiar. It can virtually double the effectiveness with which primary energy can be converted into electricity and heat. The process has been developed in centres such as Nottingham and Sheffield—I declare an interest in that I am associated with those developments—in conjunction with the local authorities concerned. I should have thought that it needs to be taken into account as one of the ways in which the general objective of reducing carbon dioxide emissions can be achieved. I hope therefore that the non-fossil fuel obligation, as it is now known in technical jargon, can not only be rechristened but widened to include the stimulus of energy efficiency measures in general. In the hope that that is the intention, I welcome the Bill.
I remind the noble Lord that there is a big area in which at the moment energy is not particularly efficiently used; namely, the domestic sector. We know that from the report issued by the Department of the Environment at the end of last year. I hope therefore that in the review the Government will consider the reinstatement of the e-factor, the energy factor at one time included in gas and electricity prices but no longer so, as a way of providing better funding of the Energy Saving Trust which is much more short of funds than originally envisaged by the then government which set it up. I hope that that too will be considered.
I am therefore looking to a range of measures not only to stimulate the development of non-fossil fuels but also to encourage the better use of energy in the various sectors of consumption which can be harnessed to the desirable objective of reducing CO2 emissions. As a small step in that direction, I welcome the Bill and hope that there will be other measures later to complement it.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I say immediately to the noble Lord that on this side of your Lordships' House we support this Bill in principle. Indeed, but for that rare abberation of political judgment

1145
by the British people on 1st May, I have no doubt that I would have been introducing this self-same Bill from the other side of the Chamber. In those circumstances it is unnecessary for me in any way to rehearse the elaborate and detailed argument which the noble Lord usefully gave to the House in support of this measure.
However, I would be grateful if the noble Lord could respond on two matters. The first relates to making it clear to a wider audience what the measure encompasses. In the press release which the DTI put out in a somewhat exuberant fashion on 27th June, it was stated that this was a Bill to save electricity consumers £70 million. I agree that indirectly one reaches a position where prices do not increase, but it is a nice point whether, if prices do not increase, that is a saving. It would seem to me—perhaps the noble Lord will confirm this—that a more accurate way of describing the purpose of the Bill is to be found in the Explanatory Memorandum which indicates,
"The Bill will prevent nuclear electricity generators obtaining a price advantage in the market, compared to fossil-sourced electricity, after the ending on 31 March 1998 of the requirement for regional electricity companies to acquire certain amounts of nuclear electricity".
That would seem to be a much more accurate way to explain the situation. It is not simply a matter of a measure being taken which will, from present levels of electricity prices, bring about any saving of the order of £70 million.
The other matter I should like to raise—I gave the noble Lord some notice of this—is that prior to the election I know that the present Minister for Science, Energy and Industry was approached with a proposal, as I was, that this levy—we will leave out fossil fuel for the moment because the nomenclature becomes rather tangled—should be utilised not only to support the generation of electricity from renewable resources such as wind, wave or solar power, but also that it should be extended to support the research and development of cleaner coal technologies.
Mr. John Battle certainly gave the impression to those making the proposal that he was sympathetic to the making of such a change. I know that because subsequently they came to see me and asked me to express exactly the same degree of sympathy for such a proposal. As it turns out, unnecessarily, I was somewhat more cautious in what was being proposed than he was.
It is important that we know exactly where the Government stand on the proposal. I heard what the noble Lord said in relation to the review of support for renewable technologies, which was announced in an Answer to a PQ on 6th June, but from what was contained in that and from what the noble Lord said, it does not seem to me that encompassed within that review is any assessment of whether the levy may be extended to give support to the research and development of cleaner coal technologies. It is important that we understand exactly where the Government stand on that.
There are always reviews and reviews; such reviews are designed solely to ensure that the ball is lost in the long grass. It is important for the coal industry in the United Kingdom to understand what the Government's
1146
intentions may be. I am not trying to make a point that the Government should announce an immediate review or decision; it is clearly a difficult issue. Given the announcements of policy that the Government made in terms of reduction of CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases, even if the Government were to support cleaner coal technologies, that would have its own impact on the level of emissions even though they may be smaller.
The coal industry in this country will have to take some important decisions in terms of investment and coal miners' jobs. It will do no one any good if it is left in any state of uncertainty for any period. If the position of the Minister for Energy is that, notwithstanding the sympathy expressed before the election, he cannot see a way forward to offer the type of support he appeared to be offering, then that should be made clear at the earliest possible opportunity.
I should be grateful if the noble Lord will respond, particularly on the last point. I do not envisage that the Bill will encounter any difficulty as it proceeds through your Lordships' House. I want to be clear on one point of detail which may save time at a later stage. Clause 1 (2)(c) reads,
"is generated in pursuance of qualifying arrangements by a generating station fuelled or driven otherwise than by a fossil fuel or nuclear fuel".
That may mean a resource in the future which is actually a renewable resource. If I understand the position correctly, the Government have included that simply as a reserve power and at the present time have no specific resource in mind. If the noble Lord can confirm that, it may save me tabling a probing amendment at a later date.
12.37 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate for their support. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked how the levy is to be spent and inquired whether any legislation would be introduced. The question of legislation depends very much on the outcome of the inquiry. Once the inquiry has been completed, we shall be in a position to know which legislation is required.
The noble Lord asked about energy efficiency and was kind enough to give me prior notice of his question. The purposes for which the fossil fuel levy may be used are closely defined in the Electricity Act, which restricts their application to encouraging renewables generation through NFFO and SRO projects. Energy efficiency is encouraged by different means. The Director General of Electricity Supply set standards of performance requiring regional electricity companies to promote the efficient use of electricity. The standards back up an allowance for energy efficiency of £1 per customer for each year of the supply price control. In short the standards require the companies to undertake, before April 1998, projects designed to save over 6,000 gigawatt hours of electricity and by the beginning

1147
of this year savings of over 5,000 gigawatt hours had been achieved. That deals with the point of energy efficiency projects.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. It was because I knew that the 1989 Act contained a very limited definition of the use to which the levy can be put that I raised the question of legislation. I am aware of what happens in the electricity industry at the moment. It is positive; it does not go far enough in my opinion; and certainly nothing has been done in the gas industry. So I thought that the Government might be tempted to have a look at this whole area, as well as that of non-fossil fuels, and bring in legislation in due course.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am sure that the Government will consider these factors as part of the review. The noble Lord asked about combined heat and power. The same answer applies. The application of the proceeds of the levy is closely defined in the Electricity Act and it is not possible to use the levy to support generation from fossil fuel sources. However, it has been possible to provide encouragement through the levy for combined heat and power schemes where the source of their fuel is waste. Seventeen such projects with a combined capacity of 182 megawatts have been given contracts through NFFO arrangements.
So far as concerns the e-factor, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I shall bring that matter to the attention of my right honourable friend the Minister. I am sure that it will be taken into account during the review.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, asked about the savings of £70 million annually. The noble and learned Lord reads the press releases carefully and he is right. If the electricity from nuclear generators were levy-free, the DTI estimates that the generators could benefit by up to around 0.1 pence per kilowatt hour from green ticket payments. That would amount to £70 million annually. But the Bill will prevent this market distortion which could allow nuclear generators supplying the markets of England and Wales to obtain higher prices for their electricity from 1st April. By having this arrangement the levy is spread over a much wider number of companies. The DTI estimates that the levy rate in England and Wales could be about 0.5 per cent. lower than it would have been without the Bill.
The noble and learned Lord asked about Clause 1(2)(c) of the Bill. In relation to that I am happy to confirm that this will allow electricity from those renewables generated outside of NFFO and SRO arrangements to be exempt from the levy. This leaves their situation unchanged. That is the intention of this subsection of the Bill.
The noble and learned Lord asked about clean coal. Again, he was kind enough to give me notice of his question. Since 1993 there has been a programme of support for R&D into clean coal in collaboration with industry and academia, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord knows very well. More than 215 projects
1148
with a total value of over £200 million have been initiated and part funded by the DTI. The present phase of the programme is due to be completed next year. We are currently considering what further work needs to be undertaken. The review will take into account both the recommendations in the evaluation report and the views of the industry-led Foresight Taskforce, in which I know the noble and learned Lord was involved. As part of the review the Government are considering implementing a scheme in support of clean coal technology similar to that operated under NFFO for renewable energy. At this stage I canfot say what the outcome of the review will be, but I shall bring the points made by the noble and learned Lord to the attention of my right honourable friend.
The Fossil Fuel Levy Bill is a small but necessary step towards achieving a secure, diverse and sustainable supply of electricity. The levy is the main source of support for these renewables and the Bill will ensure that the levy continues to be soundly based. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Contracting Out (Metropolitan Police and Civil Staffs Pensions) Order 1997
12.44 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th June be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order was laid before Parliament on 30th June. It will enable the Home Secretary's functions in respect of pension administration services in the Metropolitan Police to be contracted out. It is necessary for all public services to make the most efficient and effective use of their resources.
From April to August last year the Metropolitan Police, on its own initiative, carried out an efficiency review of all its major central support services, including personnel, finance, property and technology services and transport. The relevant departments cover 5,500 civil staff and spend some £500 million. The review's objectives were to achieve best value for money.
For a range of services, the review recommended that partnership with the private sector would achieve significant improvements in cost while maintaining or improving quality. Four areas fell to be proposed in respect of contracting out: property; technology—including IT and voice communications; transport; and pay and pensions administration and processing. These proposals affect some 2,000 staff and TUPE is expected to apply. Contracts will be let during 1998.
The estimated annual cash savings from contracting out will be about £22 million. The net savings are expected to be some £75 million over seven years or

1149
£51 million on a net present value basis. The net figure reflects the high up-front costs of transferring pension liabilities.
The Receiver of the Metropolitan Police District has written three times to London MPs about the review. My honourable friend Mr. Michael, the Minister of State, wrote to all MPs in the Metropolitan Police District on 27th June explaining the purpose of the order. He arranged three meetings in the House of Commons and invited all London MPs to attend if they wished to discuss matters further. He has fully discussed the matter with the receiver and with representatives of the trade unions involved in a very constructive atmosphere. The decision to manage services in-house or to contract them out was based on a number of criteria. These included cost, quality, internal constraints, market opportunity, potential risk and flexibility.
I fully appreciate the commitment of the trade union interests to the service provided to the Metropolitan Police by their members and their concern about the quality of the policing service. I entirely agree with them that it is essential to make a proper comparison of contract costs against the in-house service before final decisions are taken to outsource any services. I understand that the Metropolitan Police is committed to doing this and has undertaken to make available to the trade union side the full details of the proposed model for financial comparison.
I am satisfied that the contracting out proposals are in the long-term interest of policing in London. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th June be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Baroness Byford: My Lords, we welcome this report. The review identified pay and pensions administration as one aspect of the arrangements that was capable of improved efficiency through partnership with the private sector. The order is in line with the previous government's policy, and that policy has not changed under our new leader. Savings of up to £75 million can be made by contracting out provisions and other arrangements. This will be beneficial both to the taxpayer and to the rate payer. We on this side of the House welcome the order and I am grateful to have the opportunity to support it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for that support.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Supply of Beer (Tied Estate) (Amendment) Order 1997
12.49 p.m.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th June be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, confusingly, this order deals with bottled beer. The order amends the Supply of Beer (Tied Estate) Order 1989, which was introduced following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of beer. Article 7 of the Tied Estate Order applies to the United Kingdom's national brewers, that is, those with over 2,000 pubs. It requires the national brewers to allow their tied tenants to buy one cask-conditioned beer outside the tie. This article is commonly called the guest beer provision.
The purpose of the provision was to address two concerns identified by the MMC—the limited independence that tied tenants enjoy in their choice of beers, and the restricted choice for consumers in those pubs. The provision turned out to be a great success and continues to be so. It has encouraged the production of a diverse range of beers, and increased competition in the market. The provision has been so effective in increasing the consumer's expectations that guest beers are now offered in many pubs in addition to those owned by the nationals.
Beer drinkers will be pleased to know that this order will further enhance the benefits of the guest beer provision. It will extend it to allow the nationals' tied tenants to buy at least one bottle-conditioned beer outside the tie. This will bring benefits to small brewers, tenants and consumers. Small brewers will have the opportunity to get their beers into the tied pubs of the national brewers. The tenants will also benefit because they will be able to respond to consumers' demands, and thereby better able to compete with one another. Some tenants in smaller pubs were previously reluctant to use the guest beer provision for fear that they would not sell a whole barrel of beer before it went off. This provision should overcome the practical difficulties. Consumers will benefit. There will be a larger range of beers and they will be able to try beers such as Bishop's Finger, Spitfire, and even Worthington White Shield.
The popularity of this measure is clear. A statutory consultation on a similar order to that which I am proposing here was carried out by the then Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs. The result of this consultation showed how strongly the extension to the provision would be welcomed by beer drinkers and brewers alike. This order will come into effect on 1st April 1998 in order to give brewers and tenants time to alter their licences.
Lastly, I should like to mention the co-operation that has existed between the Government and Europe on this issue. Both the European Commission and the European Parliament, have been of great help in checking that this new provision will accord with the relevant strictures of European law. In this regard, the Commission recently confirmed that it would not challenge the amended provision under European law. I have tried to keep this opening statement as brief as possible. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th June be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Haskel.)
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I had expected to be backed in the discussion on this order by serried ranks

1151
of noble brewers, all complaining about this invasion of their privileges. However, they seem to have been detained elsewhere. This order was welcomed and indeed planned by those of us who are now on this side of the House when we were on the other side. It is further supported by the Brewers and Licensed Victuallers Association. I have much pleasure in associating myself with those who welcome this order.
There is one thing I wish to ask the noble Lord. I believe that there must be the faintest fear that this order might be considered as the thin end of the wedge, which might lead to some alteration in the conditions which apply to brewers and their relationship with tied houses. Therefore, I would welcome an assurance from the noble Lord that no such thing is planned. With that exception I welcome the order.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support. I imagine that the brewers are not here in their serried ranks because they are not wasting valuable drinking time. The noble Lord asked about breaking the lease. We do not believe that that will be the case because this order will not significantly increase the inspection tasks of the brewers. I am sure that the vast majority of tenants will, as now, comply with the terms of their leases. There are no plans to make any further changes. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks and I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Further Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1997
12.56 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd July be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the main purpose of the order is to provide for the transfer of responsibility for the management of Northern Ireland's 17 further education colleges from the five education and library boards to incorporated governing bodies established in relation to each college. It will also provide for the regional planning and funding of the further education sector by the Department of Education in Northern Ireland. The order will not only provide for the self-governance of colleges; it will also bring all of Northern Ireland's further education legislation together in one order for the first time.
I believe that it will be helpful to the House if I outline the background to the order and then say a few words about the main provisions. This Government are firmly convinced that the planning and funding of the further education sector would best be addressed on a regional basis. Preparations for incorporation have been under way in Northern Ireland for some considerable time, but the previous government failed to have the legislation put before Parliament and this left the colleges in a very unsatisfactory position. While this
1152
Government might have altered some aspects of the legislation if they had been starting from scratch, we have taken the decision to proceed on the basis of the existing draft in order to end the potentially damaging period of uncertainty.
However, our decision to proceed with incorporation should be set firmly within the context of a more coherent strategic approach to the management and development of the sector. Colleges will benefit from the freedoms given to them through being able to manage their own affairs, but the sector as a whole and the education service in Northern Ireland in general, will be strengthened and enhanced through the setting of a clearer strategic framework which clarifies the purpose, direction and shape of the FE sector in Northern Ireland and enables all partners in the education service to make the culture of "lifelong learning" a reality.
As a first step in developing this strategy, a number of reviews within and across further education and training will commence over the next few months. Among other things these reviews will explore the relationship between the Department of Education and the Training and Employment Agency, and the implications for further education of the forthcoming report of the Dearing National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. The outcome of the reviews will determine how further education in Northern Ireland builds on the foundation provided by this order.
The colleges and their provision of vocational education play a vital role in the development of the economy of Northern Ireland, equipping people with the necessary skills to meet the needs of business. The Government are committed in particular to addressing the fundamental problem of youth unemployment. Our welfare to work programme will offer a striking opportunity to address the challenge of equipping young people for work and of finding scope for them to become involved productively and positively in a work environment. The education and training service will have a vital role to play in meeting this challenge. It is essential, therefore, that they are enabled to do so. This order provides the framework for a vigorous and flexible further education sector which will be responsive, not only to the needs of students, but also to the needs of employers. Incorporation will provide colleges with increased freedom and flexibility to make an even greater contribution to the educational and economic development of the Province.
Colleges in England, Wales and Scotland were incorporated on 1st April 1993. While the Northern Ireland legislation is broadly comparable with the corresponding legislation in the rest of the UK, it has been drafted to reflect local circumstances. It has also been possible to learn from the experience of incorporation in the rest of the UK and to take account of the advice provided in particular in the Public Accounts Committee report of July 1995, which examined issues of management and financial control in the incorporated colleges in England.
The draft order was considered by a wide range of interests in Northern Ireland and all of their comments have been carefully considered. Where possible their

1153
concerns have been addressed and a number of minor amendments have been made to the draft order. The more significant of these amendments aim to give governing bodies more flexibility in the exercise of their functions while at the same time retaining adequate provision to ensure accountability for the use of public funds. The order will also provide for the respective functions of the Department of Education, the colleges and the education and library boards and will ensure that all those involved in the education service work together towards its strategic objectives.
The Government have also decided that more general consultation arrangements should be established which will play a useful role in assisting the Department of Education in the strategic management of the sector. We will, therefore, be making arrangements for the setting up of a consultative body to represent the further education sector. Such a body will be non-statutory.
The governing body of each college will have the duty to secure the efficient and effective management of the institution and to have regard to the educational needs of industry and commerce and the community in its area. The executive onus is clearly placed on the incorporated governing bodies to provide an efficient and effective education and training service for the local community within the context of the department's strategic planning and funding role.
The education and library boards will continue to have responsibilities in relation to certain student-specific services (student awards, home-to-college transport and free meals) and will make nominations for membership of college governing bodies. Education and library boards will also be enabled to provide services to colleges after incorporation. The order will facilitate and encourage co-operation between colleges and boards after incorporation, thus maintaining and developing the spirit of partnership which is a hallmark of the Northern Ireland education system.
Finally, the draft order not only provides for the transfer of management of colleges; it also includes detailed provisions for the transfer of property, rights, liabilities and staff from education and library boards to the governing bodies. This includes arrangements for the resolution by the Department of Education of any disputes which may arise. Also, to ensure an orderly transfer of functions and responsibilities, the order allows for arrangements to be put in place for the continuing provision of services by the education and library boards to colleges for up to three years after the incorporation date.
These are the main provisions of the order which, when set within the context of the developing strategic framework, is a significant and important step on the path to a more flexible and responsive further education sector in Northern Ireland. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 3rd July be approved.—[Lord Dubs.]
1.1 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very helpful explanation of the order. I thank too his honourable colleague in another place with direct
1154
responsibility for education who made available to me the details of the amendments that he wished to make subsequent to the process of consultation. I was a member of Belfast Education and Library Board for the four years up until the end of last month. That board has had, and will have until the implementation of this order, a responsibility for the Belfast Institute for Further and Higher Education (BIFHE). I was, as a member of the board, very committed to democratic accountability at local level in Northern Ireland. So noble Lords might expect me to be unhappy about a proposal which takes responsibility from the education and library boards and puts it with a governing body. However, I am supportive of it, not least because of my experience on the education and library board.
During my four years on the board there were almost no situations in which it seemed to me at board level that any useful work was being done to facilitate thinking of a creative and novel kind in the Belfast institute. One such opportunity might have arisen. I refer to a major proposal by the University of Ulster, which is well known for its creative and novel approach to co-operation not only within its own institution but in the community at large and internationally, for the development of a Springvale campus. That would have had enormous social, economic and educational consequences in a particularly deprived area of the city with interfaces between unionist and nationalist areas that could helpfully have been overcome.
No secret was made of the proposition. A great deal of work was done to publicise it and a great deal of consultation took place. The University of Ulster engaged local councillors in the area. There was a good deal of discussion. A number of months after it came to the fore I raised the matter in the education and library board. I asked whether there had been any discussions between the officers of the board and the University of Ulster. Had there been any direct discussions between the officers of the institute for further and higher education and the University of Ulster? The answer was "No" on both counts. It became perfectly clear that the Belfast institute believed that the proposition of the University of Ulster was an intrusion into its fiefdom. While that might have been understandable, what was neither understandable nor very forgivable was that the education and library board, which had a broader remit and a responsibility to look at matters in the round, failed absolutely to encourage the institute to engage with the University of Ulster. It was only subsequent to very considerable pressure exerted by myself and colleagues that some desultory meetings were held but clearly with relatively little enthusiasm.
When the proposals were made public the initial response of the education and library board officers was of a very flat and unimaginative kind. The reason why I am rather positive about the proposals that have come forward is that insofar as the education and library board had responsibility and could have used it over the past few years to encourage creative and novel thinking in the Belfast institute, that was not forthcoming. There is nothing I can see which leads me to believe that a newly constituted board would be any more lively or vital in its encouragement of the Belfast institute.

1155
I rather suspect—perhaps it is a matter of great hope—that the strategic review to which the noble Lord refers may, at a central or regional level, be a more vital and vibrant instrument to encourage creative and novel thinking in the Belfast institute and others, particularly in regard to co-operation not just with the community at large but with other institutes of higher learning. In particular, I commend to the Minister and his colleagues the energetic work of the University of Ulster and the Springvale propositions which are still around. I hope that they may receive a more substantial boost than perhaps was the case under the previous administration.
These matters raise questions about the role of education and library boards as one goes down the line. One has further education moving out of its remit. There are propositions to bring together various museums, some of which originally came out of local government, and questions are being raised in terms of the other responsibilities of education and library boards. Serious questions are being raised about whether one needs the number of boards that exist across the whole of Northern Ireland. That was a question before the previous government, as is well known. As we made clear at that stage what was required was a more radical review which perhaps questioned the need for education and library boards or health and social services boards at all. This order, in a sense, adds to those rather fundamental questions. However, we give full support to the order but also place on the agenda of the Minister the important question of the development of institutes of education in Belfast, particularly with the University of Ulster propositions.
1.9 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his very clear introduction to this order. There is clearly an all-party consensus on this matter. This was initiated by the previous government and has been introduced by this Government. We on these Benches have no hesitation in supporting it. I cannot speak with the authority of my noble friend Lord Alderdice from his personal experience, but the bringing together of all Northern Ireland legislation relating to further education and the consolidation of it in this way should ultimately make the Government more accessible and accountable. In particular, we on these Benches welcome the new consultative body. Perhaps I may put one or two questions to the noble Lord.
Article 15 effectively extends the PFI to the education sector. From these Benches we by no means object to the use of the PFI in the education sector. However, despite its possible advantages, it can be no substitute for proper funding. One area of core funding about which I should like to ask the Minister is IT. One of the problems with IT in general is that it does not readily lend itself to private finance, because it depreciates so quickly. I should like some reassurance that the Government's commitment to core funding of core projects, which nowadays has to include familiarity with IT by every student, will be sustained.
1156
Under Article 20, governing bodies are required to set out their financial and development plans for the coming three years. It is admirable that they should take a long-term view, but that demands from government some reciprocity. How can one make plans if one does not know what one's income will be? As we have seen with the tertiary sector, the issue of tuition fees is very current. The more help the Government can give in the forward planning of their own expenditure, defying the arbitrary barriers that the Treasury so often establishes, particularly in Northern Ireland, to allow those institutions to plan ahead realistically, the better it will be.
My noble friend Lord Alderdice referred to the Springvale campus. Through the community outreach project, Springvale has now begun to establish a basis which could command general support in Belfast and would make a major contribution to the building of the civil society, the cross-community links, and the educational depth that Northern Ireland needs. Can the Minister give us any encouragement about prospects for some movement on the Springvale campus?
1.12 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for his introduction of the order, and share the views on this order expressed by my colleagues. Of course we support it, not just on the basis that it was an order that started under our administration, but on the principle of delegating to what we would have once described as the "chalk face", but which we now describe as the "keyboard". Where decisions are based on local knowledge and needs, the better they must be.
I have a few points for the Minister. First, will the organisations have the resources to achieve this? If I heard the Minister correctly, some of the welfare-to-work resources will be used within those colleges. One hopes that that will be possible, because, although we are all concerned with the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed have needs—in particular, those who are not on the unemployment register. Women looking to re-enter the workforce will have needs which the colleges can satisfy.
Will additional resources be available for the colleges from the savings which will result from the transfer of the library and education boards? Will there be moneys which can also be transferred? The Minister repeated what his colleague in another place said about the fact that he might have altered the order, and started from a different place. The uncertainty about which he complains arose from the fact that we could not find parliamentary time to bring it forward. It is not helped by the Minister saying that he is not 100 per cent. happy with the order as it is. That leaves an element of uncertainty. Will the Minister give us some guidance as to what he would have preferred the order to do, and whether that will be brought forward in a further order in due course?
The Minister also said that the order reflects local circumstances which are different from those in England, Scotland and Wales. Will he expand on those, because the need to provide lifetime training is constant

1157
throughout the UK? Springvale is important for the future of the Province. The noble Lords, Lord Holme of Cheltenham and Lord Alderdice, mentioned the issue. In Committee in another place, the Minister said that the review would consider the work of the three universities (Ulster, Queen's and the OU) and the further education sector. I hope that that was not an indication that the Springvale campus is off the agenda. From these Benches we would have expected, if it were to go in that direction, that there would have been a specific review.
Will the Minister consider, and perhaps discuss with his colleagues, whether it is right that Springvale should be seen as a purely educational activity. Is it not an overall economic activity for which there could be support? I should have thought that that would have formed an important part of considering training in the sector. Having said that, we support the order, and wish the colleges well with their new-found responsibilities.
1.16 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to this short but interesting debate. I turn first to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. I welcome his general support for the order. All noble Lords have referred to Springvale. Discussions are taking place between the University of Ulster and the Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education with a view to developing new proposals for the Springvale site. I hope that that will lead to something that will be both creative and novel. I have to utter the reservation that there will have to be an assessment of the economics of such a proposal. Money will have to be found. I want to say only that the matter is being considered on the basis that I have suggested.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, also made interesting comments about the education and library boards. I had better pass those on to my honourable friend the Minister responsible as being the best way forward on that suggestion. I appreciate the comments of the noble Lord, particularly, as he has direct experience of the education system in Belfast, and therefore his comments have more authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, too, welcomed the proposal, for which I am grateful. I shall deal first with the point about the PFI. The PFI has many advantages for this sector. Two PFI projects are currently under way—at the Belfast institute and the North West Institute in Derry. The focus of those PFI applications is on an extension of the colleges rather than on something such as IT. It may not be suitable for all colleges.
One would not wish to stifle the possible use of PFI money for the development of the IT sector, but it may be that PFI support for aspects of the colleges' work other than IT would be more appropriate. I had better leave it at that. The Government will clearly want to monitor the progress of the PFI for the whole of the sector we have been discussing.
The noble Lord talked also about the development planning process. I welcome his support for it. The Department of Education will be working closely with the sector in defining what is required and how it should
1158
be monitored. That will include the sharing of the appropriate financial information in relation to the colleges. I believe that I have dealt with all the points about Springvale, to which the noble Lord referred in detail. There is nothing to be said beyond the comments that I have made.
The noble Baroness, Lady Denton, asked a number of specific questions. As regards resources for the sector, also raised by other noble Lords, the Government have initiated a comprehensive spending review covering all public expenditure. The needs of the FE sector must be considered within that framework. Officials in the Department of Education for Northern Ireland are currently negotiating with the boards on the resources which will be transferred to further education.
As regards welfare to work, I assure the noble Baroness that there will be an opportunity for the colleges to benefit from the extra resources made available. Indeed, the FE sector will have an important role to play in implementing some of the welfare to work provisions as regards education and training. However, the colleges must be flexible and creative in providing courses of high quality for the target groups which the noble Baroness mentioned.
She also asked how we might have altered the order had there been time to do so. With more time, the Government could have reviewed fundamentally the whole approach and structure which is proposed for incorporation. We had to balance that against the need to end the uncertainty from which all the colleges were suffering and offer them a clear way forward. We judged the first priority to be this legislation; that it should be passed in order to benefit the colleges and give them a proper framework within which to work. However, my honourable friend's review will provide an opportunity to reflect on future developments, which might require legislation in due course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Denton, also asked about local circumstances and how legislation reflected them. She suggested that further education ought to be similar in all parts of the United Kingdom. Perhaps I may give two examples. It is intended that the education and library boards will have a continuing role in participating in the college governing bodies and in the provision of specific services to the sector. There is no parallel for that in the changes that were made to the sector in England, for example. Secondly, there is provision for the continuing funding of adult and community provision in the further education sector. Thirdly, further education training links will be reviewed in the context of incorporation and wider government policy.
There are a number of reasons for the local differences which justify a slightly different approach in this legislation. There is also the issue of the Public Accounts Committee report, which the legislation reflects—for example, as regards the appointment procedures for governing bodies and the role of the Department of Education for Northern Ireland in that process—and in moving towards better provisions for accountability—for example, the provision for a statutory audit committee in each college and the

1159
strength of the department's regulatory powers. We are able to take those factors into account because we have the report of the Public Accounts Committee. Finally, the future of Springvale and any possible developments will be considered in educational terms and on its impact on economic regeneration.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, given that the future of Springvale has been a matter for lively discussion for some years, can he give us a sense of the timing of the review that he has mentioned? When will we have a clearer answer on the future of Springvale?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am not able to give an answer here and now. If it is possible to give a better sense of timing I shall write to the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Commissioner for Complaints (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997
1.25 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th July be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commissioner for Complaints (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order, a draft of which was laid before this House on the 7th of this month, be approved.
The order will amend the Commissioner for Complaints (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, and will bring Northern Ireland law in this area into line with that applying in Great Britain under the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, as amended by the Health Service Commissioners (Amendment) Act 1996.
The effect of the order will be to extend the jurisdiction of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints (the ombudsman) to enable him for the first time to investigate complaints about actions taken by health professionals in the course of the care or treatment of a patient, usually described as the exercise of clinical judgment; and actions taken by GPs, dentists, etc., in connection with the provision of family health services.
The order will also spell out in detail the ombudsman's existing right to investigate the actions of independent providers of services, when providing services to HPSS patients or clients under arrangements made with HSS bodies.
The order has its origins in an independent review of NHS complaints procedures, commissioned in 1993 by the then Secretary of State for Health. This was in response to widely held concerns about the complex and unfriendly complaints systems then in place. The review was carried out by an independent committee, chaired by Professor Alan Wilson, Vice-Chancellor of Leeds University.
Following wide consultation, the Government accepted the main recommendations in the review committee's report. Those recommendations relating to the introduction of a unified complaints procedure for HSS bodies were implemented in April last year, and the order before us today would implement recommendations relating to the extension of the ombudsman's remit.
The order represents a valuable addition to patients' rights, and I therefore commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th July be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
1.27 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, in general terms, I am supportive of the approach of the order because, as the Minister helpfully explained, there is a degree of complexity about the complaints procedure. Indeed, there is a complexity about the whole of the health service, which can be offputting for patients, in particular if they are vulnerable people often with difficulties. There is also a proliferation of organisations. One has seen the move towards the market in healthcare and the establishment of trusts and so forth. Therefore, there has been a fragmentation of the service which has made it more complex for people to make their complaints. That was part of the pressure which moved us towards this development.
However, I must express reservation about one issue. In doing so, perhaps I may indicate a personal interest because I am a medical practitioner and a psychiatrist. My anxiety relates to the introduction of the ombudsman to addressing matters of clinical judgment. I do not express reservation as a result of some anxiety that a rash of complaints will come forward based on serious problems which have not been unearthed because existing professional modes of complaint have been inadequate. While there may be one or two, I do not believe that there will be many. However, I believe that it is likely that a considerable number of complaints will come forward which are not appropriately based. In my experience, and seeing issues from both sides of the table, I can say that there is a pressure and a temptation on constituency representatives to say, "Well, I will certainly bring this to the attention of the ombudsman or to some other complaints procedure", even when they may not understand the complexities. They may have a litigious and difficult constituent who is similarly litigious and difficult when he is seen by a medical practitioner or another healthcare professional.
I believe that in understanding that, healthcare professionals will be increasingly moved towards a form of defensive medicine such as we see in other parts of the world, not least in the United States of America. They will not leave themselves unguarded or unprotected. They will say, if there is an increase in the use of this procedure, "Well, then we shall have to be particularly careful that the way we practise is to protect ourselves rather than being driven entirely and almost exclusively by a concern for what will happen in terms of the patient".

1161
I must tell your Lordships that I have seen that happening over the past number of years in the medical fraternity, nursing and other areas. It has been felt increasingly by healthcare professionals that they are, to some extent, more under attack. Regrettably, we see a situation in which other professionals—for example, lawyers—are advertising. Now that there is freedom of information, they will apply on behalf of patients who may be in need of a little remuneration, to have people's charts so that they can trawl through them in order to see whether there is anything about which a complaint could be made. Therefore, it is not even a matter of a person feeling that he has a complaint and then taking advice as to how to follow it through. He is actually being encouraged by other professionals to pick up the matter and use access to records in order to find something about which a complaint could be made.
I offer a few words of warning to noble Lords. Unfortunately, we may find ourselves drifting towards a situation of medicine which is increasing defensive and expensive. We may also find the growth of a complaints industry. In that regard, I ask the Minister to clarify how much has been set aside for the ombudsman and his office to address this. I understand that a relatively modest amount is to be set aside; namely, of the same order as that which was set aside for the office of the commissioner established to deal with the complaints of trade unionists against their trade unions in Northern Ireland—a matter of some thousands of pounds. Given the size and complexity of healthcare in Northern Ireland and the tendency—notably discovered by the Department of the Environment in regard to footpaths and such matters—to find ways to develop an industry of complaints, such modest resources may be inadequate when applied to the complex tapestry of healthcare provision. Having said that, in general terms, I support the order.
1.31 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, from these Benches, we support the order. However, the point made by my noble friend is extremely important. One of the great talents of the British nation is the talent for complaint. If that is so, it has been developed to a high art form in Northern Ireland. The culture of blame is one with which the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, is not unfamiliar.
Having said that, it is important to recognise that the area of health is one in which people sometimes have justifiable cause for complaint. Basically, this order extends the complaints procedure to health and social services. In that sense, in general, we support it.
1.32 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I too bring a supportive line from these Benches. I had a feeling that from the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, we were hearing the extension of a debate in your Lordships' House earlier this week about the fat-cat lawyers. Those are perhaps the fat-cat kittens which are developing in Northern Ireland, and I am sure that that is not the aim of the order.
1162
However, I note that Members of Parliament must be brought into this procedure. In the longer term, I wonder whether it would be better to look at the relationship between the complainant and the ombudsman or commissioner.
I share some of the concerns expressed by the honourable Member for Belfast South in Committee in another place on the size and complexity of the order to achieve what it seeks to achieve. I found it very difficult to understand. I am sure that it covers every possible legislative need but it is certainly overwhelming.
He expressed concerns also about the confidence of the complainant in the operation of the system. A review of the problem of complaints in the health service was chaired by an outsider. But the complaints are dealt with by a Northern Ireland person with an office staffed by people who may well return to those areas against which an individual is making a complaint. I stress that I do not for one moment question the integrity and impartiality of those in that position but I do not understate the matter when I say that Northern Ireland is a small place where views are strongly held. Would it not be more suitable that that activity be administered by those who are not so closely involved with the Province? The Minister, with his colleagues, may wish to consider that view.
I have two specific matters to raise. First, how will the people be informed of the availability of this route and when will it be introduced? I know that the ombudsman is responsible for making known his availability but the Government may wish to take a more proactive role. I hasten to add that that is not in order to generate a volume of complaints but so that people know that if they are unhappy there is a route which they can take. Will the Minister confirm also that in future, the post of the commissioner will be filled in open competition? With those remarks, I support the order.
1.36 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate and for the general support expressed for the order by all those who have spoken.
I deal first with the specific questions which were asked. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, again speaking from his enormous professional experience and background, asked about the application of the concept of clinical judgment and he expressed concern that we might reach a stage of having defensive medicine and a complaints industry. I think those were his words. From the experience of Great Britain, I am not certain that experience has been as he suggested it might be in Northern Ireland. Perhaps he believes that the situation will be different there. But taking the experience of Great Britain, I should not be quite as concerned as he is.
In another sense, may I put this point to him? Under this procedure, we have an alternative to litigation. In a sense, it depends on the outcome which the complainant expects when making the complaint. If the complainant believes that he has suffered enormous damage which can be reflected financially, then the ombudsman may not be the appropriate route to follow and the

1163
complainant will go to the courts. That has been open to him all along. Therefore, I could argue that having a system to deal with complaints which encompasses the area of clinical judgment but which will probably have different outcomes, outcomes which are likely to lead to differences in practice by some clinicians perhaps, would be preferable to the only route available to a complainant being the courts and becoming litigious. I suggest to the noble Lord that one can arrive at a different conclusion as a result of the measure before us today.
The noble Lord asked also about resources, as did other noble Lords. There will be a need for additional resources in the commissioner's office arising from the need to investigate complaints about clinical judgment and about general health services and to pay for independent clinical advice; that is for the independent clinical advice which the ombudsman will seek to deal with complaints.
Sums have been agreed based on best estimates of the effects of the changes implied by the order. Those sums will be subject to revision upwards or downwards depending on the actual workload which results from the order. But they are not cash limited. If the commissioner requires further resources, they will be made available. That is the financial scheme within which the commissioner will work.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, talked about causes for complaint and, I believe, giving assurance to complainants. Indeed, I believe that that was broadly his point. What we hope to achieve with the measure is a simpler complaints procedure for the ordinary person to understand. The distinction between clinical judgment and maladministration is actually not a very straightforward one; sometimes there is quite an overlap between the two. We are developing a system which will be much clearer to the ordinary complainant because he or she will be told that that is not appropriate because it is clinical judgment, as has occasionally happened in the past. Therefore, we shall be able to give people a better sense of confidence in the complaints system, which I believe was also a point of concern for the noble Baroness.
The noble Baroness, Lady Denton, also asked what could be done to publicise the wider role of the ombudsman. The main onus of publicising this is on the commissioner, but, in the health and social services, the boards and trusts already publicise the health aspects of the commissioner's role and will be quite happy to assist the commissioner in promoting awareness of the increased role which is being discussed today. Attempts will also be made to facilitate patients' access to the commissioner. Therefore, when patients feel they have a complaint at the hospital or wherever it is, information should be available there, as well as any other measures that the commissioner will introduce to publicise his new remit more widely.
I should point out that there are a number of stages which it is appropriate for people to follow. Going to the ombudsman or the commissioner is the last of those stages. In the fist instance, it is proper for people to complain to the hospital or other body against which
1164
they have a grievance. That is the proper way forward. There is then a second stage of the tribunal procedure. It is only at the end of that process that it is really sensible to contact the ombudsman. It is to be hoped, therefore, that some of the complaints can be filtered out at an early stage.
There remains just one outstanding question; namely, the advertising of the commissioner's post. It has not been filled for all that long and, therefore, we are looking at what will happen at some time in the future. Although I do not believe that any final decision has been made, I look at the situation post-Nolan and it seems to me that this is the sort of post which clearly would be covered by the Nolan recommendations. However, a more specific decision has not yet been made but no doubt will be nearer the time when such a post needs to be filled in the future. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Turkey: Human Rights
1.43 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
What reports they have received about the state of human rights in Turkey; and what action they propose to take.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was glad to hear the Foreign Secretary spell out the Government's human rights policy in some detail yesterday, the more so because his remarks can be applied immediately to the case of Turkey, something of a litmus test of the policy, as we have always soft-pedalled the gross and persistent human rights violations by Turkey in the past for larger geopolitical reasons. Now Mr. Robin Cook says without qualification that Britain will support measures within the international community to express our condemnation of what he describes as,
"those regimes who grotesquely violate human rights and repeatedly fail to respond to demands for an improvement in standards".
Turkey is not a liberal democracy, but a country governed by the resultant of a number of forces uneasily and unstably balanced against each other: the army, the Islamists, the extreme right, the centre right and the criminal elements, all competing with each other for power and forming alliances which are not subject to popular approval and which are sometimes invisible. That means that there is a declared policy, which can be studied in the speeches made by Ministers in the Turkish Grand National Assembly and at international forums, and a clandestine policy, sometimes at odds with the official version.
This is the context in which human rights in Turkey have to be considered. If one only looks at the statements for public consumption and not at what is happening on the ground, one would get entirely the wrong impression. Thus in his speech to the Grand National Assembly last week, the new Prime Minister, Mesut Yilmaz promised to,
"show extreme care to safeguard the principles of democracy, secularism, and a social state of law".
He said that his government,
"considers freedom of thought and expression, conscience and religious belief … as the essential principles of our public life".
He gave assurances that the government would take all necessary measures to ensure the respect for human rights, which is provided by the Turkish constitution and by international agreement.
The trouble is that Mr. Yilmaz said much the same thing when he was last Prime Minister. On 7th March 1996, in a similar speech to the TGNA, he said that,
"only through a strong and true democracy can the universally-accepted principles such as the sovereignty of the nation, the guarantee of fundamental rights, judicial equality, the supremacy of law, social, economic and political plurality, and participation, tolerance and compromise exist"—
indeed, everything except motherhood and apple pie.
Very similar rhetoric could be found in a speech made by his predecessor Mrs. Tansu Ciller, when she came into office in June 1993. Yet, for the past 13 years, there has been a bitter armed struggle between the forces of the state and the Kurdish people of the south east of the country, involving not just a few thousand combatants in the PKK's armed wing, the Kurdistan National Liberation Army, but virtually the whole of the civilian population. That war has continued because, over this entire period and even now, the Kurds are deprived of their fundamental rights which Mr. Yilmaz says they ought to have. He describes this as,
"our struggle against separatist terrorism",
ignoring the fact that the PKK's goal is not an independent Kurdish state, but autonomy for the region where the majority of the people are Kurdish, and also tendentiously labelling the PKK as terrorists when the vast majority of acts of violence against non-combatants are committed by the state's armed forces, and their quisling allies, the village guards—Kurds who are paid to fight their own brothers. I am not going to talk about the propaganda war that Ankara wages in Europe and north America against the armed opposition, except to point out that if the Turkish authorities really wanted to protect civilians, they would comply with the requests by the ICRC for an invitation to visit the region, and to discuss the services that they could provide there to ensure that Common Article 3 of the conventions is being honoured by both parties to the conflict.
Will the Government urge Turkey to invite the ICRC, and to accept that the conflict in the south east is one to which Article 3 does apply? Will the Government ask the chairman-in-office of the OSCE to seek a formal opinion on the question of the application of Article 3 from a representative group of lawyers? In the meanwhile, will the Government ask the chairman-in-office to conduct an inquiry, preferably with the co-operation of the Turkish authorities—but if necessary without them—on the circumstances in which an estimated 2.5 million people have been forcibly displaced from their homes in south-east Anatolia.
I suggest that that inquiry should be conducted in the light of the OSCE' s Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security, which provides as follows:
"If recourse to force cannot be avoided in performing internal security missions, each participating State will ensure that its use must be commensurate with the needs for enforcement. The armed forces will take due care to avoid injury to civilians or their property".
There is abundant evidence of the incessant, systematic violation of this obligation, which merely codified what was already customary international law. I was in Sirnak in September 1992, shortly after it had been heavily bombarded by the army in August. I met some of the injured residents in hospital. In October 1993, I gathered further evidence of the forced depopulation of villages, travelling round the region in the company of Leyla Zana MP, now imprisoned for her courageous stand on behalf of the Kurdish people. The OSCE is to review the implementation of that code at a special meeting in September, and the Minister, Doug Henderson, says that this will provide an excellent forum to discuss democratic controls on armed forces with all signatory states. That is one important aspect of the code, but the section dealing with injury to civilians is also vital. Will the Government suggest a new procedure, under which NGOs could submit evidence of violations of the code to a public tribunal, analogous to the UN Human Rights Commission?
As a result of the reports that I submitted on violations of human rights in Turkey, together with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, whom I am pleased to see on the Government Front Bench, I am a prohibited person, not allowed to enter the country after four visits and four reports on what I saw and heard. Others banned are Jonathan Sugden and Helmut Oberdiek of Amnesty International, Aliza Marcus of Reuters, who suffered prosecution under the anti-terror law, and Pam O'Toole of the BBC. Will the Government request Ankara to lift these bans and allow journalists and human rights observers to travel freely in the south-east region without being escorted everywhere by the Turkish military? As the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, will recall, we were so escorted when we were there in 1994.
According to a document leaked from the National Security Council, an authority dominated by the military which takes all the decisions on the south-east, it has now been decided not only to jam the broadcasts of the independent broadcaster, Med-TV, but also to monitor and obstruct human rights NGOs which draw attention to the human rights violations in the Kurdish region. The jamming of Med-TV, which I understand the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will deal with later, must be a breach of the Helsinki Accords, and should be taken up with Ankara by the OSCE. Could we prompt the chairman-in-office to do so? The intention to monitor human rights monitors from abroad is nothing new but there is a nasty suggestion that a smear campaign should be mounted against people abroad who criticise Turkish human rights abuses. Having been libelled myself in a Turkish national newspaper, which had to apologise, publish a retraction and pay me damages because copies

1167
were distributed in this country, I can well believe that defamation is now to be used more widely as an instrument against other human rights activists.
In an important judgment last September, the European Court of Human Rights found against Turkey in the case of Akdivar, who successfully claimed that his rights were violated by the destruction of his home in the village of Kelekci in September 1992. That case was also important because the court noted that all applicants must be able to communicate freely with the European Commission without being subjected to any form of pressure from the authorities to withdraw or modify their complaints. Akdivar's was one of 62 cases brought with the assistance of the London-based Kurdish Human Rights Project which have so far been declared admissible, and one of two where the court has delivered judgment, the other being the case of Aksoy, who was tortured when he was detained for 14 days in the Mardin headquarters of the anti-terrorist branch.
There are literally hundreds of other cases in the queue. In an Answer to me the noble Baroness indicated that 562 were registered in 1996 alone. However, the Turkish authorities are doing their best to ensure that it is impossible to collect further evidence. Many journalists, lawyers and human rights activists have been murdered or disappeared in the south-east. On 23rd May the Diyarbakir branch of the Turkish human rights organisation was closed down, and the president, Mahmut Sakar, and at least five officials were taken into custody. As Amnesty International pointed out, the closure followed years of harassment including the arrest, abduction and extra-judicial execution of officials, bomb attacks and a hail of litigation. Four other offices of the IHD—the human rights organisation—have been closed since then, in Konya, Malatya, Sanliurfa and Balikesir, and since the IHD has been the main organisation collecting witness statements for ECHR cases, this appears to be a systematic attempt to obstruct the work of the Commission, contrary to law.
The attacks on the IHD are also a part of the wider assault on freedom of expression, in the light of which Mr. Yilmaz's assurances ring hollow. Before Turkey was invited to join the European customs union at the end of 1996, Mrs. Ciller, the then Prime Minister, conceded changes in the anti-terror law, the importance of which was greatly exaggerated by Mr. David Davis, then Minister at the Foreign Office.
Last Sunday President Demirel expressed regret to a visiting delegation from the Committee to Protect Journalists, led by the former hostage Terry Anderson, that Turkey is the country with the largest number of journalists in prison—at least 78, according to the CPJ. Yet in the same breath he seemed to be making excuses, by saying that if somebody supports terrorism he deserves to be locked up. In Turkey, the definition of terrorism extends to any speech or writing which may undermine the unity of the state. If we had such a law in this country, it would mean that no one could advocate a referendum on the Scottish parliament, which your Lordships might think would save a lot of time in this House!
Human Rights Watch named Turkey and China earlier in the month as the top persecutors of writers. The last case list of the Writers in Prison Committee had eight pages on Turkey, more than any other country except China. The UN Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Mr. Abid Hussain, reported that there were consistent and credible reports of:
"The death or torture of press professionals while in police custody",
and of all the other allegations that we know only too well from other sources such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. He recommended that writers and journalists who had been sentenced for the peaceful expression of their views, even when these ran counter to the philosophy of the state, should have their sentences annulled. Among the long list of cases he invited the Turkish authorities to reconsider were those of the 185 writers, publishers, intellectuals and artists who were picked from 1,080 who collectively issued a book entitled Freedom of Thought in Turkey, consisting of a collection of writings for which the authors were on trial or imprisoned.
Another case he mentioned was that of Ms. Leyla Zana MP, whom I have already mentioned, who was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment, along with three of her parliamentary colleagues. The UN working group on arbitrary detention had declared in November 1995 that the detention of these MPs was arbitrary and had asked the Turkish authorities to release them. The Inter-parliamentary Union, at its meeting in Seoul last April, welcomed the initiatives the Turkish authorities said they were taking to bring Turkey into line with European human rights standards, and again strongly hoped this would lead to the release of the imprisoned MPs and the lifting of sentences imposed on their colleagues.
Amnesty International has expressed particular concern about the detention and torture of children. It says that children are often detained under the anti-terror law and have none of the safeguards which apply to adults. It is still receiving credible reports of the torture of children.
There is no time to go into detail on the extent of torture in Turkey, which Mr. Yilmaz, like his predecessors, has pledged himself to abolish. In October 1991 Mr. Demirel, who was then a candidate for the office of Prime Minister and is now president, promised,
"a new Turkey—the walls of all police stations will be made of glass".
Yet in March 1997 Human Rights Watch still reported widespread police torture in pre-trial detention by the anti-terror police. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, after visiting places of detention on a number of occasions over recent years, most recently in September 1996, asserted that,
"resort to torture and other forms of severe ill treatment remains a common occurrence in police establishments in Turkey. To attempt to characterise the problem as one of isolated acts of the kind which can occur in any country—as some are wont to do—is to fly in the face of the facts".
There are a couple of glimmers of light amid the darkness. The period of incommunicado detention allowed under the law has been reduced, and the right

1169
of access to a lawyer after four days in custody for suspects under the anti-terror law has been restored. That seems to have had some effect on the number of cases of torture that are being reported, although closure of the IHD offices may account for at least part of the reduction.
Further, Turkey has invited the UN Working Group on Disappearances and the rapporteur on torture, Dr. Nigel Rodley, to visit Turkey but I gather from Dr. Rodley this is not until the end of 1998. It has to be recognised, however, that many of the recommendations made in the past by the CPT and the UN Committee Against Torture have not been implemented. There is no point in agreeing to receive visits unless there is an intention to comply with the suggestions that are made.
Finally, I refer to the Turkish incursion into northern Iraq which is an illegal escapade that has resulted in further violations of human rights in those parts of the territory which are occupied by the Turkish forces and in the sector run by their allies, the Kurdistan Democratic Party under Massoud Barzani. Ministers have confirmed that under Article 51 of the UN Charter, Turkey should have reported this operation immediately to the Security Council. We have reminded them of their obligation to do so. Has that been done? Has it reported to the Security Council? If not, do we as a permanent member intend to lay the matter before the Security Council as a breach of the charter? Mr. Yilmaz's only reference to the matter in his speech to the TGNA was the sentence:
"We will continue to take all kinds of measures in southeast Anatolia until the power vacuum in northern Iraq—which constitutes a threat to the security of southeast Anatolia and consequently of our entire country—is eliminated and until Iraq's territorial integrity is restored".
That appears to confirm that the occupation is indefinite, making it impossible for UN monitors to do their work under Resolution 986 in that part of the territory and raising the fear that widespread human rights violations are occurring in the occupied part of northern Iraq as the troops hunt for the PKK guerrillas whose supposed presence there is the excuse for the invasion.
Mr. Yilmaz says that his main priority is to prepare a new electoral register and to establish the legal and administrative arrangements for a new election. That process may take six months, and in that time I suggest that it would be unrealistic to expect the human rights situation to be transformed. The most that can be expected is that specific reforms may appear in the manifestos of the parties, and that the election will be held under conditions which enable the Kurds to have a voice in the new parliament, opening the way for a negotiated settlement of their claims for autonomy and the right to maintain their identity.
We cannot allow the Kurdish party to be excluded by violence and intimidation, as they were in the local elections of 1994, or by an unrealistic threshold, as in the general election of 1995. This may be the last chance for a peaceful settlement of the problem which has handicapped Turkey for the whole of the 75 years of her existence as a modem state. We should make it plain to Ankara that it is the last chance for Turkey to secure entry to the European Union. If it cannot find a peaceful
1170
way of accommodating the Kurdish people within a new constitutional framework, we shall be unable to admit it to a Europe whose values it has rejected.
2.2 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as well as congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on keeping so effectively this important subject on the agenda, I commend my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary for timing his speech on human rights to fit in so well with today's Unstarred Question.
I have visited Turkey only once, but I have met many Turkish people, including the Turkish ambassador to London. I have always found Turkish people to be friendly and courteous on a personal level. Turkey is an important player in the world scene, situated as it is, between Europe, central Asia, Russia and the Middle East. That is why we would like to be on good terms with Turkey, especially as it is a very beautiful country to visit, with a rich cultural heritage, and not least because of its excellent cuisine. Turkey is a member of NATO, the Council of Europe and the OSCE. It has signed a number of international conventions on human rights and trades extensively with Europe, the United States and the rest of the world. Yet with all those advantages and aspirations, and its democratic façade, Turkey still has one of the worst human rights records in the world. I note that mention of Turkey was carefully omitted from the Foreign Secretary's speech, along with a number of other countries with bad human rights records. I believe that the Foreign Secretary was always diplomatic and has learned perhaps to be even more so at the Foreign Office.
The Turkish police and security forces have inherited a tradition of cruelty from the days of the Ottoman Empire. Torture and beating of suspects while in detention has been the norm for centuries. Unfortunately, despite claims by Mrs. Ciller, Mr. Yilmaz and President Demirel, the practice continues even though, we hope, it is diminishing slightly. As I reported the last time we debated this issue in February 1996, Dr. Nigel Rodley, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, placed Turkey in the highest position listed with regard to the numbers of cases of torture reported to him. My noble friend will be aware of the extensive documentation by Amnesty International of arbitrary arrest, torture, extrajudicial killings and disappearances, the disruption of public meetings and the persecution of trade unionists, human rights organisations, and those who uphold Kurdish self-determination. As the noble Lord described fully, freedom of the press is heavily curtailed. I could go on.
As a doctor I am very concerned about the coercion with which medical personnel are faced in order to make them provide medical certificates on prisoners which omit evidence of torture or ill treatment that has clearly taken place. Those who refuse to give those false, whitewashing certificates are threatened, sometimes later beaten up and occasionally killed. A full report on this coercion was provided by Physicians for Human Rights and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association last August. The report describes the results of a survey of 60 Turkish forensic physicians attending a conference in Istanbul. Of those doctors,

1171
60 per cent. agreed that almost everyone held in detention in Turkey is tortured; and they did not include beating as torture.
For me the Unstarred Question is also timely because it allows me to report to the House and to the Government on a conference that I attended in Hamburg at the end of last month. It was sponsored by the Kurdish Red Crescent, an organisation not yet recognised by the International Red Cross or Red Crescent because Kurdistan is not an independent nation. The conference was entitled: "War and Health in Kurdistan". About 20 speakers described various aspects of their experiences of the impact of the conflict, on health and healthcare services, mainly in south-east Turkey but also to some extent in Iraq.
This conflict, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, implied, is a low-intensity guerrilla war. The Turkish Government wish the outside world and the population of Turkey to regard the conflict as a mopping up operation against the PKK, which they label as a purely terrorist organisation. My noble friend Lady Symons, following this line, used the same terminology when answering a Starred Question about a month ago. Turkish government sources suggest that the organisation can be defeated militarily, that in fact it is on the verge of collapse if only its bases in northern Iraq could be destroyed.
In the view of almost all non-Turkish observers—the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, gave quite a long list of them—that is a false picture. The PKK has indeed carried out acts of violence which have resulted in the deaths of non-combatants, and for that must stand condemned. However, Abdul Ocalan, the PKK's leader, has now said that the PKK will observe the common article of the Geneva convention relating to non-combatants and prisoners in internal conflicts as well as international conflicts.
The PKK came into being because the Kurds of Turkey could make no progress in achieving their legitimate rights through the democratic process. It now has the covert support of a large part of the Kurdish population, who, incidentally, constantly replenish its armed wing. My noble friend will be fully aware that the Kurdish language is forbidden in schools and that the Kurdish cultural identity is denied. Entry into the main stream of Turkish social and political life is only possible for Kurds if they deny their Kurdish identity.
The attempt to crush the PKK has turned into a war against the Kurdish population as a whole, with the wholesale destruction or evacuation of some 3,000 villages in an attempt to deprive the PKK of its support and supply base. That is a technique familiar to Britain. I am not sure that we did not invent this method of countering guerrilla warfare. We certainly used it in India and more recently in Malaya in the 1940s and 1950s. This has resulted in a very large internal refugee problem for Turkey, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned, of some 3 million people—some estimates are much higher. These populations have very largely been left to fend for themselves, with those who are lucky staying in very overcrowded conditions with
1172
friends or relatives in the larger towns and cities or else building their own shanty town structures on the edges of these towns.
One of the problems in measuring the extent of the human impact of the conflict is the lack of accurate statistics, both on the size of the displaced population and as a proper measure of the health impact of the conflict. Evidence from the Turkish medical association and my personal observations on a visit to Diyarbakir two years ago confirm eye witness reports and local research presented at the conference in Hamburg that health services and the state of public health have greatly deteriorated as a result of the conflict.
To summarise, that means that, as a result of the ensuing poverty and malnutrition, poor housing and overcrowding, lack of clean water and disruption of basic healthcare, the incidence of infectious diseases such as typhoid and TB and the infant mortality rate are increasing. In this relatively backward area steady progress was in fact being made in public health up to the mid-1980s (with WHO assistance). One of the demands of the Hamburg conference was that the area should be opened to a permanent delegation of the International Red Cross in concert with the Turkish Red Crescent. Another demand was that the World Health Organisation should,
"take note of the enormous inequalities in the health situation and medical aid ascertained by the Turkish Chamber of Physicians and other organisations and take the necessary measures".
One of those would be to make a rapid but accurate independent assessment of the deplorable public health situation. The conference also called on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees,
"to register statistically and take under its mandate the approximately 5 million Kurdish refugees resulting from this conflict—
a request which would, if granted, be a vital first step in providing appropriate help.
As an aside, I should mention that UNHCR is in fact involved in assisting the resettlement in Turkey of the refugees who were displaced by the closure of the Atrush refugee camp for Turkish Kurds in the safe haven region of Iraq. So far, very few of those have returned to Turkey and my information is that little has been done to resettle them, although the UNHCR provided Turkey with the necessary funds. All the demands made by the Hamburg conference in reality depend in the first instance on a request from the Turkish Government to the international organisation concerned, which at present they are not prepared to make. Presumably that is because they do not want the outside world to know the true situation.
Can I ask my noble friend, through the Foreign Office, to press the Turkish Government to ask these international humanitarian agencies—that is the International Red Cross, the World Health Organisation and UNHCR—for their assistance in addition to allowing access to the human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International and the OSCE, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury? If the Turkish Government were to answer those requests, world opinion and many human rights organisations would applaud, whereas if they continue to refuse, the

1173
conclusion will be drawn that they have something to hide. If a country has something to hide, should it still remain a member of the Council of Europe and the OSCE? Should we still be collaborating with it militarily as a full member of NATO, supplying weapons and assistance with military training, as my noble friend Lord Gilbert confirmed in a Written Answer to me two weeks ago—although he declined to say what kind of training it was? In parenthesis, I appreciate the Foreign Secretary's reference in his speech to the review of our military training assistance programme and its possible diversion to encouraging good practice. It is something which has a particular application to Turkey.
Is it not reasonable to ask that, if Turkey wishes to remain in those organisations—the Council of Europe, OSCE and NATO—it should be required to put its house in order or face expulsion?
Finally, could I ask my noble friend to confirm that we shall not only raise the issue of individual prisoners of conscience at bilateral meetings (as Robin Cook promised in his speech), but that we shall raise the wider issues that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury and I mentioned today, whenever the opportunity arises? If there is no response, if there is no steady improvement, will the Government consider, together with others, the imposition of a progressive series of sanctions, starting with expulsion from the organisations that I mentioned which, after all, exist very largely to uphold and defend human rights?
2.16 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for raising the Question today since it is both topical and urgent. It may be helpful to have a brief look at the history of minorities in Turkey. I start with the Armenians who were once a large and thriving group. By 1918, however, hardly any were left alive in eastern Turkey. A "final solution" had been found for them. Genocide is, I fear, not an exaggerated term.
The Assyrians are another Christian minority living along Turkey's border with Syria. Their numbers have fallen from well over 100,000 to a good deal less than 3,000. The causes are voluntary emigration, reinforced by real discrimination coming from the Turkish state. Assyrians could not expect to find employment in the civil service or in state industries. In the past 13 years they have also been caught in the cross-fire between the Turkish army and the insurgents.
The Laz, another small group of people living in north-east Turkey along the boundary with Georgia, have complained of lack of education in their own language and of the consequent dangers of their culture and identity disappearing.
Far greater and more longstanding are the problems facing millions of Kurds. At the origin of the Turkish Republic, the new state was supposed to be a partnership between Turks and Kurds. AtatÜrk, however, devised a unitary state and proclaimed the slogan, "Happy is he who calls himself a Turk". In 1994 I saw those words painted in huge letters on the mountainside above the city of Van, formerly Armenian and now largely Kurdish in population. The Kurds were not allowed
1174
even to describe themselves as a national community and were officially referred to as "mountain Turks". Is it surprising, therefore, that in the 1920s and 1930s there were constant uprisings of Kurds against Turks and a permanent severe repression of the Kurdish population?
The Kurdish language, which is akin to Iranian, has never been permitted in the schools and universities of republican Turkey. Kurdish may not be used in law courts or for any form of public business. No Kurdish newspapers, radio or TV are allowed, despite the recent considerable proliferation of radio and TV stations. Even tapes of Kurdish poetry and music are regularly confiscated and destroyed by the army and police. The Kurdish language only survives because it continues in full use in family life. Such is the level of cultural intolerance to be found in a member of NATO and in a country which has signed the European Convention on Human Rights, which belongs to the OSCE and which aspires to full membership of the European Union.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt. I am in profound sympathy with the noble Lord. Can he tell us whether Kurds are treated worse in Turkey than in other countries?
Lord Hylton: Perhaps the noble Earl is referring to Iran or Iraq, both of which have extremely repressive regimes. He must draw his own conclusions.
Against that background I want to tell the story of Med-TV, mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The company is registered in England as Med Broadcasting Limited. It is licensed by the Independent Television Commission and maintains a London office, thus providing some limited employment here. Its main studios are in Belgium and Sweden and it provides television to the Middle East by European satellites. It broadcasts for about nine hours a day, mainly in Kurdish but also in Turkish. Its transmissions are received not only in Turkey but also in Syria, Iraq and Iran; in short, in all the main areas of Kurdish population. Owing to the differences that exist in the Kurdish dialects, great efforts have had to be made to use words that are most widely understood.
When I went to Diyarbakir and Mardin in December 1995 for the Turkish general election, I inquired particularly whether that TV station was being received and what was the public response. I was told that the viewers were positively rapturous. Old people had wept for joy after such a long period of cultural starvation. For all, it was a new window on the world and, what is more, in their own language. The poorest families clubbed together to buy sets and satellite dishes.
Let us see what has been the response of Turkey to something which most people would consider a desirable development in international communications. Turkey first tried to have the company's British licence revoked. The Independent Television Commission quite properly refused. Turkey then tried to put pressure on Mr. Major when he was Prime Minister. Between times, it attempted to jam the transmissions of the original European satellite being used. Fortunately, that also was unsuccessful. Last September, the offices of Med-TV in London and in Belgium were simultaneously raided by

1175
the local police force, acting no doubt at the request of the Turkish Government. Files and computer data were removed but nothing incriminating was found in either case and no charges were brought. In Turkey itself soldiers have many times confiscated dishes and damaged TV sets which they considered to be receiving Med-TV's broadcasts. Another tactic is to cut off a village's electricity supply at peak viewing time.
In November 1996, a director of the company, waiting for a train at Duisburg in Germany, was suddenly and viciously beaten by four men who spoke Turkish among themselves. No one has been arrested for that attack. In June of this year the family of another director living in Sussex was followed and photographed by someone of Turkish appearance. Police protection may therefore yet be needed for persons connected with the company.
Meanwhile, there has been further jamming. INTELSAT cannot apparently be jammed, for some technical reason. But dishes receiving it in Turkey need to be pointed in a particular direction. That enables the police to identify them quite easily. For that reason, the company had begun experimenting with broadcasts from EUTELSAT, a different satellite system, which would not suffer from the same problem.
By 2 p.m. on 1st July jamming started, thought to come from Turkey. EUTELSAT operators complained to Turkey, pointing out that broadcasts were suffering interruption, which included and affected some Romanian language services. The Romanian service, I am glad to say, is now free from interference but the Kurdish service is still being interrupted.
Will Her Majesty's Government inform Turkey that jamming of international TV transmissions is a serious violation of recognised freedoms of expression? It is entirely unacceptable and almost certainly violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the Helsinki conventions of 1979, to which Turkey was a party. Will Her Majesty's Government make clear that attacks on, and harassment of, Med-TV personnel will not be tolerated? Will they also consult with the German, Belgian and any other relevant European governments on that issue and on the issue of jamming?
I should like to ask another important question. Do Her Majesty's Government agree with the Geopolitical Narcotics Monitor which stated that 70 per cent. of illegal drugs entering Europe come through Turkey? Can they confirm the view of Mr. Tom Sackville who said, when still a Home Office Minister, that 80 per cent. of the heroin seized in Britain came via Turkey? He also alleged that official Turkish leaks caused some anti-drug operations to fail. What is being done about that unsatisfactory situation?
Turkey itself has serious problems. Despite a 6 per cent. growth rate, inflation has been running and still runs at 80 per cent. per year. Debt is high with interest absorbing over 70 per cent. of tax revenues. The currency depreciates steadily. The prime cause is over-large military spending and the cost of war in the east and south-east. I suggest that attention will have to
1176
be paid to the known views of TUSIAD, the Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen's Association, and indeed to those of the Kurdistan parliament in exile.
In my view, Turkey should one day become a full member of the European Union. The European Union should state clearly that minor cosmetic improvements in human rights such as we have seen will not be enough. The key lies in a political solution to the Kurdish question and to the 13-year long war. That alone will end the emergency, demilitarise the country, make possible the rule of law and remove the overall control exerted by the national security council. Until those things happen, the prospects for human rights are bleak. The European Union, the Council of Europe and the OSCE can all help. But Turkey needs to find its own Gorbachev. Friends of Turkey should all help her to find such a leader.
The Marquess of Tweeddale: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he say why he considers it desirable that Turkey should join the European Community?
Lord Hylton: My Lords, Turkey is our neighbour. It has been our partner in NATO for many years. There is a large population of Turks living in Europe, particularly in Germany. I do not believe that the two can permanently be separated.
2.29 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for initiating this debate. Anyone who has listened to your Lordships' speeches knows that it is a disturbing debate—disturbing because there is little doubt that Turkey's human rights record does not measure up to internationally acceptable standards. Indeed, for many years now the international community has made its position clear: that the Turkish Government must increase their efforts to stamp out human rights abuses with lasting and meaningful legislation and with respect for internationally acceptable human rights norms.
There have been recent glimmers of hope that the Turkish Government will act responsibly, not least as a result of the customs union agreement signed with Turkey in December 1995. The agreement aimed to bring Turkey further into alignment with its trading partners of the West and encourage Turkey to develop closer working partnerships with the European Union. The agreement also proposed a substantial aid programme for Turkey in return for commitments that progress would be made on the key issues of democracy and human rights.
In October 1996 the European Community reported back on the progress made as a result of that agreement. Although some positive steps have been taken, particularly with reference to trade in the industrial sector, the longed for progress on human rights issues had not taken place. When the customs union agreement was signed, Turkey committed itself to the aspirations of the OSCE but has repeatedly failed to comply with that organisation's guidelines.

1177
I should like to address Turkey's human rights record and to look at the ways in which it falls far short of our hopes and desires. As your Lordships will be aware, and as was so admirably outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, since 1984 the Turkish Government and their military have been engaged in confrontation with armed guerillas of the PKK in the south-east of the country where the Kurds form the majority of the population. The PKK has an estimated strength of some 10,000, largely operating from bases outside its border, not least Syria and the Lebanon. The south-east of Turkey remains under martial law and more than 10,500 people have died in the 12 years of warfare.
This is sadly not a straightforward battle of good versus evil. Criticism has been levelled at both sides of this bloody conflict. While the Turkish army has on occasions violently opposed the PKK, the PKK has attempted to gain the Kurdish population's support sometimes by intimidating and executing those who oppose it. Their actions have, nevertheless, been generally unsuccessful.
Between 150,000 and 200,000 Turkish troops are stationed in the south-east of the country. In May this year they crossed over the border into northern Iraq in their quest against the Kurdish people. The ensuing violence in Erbil has already been reported to this House in very distressing terms by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on another occasion, and we all appreciate the scale of the alleged atrocities. The south-eastern region of Turkey is now completely out of bounds to foreigners lest they be caught in crossfire. Four tourists, including a Briton, died in bomb attacks in Marmaris and Istanbul in 1994. The PKK has made repeated threats against tourists, most recently in June this year. As your Lordships will know, several western tourists were kidnapped by the PKK in the summers of 1993, 1994, 1995 and as recently as September of last year.
Inevitably, there is some sympathy for the Turkish Government in having to deal with what is perceived by some as a violent, uncompromising and bloodthirsty opponent. But meeting violence with violence only escalates the bloodlust. It is incumbent on responsible governments to take the high ground, to set an example and ultimately to ensure that the basic human rights of all those affected should be upheld.
The United Kingdom has a particular understanding of the situation, dealing as it does and must with the problems faced in Northern Ireland. In the words of the former Foreign Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind:
"We know that the light against terrorism can only ultimately he successful if it recognises the human rights and the legitimate concerns of the people who are caught up in it".
It is only in these circumstances that government can be respected by its people and prove worthy of the powers placed upon it.
It is true to say that in recent years there has been some liberalisation of the application of Article 8 of Turkey's anti-terrorism law which seeks to prevent
1178
freedom of expression, although the law itself has not been altered and, as we have heard today in this debate, continues to be used to prosecute people for their beliefs. Insufficient action has been taken against the torture and ill treatment of prisoners. Disappearances and extra-judicial executions still take place. Access to Turkish prisons on behalf of the International Committee of the Red Cross has been denied repeatedly since 1983. There are reports of pressures placed on non-governmental organisations suspected of actively supporting the Kurdish cause.
The excellent report and work undertaken by Amnesty International elaborates on that point. It made a series of important recommendations. I very much hope that they will be considered very carefully by the Government and indeed by everyone to whom they were addressed, not least by members of the Council of Europe and UN member states. To the European Union member states Amnesty International said that it sought to sustain close monitoring of freedom of expression in Turkey, as recommended by the European Parliament in its approval of the 1995 customs union, and use all means at their disposal to encourage the Government of Turkey to effect genuine reform of those laws under which prisoners of conscience are held.
There have been reports that the Turkish Government have instituted proceedings in a number of cases against those accused of torture, but as long as the practices that both I and more ably Amnesty International have outlined continue it is incumbent on all of us, from whichever side of the House, to highlight them.
There is no doubt that Turkey needs to reform her policy on human rights. This is imperative not only for peace and prosperity within her own borders; it is of international concern. Turkey is a strategically important and valued member of NATO. Her territories span the great divides of the world: to the north the fledgling democracies of the former Soviet Union; to the east the volatile areas of the Middle East; to the south the occasionally turbulent North African countries and to the west, Europe.
We need to encourage her stability and prosperity. I also share with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, the view that we look forward to the day when she may join us in the European Community. Her accession would help to seal peace and security in a key entrepÔt of the world. In view of that wider hope, NATO has actively supported her military. Over the years it has supplied her with 500 combat aircraft, 500 combat helicopters, 5,000 tanks and thousands of artillery weapons, mortars, machine guns and assault rifles. But it is absolutely essential and right that we seek to ensure that those weapons are not put to ill-use either in Northern Cyprus or in the southeast of Turkey itself. It is a delicate balance between the need for global peace and the needs of the Turkish citizens. The lasting solution is a sea change in attitude from the Turkish Government towards human rights abuses.
So how is such a sea change to be delivered? I am in no doubt about it. It will only come if we continue to work closely with Turkey. We should persist with the customs union agreement, which admirably reflected the

1179
view that Europe should seek to influence the domestic policy of her neighbours by holding out the carrot of stronger trading ties and financial assistance. An antagonistic approach in this instance will only lead to Turkish isolation, which in turn may force her to look for other allies in less peaceful and stable regions of the world.
I am aware of the Government's admirable policy to place human rights at the core of their foreign affairs policy, a commitment which was reinforced only yesterday by the Foreign Secretary. But I would be interested to know whether such a policy will mean stronger action on behalf of the Government towards the perpetrators of human rights abuses. Will they attempt to impose greater penalties on the countries concerned?
I do not see a more antagonistic approach to other governments necessarily securing the desired response. Far from it. I believe that it could drive them further away from our aspirations and those of the international community. In Turkey's case that could have immeasurable consequences for Cyprus, NATO, Europe and peace in the eastern Mediterranean.
In conclusion, while I have concentrated my remarks on the issues of Turkey, particularly the human rights issues relating to that country, this debate, as noble Lords have mentioned, fortuitously coincides with the announcement of the Government's foreign policy and the place that human rights will have within that foreign policy. On 12th May, announcing the mission statement, the Foreign Secretary put,
"human rights at the heart of our foreign policy".
By yesterday in the Locarno Room of the Foreign Office he had moved discernibly to "the centre". There is only one centre so it necessarily displaces other priorities in its wake. He said that the fact that we are witnesses in our sitting rooms to these events requires us to take responsibility for our reaction to such gross breaches of human rights. Many of the Foreign Secretary's words yesterday would have been welcomed by noble Lords on all sides of the House. But East Timor has provided an opportunity to note the difference between rhetoric and action. There will be many others. The gap between the rhetoric and the actions of this Government should and will be constantly examined from all sides of this House. However good the intentions, at its widest the gap between rhetoric and action can best be defined as hypocrisy; at its narrowest the gap will represent a breach of faith.
I end by posing two general questions in this context. Given the new human rights policy of the Foreign Office, by how much further does the level of human rights atrocities in any country with whom we trade have to deteriorate before the Government impose trade sanctions? If the Government are not considering the implementation of trade sanctions, how will they reconcile the inherent tension between a policy of dialogue together with non-isolation of a country on the one hand and its human-rights foreign policy approach
1180
on the other? Given the current Government's new foreign policy objective, I believe that it is right to put these key questions to the Government in the context of the Starred Questions and debates that we have had so far this Session—for example, those relating to Burma, the Sudan, Indonesia and, through a question of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, to the Minister today, Turkey.
2.41 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for raising this Question today. I am sure that all noble Lords are very much aware of his dedicated work in the field of human rights. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to his ceaseless efforts to raise the profile of debate in this vitally important area. For him, as for many others, Turkey has been a particular focus, and rightly so. In Turkey there are obvious problems and clear opportunities to put those problems right.
As my noble friend Lord Rea remarked, only yesterday my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made a speech on human rights issues. I shall not repeat today what he said, but I echo the spirit of his words. Human rights are fundamental to this Government's foreign policy objectives. That is not a promise to preach to the world on how other countries can improve themselves. To do so would be both arrogant and counter-productive. I mean that respect for the rights of individuals should run as a thread through all our deliberations and contacts with the world at large, and Turkey is no exception.
Many noble Lords have raised specific issues and a number of differing approaches have been suggested. I shall try to address as many points as I can. Initially, I shall examine why the Government regard Turkey as an important interest to Britain and to Europe. Much of Turkey's significance lies in the fact that it is itself a part of Europe. Successive Turkish governments have restated their commitment to establishing a European identity for Turkey. Turkey is a member of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Council of Europe. It aspires to membership of the European Union. The customs union with Europe, to which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred, is a concrete indication of Turkey's position in the European home. It has its imperfections; it has its critics, many of them in this House.
Of course, Turkey is also a long-standing NATO ally. Its importance to the security of the alliance has not diminished since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Geopolitically, Turkey occupies a crucial position on the threshold of a region of tension and uncertainty. It has ties with the Middle East, the Islamic world, the Caucasus and central Asia. Its tradition of secular democracy in a predominantly Moslem country is an achievement we should not undervalue.

1181
And yet, as all noble Lords have pointed out, Turkey's human rights record remains poor. I share your Lordships' concerns expressed here today about reports of torture, abuse, unwarranted detentions and "disappearances". There can be no excuses for extra-judicial killings or intimidation of those carrying out their professions, such as journalists or lawyers. Indeed, it is incumbent upon those who regard Turkey as a friend not to remain silent in the face of clear breaches of basic rights and freedoms. I believe that the Government of Turkey understand that there will remain serious obstacles in the way of progress towards a closer relationship with Europe while Turkey remains so far short of European standards in human rights. Our challenge will be how to help Turkey reach those standards. We have a duty not just to criticise, but, where we can, to help.
The new Government in Turkey have pledged themselves to the improvement of human rights in the programme they announced two weeks ago. We welcome that commitment. It follows modest progress on reform under the previous administration. But announcements will not be enough. There will need to be a thorough reappraisal of the administration of justice in Turkey: reductions in the periods of detention of suspects; a hard look at the workings of the state security courts; and effective enablement of the rights of freedom of expression, before we can say that there has been a sea change in Turkey's behaviour.
Turkey has duties and obligations under the international treaties to which it is signatory, as noble Lords have mentioned. It should not be surprised if other signatories expect it to conform to those treaties in word and deed. Without significant movement towards European standards, Turkey will continue to be embarrassed and discomfited by the attention of her friends and allies in the OSCE and the Council of Europe.
We were glad to see the adjustments that the previous Turkish government were able to make in this area. I am encouraged by the new Government's announcement earlier this week of the amnesty to all journalists currently imprisoned for "crimes of expression". This is a welcome and long-overdue reform. I hope, too, that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will have welcomed the release, albeit on bail, of Mr. Sanar Yurdatapan, on whose behalf he has campaigned so vigorously.
But, as our debate today has demonstrated, these are but drops in a large pool. There is a Turkish expression which runs
"Drop by drop, the lake forms".
I do not believe that in the field of human rights either Turkey or her friends have time for such an unpredictable meterological progression.
The problems of the Kurdish minority have rightly featured prominently in today's debate, and I shall discuss them in more detail later. But the issue of terrorism will not alas distance itself far from those
1182
considerations. There is no doubt that Turkey faces a serious threat from the terrorism of the PKK. Sadly, we recognise that threat. Britain itself has had to cope with terrorism for too long not to. We understand the difficulties in tackling that threat. But we also know that military actions can never provide the whole solution to the problem. We do not question Turkey's territorial integrity; there should be no ambiguity on the point. But Turkey must look at the legitimate concerns of its Kurdish population in terms of housing, employment, social and healthcare, and education.
Those deep-rooted problems must be seriously addressed. Only then can a credible long-term stability return to the troubled provinces of the south-east. Only that can effectively undermine support for the terrorists. Heavy-handed and indiscriminate suppression are not the answer. For us, condemnation alone will not promote improvement. If we can approach the problems that Turkey faces in a mood of support and co-operation, we will get further quicker than through direct confrontation. I do not say this as an apologist for the abuses that we have heard about today. I say this as a realistic way to try to make a difference. Through firm action in international fora with our allies, and through supportive educational and vocational training exchanges, we can help to bring about an improvement in the understanding of human rights issues. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said yesterday in his speech on human rights:
"Wherever possible, our approach should he to encourage improved standards through dialogue".
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was kind enough to give me notice of the specific questions which he intended to raise today. I shall try to address some of them, although the list was long. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not answer all his questions but I shall write to him.
The menu for change about which we have heard is full. The question for us is how best to encourage the Turkish authorities to digest such a menu. I believe that for many people there is an understanding that in Turkey there is now an appetite for change. We will persist in urging on Turkey the advantages of welcoming objective observers to help clarify where problems lie; for example, in the displacement and other hardships of the people of south-east Turkey and in the functioning of Turkey's democratic institutions and electoral systems.
That applies to individual observers. As regards the specific point made by the noble Lord, we will again take up with the Turkish authorities their prohibition of certain individuals, including the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. That applies, too, to representatives of the international organisations mentioned by many noble Lords today; for instance, the UN rapporteurs, the OSCE and the ICRC. In all cases, the message must be that the involvement of observers and experts is important. Indeed, it is vital. The openness and transparency which they can bring to addressing the problems can help towards solutions. They are not an unwelcome distraction.

1183
The noble Lord spoke movingly of the torture of children. Sadly, we are indeed aware of reports that children have been the subject of torture. Let there be no doubt that Her Majesty's Government condemn any torture. We welcome the decision earlier this year to reduce the maximum detention periods for people held in custody. That may help, but it is not enough. Only by full co-operation will the international bodies responsible for monitoring and investigating such allegations can Turkey really convince the international community that it has acted to stamp out the scourge of torture in that country.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised the question of the review in September of the OSCE code of conduct on the politico-military aspects of security. We believe that the seminar will provide an excellent forum to examine democratic controls on armed forces. As a signatory state, we expect Turkey to meet her obligations under the code and we will work with our partners to ensure adherence to all OSCE commitments.
The noble Lord also referred to the code of conduct and the chapter on the human dimension which were both attached to the Budapest Declaration of the OSCE of December 1994. The code of conduct focuses on politico-military aspects of security and standards for democratic control under armed forces and the protection of civilians. It does not have an enforcement procedure and is regarded as politically but not legally binding. Paragraphs 34 to 37 of the code refer to respect for commitment under the international law and, in particular, the Hague and Geneva conventions dealing with the laws of war.
The chapter on the human dimension focuses on human rights questions. Under that, it is open to governments or NGOs to ask the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights to refer human rights questions to the chairman in office of the OSCE.
The noble Lord referred also to two specific cases—the Akduvar case and the Aksoy case. They went against Turkey in the European Court of Human Rights. The British Government regard those as important test cases in relation to Turkey's compliance with European human rights standards. We expect Turkey to meet the requirements set out by the court. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the House that we have reiterated that in the recent review in Strasbourg.
A number of noble Lords raised the question of the Kurdish minority. The conflict in south-east Turkey between the Turkish security forces and the PKK indeed casts a dark cloud over the security and livelihood of the region's people. But of course, a state of conflict or emergency must not be made into a pretext for a denial of basic freedoms and rights. That cannot be the way to win the battle for peace and prosperity in the region. Village clearances, as have been described, forcing large-scale relocation of huge numbers of people, have
1184
clearly been a part of the Turkish authority's strategy and have not brought solutions. They have compounded the problems in many cases, increasing the discontent which feeds the appeal of violence and terrorism.
But in recent months we have seen signals of a growing awareness in Turkey that the relentless pursuit of a military solution will not provide the answer. Significantly, Turkish business leaders have clearly identified the need for economic regeneration in the region. They have called for increased investment there. It is welcome too that some senior figures in the Turkish military establishment have begun to speak publicly about the need for a humanitarian and developmental dimension to address the problems of the south east. We shall continue actively to encourage words such as those to be followed by actions.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, raised the problem of the deterioration in public heath and the need for a permanent delegation from the International Red Cross. The Government will indeed encourage the Turkish Government to understand that international organisations such as the ICRC can help to address the problems which confront the south east of Turkey. We shall continue to press that point with them.
The noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Hylton, referred to the problems concerning Med-TV. Questions about jamming have been raised. We have received no confirmation of the source of the problem. We have been told that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is investigating those incidents. We shall continue to press for information about where the jamming is coming from.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to the reports of the assaults, which were indeed terrible. We are aware that investigation into those alleged criminal activities is under way. I hope that something may come of those investigations and that we can report further to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton.
The noble Lord asked also about drug trafficking. We know that a large proportion of the heroin entering the UK arrives via Turkey. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary discussed that with his Turkish counterpart when they met earlier this month. Both my right honourable friend and the Turkish foreign minister agreed about the usefulness of enhanced co-operation in that area, both bilaterally and with our European partners.
Several noble Lords have referred to Turkey's EU application. The European Commission has just put forward its Agenda 2000 containing proposals on how to handle further enlargement of the EU. On the question of Turkey's aspiration to join, the Commission endorses the view that Turkey is eligible to join and that its candidacy should he judged on the same criteria as those for other candidates. The Government support that approach.
However, it is clear to us that one criterion on which Turkey falls a long way short is its performance in human rights. Turkey's path to membership must include a thoroughgoing reform in that field.

1185
I do not believe that anyone listening to this debate believes that the human rights position in Turkey will be improved by isolation or by dissociation. We must work with Turkey, but we must work firmly and insistently through the various international organisations about which so many noble Lords spoke today. During his meeting with the new Turkish foreign minister, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary broached the issue of human rights and asked how we might help. Mr. Cem welcomed our suggestions. There are a number of areas in which we will be looking to take forward practical proposals, such as educational and vocational training programmes and
1186
seminars for lawyers and barristers to familiarise themselves with the implications of European legislation, human rights awareness training for police officers, and support for advice centres in the field of basic rights and redress.
Those measures will not by themselves be crucial. The fact is that only Turkey and the Turkish people can achieve the changes needed, because it is ultimately their interest which will be most directly served by their improvement. However, we can try to make a difference. The Government are determined to continue to work to that end.
House adjourned at three o'clock.

  Beef: Illegal Export Allegations
  Beef: Illegal Export Allegations
  Departmental Personal Files
  Departmental Personal Files
  International Relations: Co-ordination
  International Relations: Co-ordination
  Landmines: Ottawa Process
  Landmines: Ottawa Process
  Westminster Foundation for Democracy: Annual Report
  Westminster Foundation for Democracy: Annual Report