Sitting of 24 July 1997

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

    Voluntary Sector and Environmental Task Force
    Gillian Merron: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the voluntary sector and environmental task force options available as part of his proposals to provide employment for young people. [8595]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): My right hon. Friends the Ministers for the Environment and for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights and the Minister of State, Home Office—my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)—last week had an excellent launch of the voluntary sector and environmental task force element of the new deal, which will play a crucial part at local level in the consortiums to be developed and the programme to be laid out.
    Gillian Merron: I thank my right hon. Friend for his welcome reply. Will the voluntary and environmental sectors be represented on the task force chaired by Sir Peter Davis? I believe that their involvement is crucial to its success.
    Mr. Blunkett: The task force will play a crucial role in the development of the programme and its successful promotion locally. Together with the business sector and others, those sectors will be represented to ensure that a wide view is heard. We have also established an advisory group in which environmental and voluntary sector interests are well represented. They will work at regional and local level to help to develop the programme.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the Secretary of State agree that this scheme could do much good environmental work in Gloucestershire, such as maintaining dry-stone walls and specialist Cotswold stone buildings? Does he further agree that, if we were able to deploy young people on such schemes, the skills that they would have to learn to carry out those tasks, which might otherwise be lost, would be retained in rural areas?
    Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely. I welcome the commitment, and therefore the consensus, that the hon. Member brings to this matter.

    Literacy and Numeracy
    Mr. Goggins: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he has given to primary schools on teaching literacy and numeracy. [8597]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): Our White Paper "Excellence in schools" sets out in broad terms our strategies for raising standards in literacy and numeracy in primary schools. We will issue more detailed guidance on literacy to local education authorities and schools in the autumn. On numeracy, we will be guided by the work of the numeracy task force, which will offer its interim recommendations in November.
    Mr. Goggins: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that one of the most important things that parents can do to help their children as they grow up is to listen to them reading? What advice is he giving primary schools to encourage them to ensure that parents play their full part in the drive for higher standards?
    Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend identifies an important area. A child's first teacher is his parent. Under the previous Government, four family literacy centres were established and were a great success. I am delighted to inform the House that the Government will this year support 265 courses in 64 local education authorities to carry forward that important work.

    Jobseekers (Work and Training)
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he will take to ensure that genuine reasons for refusing an opportunity to work or train are recognised; and if he will make a statement. [8599]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Alan Howarth): The Government recognise that there are occasions when a jobseeker has good cause for refusing an opportunity of employment or training. The Jobseekers Allowance Regulations 1996 make provision for that. Employment Service procedures ensure that a jobseeker has the opportunity to set out his or her reasons for refusing an offer before a decision is made.
    Mrs. Fyfe: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. May I draw his attention to the fact that in Glasgow high unemployment among young people continues, and it is not because they are workshy? What would happen if places were not readily available? Will my hon. Friend examine carefully the reasons for reducing benefit? The regulations are confusing and there is misunderstanding at local and national level. I hope that that will be sorted out before the new deal is in place to ensure that no injustice is done to any young person.
    Mr. Howarth: As my hon. Friend has rightly pointed out, unemployment is all too high, and there is all too much poverty in her constituency of Glasgow, Maryhill. We will do all that we can to ensure that a full range of high-quality options is available for her constituents under

    1029
    the new deal. As for sanctions, I believe that the rules are entirely clear, but I assure my hon. Friend that there will be no question of a sanction being imposed if an appropriate option is not available to one of her constituents.
    Mr. Willetts: Will the Minister elaborate on the remarks that he made the other day to his old soulmates at the Adam Smith Institute? Will he confirm that employers who participate in the scheme will have to give an undertaking that those whom they take on will not displace others who are working for them? Will those employers have to agree that there will be an overall increase in employment in their firms? Are these new-style planning agreements with businesses really the best way of increasing employment?
    Mr. Howarth: I relish the ideologically challenging character of the hon. Gentleman's question. He and I always welcome the play of ideas.
    I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that there is a risk that employers will abuse the opportunity provided for them through the offer of a £60-a-week subsidy to enable them to take on a young person under the new deal. He may also agree that we cannot simply be inactive. We cannot say to employers, "Go your own way; let market forces operate, and let people take their chance." It is clear that young people who have been unemployed for more than six months are in difficulty in the labour market, and we must therefore do our best to encourage employers to provide them with work opportunities. At the same time, we must do all that we can do to ensure that a number of employers do not abuse the subsidy, and that is what we are doing.

    School Standards
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations he has received about standards in schools. [8600]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): This Government's top priority is to raise school standards. Since we took office, my colleagues and I have met a wide range of individuals and organisations, and have taken full advantage of the opportunities to listen to their views.
    Mr. Amess: Will the Minister join me in congratulating all the schools in my constituency of Southend, West on their efforts to improve education standards? Will she reassure, in particular, grant-maintained and selective schools that the new Government will do nothing to damage their efforts? Finally, will she undertake to examine the Essex common schools funding formula carefully? At present, the formula works in favour of small schools to the detriment of large schools, particularly Westborough primary school in my constituency, which has 784 pupils.
    Ms Morris: I am delighted to congratulate all schools that raise standards in the hon. Gentleman's new constituency, and indeed in all constituencies. Let me take this opportunity to congratulate schools that do well in Basildon as well.
    1030
    Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have no intention of preventing any school, whatever its status, from raising standards. The sooner we shift the debate to standards and away from structure, the better it will be for all children. My hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards is giving careful attention to all matters financial; he will note what the hon. Gentleman has said, together with any representations that are made. We want fair funding, and we realise that, in the transition to it, we must not damage schools that are paramount in the provision of education.
    Ms Hodge: My hon. Friend will have read about the case of the 15-year-old girl who appears to have been expelled from a school in Nottinghamshire. Does she share my concern about the fact that a young girl has apparently been expelled simply for complaining about education standards in the school? Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the agenda for raising education standards must be listening to the voice of consumers—parents and students?
    Ms Morris: My hon. Friend will understand that, until we receive a report on the incident, it is inappropriate for us to comment here. We have asked for such a report. I understand that the school has now broken up for the holidays, but that the child and her parents will appeal to the governors to ensure that the case is brought to a satisfactory end, as I hope it will be. They should have that right of appeal, and I think that the most sensible option is to let the appeal take its course and to hope that the matter can be resolved locally. That is where it should be resolved. I know that the governing body, together with the head teacher, will want to put the educational interests of the child at the forefront of its decisions.
    Mr. Don Foster: Does the Minister agree that, if we are to raise standards in our schools, we need high-quality teachers? Is she aware that, in the past 12 months, 16,000 heads, deputies and teachers left the profession early? Is she further aware that, over the past five years, there has been an 11 per cent. reduction in the number of people entering the profession? Finally, is she aware that, because of the inadequacies in the Chancellor's Budget for education, there will be further cuts in the teacher work force next year? Taken together, those facts are a ticking time bomb. How does the Minister intend to prevent it from exploding
    Ms Morris: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the shortfall in teacher recruitment figures, which I have discussed with him. We need our best graduates in teaching—people who are good leaders and good teachers and who want to take their share of responsibility for educating the next generation.
    The Government will put at the forefront of their intentions plans to attract the best into teaching. The consultation which my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards launched this morning on the general teaching council is one of the many ways in which we are attempting to attract better graduates into teaching. We inherited a difficult situation from our predecessors in terms of teacher supply; they took no action to deal with the problem. We shall take action, and we hope to make announcements in due course.

    1031
    I am proud of the Chancellor's settlement. It means that extra money will go into schools this year for capital and revenue spending, and I know that schools throughout the country will greatly welcome that.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: When considering standards in schools and the quality of teachers, will my hon. Friend have regard to the quality of the buildings in which teachers and children have to teach and learn? In particular, will she have regard to the primary school in Wrenthorpe in my constituency, which is an old building? We need new buildings for people to teach and work in.
    Ms Morris: I agree with my hon. Friend that the condition of school buildings plays its part in our mission to help to raise standards. He will welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor which put £1 billion over four years into building capital. We have much to make up, given what we inherited from the Conservative Government. I assure my hon. Friend that we take seriously our obligations to make sure that our children learn in satisfactory circumstances. As he knows, we have made a good start with this year's financial settlement.

    Tuition Fees
    Mr. Willis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to charge students in higher education for all or part of their tuition fees; and if he will make a statement. [8602]
    Mr. Blunkett: I refer the hon. Member to the statement that I made in the House yesterday.
    Mr. Willis: Does the Secretary of State agree that his announcement yesterday about students paying for tuition fees will not put money into our universities immediately? Does he agree with Sir Ron Dearing's analysis that, to try to combat the 6.5 per cent. deficit over the next two years, which is the legacy of the previous Administration, he will need to find £100 million for next year and £250 million for the following year, simply to stand still? If the right hon. Gentleman agrees with Sir Ron, will he guarantee to provide that funding?
    Mr. Blunkett: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a shortfall and that it arises from the previous Government's settlement for higher education in the next two years. As part of the fundamental spending review undertaken by the Government, we shall address how best to meet that deficit and how to ensure that, between now and the resumption of a revenue stream for higher and further education, we can sustain standards and quality.
    Mr. Gunnell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way in which he presented the issue of fees and maintenance yesterday. In particular, I thank him for the way in which he made plain his intention that no one would be prevented from undertaking higher education by these charges. He gave the limits for qualifying home income for places that would be provided free of cost. Will the household income of current part-time students who receive pay be looked at on the same basis? Has any thought been given to whether part-time students will be eligible for student loans?
    Mr. Blunkett: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. As I said yesterday, we need to examine how equity between full and part-time students can be obtained. We will consider that as part of the development of the White Paper in the autumn. Those considerations will include the disregards against the gross income of a family or individual, which include at the moment the discounting of mortgage but not rent, and the discounting of some forms of domestic help. It will cause great disquiet to the House when it realises that those discounts are provided against gross income, and it will want us to deal with such anomalies, as well as with the general thrust of my statement yesterday.
    Mr. Dorrell: Following yesterday's statement, will the Secretary of State confirm that, under his proposals, the loan available to an individual student will be equivalent to the total amount of loan and grant currently available to that individual student, plus an enhancement that would be sufficient to pay the means-tested tuition fee that he proposes to introduce? If that is the position, is it not true that any increase in resources for higher education during the next three years—the length of a course for students starting from next September—would have to come from extra public expenditure or publicly guaranteed expenditure in the form of loan disbursements? Given everything that he said yesterday about the importance of his proposals in releasing new resources for higher education, will he now be more specific about what he plans in terms of extra resources for British universities?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am happy to answer the right hon. Gentleman's questions, especially as he has put them more gently than he did yesterday. With one addition—that, for those with hardship, there will be a supplementary loan available of £250 a year—I can confirm that his figures are correct. In the first year—if we are in a position to implement the proposals from next September—we would raise around £125 million. That would be displaced by the introduction of the loan scheme. It will therefore be necessary to consider additional resources in the light of my reply to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis).

    Young People (Assistance)
    Fiona Mactaggart: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in what ways he will ensure that options offered to young unemployed people are suited to their individual needs. [8603]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights (Mr. Andrew Smith): The individual needs and circumstances of every eligible young person will be addressed in the up to four months gateway period before they start a new deal option. The Employment Service will work in partnership with professionals and agencies to ensure that young people receive independent careers advice and help in tackling particular social and other problems that are holding them back from training or work.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I commend to him a partnership that already exists in Slough, led by Mars and other local companies and engineered by our local authority, which is beginning

    1033
    to provide opportunities very like those to be provided by the welfare-to-work programme. What has been a concern among that group, however, is that the Employment Service was very reluctant to join the partnership. How will he ensure that the Employment Service does work with other partners to ensure the quality of experience for each individual, because the policy will require a major cultural change in the Employment Service, which has been not about providing services to individuals but about meeting phoney targets?
    Mr. Smith: I was interested to learn of the initiative in my hon. Friend's constituency. We want to build on the best practice that is already out there in terms of partnership to help young and long-term unemployed people. My hon. Friend is right to say that successful delivery of the new deal in partnership does involve a change in the task that the Employment Service was given by the previous Administration. It means a culture shift. That is accepted by the people who work for the Employment Service, and a programme is being driven forward by the chief executive. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), and I have addressed meetings of employment centre staff throughout the country to ensure that they are fully engaged in the shift that is needed to ensure that the Employment Service helps our young people to take the great opportunities that will be offered in the new deal.
    Mr. Öpik: What consideration has been given to ensuring that young unemployed people in the countryside are successfully included in the scheme, thereby reducing the immense pressures on young people to move from the countryside into cities in search of work?
    Mr. Smith: As well as the 27 regional consultation meetings which are being held by the end of the first week in August, there will be local consultation meetings in September and October in each locality so that we can ensure that the new deal design is sensitive to the needs of the client group in the areas in which the programmes are carried forward. The pathfinder districts where the new deal will start early, in January, will include rural areas to ensure that we learn from that experience.

    Information Technology
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure that information technology is used effectively for adult learning. [8604]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): We are increasing information and advice to employers. In addition, the new university for industry will encourage and develop a wide range of learning opportunities, including many that are information technology based.
    Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that, if we are to use information technology effectively in adult education, we must also increase support and training to teachers and further education lecturers? If he does agree, can he explain to the House how he intends to increase teacher confidence in exploiting technology to meet student needs?
    Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend will be glad to know that I met the Teacher Training Agency this morning to
    1034
    discuss this subject, and I was encouraged by its enthusiasm and breadth of knowledge on the use of information technology in schools for education. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is discussing with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport how best to deploy lottery money in order to fund the Teacher Training Agency for the use of IT. We recognise that it is crucial if we are to make a success of this great boon to learning.
    Mr. Keetch: Is the Minister aware of the concern among many employers at the lack of IT training on courses for national vocational qualifications? Given that IT is now part and parcel of almost every profession, what measures are the Government taking to increase the IT element in such courses?
    Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that IT is at the centre of so many disciplines. I was shocked to discover the appalling mess in which the previous Government left the IT sector after 18 years. It was a total shambles and was very patchy. I suspect that that is because most of the previous Ministers did not know how to turn on a computer.

    School Standards
    Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what role he plans to give to local education authorities in supporting schools to raise standards. [8605]
    Mr. Lock: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has for the role local education authorities should have in supporting schools to raise standards. [8607]
    Mr. Blunkett: The White Paper "Excellence in schools", published on 7 July, sets out the key task of self-improvement within schools, but supported by the local authority with advice and the spread of best practice. The provision of a development plan worked out with the schools which will be submitted to the Department will deal with the way in which, by collaboration rather than conflict, we can ensure that each plays its part in raising standards for the future.
    Helen Jackson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I am sure that he will agree that the Tory years of cuts have left many classrooms poorly equipped with new technology and with scruffy and inadequate books and library areas. In poorer areas particularly, parents do not have, and cannot afford, the top-up necessary to help in that regard.
    In their support role, will local education authorities also be given a monitoring role on that bread-and-butter side of education standards in schools? When the Government start their regular inspection of LEAs, will they ensure that it covers the bricks, mortar, books and wherewithal of teaching, as well as the standard of teaching itself?
    Mr. Blunkett: I assure my hon. Friend that the inspection will cover the availability of the equipment, books and material that are so crucial to raising standards and enabling teachers to do their job. My Department

    1035
    wrote to the directors of education on 18 July asking them to consider equipment and technology in the bids that they will put in for a share of the £250 million a year that was allocated by the Chancellor in the Budget on 2 July.
    Mr. Lock: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important areas of co-operation between local education authorities and schools is that of special educational needs? Is he aware that in my constituency of Wyre Forest there is good co-operation between schools and the LEA?
    I welcome the statement in the White Paper that resources will be switched from the bureaucratic requirement to obtain a statement into proper and effective help for those children with special educational needs. May the House have further details on how that switch of resources to provide effective help will be achieved? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that those who work in the important area of special educational needs are central to the Government's crusade to raise standards? They are not working at the periphery of an elitist educational system which benefits only the few.
    Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important and often neglected area in the education system. In the autumn, we will publish a Green Paper so that we can develop consultation with schools, special needs co-ordinators and parents on the best way to ensure that we place resources at the right level and at the right time for intervention to be most effective. We want to overcome, where that is possible, the special needs of the youngsters and to reinforce the work already taking place in our schools. It is time that we placed as much emphasis on those with special educational needs as we place on the small elite group who, with our help, continue to flourish in our education system.
    Mr. Bercow: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that requiring the star-performing London Oratory to submit an annual improvement plan to the poor-performing Hammersmith and Fulham education authority will contribute to improving standards in that school?
    Mr. Blunkett: I want to make it clear that, over recent times, Hammersmith and Fulham education authority has been doing an excellent job in supporting and raising standards in its area, including at the Phoenix school, which is a classic example of how a fresh start can give a school the opportunity to offer, to the children who inevitably attend it, the sort of education which, regrettably, Conservative Members seem to think can and should be available only to a very few.
    I also want to make it clear that there is room for improvement in every school in this country. We agree with the Office for Standards in Education that the average should be increased to the excellent and the excellent should be striving for even greater excellence for the sake of the children in those schools.
    Mr. Dorrell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an increasing belief that his White Paper on schools was simply a series of pious aspirations? Why did he decide to publish his White Paper, but delay until later in the year publication of the detail of his proposals for
    1036
    the future structure of schools? Does he understand that it will not be acceptable to publish that consultation document in the middle of the school holidays and then say that those interested in the future structure of schools had had adequate time to react to his proposals?
    Mr. Blunkett: A representative of the previous Conservative Government talking about stages, levels and timing of consultation really takes the biscuit. The right hon. Gentleman sheds tears about people who are on holiday and therefore not available for consultation. He would do better to examine what the White Paper is all about—standards and excellence in schools; concentrating on the future, not the past; and a new agenda uniting all those who want to move away from past conflict and division. That is why, in consulting on any further changes, we will ensure that we work with the grain and consensus. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to be so griping and sour in everything that he says and does.
    Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when standards have been raised, especially in the working-class base where they need to be raised, and when literacy and numeracy have been improved, as an earlier answer suggested they would be, more and more young people will want to go to university? Until yesterday, one feature that distinguished us from the Tories was our stance on tuition fees and similar issues. There seemed to be a blurring of the edges yesterday. May I ask my right hon. Friend, as modestly and quietly as I can, to take sufficient time before the publication of the White Paper and the introduction of the Bill to listen to the many voices from the Labour Benches about financing? Can he assure us that we have not heard the last word yet?
    Mr. Blunkett: As quietly and gently as I can, I tell my hon. Friend that there will never be a last word on any subject with him in the Chamber. I assure him that we shall listen and respond. We shall lift the cap on access to higher education that the previous Government brought in. We shall ensure quality and standards for those for whom education will be available because of the new access when it would not have been available had we not found an alternative income stream. We shall ensure that those from families earning more than £35,000 a year, who will not receive help with the payment of fees, will be supported in fulfilling the expectations and aspirations that will no doubt come from their parents, given the level of income that they are drawing on.

    Assisted Places Schemes
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures he proposes to take to ensure money that saved from the abolition of the assisted places schemes is ring-fenced to reduce class sizes of five, six and seven-year-olds. [8606]
    Mr. Byers: We intend to channel funds to local education authorities through specific grant to ensure that resources are dedicated to delivering on our pledge to reduce class sizes.
    Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining that, but he has not clarified the issue of ring-fencing. My education authority in Dorset is controlled by the Liberal Democrats, not the Labour party. County councillors have the right to decide how to spend that money. The Government have made a pledge to reduce class sizes. How will they fulfil that manifesto pledge without ring-fencing the money and telling county councils that they can spend it only on reducing those class sizes?
    Mr. Byers: I apologise for not addressing that clearly enough in my original reply. I said that we would channel the funds through specific grant, which is a technical way of saying that the money will be ring-fenced. The money can be used only to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. We make no apology for that requirement. We made that pledge to the British electorate during the campaign, and we intend to honour it in government.
    Valerie Davey: Will the Minister join me in deprecating the comment of the Conservative candidate in Uxbridge, who, when told that one in five children in the area were in classes of more than 30, claimed that it had no direct bearing on Uxbridge?
    Mr. Byers: I join my hon. Friend in condemning the Conservative candidate in Uxbridge, who is clearly prepared to turn his back on the needs of five, six and seven-year-olds in that constituency. There is no doubt in my mind that, after the by-election next Thursday, I shall be able to work with my colleague Andrew Slaughter to ensure that we can deliver on the class size pledge to those young children in Uxbridge, where one in five are presently in classes of more than 30. We shall deliver on that pledge in Uxbridge and in the rest of the country.
    Mrs. Browning: Last Friday morning, the Minister promised a technical consultation to work out how the Government's pledge of classes of a maximum of 30 could be put into practice in small Victorian primary schools in rural areas that teach across an age range. Will he promise that a cost assessment will accompany that consultation? If the practicalities of how the pledge will be delivered in rural areas have yet to be worked out, there will clearly be attendant costs that the Minister has not taken into account.
    Mr. Byers: The Government have made it clear that we shall honour the pledge that we gave to the electorate during the election campaign. The hon. Lady is right. Within a matter of weeks, we shall issue our consultation paper, which will show how we intend to honour the commitments made in the White Paper. That consultation document will address the issues the hon. Lady raised last Friday and again today.

    Lifelong Learning
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he plans to announce his new programme for lifelong learning. [8608]
    Dr. Howells: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will set out his plans for lifelong learning in a White Paper to be published in the autumn.
    Mr. Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend agree that lifelong learning must suffuse our whole education system? Does he also agree that it must play a part in the decisions announced yesterday on the Dearing report? Will he assure me that every business that has a good scheme for lifelong learning will be consulted, and that we shall look at best practice in all universities nationally and internationally before we make our decisions?
    Dr. Howells: There are some excellent schemes for education and staff development in many of our leading firms. I would very much like lifelong learning to include proposals on how best small and medium enterprises, as well as everyone else involved in manufacture and education, can access those centres of excellence. I hope that that information can be disseminated throughout society.

    School Standards
    Mr. Jenkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to raise standards in schools. [8609]
    Mr. Byers: The White Paper "Excellence in schools", published on 7 July, sets out in detail the Government's proposals for raising standards in schools and summarises what we aim to achieve over the lifetime of this Parliament.
    Mr. Jenkins: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. How does he intend to include as many parents as possible in our crusade to raise standards in education, bearing in mind the wide range of abilities among parents? I am thinking not only of special needs children, but of special needs parents. How do we involve all parents in the crusade?
    Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the important role that parents play in raising standards, particularly in the basics of literacy and numeracy. We intend to introduce home-school agreements which will lay down clearly the rights, responsibilities and duties of schools and parents. We believe that, by adopting that approach, we shall be able to engage parents in the important process of improving the education that their children receive.
    Mr. Malins: I understand that the minimum requirement to enter teacher training college is now three grade Cs at A-level. If that is right—perhaps the Minister can confirm it—is not the requirement rather low? Would we not have a better-educated teaching profession if we raised the standard required for those wishing to enter teacher training colleges?
    Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman is right. We have inherited a legacy of neglect as a result of 18 years of Conservative Government; and recruitment to teacher training illustrates that point well. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly write to the School Teachers' Review Body and, in the process, he will draw that body's attention to the need to retrain, recruit and motivate teachers. We shall take positive steps to do that

    1039
    because we recognise that the only way in which we shall improve the quality of the education our children receive is by raising the quality of classroom teaching.
    Helen Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most effective ways in which to raise standards in schools, as shown by academic research, is to cut class sizes? In this connection, is it not a disgrace that the Conservative party has consistently tried to block the Government's attempts to do that, to the detriment of the vast majority of children?
    Mr. Byers: There is no doubt in our mind that, by reducing class size, we shall improve the quality of education that our children receive. That is why we are pledged to reduce class sizes to 30 or fewer for every five, six and seven-year-old. Those young children have been the innocent victims of the previous Government's neglect of the education service. We do not intend to turn our backs on those young people. We shall reduce class sizes so that what is presently the privilege of a few will become the right of the many.

    Nursery Education
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to ensure universal nursery education; and if he will make a statement. [8610]
    Ms Estelle Morris: Local education authorities will set out in their early-years development plans how they will provide, by September 1998, three terms of pre-school education to all four-year-olds whose parents want it.
    Mr. Waterson: Is the hon. Lady aware of the strong support in Eastbourne and elsewhere for both the playgroup movement and private nursery provision? Is it not a tragedy that, as a result of the scrapping of the nursery voucher system, for party political and dogmatic reasons, many parents in my constituency will not be able to have access to such diversity of provision, which was the centrepiece of the previous Government's policy?
    Ms Morris: I share with the hon. Gentleman's constituents my admiration for much of that done by the voluntary and independent sectors in providing good-quality early-years education for our young children. His Government's voucher policy particularly threatened the voluntary sector. As a result, we have abolished the voucher scheme and replaced it with planned provision to ensure that all the money that is available for early-years education can be spent on young children and not on bureaucracy.
    I have made it clear before, and I reassure the House and the hon. Member again, that plans that come forward as development plans will have to show proper partnership between the maintained, voluntary and independent sectors. They will not be approved unless they show such partnership.
    Mr. Pike: Does my hon. Friend recognise that parents with young children throughout the country welcome the steps being taken by the Labour Government to make nursery education available as of right to all
    1040
    four-year-olds, and look forward to the day when, after 18 years of neglect, the Labour Government are able to make nursery education also available to three-year-olds?
    Ms Morris: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. He is absolutely right. There has been evidence for a long while that the best way to give children a good start in education is to give them the best start in early-years education. The tragedy has been that whether a child received such education depended on where they lived, not whether they needed it. Parents will welcome our pledge at long last to do what Labour local authorities have been doing for a very long time: ensuring that all four-year-olds whose parents want it have good-quality early-years education. Parents will also welcome it if we move quickly to ensure that such education is available for three-year-olds as well.
    Mr. Allan: Given the Government's clearly stated aim to create partnerships between LEAs, the voluntary sector and the independent sector, which the Liberal Democrats support, what does the Minister make of difficulties faced by some voluntary sector providers, such as the Bradway playgroup in my area, in getting registered to provide places in an area which, historically, has had little or no LEA provision? Will she look at that urgently?
    Ms Morris: I am not aware of the particular playgroup to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but if he thinks that it is appropriate that I look at the matter, I shall of course be happy to do so. It is very important that all providers reach the standards that we expect as providers of early-years education for young children. That is clearly set out in the learning outcomes. I should have thought that, if providers reach those standards, they should be talking to the local authority. If they have a part to play in the provision of early-years education, integrated with child care, the early-years development plan is the arena in which they can make their voices heard.

    New Deal
    Mr. David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has had from small business representatives about the new deal proposals for providing employment for young people. [8611]
    Mr. Andrew Smith: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have received a wide range of representations. Representatives of small business were also among those who attended the Chancellor's new deal breakfast seminar at the end of last month and the national and regional consultation meetings which are now under way.
    Mr. Taylor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that, in former mining areas such as mine of north-west Leicestershire, the expansion plans of small and medium enterprises are often slowed or stalled by skill shortages? Does he agree that, if those SMEs were to follow the advice of the Federation of Small Businesses and get involved with our new deal plans, they would often find just the right people to allow their development to continue?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. Small and medium businesses, in constituencies such as his and elsewhere, have a great opportunity to match their unmet labour needs with the enormous potential of our young people, which the previous Administration so tragically allowed to go to waste.
    Mr. Spring: In contrast to the experience of the rest of Europe, why have small businesses in Britain been so successful in helping to reduce the level of youth unemployment?
    Mr. Smith: The representations that we receive daily from small businesses and small business representatives in support of the new deal show that much more can be achieved. The extra support and training available through the new deal will, for many small businesses, make the difference between being able to take on extra employees and not being able to take them on. We want them to take on new employees, because the new deal is about jobs.

    University for Industry
    Ms Rosie Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to establish a university for industry. [8613]
    Dr. Howells: My right hon. Friend hopes to announce our plans for developing the university for industry very shortly.
    Ms Winterton: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the key to improving skills and training is to bring together business, industry, education institutions and training providers with Government Departments to identify strategic priorities? What advice can he give businesses in my constituency which wish to become involved with the university for industry?
    Dr. Howells: We are consulting widely on the form and shape that the university for industry will take. Survey after survey has shown that one of the great weaknesses of British industry is the quality of its management. If the management of small and medium enterprises can begin to access the best of our larger and more successful firms and the better of our smaller firms, that will benefit everyone, especially those in the manufacturing sector that my hon. Friend mentioned.

    Sixth Forms
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of new sixth forms which will open this autumn. [8615]
    Dr. Howells: We consider every sixth form application on its merits and will continue to do so.
    Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that establishing new sixth forms is not the best use of resources? Is he aware of the problems in Tameside, where the previous Government approved a new sixth form for Audenshaw high school in spite of the excellent provision in Tameside college, Ashton sixth form centre and Hyde sixth form centre? It would have been better to
    1042
    use the resources in all the local authority schools in Tameside instead of establishing a new, unnecessary sixth form at Audenshaw high school.
    Dr. Howells: I was sorry that I had not seen the application before it was agreed by the previous Administration, but we pay special care and attention to every application that is made to the Department for an additional sixth form in any school anywhere in England. We shall continue to do so, because we are well aware that resources are precious and that unnecessary duplication should not happen. We shall be careful when deciding which schools are allowed to have sixth forms in future.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Before considering new sixth forms, will the Minister look carefully at the funding formula as it affects existing sixth form colleges? My constituency contains two excellent sixth form colleges, but the funding formula is in danger of adversely affecting them. Will the Minister move towards greater convergence in the funding formula for sixth formers, whether in school or in sixth form colleges?
    Dr. Howells: The right hon. Lady is right, and we must look carefully at that formula. The Further Education Funding Council deals with sixth form colleges, which are separate from sixth forms in schools, and we must examine the relationship between them carefully. At every opportunity, we seek excellence and best practice. Whether those factors are provided in a sixth form in a school or in a sixth form college, our decision will be based on that information and our desire to raise standards.

    Youth Training
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his proposals to increase training and employment opportunities for young people. [8616]
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Through the new deal and Target 2000 we shall increase, and put into the mainstream, opportunities for young people to prepare and equip themselves for the world of work, so that they are empowered to play a full and productive part in society.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Minister accept that thousands of young people are languished on the dole queue with no opportunities for training or developing skills during the years of Conservative government, and who are looking to the new Government to give them early, fairly immediate opportunities to improve their quality of life and increase their talents and skills, both for their own sake and for that of their families and of this country? What can he suggest to the House to give those people some immediate hope, some aspirations for the coming 12 months?
    Mr. Smith: The new deal that we have proposed offers the quality options of work, primarily with private sector employers, or on the environmental task force or in the

    1043
    voluntary sector and, for those who lack basic skills, the opportunity of full-time education and training for up to 12 months. That is in addition to the measures set out by the Chancellor for sustainable growth in the economy, to enable us to repair the social damage and the wasted lives to which my hon. Friend rightly referred.

    Employment Proposals
    Mrs. Brinton: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the introduction of his proposals for providing employment for young and long-term unemployed people. [8617]
    Mr. Andrew Smith: The new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds will begin in a number of "pathfinder areas" in Britain in January next year, and will be introduced nationally next April. The help for people aged 25 or over who have been unemployed for at least two years will start in June 1998.
    Mrs. Brinton: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that yesterday, in my constituency of Peterborough, I presented the new deal to the chamber of commerce, where it was most warmly welcomed? Is he also aware that Shackleton Associates, also in my constituency, is already operating a highly successful pilot scheme? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party, not the Conservative party, is now the party of business and enterprise?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the positive reception that our new deal proposals are receiving from the business community, just as they are from the people of this country as a whole. If this country is to become, as it should, a one-nation Britain, that requires a whole-nation effort. [Laughter.] Conservative Members who are laughing should join that effort and become part of the solution, rather than part of the problem, which is what their party's Administration was.
    Mrs. May: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the report by the Policy Studies Institute that was mentioned in the press some days ago? It said that the previous Government's proposals for getting unemployed people into work had been extremely successful, especially what I think was called the workfare proposal, whereby people went into work for a number of weeks while remaining on benefit? At the end of the period, that had achieved a far higher percentage of unemployed people getting permanent jobs than had many other such schemes.
    The report also said that the Government's new deal welfare-to-work proposals were likely to be expensive and unnecessary, and would not be as successful as those of the previous Government. What percentage of unemployed people does the Minister expect to achieve permanent jobs at the end of their time on a welfare-to-work scheme?
    Mr. Smith: I think that the hon. Lady has misnamed the study referred to in the report. If I recall correctly, the report praised the work trial initiative, which enabled long-term unemployed people to have trial placements with employers while still in receipt of benefit, so that
    1044
    their fitness for employment, and the employers' keenness to take them on, could be assessed. That had a measure of success and, as I have been saying in response to my hon. Friends, I would see us, through the new deal, building on what works well in the community at present. The range of choices that will be made available, coupled with the incentives to employers both for 18 to 24-year-olds and for the long-term unemployed who are 25 or older, means that the new deal will surely be even more successful than the initiative that the hon. Lady mentioned.

    Jobseeker's Allowance
    Mr. Breed: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the imposition of a requirement to be available for work on Sundays in order to qualify for jobseeker's allowance. [8618]
    Mr. Alan Howarth: People receiving jobseeker's allowance do not have to be available for work on a Sunday, providing that they can agree a pattern of availability for work with their Employment Service adviser which means they are available for the number of hours required, usually for 40 hours a week, and gives them reasonable prospects of securing employment. If, for example, a clergyman were to propose that his pattern of work should be such that he would not need to be available for work on a Sunday, we should look askance at that.
    Mr. Breed: Will the Minister make his view crystal clear to all officers dealing with jobseeker's allowance, because there is a growing feeling that people who have to turn down jobs on moral grounds because they potentially involve work on Sundays are being denied their jobseeker's allowance?
    Mr. Howarth: It is made clear in the jobseeker's regulations that genuinely held religious or conscientious reasons for declining an offer will be accepted as a good cause. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. It is important that all Employment Service staff react with sensitivity to the genuine conscientious concerns of unemployed people.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I can assure the Minister that to lead the people of God in worship on a Sunday is not work—work is the rest of the week. We have had assurances that people would not be penalised if they were concerned about Sunday work. Can I plead that there be no restrictions at any level? If there are restrictions, we shall be moving towards not only the millennium but the mark of the beast.
    Mr. Howarth: It certainly would not be work to listen to either a speech or a sermon from the hon. Gentleman. I can give him the assurance that he seeks.
    Mr. Brady: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: No. I am sorry, but points of order are always taken after statements.

Scottish Devolution
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about our plans for the Scottish Parliament. Copies of this statement and the White Paper are now available in the Vote Office.
On 1 May, the people of Scotland—like the people of the United Kingdom as a whole—voted for our manifesto and a comprehensive programme of constitutional change. At its heart was our commitment to create a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly, giving the people of Scotland and Wales more control over their own affairs within the United Kingdom. Our aim is to make government more open, more accessible and more accountable to the people whom we serve, and to give the United Kingdom a modern constitution fit for the 21st century.
The Government are losing no time in turning these commitments into reality. On Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales published his plans for devolution to Wales. Today, I am laying before the House the detailed proposals for the Scottish Parliament.
Like many others in the House and beyond, I have campaigned long and hard for a Scottish Parliament over the years. Few occasions in my long parliamentary career have given me as much pleasure as coming here today to present our firm proposals for that Scottish Parliament.
In my time, I have seen many devolution schemes. I genuinely believe that this is the best, and is right for Scotland. We have renewed, modernised and improved on the plans agreed within the broad coalition of Scottish interests in the Scottish Constitutional Convention. The scheme will provide a new, stable settlement which will serve Scotland and the United Kingdom well in the years to come.
Let me outline what we propose. The Scottish Parliament will have the power to make the law of Scotland in devolved areas. Entrusting Scotland with control over her own domestic affairs will better allow the people of Scotland to benefit from, and contribute to, the unity of the United Kingdom.
The Scottish Parliament will hold to account an Executive headed by a First Minister which will operate in a way similar to the United Kingdom Government. Together, the Scottish Parliament and Executive will be responsible for the wide range of domestic matters which affect everyone living in Scotland, including health; education and training; local government; housing; social work; aspects of economic development; transport; the law and home affairs; the environment, including the natural and built heritage; agriculture, fisheries and forestry; sport and the arts. The details are in the White Paper.
A key aspect of the Scottish Parliament's role will be to create and maintain an effective oversight of other Scottish public bodies, the health service and particularly local government. We expect the Scottish Parliament and Executive to complement and not encroach on democratically elected local government.
Let me tell the House why this is an advance on any scheme that has gone before and why I believe that not only the time is right but the scheme is right.
1046
The Parliament will have extensive law-making powers. Unlike in 1978, the full range of the Scottish Office's functions will be devolved. This will provide the opportunity to make a real difference in the areas that matter.
The legislation will define reserved matters, not devolved matters, and the Scottish Parliament will be able to exercise its law-making powers in all areas that are not specifically reserved to Westminster. The relationships between the Scottish Executive, the United Kingdom Government and the Crown will provide clarity and stability for the future. The Parliament will have the discipline and responsibility of defined financial powers. The Scottish Executive will be closely involved with the United Kingdom Government in European decision making.
Throughout the White Paper, our guiding principle is to trust the Scottish people to make the right decisions on their own behalf. The detailed procedures, the working arrangements and the practical issues relating to the governance of Scotland will properly be left to the Parliament and the Executive, answerable, as they will be, to the Scottish electorate.
The United Kingdom Parliament is, and will remain, sovereign in all matters, but, as part of our resolve to modernise the constitution, Westminster will be choosing to exercise that sovereignty by devolving legislative responsibility to the Scottish Parliament, without diminishing its own powers.
Those matters more appropriately dealt with on a United Kingdom basis will remain at Westminster. They will include the constitution of the United Kingdom; foreign policy; defence and national security; the stability of the United Kingdom's fiscal, economic and monetary system; common markets for United Kingdom goods and services; employment legislation; some health issues, including abortion; social security matters; and most aspects of transport safety and regulation.
After devolution, Scotland's Members of Parliament will continue to play a full and constructive role in the proceedings of this House. That is right both for Scotland and for the United Kingdom, because devolution is about strengthening the United Kingdom.
The distribution of seats is regularly reviewed by the parliamentary boundary commissions, which follow criteria defined in statute. At present, special statutory provisions stipulate a minimum number of Scottish seats. This has led to Members for constituencies in Scotland representing, on average, fewer constituents than do Members in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Our devolution proposals mean that, in practice, Westminster will no longer be the forum for scrutinising much of Scotland's domestic legislation. This brings into sharper focus the imbalance in the current arrangements. The Government have decided that the requirement for a minimum number of Scottish seats should no longer apply. Primary legislation will be needed. This will be put in place before the next full boundary commission review.
Other statutory requirements, such as the need to give due weight to geographical considerations and local ties, will continue to apply. The actual number of seats allocated to Scotland will be for the boundary commission to recommend, exercising its judgment in accordance with the criteria laid down.

1047
There will continue to be a Secretary of State for Scotland who will work with the new Scottish Parliament and represent Scottish interests within the United Kingdom Government. The staff of the Scottish Executive will continue to be part of a unified home civil service. The Scottish Executive and the United Kingdom Government will work closely together at ministerial and official level. The stability of the system is of the utmost importance. The White Paper sets out detailed arrangements for these working relationships and for resolving any disagreements.
The people of Scotland will continue to benefit from the influence that the United Kingdom has as a major state within the European Union. Relations with the European Union will remain the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government, with the Scottish Executive making an effective and appropriate contribution to United Kingdom decision making on Europe. Ministers in the Scottish Executive will have an opportunity to participate in relevant meetings of the Council of Ministers, and in appropriate cases could speak for the United Kingdom.
There will be a Scottish representative office in Brussels; this will complement the role of the Office of the United Kingdom Permanent Representative to the European Community, and will allow the Scottish Executive to operate more effectively in Europe. The Scottish Executive will have an obligation to implement EU legislation on devolved matters. Our proposals are very much in line with developments across the European Union.
The financial framework for the Scottish Parliament will be based on the present "block and formula" arrangements for the Scottish Office, known as the Barnett formula, adapted to match the range of the Scottish Executive's future responsibilities and to maintain and improve transparency and accountability. This will give the Scottish Parliament the ability and freedom to approve spending decisions that are fully in accordance with Scottish needs and priorities.
As an integral part of these financial arrangements, the control of local government expenditure, non-domestic rates and other local taxation will also be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, with appropriate safeguards to protect all UK taxpayers. The Government's objective is to ensure that Scotland's spending decisions are taken in Scotland, in the light of Scottish circumstances.
Subject to the outcome of the referendum, the Scottish Parliament will be given power to increase or decrease the basic rate of income tax set by the UK Parliament by up to 3p. The Parliament will have a guaranteed right to raise or to forgo up to £450 million—index-linked—irrespective of changes in the UK income tax structure. Liability will be determined by residence in Scotland, according to Inland Revenue rules. The tax-varying power will not apply to income from savings and dividends. The Inland Revenue will administer any tax variation, with the Scottish Parliament meeting the administrative costs.
Let me now turn to the arrangements for the Scottish Parliament itself. The Scottish Parliament will consist of 129 members, 73 directly elected on a constituency basis, plus 56 additional members—seven from each of the current eight European Parliament constituencies—allocated to ensure that the overall result more directly reflects the share of votes cast for each party. Eligibility to vote will be based on residency.
1048
In the late 1970s, there was, without doubt, a fear that a Scottish Parliament would be dominated by one point of view; the fear was that minorities, geographical or political, would be less than fairly represented. The changes in the electoral system now proposed have ended that possibility. The composition of the Parliament will fairly reflect opinion throughout Scotland.
The Government want to see people who represent the widest possible range of interests coming forward for election to the Scottish Parliament.
Hon. Members: Including Tories.
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Dewar: The aim must be equal opportunities for all—women, members of ethnic minority groups and disabled people. The selection of candidates is, of course, a matter for individual political parties, but we hope that others will follow our lead in encouraging women representatives.
The Government are determined to have a Parliament building worthy of the new century and ready to provide working conditions which will encourage open and accessible government. It is for that reason that a number of possible sites in Edinburgh, including the old royal high school, are under consideration.
Subject to the passage of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill, the people of Scotland will make their historic choice in the referendum on 11 September. Theirs is the judgment that matters. I believe that they will endorse our proposals. As soon as possible following that referendum, we shall introduce the legislation to establish a Scottish Parliament. Once that legislation has been enacted, we can look forward to elections in the first half of 1999. The Government's target is for the Scottish Parliament to assume its full responsibilities in January in the year 2000. That, indeed, will be a new Parliament for a new millennium.
Now is the time for Scotland to choose. Twelve weeks ago, Labour was elected on a promise to deliver a Parliament for Scotland. This White Paper fulfils that promise. We have delivered. All the essentials are here—modernised and improved for the next century. This settlement offers an effective voice for Scotland. It recognises Scotland's distinctive identity and the strong ties that bind us together as one united kingdom. Reform and renewal will give strength to an enduring partnership.
I know—none better—the strength of feeling and the intensity of argument that there has been on this subject over the years. Constitutional change requires good will. I believe that there will be a broad welcome for our proposals, which will reach out across party lines and across the range of our communities. It is my belief that it will be so, and I commend the White Paper to the House.
Mr. Michael Ancram: Today is a sombre day for Scotland and for the—[Interruption.] Oh yes, it is, oh yes, it is. What the Secretary of State has announced this afternoon, far from being a cause for junkets at Edinburgh castle tonight, is, in fact, a dangerous, damaging and dishonest document. It is dangerous because only the most blinkered devolutionist could deny that it contains elements that could lead to the break-up

1049
of the United Kingdom, creating the focus for discontent and disillusion, which can only help to fan the flames of nationalism in Scotland.
The White Paper leaves relations between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom in a state of flux. It singularly fails to answer the central constitutional and economic questions, which, left unanswered, can lead only to grave instability and long-term constitutional turmoil. The importance of those vital questions for the long-term viability of the proposals has been belatedly conceded by the U-turn announced on the number of Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster, which flies in the face of 20 years of Labour rhetoric.
The White Paper is damaging because it will marginalise Scotland within the United Kingdom. It will destroy the influence of Scotland in this Parliament, because her representatives will be at best part-time. It will leave the Secretary of State stripped of power, devoid of influence and politically ignored. It is a sad invitation for Scotland to abdicate her historic role in the United Kingdom.
It is damaging, too, because it will inevitably hit Scottish pockets. Powers to vary tax will be used, and it will be Scots who will pay, just as they will increasingly pay through the nose for the growing bureaucracy and costs that will inevitably accompany a Scottish Parliament. This White Paper will make sure that it costs to be Scottish.
The White Paper is dishonest because it seeks the support simultaneously of two irreconcilable political objectives. It looks, on the one hand, for support from nationalists, on the implication that it is the first step to the break-up of the United Kingdom, and, at the same time, tells those who believe in the Union that this is the only way to protect it. The proposals cannot be both unionist and nationalist—friendly at the same time. One has to be deceiving the other, and the people of Scotland are in serious danger of being misled.
May I ask the Secretary of State a few questions that arise from his statement? Can he explain why the view expressed by the present Secretary of State for Defence in January 1996 that 72 would be the right number of Scottish Members after devolution has been so lightly discarded now that the general election is over? What has changed? Where under his proposals will sovereignty lie: with the Scottish people under the terms of the Claim of Right to which the Secretary of State subscribed; with this Parliament; or with the Prime Minister as an English Member of Parliament at Westminster?
Does the Secretary of State not think that Scottish Members should be able to vote in Parliament only on matters relating to their own constituencies and constituents? How could a Minister of the Scottish Executive be allowed to speak on behalf of the United Kingdom at the European Council of Ministers when he or she would not be answerable to this House in Parliament?
The White Paper is a constitutional mess. It is a recipe for continuing constitutional turmoil and an agenda for nationalist pot stirring. The proposals are not even half-baked. It is not too late for the Government to consider the damage that will result from bad constitutional reform, not only in the short term but for generations to come. We will certainly ask the people of
1050
Scotland to look carefully into the dark, cold night that the statement and White Paper open before them and draw back before it is too late. It may be a vain hope, but rather than partying at Edinburgh castle tonight, would it not better for the Secretary of State to go home and think again?
Mr. Dewar: That was a little literary allusion at the end of the right hon. Gentleman's contribution, if I understood it. His contribution was something of a mixed bag—pot stirring and half baked were among the many culinary images—and was not a substantial attack.
Whatever it is, I think that the White Paper is honest. It does not pretend to be something that it is not, and it tries to face up fairly bravely and practically to some of the points that have been made over the years. We have not lightly discarded anything. We have looked long and hard at the problems and the advantages and opportunities. We have come up with a scheme that will be stable and enduring, and will meet the needs of Scotland. It also roots us firmly within the United Kingdom and allows us to contribute effectively to the country as a whole.
The right hon. Gentleman asked an important question about sovereignty and the Claim of Right. Let me make it very clear to him—the right hon. Gentleman has heard me do so on a number of occasions—that this is a scheme of devolved power which has life because I hope that the House will be persuaded that it is right for the governance of the country. Of course, parliamentary sovereignty remains part of that scheme. The Claim of Right, however, is important because it recognises the principle that people in Scotland, as in any other area, have the right to decide their own political future. I hold very firmly to the view that the scheme that I have presented today reflects their wishes and needs. There is a great deal of evidence to support that, but the matter will be put to the test in the referendum in the autumn. If we get that endorsement, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that it is time to act and to move forward in unity to make a good job of an important and exciting constitutional reform.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not resent it—in a sense, we are discussing the Devizes question—if I say that it is rather odd that a party that cannot get a single Member elected in Scotland should pontificate so hostilely on what is clearly the wish for change among the people of Scotland. Some of the attacks implied in the right hon. Gentleman's questions seemed to suggest that he does not want a devolution scheme to be firmly based on the principle that there should be co-operation, good will and effective common purpose within the United Kingdom.
Europe is of increasing importance, and there are many areas in which Scotland will have direct interests. I, at least, have enough faith in civil servants, the Government, this Parliament and their Scottish equivalents to believe that they will work together to build a common position and then work effectively for it in the councils of Europe.
There is no question of attempting to freeload or ride on the back of anyone else. The Scottish block will become the way in which we finance, subject to the revenue-varying powers, the programmes that the people in Scotland want from their elected representatives. I believe that that is a strength, not a weakness, for the United Kingdom.

1051
I believe that the scheme is for the good or I would not appear at this Dispatch Box to argue for it. I believe that it is an answer in part, and only in part, to the very important problem of cynicism about our political and democratic processes which every Member of the House meets daily as he or she goes about their business. It has to be seen in the wider context of constitutional reform, which means breaking away from the ties of centralisation and trusting people in the areas in which they live.
I am very proud that I and my colleagues in Scotland will be in at the start and in the vanguard of that advance.
Mr. James Wallace: Will the Secretary of State accept that, as a Scot, a Liberal Democrat and a partner with his party in the Constitutional Convention, I warmly welcome a substantial White Paper? Although we may have some debates at the margins about the details, and we could even have an interesting academic seminar on sovereignty, in practical political terms—the terms which will affect the everyday lives of the Scottish people—the proposals present us with an opportunity to create in Scotland a powerful and effective Parliament which will properly represent Scotland's political interests and priorities.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also acknowledge that, on the proportional representation system, clear signals can be given to many parts of Scotland which were sceptical in 1979 that the proposed Parliament will be a Parliament for the whole of Scotland and not one of one party representing one part of it?
The important principle of accountability will apply to taxation. Those who are elected to the Scottish Parliament will have proper fiscal accountability to those whom they represent.
Will the Secretary of State expand on what he had in mind when he said that Scottish Executive Ministers could on occasions speak and vote for the United Kingdom in the European Union? That is a welcome proposal.
Will the Secretary of State tell us when he intends to establish the independent committee that will examine the relationship between local government and the Scottish Parliament and Executive, and what its remit will be? Will it be able to take account of the concerns that I have previously expressed to the Secretary of State about the particular needs of islands areas?
Does the Secretary of State accept that, by opting for reserve, rather than devolved, powers and by agreeing to reduce the number of Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster, he has embraced some of points that my colleagues and I put to the Labour party during the constitutional convention talks? Although this is an important step on the road to federalism, may we hope that, by the end of this process, we will have convinced the Government of the merits and logic of a federal solution for the whole of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Dewar: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. I put it to him gently that he pushes his luck on occasions, and I suspect that, to his credit, he knows that.
We are anxious that the Parliament should be seen as devolved power from central Government, and not as encroaching on local government. However, we should trust the people in the Parliament to act responsibly.
1052
A grown-up Parliament with grown-up responsibilities and duties should be able to make its own judgments about that relationship. We are undertaking some preliminary work and there will be an independent inquiry to examine, among other things, the relationship between the new Scottish Parliament and local government. I hope that it will come up with some useful guidance for the Parliament when it is in being.
I take the hon. Gentleman's points about a more proportional system and about the need fairly to represent everyone in Scotland. It is obviously not in the narrow self-interest of the Labour party to move down that road, so we should gain some credit for the fact that the Government have decided to do so, even from those who may disagree with it. It is a genuine attempt to ensure a balanced and proper start for a new democratic body. I think that I am entitled to make that plain.
The question of the number of Members in the Westminster Parliament is a matter of balance. The package should be considered in the round, and I think that we have got it about right. It will always be a matter of judgment. The circumstances of a Scottish Parliament are now very close, and the only people who could prevent it are the people of Scotland if apathy were to win the day, but I do not think that it will. In those changed circumstances, it was right to reconsider the matter and to reach a judgment. That is my judgment and the judgment of my colleagues, and we stand by it.
Mr. David Marshall: Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the vast majority of Scottish people will give a warm welcome to this White Paper, which they will regard as fair and just what they need and want? They will also welcome the opportunity to vote in the proposed referendum on a Scottish Parliament. Will he reaffirm the Prime Minister's pledge to campaign for a yes, yes vote and to visit Scotland as part of that campaign?
Mr. Dewar: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, and I appreciate his support. I suspect that the support that I shall receive from colleagues will come as a disappointment to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), but he will have to live with that.
My hon. Friend is right. The Prime Minister has enthusiastically endorsed the White Paper, and will appear in Scotland to make those views clear.
Mr. Alex Salmond: I welcome the publication of the White Paper at last, all the more so because it has upset the Conservative party so dreadfully. As the Secretary of State can imagine, the Scottish National party will examine its contents in great detail as we consider our response over the next few days.
The European dimension is clearly very important to the debate. Will the Secretary of State specify on what areas the Scottish Parliament could lead the United Kingdom delegation? The presiding officer of the Scottish Parliament is an important person. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Scottish Parliament will elect its presiding officer?
The Secretary of State spoke of the need to mobilise opinion in Scotland. Does he agree that, if opinion is to be mobilised, people will have to be convinced that a Scottish Parliament will be a real Parliament that will

1053
make a real difference? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that such a Parliament could, if it wished, remove tuition fees if it considered them to be an obstacle to participation in universities and other areas of higher education?
The Secretary of State and I have disagreed on a range of subjects relating to Scotland's future, but we have agreed on how these matters should be determined. Will the right hon. Gentleman reiterate that nothing in the documents, or in any response that he will give, will interfere in any way with the sovereign right of the people of Scotland to determine their own constitutional future, whatever that may be?
Mr. Dewar: If I did try to build such barriers, they would be futile and without effect. At the end of the day, in practical politics, what matters is what people want. If the hon. Gentleman is able to carry the people of Scotland, no doubt he will be able to advance his cause. He has signally failed to do so in the past, but I know that he will keep trying, and he is entitled to do so. I believe, however, that the reform package that we have announced today, implemented with good will and spirit, will make his task that bit more difficult. No doubt we shall have further arguments in the future.
Higher education is, of course, a devolved area of responsibility. It has been the responsibility of the Scottish Office for some years, and that means that the Scottish Parliament will be able to exercise its judgment—although I stress that if it exercises its judgment in a way that costs money, it will have to find that money in its budget. No doubt Opposition Front Benchers will be pleased about that.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the presiding officer. Perhaps he remembers that, under the 1978 scheme, the Secretary of State for Scotland had an interesting role in chairing the first session while the presiding officer was selected. I do not aspire to that high office or honour, and the choice of a presiding officer will be entirely a matter for elected members.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of decentralised government in Catalonia, Bavaria, Massachusetts and hundreds of countries around the world is ample proof that my predecessor, Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, was right to say that there was no need for Scotland to be subsumed in an incorporating union with no Scottish Parliament? I think that it was Lord Seafield who said that it was the end of an old song when the last Scottish Parliament was wrapped up in 1707. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for making it possible for the people of Scotland to elect a new Parliament for the new millennium.
Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his typical and characterful contribution. When he finally retires from this place, I shall organise a collection and present him with a bound copy of the debates of the Scottish Parliament in 1706 and 1707.
Mr. David Maclean: Will the Secretary of State now stop dancing his little jig
1054
around the fundamental question that he has been dodging all afternoon? How can he claim—and can he tell the House, in all honesty—that the authority of Westminster will not be diminished if a Minister in a Scottish Government speaks for the United Kingdom in Brussels when that person will have no obligation whatever to answer to the House?
Mr. Dewar: I made it perfectly clear—and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will read what I said carefully—that European policy will remain with the United Kingdom delegation. We shall be part of that process, however, and when it is appropriate and proper we shall take the opportunity to contribute to debate.
Mr. Ancram: Who is this "we"?
Mr. Dewar: I am sorry; I made the cardinal error of assuming that I was a Scot for the moment. The right hon. Gentleman may have experienced some psychological amputation that removed him from Scotland, but I have not.
The important point is that there is a United Kingdom delegation involving a United Kingdom policy position, for which we all work and which we all try to promote.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What are the Treasury's estimates of the cost of the proposals?
Mr. Dewar: If my hon. Friend, whom I know to be assiduous, consults the White Paper, he will see that there is some help on those matters. The United Kingdom is essentially a partnership in which we pool our resources and allocate them on an agreed basis. There will indeed be some additional cost for example—for running and equipping the Parliament—but I suppose there will be additional costs for running and equipping this building. Most people here think that it is rather a good bargain for the people who have to live within the framework of Westminster legislation. I suspect that that will also be the view of Scottish people.
Mr. Edward Leigh: The right hon. Gentleman asks Conservative Members what right we have to pontificate on these matters. On behalf of my English, Lincolnshire constituents, may I ask what right he will have after devolution to vote in this House to close Caistor or Gainsborough grammar schools while I will have no right, as he will have no right, to vote for the future of education in his constituency?
Mr. Dewar: The arrangements for the devolved Parliament and its terms and abilities will be decided by the votes of all this House. If the House, which is sovereign, thinks that that is right and good—and there are pressing, urgent and good reasons for it to take that view—I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should challenge that.
Mr. Norman A. Godman: Speaking as a federalist, may I compliment my right hon. Friend on his remarkable work and his fine White Paper? He is right to remind constitutional conservatives in this place that we live in a multinational state. If the people of a constituent nation in that state seek the reform of the

1055
governance of their nation, no one should obstruct that advance, as was so memorably said by Charles Stuart Parnell.
From time to time, disputes may arise between, say, London and Edinburgh. Would it not make good sense for my right hon. Friend to give sympathetic consideration to the creation of a constitutional court made up of four senior judges from Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland?
Mr. Dewar: There have been a number of arguments for a constitutional court, and I am sure that many people will continue to support that case. If it were to come to pass, it would be for the future. I do not think that it is a short-term option. Here we have some practical solutions to any dispute resolution that is required, ending with arbitration in the judicial committee of the Privy Council. That has been carefully thought out and it will serve well for the purpose.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Whatever this set of proposals does, it can hardly be argued that it will strengthen the United Kingdom, because surely the proposals strike at the most important principle of this country of ours—the equality of our votes. The proposals mean that the value of our vote will be different depending on where we live. Therefore, what we can expect to achieve by our vote is different. This involves a fundamental principle of democratic government for the Union, and the Labour Government are setting it aside. Many British citizens, such as I, will be outraged at the thought that my vote is diminished depending on where I live. It will now be different as to Wales, as to England and as to Scotland, and that principle will cause great difficulty for this proposal.
Mr. Dewar: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is outraged. I hope that I may be able to tell him to look at the matter more reasonably, even if we continue to disagree in the future. There will be no classes of parliamentarians here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, there will."] No, votes will not have different values. I say again that, if the hon. Gentleman believes in the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, he will see that what we propose is perfectly fair and sensible. I want the United Kingdom to wear well. I do not accuse the hon. Gentleman, although I might have made the point to one of his predecessors, over the fact that one of the difficulties in recent times has been the insensitivity of much of the government of this country. For example, I remember in particular the poll tax as one outstanding example of that.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I have already welcomed the plans, and I welcome them even more when I see the annoyance of Conservative Members, who imposed the poll tax on Scotland.
May I take this opportunity to welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks about Labour's plans to achieve gender equality in the Scottish Parliament? Does he recall how that was dismissed out of hand 10 years ago as an improbable and unacceptable scheme, and now it is the prevailing orthodoxy in the Labour party? I look forward to other parties coming in behind us and realising that, in the 21st century, women will be equal, whether they like it or not.
Mr. Dewar: I hope that the women do like it.
1056
I thank my hon. Friend for her words. I deliberately put in a passage about that matter in my statement. It is, of course, the business of political parties and not of statute, but I hope that there will be great changes in that respect, as, to be fair to the House, there were at the last election.
Mr. Eric Forth: How does the Secretary of State explain the grotesque overrepresentation that he proposes for the Scottish Parliament, bearing in mind the fact that, in comparison with the 129 members that he is apparently suggesting, his party proposes that a new London strategic authority should have only 24 to 30 members—and remembering that the population of London is bigger than that of Scotland? On the basis even of the historical Westminster representation, he proposes at least twice as many members as has been justified in the past. Will he give an undertaking that Governments will be able constantly to review the subventions from the English taxpayer to Scotland, bearing in mind the extravagance of the representation that he proposes?
Mr. Dewar: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss if I say that that is a small point from a small mind. To be fair, if we consider the great issues that are involved in this argument, however much I disagree with some of the points that have been made, they are substantial constitutional points. It seems that his point is of little moment, but I make it clear that we want a Parliament that will scrutinise effectively the legislation that it is passing and will be much more accessible and open to the public in Scotland than Parliament has traditionally been. I hope as well that we may even, if they can gather enough votes, see a few Conservatives among its number.
Mr. John McAllion: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the past century, no fewer than eight British Prime Ministers have at one time or another promised home rule for Scotland, without any one of them ever delivering on that promise? Therefore, like cats, British Prime Ministers are now on their ninth and last life, and they are aware of that.
I applaud and warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which at last begins to redeem the pledges to Scotland over the past century. I urge Scottish Members, wherever they sit in the House, on what is an historic day for our country, not to strike a sour note, but to come together and work together for the return of Scotland's Parliament to Scotland. At long last, our future is back in our own hands. If we fail now, it will be our own fault. Let us not fail. Let us carry the referendum and ensure that the future is Scottish.
Mr. Dewar: I know that my hon. Friend will act as he speaks, and I am grateful for that.
Mr. William Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman not remiss in not pointing out that the only party in the House that has direct practical experience of devolved government and its operation is the Ulster Unionist party? Is he aware that we know that the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament must work closely together to strengthen and to maintain the Union because, inevitably, the politics of Scotland, like the politics of Northern Ireland, will be increasingly

1057
nationalist and unionist? In those circumstances, is the Labour party in Scotland, which will have members in a devolved institution, going to be a unionist party?
Mr. Dewar: I respect the hon. Gentleman's views, but they are understandably coloured by his deep involvement in the politics of his part of the United Kingdom. I do not accept his basic contention. The one thing that I want to avoid, and the one thing that the reform option helps to avoid, is the polarisation of politics into two choices at the extreme. That is exactly why reform is necessary and why better government is good for us all.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Although I warmly welcome the historic transfer of power from this House to the people of Scotland, can we take it that the principle of the sovereignty of the Scottish people means that the White Paper should not be seen as something handed down from on high on tablets of stone? I hope that the relationship between the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments will be dynamic rather than static and that the dynamics may lead to the transfer of even more power to the Scottish Parliament, if that is what the people of Scotland want.
Mr. Dewar: My hon. Friend's views are well known and all I can say is that this package is meant to be stable and enduring—I think that it will be. Of course, anyone is entitled to argue for political change at any time and in any way that they think is right. In about 1975, I gave up trying to persuade my hon. Friend that I was right and he was wrong. He is a man well known for going his own way. I am sure that, whatever he thinks, he will agree that this is a scheme of great promise, hope and potential. At least we can agree on that.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman allowed himself a moment of sentiment when he told us how long he had campaigned for a Scottish Parliament. I remind him that I first heard him make that case in 1960, and he therefore deserves congratulations for his perseverance. Does he share my curiosity at the fact that some of those who were most vocal in their support for the declaration of Perth by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) are now so vociferous in their opposition to these proposals?
Mr. Dewar: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman. I suppose I qualify as a long-distance runner in the political sense. I do remember those periods, and I remember our former colleagues, Malcolm Rifkind and Alick Buchanan-Smith—there is an honourable tradition.
On the record of the right hon. Member for Devizes, I would not try to deny the right of people to change their minds, but the significance of the fact that he once espoused devolution enthusiastically is that it puts a little bit of a question mark against the extreme view that he sometimes espouses now, which is that this is an unthinkable piece of chaos that could never possibly work. That was not his view in those days, and, in my opinion, it is not a credible or sensible view. I do not
1058
expect him to go back to what he once believed, but he should look at his position and his credibility in the light of the beliefs that he once held.
Mr. Ernie Ross: I congratulate my right hon. Friend, his Front-Bench team and the civil servants on the speed with which they have moved to bring this proposal—one of Labour's major promises to the people of Scotland—to the House. Will my right hon. Friend join me in warning Conservative Members that the people of Scotland are watching this statement and will be listening to the comments made? Very shortly, whether it likes it or not, the Conservative party will have to compete with all the other parties in the House for places in the Scottish Parliament. Unless it changes its mind fairly rapidly, there are liable to be as many Conservatives there as there are here.
Mr. Dewar: I noticed in The Herald today an article by a prominent Conservative, Mr. Brian Meek, in which he made it clear that he longed for the day when there would be a Scottish Parliament. He felt that his failure to join the Scottish Constitutional Convention had been one of the great political mistakes of his life, and he warned Conservatives that association with the no, no campaign would be a great mistake. He remarked, rather pithily, that they have backed enough losers this year to be getting on with.
Mr. William Cash: The White Paper states clearly that the Scottish Parliament and Executive will be responsible for devolved functions, including home affairs. Will he accept that the issue of home affairs comes within the pillars of the Maastricht treaty? Having regard to the fact that the White Paper also says that the Scottish Executive will have an opportunity to
"participate in relevant meetings"
and
"in appropriate cases could speak for the United Kingdom",
will the Scottish Ministers be entitled to vote on those matters that fall within the devolved functions of home affairs within the third pillar? If they are not allowed to do so, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that they will be no more than puppets of the Secretary of State?
Mr. Dewar: I should be the last person to tackle the hon. Gentleman on European matters, because I might never emerge from the morass. We envisage that Scotland, the Scottish Parliament and, in particular, the Scottish Executive will be part of the process of consultation and decision making. No doubt a United Kingdom delegation will meet, and a United Kingdom line will emerge. That delegation will vote the agreed United Kingdom line. The hon. Gentleman is pursuing a total non-event with vigour—but that is the nature of the beast, I fear.
Mr. George Galloway: Notwithstanding the slightly demented braying from some of the Bourbons on the Conservative Benches, does my right hon. Friend accept that this is a great day for Scotland? Somewhere beyond the rafters, the whole host of heroes who, throughout this century, have stood and fought for home rule for Scotland—from Keir Hardie, the founder of the Scottish Labour party, through Tom

1059
Johnston and all the way to our late, great fallen leader, John Smith—will be cheering my right hon. Friend. He has written his name into the history books by bringing forward this proposal.
On the subject of sensitivity and taxes, does my right hon. Friend accept that the greatest recruiting sergeant for the break-up of the United Kingdom has been 18 years of Thatcherite governments rammed down the throats of the people of Scotland—in no case more grotesquely than through the implementation of the poll tax, a whole year before it was implemented in England, on a people who not only never voted for it, but were never even invited to vote for it in the Tory election manifesto of 1983?
Mr. Dewar: I certainly recognise my hon. Friend's point about the experiences of recent years under another Government. I am a little nervous about my place in history as he described. I saw the other day, in a well-known Scottish newspaper, a picture that I instantly and cleverly identified as myself, under which appeared the caption, "A modern Robert the Bruce". I have to confess that I took to my bed for the rest of the day.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The average size of a Greater London parliamentary constituency is 67,000 electors. That of a Glasgow seat is fewer than 52,000. The White Paper does not do anything about that anti-English bias for the next general election or the general election thereafter. I recognise that it is in the interests of the Labour party to delay change, but the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are now members of a Government who have a higher duty—that of fairness to all the United Kingdom, including England. Why has he not introduced plans to remedy that constitutional injustice in time for the next general election?
Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman has obviously given a great deal of thought to the matter, so he will have considered the practicalities. He, as a democrat and a careful Member of the House, will want the proper processes of consultation and appeal in place. He will then see exactly what the timetable is. First, there is a requirement for primary legislation to make the proposal possible. Then, there needs to be the proper and due processes. We will follow them, but we will not unduly delay.
It is, perhaps, of some importance that the hon. Gentleman is a London Member. I congratulate him on his party's decision to endorse a London government and an elected mayor for London. Perhaps he should consider why, if that is good, it should not also be good to have an elected authority in Scotland.
Dr. Tony Wright: This has been described as a great day for Scotland. As an English Member and a Unionist, I should like to say that it is a great day for the Union, too. Scotland has had the capacity to break the Union. It would have been possible to come forward with proposals that threatened the Union. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on making sure that his proposals do not threaten the Union. Will he now bend his considerable energies to trying to persuade the Conservatives that the choice is between preserving the Union with the White Paper or breaking it with them?
Mr. Dewar: I know that my hon. Friend has spent a great deal of time looking at constitutional systems, and
1060
is an expert in the matter. I value his opinion and have a great deal of sympathy with his point. Perhaps for political reasons—I know not—some Conservative Members have forced themselves into the position of defending a status quo that is clearly becoming very threadbare and indefensible, not just in Scotland, but in other parts of the country.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Secretary of State was right to point out that those who seek to defend the Union have a responsibility to explain how the demand for reform should be met. They have not done so.
The Secretary of State has come forward with proposals that, for me, as a federalist, address the need to balance the aspirations of the people of Scotland and the future of the United Kingdom. Will he take it from me that there can be no doubt left in anyone's mind that the people of Scotland will be well represented in Scotland by Members elected to the Scottish Parliament and will continue to play a major role in the United Kingdom through the Members elected to this place? Anyone who says any different has clearly not read the proposals.
Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that important point.
Miss Anne Begg: The White Paper proposes an historic Parliament. One reason is that it will be elected by a form of proportional representation, which is of supreme importance to people in the north-east of Scotland. The people of Aberdeen will know that their voice will be heard loud and clear. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a supreme irony in the Conservatives being against the constitutional changes which may save the Scottish Conservative party from political oblivion?
Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Such charitable work by the Labour party is admirable, but perhaps we should go about it quietly. She has made an important point, which I tried to hint at in my statement. We are trying to get a due and proper reflection of opinion throughout Scotland. There may be some odd beneficiaries, but if the principle is right, we should stand by it.
Mr. Stephen Day: I am sure that the Secretary of State will concede that the establishment of a Scottish Parliament is but part of the Government's strategy to set up regional Parliaments throughout the United Kingdom, including England. Given that that fits exactly with the blueprint of European federalists for a Europe of the regions, destroying the concept of the nation state, how can the White Paper be the salvation of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Dewar: Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman looked at the situation and opinion in Scotland, he might understand a little more about the issue. I do not say that in hostility. He is obviously not steeped in the issue, as many of my hon. Friends are. We are not going to be prescriptive on regional government. We have made it clear that we believe that there is a case for passing power to other areas of the United Kingdom, as we are doing in Scotland

1061
and Wales, but we would want to tailor any scheme to the needs of the area and be satisfied that there was consent and a wish for such a reform.
Mr. Thomas Graham: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his tenacity and on the tremendous deed of introducing the White Paper today against a background of 18 years of Toryism. I have a genuine plea to make to my right hon. Friend. This is a great day for the people of Scotland, especially for the children. We fought the general election on the basis of delivering a Scottish Parliament. Today, our children have seen something in which they can take part. I suggest that 11 September should be known as Devolution Day and that all the children in Scotland should be off school so that they can help their mothers and fathers and make sure that we have a yes, yes vote. Can we give our young kids a celebratory day in which we can all take part? We can show these folk that the people of Scotland will say yes, yes.
Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who always has something interesting to say. I hope that he will not take my remarks amiss. I agree with him entirely about the importance of the younger generation and about the importance of these proposals for the future. On 11 September, I shall be surprisingly uninterested in children, although I shall be very interested in what their parents are doing. I very much hope that, however they intend to vote, they will take the trouble to vote so that we get a fair test of public opinion on an enormously important issue for Scotland.
Mrs. Ray Michie: May I ask the Secretary of State about something he said on radio this morning? Will he comment on the choice of the title First Minister for the Scottish Parliament? What alternatives were discarded?
I, too, warmly welcome the White Paper, which I see as a cause for celebration because it is the first concrete step to returning democracy to Scotland and to re-establishing our Scottish Parliament. I hope that the carping criticism and the doom and gloom merchants will be thoroughly routed on 11 September.
Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who has fought hard and long in the cause and who has travelled many a long and, I suspect, weary mile with me and with others. We need, of course, to have a term that we can use in legislation and in preliminary documentation. The title First Minister seems sensible, but if other people have other ideas, we can adjust the proposal in time. I hope that no one will take it amiss if I say that the important thing is to get the show on the road. After many years of talk, that is my aim and my objective.
Mr. Ian Davidson: Does the Secretary of State agree that those who threaten the Union are not those who support devolution, but those who support the status quo? The status quo is not tenable as an alternative at present. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that what we need now is a united double yes campaign? Any of those who have spoken long and loud
1062
about their support for a Scottish Parliament who do not support a double yes campaign will be found wanting by the people of Scotland.
Will my right hon. Friend please desist from trying to persuade the Tories to support our initiative? What we need to rally our supporters is Tory opposition. Nothing is more guaranteed to bring out Labour, nationalist and Liberal Democrat voters for a double yes campaign than the opposition of the Tories. I understand that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), in line with the renovation of the Tory party, is going to propose a new voting system for elections to the Scottish Parliament of one acre, one vote. I understand that his family would then control the Parliament virtually on their own.
Mr. Dewar: It is a splendid idea, and I will ensure that the Department writes a paper tomorrow. My hon. Friend wittily makes a point of some substance, but not one for which the cure is in my hands. I am very interested in maximising support and in getting people motivated to turn out for the vote. I reluctantly decided that the suggested slogan, "Yes, yes, make mine a double," although quite attractive in some parts of the Scottish community, was not entirely appropriate.
Mr. John Greenway: One might equally say, "Make mine a Dewar on the rocks," because the Secretary of State has failed to answer any serious question about the structure of what he has proposed. May I put another one to him? Does not what he has proposed mean that there will be no revising chamber for all the legislation that the new Parliament will pass? If so, who is going to vet and revise criminal law, notwithstanding the differences between English, Welsh and Scottish criminal law, which have existed for centuries? This House and the other place have ensured consistency of criminal law throughout the United Kingdom in recent years. What he has proposed means that that cannot be guaranteed under the new arrangement, which can only be bad for Scotland as well as for the rest of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Dewar: I think that we should agree on a moratorium on whisky jokes, particularly in the light of the name of the present leader of the Tory party. I can think of several likely runners, but I will not let them loose.
The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. As he will know, the House of Lords as a court does not have any remit in the Scottish criminal law, but it does in the civil law of Scotland, and I would expect that to continue. I accept that there is a particular duty on the Scottish Parliament to look very seriously at its own scrutiny proposals. It is very important that we look at pre-legislative scrutiny and much wider consultation. There is a particular duty on us to get the law right, and I think that that might concentrate the mind.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the electoral system is also important in this respect. The perhaps more accurate representation—although it will have advantages and disadvantages about which we can all argue—is relevant in considering the point about scrutiny and the fairness of the decision-making process.
Ms Rachel Squire: I also warmly welcome the publication of the White Paper on the

1063
Scottish Parliament, and pay tribute to the hard work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, his ministerial team and the Scottish Office have put into producing it. Yet again, we have delivered one of the promises made in our election manifesto.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposals have the potential of representing the most radical constitutional change since, after centuries of struggle and against fierce opposition from the Conservative party, we finally secured the right to vote for every man and woman? Does he also agree that a massive yes, yes vote on 11 September will help us to change the face of politics, give people a greater voice in the decisions that affect their everyday lives and lead to a strengthening of democracy and the United Kingdom as a whole?
Mr. Dewar: I do agree with my hon. Friend that this is a measure of great importance. I would never pretend to the House that it was a minor matter of only Scottish interest. That would be totally wrong. I also agree with her about the democratic point. The case for this change is essentially a democratic one—whether or not it is accepted by the people. It is about democracy and the involvement of people in the process of government.
I say with no great animus, but just as a matter of historical observation, that, if we go back through the 20th century into the 19th century, it is fair to say that the Conservative party has opposed almost every important constitutional reform ever proposed—although, to its credit, within a few years, it claims the reforms as part of the warp and woof of the British constitution, which it would die in the ditch to preserve.
Mr. Peter Luff: Does the Secretary of State accept that the enduring success or otherwise of the proposals that he has put before the House will depend as much on the active support and enthusiasm of the English, Welsh and Northern Irish people as the Scottish people? What, therefore, can I say to my constituents, given that, although a Scottish Member of Parliament—Scotland will remain grossly over-represented in this place for many years to come—will have direct influence over the affairs of Worcestershire and England, that self-same Scottish Member of Parliament and I will have no influence whatever over exactly the same issues north of the border?
Mr. Dewar: The Scottish Parliament will not be here until 2000, so we will not have an immediate change in that respect. When the Scottish Parliament is up, there will be a balanced and fairer package that will involve the other changes that I have mentioned. I may have got the hon. Gentleman wrong, but I suspect that he is one of the Members who on occasion, as the hours have ticked into the morning, have suggested to me that it is unfortunate that they are stuck in the House voting on Scottish legislation. We will at least be saving him from that.
Mr. Eric Clarke: As a former miners' leader and a trade union member for many years, may I thank my right hon. Friend for the White Paper on behalf of the trade union movement? We have fought long and hard for many years to get devolution on the statute book to ensure that the people of Scotland have a proper say. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the White Paper
1064
will lead to the strengthening, not the weakening, of the Union? I remember that, historically, those people over there on the Conservative Benches fought against the emancipation of women for many years. I wonder how many times they have to be wrong before they are ever right.
Mr. Dewar: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said, and I am grateful to him. I am conscious of the contribution that many of my colleagues in the trade union movement have made to this debate over the years. Indeed, some of his colleagues in the National Union of Mineworkers—Mick McGahey, George Bolton and many others—have argued the case long and hard. Fortunately, they were not alone, and we now have a real prospect of progress.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Is the Secretary of State aware that British people who have lived outside Britain for less than 20 years had the right to vote in the recent general election? Given that that was the basis on which his party won a number of seats, why will the Secretary of State not give a right to vote in the referendum to Scottish people who happen to have lived outside Scotland for less than 20 years? Why is he afraid to consult all Scottish people about his proposals for a Scottish Parliament?
Mr. Dewar: The number excluded would be very small. We went for a residency test, which will be familiar to the hon. Lady, and that was right. We have taken the register that will give the biggest, all-encompassing electorate. I do not know whether she is a Scot—
Mrs. Laing indicated assent.
Mr. Dewar: I do not know anything about her, but I have so many old friends missing these days from the Conservative Benches that I wander lonely in the corridors. The residency test is sensible and straightforward, and will provide the largest electorate available in Scotland. It will include some peers whom she may know, and that will be nice. Before the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) gets too excited, I am told that only 123 peers are entitled to vote, and I will stand the risk.
Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: May I join in the congratulations to my right hon. Friend on the publication of a document that has been long awaited? We are on the threshold of the most exciting change in the constitution of this country for at least 300 years. I also thank him for the hour and a quarter's entertainment that we have had this afternoon, because I think that everyone has enjoyed it. Does he agree that thanks are due to the Constitutional Convention, of which I have been a member since the beginning, as have many other hon. Members?
Conservative Members perhaps do not understand that what is on offer is a modern Parliament appropriate to the next century, and that the nature of politics in this country will be changed completely. They will have much to learn from the new Parliament.
Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has worked hard on the project for a long time. I recognize

1065
that it is a big project and no one can give a guarantee on delivery. I believe that the Parliament will make a contribution and that it will be a success. I hope that we will have good will and support. I am greatly encouraged—I say this in no false sense—that we have heard statements from the Scottish Conservative party that, if the Parliament is set up, it will contest seats and contribute to its working. That is an important point, and I welcome it.
Mr. Donald Gorrie: I congratulate the Secretary of State on producing a White Paper that will produce a Parliament for which we can campaign whole-heartedly and together, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said. I also congratulate the Conservatives on their consistency. They continue to show exactly the same attitude that caused them to lose every seat in Scotland.
Mr. Luff: We got more votes than you did.
Mr. Gorrie: The Conservatives contested those seats under an electoral system that they supported. It killed them off and they are now complaining. They have showed the flattest learning curve in history.
May I ask the Secretary of State for some clarification on local government? Will the Scottish Parliament be able to alter the voting system for Scottish local government to make it more sensible? Will it be able to alter the financial arrangements so that, for example, local authority self-financed expenditure may be treated as outside the control total, which is the more sensible system that obtains in continental Europe?
Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that local government is a devolved responsibility and, therefore, the Parliament will be able to consider the organisation of local government finance in Scotland. I do not, however, hold out the hope that it will be able unilaterally to change its relationship with the United Kingdom Treasury. That would be a startling innovation, and one which I could not endorse.
Dr. Liam Fox: It cannot be long before the Liberal Democrats are sued under the Trade Descriptions Act for calling themselves an Opposition party. The Labour party has had 18 years to get the details of the arrangement right and the Secretary of State must not dismiss the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). The right hon. Gentleman says that the relationship between Parliament and this place will be dynamic: we say that it will be unstable.
The Secretary of State for Scotland will be the messenger boy for the Parliament in Edinburgh. He will pick up the shopping list of the Scottish Parliament and bring it down to his Cabinet colleagues in London to ask for the money to take back, although he will have no say over how it is spent. When the money runs out, the Secretary of State and the Westminster Parliament will be blamed, not the Scottish Parliament. That is a recipe for instability.
We have heard nothing from Labour and Liberal Democrat Members who were elected on 1 May on the issues of health, education and housing. They said that
1066
those were the most important issues because they had been done to death by 20 years of wicked Tory government. [Interruption.] They cheer now, but those are the very powers that they propose to give to a separate Scottish Parliament. What will they do here? Will they follow the powers back to a Scottish Parliament? Or will they remain here, debating issues that, before 1 May, they said were of secondary importance? If that happens, there will be an air of hypocrisy hanging around the Chamber.
Not much has been said about the costs detailed in the White Paper, in that the Scottish Parliament will have the right to raise not only council tax but business rates. When it raises income tax, or its "guaranteed amount", as the White Paper calls it, Ministers may smile, because there is only one group that is guaranteed on a residency basis not to pay that tax—Ministers legally deemed to live in London. It is fine for everyone else in Scotland to pay the tax, but not for Ministers.
The Scottish people will get a bill for a Parliament not yet designed, on a site not yet designated, to deal with issues that their Members of Parliament already deal with; and it is all to provide them with the one thing that I would have thought no one in this day and age wanted: more politicians and bureaucrats.
As the Secretary of State confirmed, members of the Scottish Executive will be able to speak for the United Kingdom, although they are not answerable to the House.
Mr. Dewar indicated dissent
Dr. Fox: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but his exact words were:
"Ministers in the Scottish Executive will have an opportunity to participate in relevant meetings of the Council of Ministers and in appropriate cases could speak for the United Kingdom."
That is profoundly undemocratic. Moreover, does it not fulfil Labour's other agenda—a Europe of the regions by stealth, and the destruction of the nation state?
Above all, the Secretary of State could not answer the question he was asked several times. There is no point in the right hon. Gentleman's looking across the Chamber at his alternative colleagues in government on the Liberal Democrat Benches. He must answer the question, and I shall give him one more opportunity. Why, after devolution, should Scottish Members of Parliament be able to vote on issues that affect England and Wales, when neither they themselves nor English and Welsh Members of Parliament can vote on Scottish issues? Does that not make a mockery of a Union Parliament?
The Prime Minister promised us a Bill; we got a brochure. The whole thing is a complete shambles. If this is the Government's flagship legislation, we shudder to think what the rest will be like.
Mr. Dewar: It occurs to me that the hon. Gentleman was unwise to talk about the Trade Descriptions Act; after all, he describes himself as a Scottish Opposition spokesman. What he said was not so much a question as a rant, and he should go away and read the scheme rather more carefully. For example, he said that the Scottish Parliament would raise the council tax. But council tax is under the control of local government. If he sees that as a terrible conspiracy, he must lead a very frightened life.
The only question that the hon. Gentleman asked that seemed of much relevance was the one about Scottish Members' right to continue to vote in the House. I have

1067
already told him, and I hope that he accepts what I say, that, if the House is sovereign, and decides to order its business, because it believes that that will increase the democratic content of British politics, by devolving some of its powers to a Scottish Parliament, that is perfectly legitimate and constitutionally proper.
I repeat that that needs to be seen in the context of a balanced package, which I believe will be widely accepted. [Interruption.] I know that the hon. Gentleman does not accept that, but it is my belief. We shall have to continue the argument on another occasion, when I hope that he will be better prepared.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. That was a very—
Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Points of order will come after the second statement.
The statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland was very important, and we rightly spent a considerable time on it. We must now move on to the business statement.

Business of the House
4.53 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the Business for next week.
MONDAY 28 JULY—Progress on remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
TUESDAY 29 JULY—Completion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY 30 JULY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House, the first of which is the three-hour general debate that precedes a recess.
Supplemental allocation of time motion relating to the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill.
Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill.
THURSDAY 31 JULY—Debate on the White Paper "Scotland's Parliament", on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
Subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the summer Adjournment on Thursday 31 July until Monday 27 October. The provisional business for the first week back after the summer Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 27 OCTOBER and TUESDAY 28 OCTOBER—
Debate on British defence policy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 29 OCTOBER—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Second Reading of the Wireless Telegraphy Bill [Lords].
Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill.
THURSDAY 30 OCTOBER—Second Reading of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 31 OCTOBER—The House will not be sitting.
The House will be aware that the Minister without Portfolio has already made it clear that he will answer questions in the House on his specific responsibilities within Government for the millennium experience at Greenwich. In order to facilitate that commitment, it is intended that after the summer recess he will have a short regular place on the rota, to answer questions on the millennium experience at the end of questions to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. That will ensure that there will be a regular opportunity to put questions on that specific topic.
May I also, Mr. Deputy Speaker, say a word about the statement made in the House yesterday? I understand that copies of Sir Ron Dearing's report were not immediately available in the Vote Office when the Secretary of State for Education and Employment made his statement. My right hon. Friend had ensured that copies of the 54-page summary of the report were available to Members, and that copies of the full report were placed in the Library.

1069
In addition, a pamphlet summarising the main recommendations and the Government's plans for the future was sent to all hon. Members.
However, given the huge interest in the matter, copies of the full report were placed in the Vote Office shortly after the end of the statement. I think that those should have been available from the beginning of the statement, and I regret any inconvenience caused to Members.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement. She could not better have illustrated her Government's disdain for the parliamentary process, nor their inability to manage their own legislative programme, than by her breathtaking announcement that she plans to keep the House in recess until the end of October—simply, I assume, because she and her colleagues are too incompetent to organise their own business.
It is curious that the right hon. Lady has combined that announcement with the fact that, between now and the end of the Session, she intends to introduce the third guillotine in eight weeks. I hope that she will be able to explain to the House the consequences of that particular incompetence for the rest of the parliamentary year.
However, I am sure that we are all delighted to know that the Minister without Portfolio will be explaining his plans for the dome. That is indeed something to which we will all look forward. Perhaps we could even come back early for the pleasure.
Sadly, last week I had to remind the right hon. Lady of her responsibilities to the whole House. It is now clear that the Government's spin doctor machine operates entirely independently of her. Even if she wished to involve the House in announcements and in changes in policy, and to protect its interests and those of all hon. Members, it is clear that she has not the power to do so.
Nevertheless, will the Leader of the House belatedly arrange for a debate next week on the new Cabinet consultative committee to be chaired by the Prime Minister and to include Liberal Democrat Members, the establishment of which was announced on Tuesday to the press but not to this House? Will she ensure that such a debate addresses the concerns of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—who is in his place—who correctly pointed out that such an arrangement should be announced to the House so that its implications can be examined?
In particular, does membership of such a committee mean that the Liberal Democrats can continue to enjoy the rights of Opposition parties? Can a Liberal Democrat spokesman ask questions with knowledge acquired from the Government that he cannot disclose to the House?
Will the Leader of the House confirm that, according to his reply yesterday to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, the Prime Minister's criterion for policy change is:
"I say that if it is the right thing to do, why not do it?"—[Official Report, 23 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 943.]
Will she explain how such an attitude accords with parliamentary democracy?
Can we have an early debate on the Dearing report? Would the Leader of the House point out to the House the reference in her party's manifesto which lays out the
1070
Government's intention—using the Secretary of State's own costings—to charge all higher education students £10,000 for their university education? Will she explain how such an intention accords with the sentiment in her party's manifesto—to make higher education more accessible for all students?
Can we have a debate next week on the Government's plans to introduce a national minimum wage? Will the Leader of the House confirm that the President of the Board of Trade intends to propose legislation before advice on the level of the wage is received from the Low Pay Commission—despite promises to the contrary in Labour's manifesto, its business manifesto, its small business document, its industry policy paper and countless statements from Labour Members, including the Prime Minister?
When can we expect the Foreign Secretary to come to the House to make a statement on the outcome of the review of defence exports and, in particular, on whether sales of jets to Indonesia continue?
Finally, when does the Leader of the House intend to publish the report of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons?
Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) asked first about the length of the recess, and she will not be surprised to learn that I have checked what has happened in previous years. The length of the recess on this occasion is no different from the length of the first summer recess after the 1992 general election, which her party won. It is not an unusual length of recess. We have done a remarkable amount in the first three months of this Parliament—perhaps more than has been done before in such a period. We have introduced 18 Bills and we expect six Bills to receive Royal Assent before the summer recess. We have also published White Papers and made statements in the House on four separate issues.
A lot has been achieved, but I make no secret of the fact that, following a change of Government, there is not the usual length of time to draft new legislation. There is still a long way to go in terms of the drafting work which would normally take place on an on-going basis but, in this instance, could not start until May of this year. I make no promises about the length of the recess on other occasions.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with the issue of the Cabinet committee yesterday, and said that the membership of it—once decided—would be announced to the House. I should remind the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk that on the very same day that the Cabinet committee was announced, the Liberal Democrats—not the Conservative party—opposed us in the lobbies on the Social Security Bill. We should not draw too many implications from the creation of the committee.
The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk referred to the Dearing report, published yesterday, which she called for when she was the Secretary of State for Education. We have been interested in the amount of support that we have received from Conservative Members—particularly those who were Education Ministers. There is a case for debating that report, but I am not sure whether we can find time for such a debate when we come back. The Select Committee on Education

1071
and Employment—or the Conservative party—may decide to make inquiries and call for a debate on the matter.
I can confirm that the level of the minimum wage will not be set before advice from the Low Pay Commission has been received. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk's question on defence and other matters can be dealt with in the two-day defence debate that we will have in October when we return.
The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk's final question was on the Modernisation Committee. I can confirm that the first reports of the Committee will be published next Tuesday. If I might change the mood of our exchanges today, I must say that we have had a good working Committee and we have received co-operation from Members on both sides of the Committee.
Mrs. Shephard indicated assent.
Mrs. Taylor: That is why we have been able to produce a report which I hope the House will welcome when it is published on Tuesday.
Mr. David Winnick: Unlike Tory Members, I have often complained about the length of the summer recess. Perhaps this matter could be looked at by the Modernisation Committee so that, in future, we do not break up for three months and come back for just a few weeks before Christmas.
It has been reported widely today that the Home Secretary is to set up a commission of inquiry into the case of Stephen Lawrence, who was stabbed to death. I welcome that decision. Can we have a statement from the Home Secretary on Monday, giving the terms of reference of the commission? It is essential that justice is done in this case, in which a person was put to death for no other reason than the colour of his skin.
Mrs. Taylor: I know that my hon. Friend has been consistent in his view about the recess. The rest of the parliamentary Session following our return in October will be extremely busy, and that is why I make no promises about future recesses.
As for to the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the Home Secretary is considering how to address the matter, and the House will be informed of his conclusions in due course.
Mr. Don Foster: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving the details of the publication of the report by the Modernisation Committee. When are the report's recommendations likely to be debated in the House? She has recognised that there will be a heavy legislative work load immediately after the recess. Will she assure us that there will be proper timetabling of legislation to be considered? Will she also assure us that, before the recess, we will have an indication of the timetabling of questions to Ministers? Finally, in view of the statement by the shadow Leader of the House, can we have an urgent debate on the length of the shadow Leader of the House's questions?
Mrs. Taylor: I think not on the last point. I do not want to go into too much detail in advance of the publication of the Modernisation Committee's report, but we have taken
1072
our task seriously and come up with what we think are positive working proposals to improve the legislative process in this House. I hope that the House as a whole will agree to act on our representations, which will be for the benefit of the House. We hope to make progress as soon as possible.
Helen Jackson: As one of our firm commitments at the election was to ensure full disclosure of donations to all political parties, and as Lord Nolan has said that his committee does not have the time at the moment to discuss this matter, what thought has my right hon. Friend given to how the Government can help the Conservative party's members along the path towards agreeing among themselves to make full public disclosure of party donations?
Mrs. Taylor: Far be it from me to advise the Conservative party on its internal workings, but I welcome the outbreak of glasnost from the Leader of the Opposition, belated and limited though it may be. I cannot promise a debate on the matter in the near future, but there will be opportunities to debate the funding of political parties, because we still intend to introduce measures on the subject.
Mr. Ian Bruce: What will be the terms of reference for the debate on Scottish devolution and the White Paper? It is extremely difficult for hon. Members to ask questions of the Scottish Office or anyone else about the amount given in the Scottish block grant from the Barnett formula. The Leader of the House will know that, in setting up that formula, his noble Friend Lord Barnett was trying to deal with what the then Government said—and the last Government agreed—was a democratic deficit.
If that deficit is being reversed for England, we should have a full debate about the Barnett formula. I seek an assurance that we can have not only a debate but a vote, so that English Members of Parliament, whether Government or Opposition Members, can justify giving Scotland both an independent Parliament and 25 per cent. extra for local government, health and other matters.
Mrs. Taylor: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was giving a trailer of the speech that he hopes to make next Thursday, should he be fortunate enough to catch Madam Speaker's eye. I want to take issue with him on one point: he said that it was difficult to ask questions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland; not only is it easy, because he often makes himself available, but he gives extremely good-quality answers.
Mr. Christopher Leslie: Has my right hon. Friend read the recent reports that the director general of the Royal Opera house is in receipt of a rather handsome £10,000-per-month salary, made worse by the fact that he is no longer working at the opera house, which is closed? Are there any plans for a statement? Right now, it seems that only the fat cats are singing on the matter.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend raises an issue that has caused considerable concern. I understand that the payments are in line with Sir Jeremy Isaacs's contract; those arrangements were agreed when the previous

1073
Government were in office, and the situation is clearly unsatisfactory. I understand that the basis of the contract is to be changed.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Will there be an oral statement by the Deputy Prime Minister on Monday about the outcome of the accelerated roads programme review? Is the Leader of the House aware that, last Monday, Madam Speaker expressed grave disquiet at the way in which the House was being bypassed by the Government in making important announcements?
Yesterday, at the Local Government Association conference in Manchester, the Deputy Prime Minister was asked in an open forum about the outcome of the M25 review, and he said that he could not answer because he had to tell the House first. By yesterday evening, the headline on the television news was his announcement that the M66 around Manchester was to be completed, and it is clear from today's newspapers that he has already made substantial announcements about the outcome of that review. Does that not show that the Deputy Prime Minister has a cynical disregard for Madam Speaker's rulings? What does the Leader of the House intend to do to protect the interests of all hon. Members?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is misleading—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I am sorry, I meant to say that he was inadvertently misleading the House in his interpretation of Madam Speaker's comments. Her criticisms were not on the basis that he suggested. I have spoken to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister about the matter, and he shares my concern about the amount of speculation. The reports in the press seem to contradict one another, and that in itself suggests that the story is not the result of deliberate leaking. My right hon. Friend will make his decisions known to the House.
Mr. David Drew: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on bus re-regulation? I am sure that she was horrified to hear last week of the massive hike in profits of Stagecoach plc that has been almost entirely brought about by worsening conditions and wages for the work force in my constituency, and by a further deterioration in bus services.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes his point well, and I am sure that his constituents share his concerns. I will bring those concerns to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, but I cannot promise an early debate.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I am happy to note that the Northern Ireland Select Committee is at least on the Order Paper, but will there be time for the Committee to meet, select a Chairman and plan its business, or will it have to wait until we come back in October? Why is the gestation period for the Northern Ireland Grand Committee so much longer than that of the other Grand Committees, which are already in session?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman knows something of the history of the discussions. We are glad that we have reached agreement on the composition of the Select
1074
Committee, and that could be implemented early next week, which, at least in theory, and we hope in practice, would enable the Committee to meet next week.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: Will my right hon. Friend allow time in the near future—next week, if possible—for a debate on energy and an energy programme? A substantial number of hon. Members have concerns and anxieties about the unfair charging for fuels for generating electricity. Is she aware that next Monday there is to be a lobby of people who are employed in the mining industry, asking for fairness and justice in the pricing of fuels for generating energy? Many reports are available that can explain the unfairness that obtains at present. Will my right hon. Friend take note of the concerns and find time for a discussion?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend has raised the matter before, so I know his concerns. He may be able to air the subject in Trade and Industry Questions on Thursday or in the Adjournment debate on Wednesday, but I am afraid that the Government cannot find time for the early debate that he wants.
Mr. Michael Moore: Claridge Mills, a textile manufacturer in my constituency, went into liquidation this week, with the loss of 50 jobs, which is obviously a devastating blow to the employees and their families and to the people of Selkirk, where the company was based. Will the Leader of the House make time available for a debate on the issues surrounding the company's collapse, so that we can seek assurances from Scottish Office Ministers that they will work with Borders Enterprise, Borders council and the other relevant agencies, such as the Benefits Agency, to ensure that the problems in Selkirk are alleviated as soon as possible?
Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that Scottish Office Ministers will hope, and be willing, to help as far as possible. I do not think that I can find time for a debate, but the hon. Gentleman may be able to raise the matter on Wednesday morning, in the open three-hour Adjournment debate.
Mr. Tom Levitt: I for one am looking forward to spending October working hard in my constituency. Let no observer leave this debate thinking that my right hon. Friend has granted us additional holidays.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that beef farmers in High Peak, as elsewhere, still have many concerns about the impact of BSE on their livelihood and their industry, whether about levels of consumption of home-grown or imported material, about standards of hygiene in abattoirs or about the disposal of fallen stock. A statement of reassurance is needed. Will she invite my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to make a statement on his discussions in the European Community, which by all accounts have been so successful?
Mrs. Taylor: First, I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning the work that hon. Members do in the recess. People who think that the recesses are an open holiday are far from knowing the real situation. On BSE, the House should welcome the achievements of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

1075
The way in which he went about those negotiations in Europe recently was far more productive than anything that we saw from the previous Government, and it is a good sign for the future.
Mr. Tim Collins: Will the Leader of the House find time for a statement and debate on the operation of the office costs allowance, given that the creation of a Scottish Parliament would mean that Scottish Members of this House would shuffle off about 80 per cent. of their constituency case load elsewhere, so I am sure that there will have to be a statement on appropriate cuts in their allowance?
Mrs. Taylor: No, Sir.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I gently press my right hon. Friend, for the third time I think, on the need for a debate on Nirex and the future of radioactive waste disposal in the United Kingdom? I wonder whether she is in a position to give an assurance that, before any decisions are taken on the future of Nirex, there will be a full debate in Parliament.
Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure about a full debate in Parliament, but there will certainly be opportunities for hon. Members to make their ideas, concerns and opinions heard by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend, who is very experienced, will, I think, find many opportunities to raise that issue.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Following on from the right hon. Lady's remarks about the non-availability of the Dearing report in the Vote Office yesterday, is she aware that the part of the report that deals with Scotland is published as a separate volume? Not only was that volume not available yesterday, but it is still not available today, and the Vote Office did not know this morning of its existence. Given that fact and the fact that the arrangements for higher education in Scotland are different, would it not be appropriate to have an early debate on the effects of the Dearing proposals on Scotland?
Mrs. Taylor: I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment that that is a separate report, and was not necessarily totally a part of what was being discussed yesterday. All the relevant material should have been available, however. If it was not, I apologise. I said earlier that it was wrong that the full report was not available straight away—having the reports in the Library is not sufficient. I have brought that matter to the attention of my colleagues, because I do not think that that should happen.
Mr. John Austin: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a report published today by the health service trade union, MSF—the Manufacturing Science Finance Union—based on statistics drawn from the Department of Health census of the non-medical work force, which show that 40 per cent. of NHS employers have failed for the third year running to produce a return for the Department on the ethnic composition of their work force? In view of her commitment to equal opportunities—unlike the Conservative party—will she find time for the Secretary
1076
of State for Health to come to the House to say whether the performance bonus of chief executives of failing trusts and authorities will be reviewed in view of their failure to perform?
Mrs. Taylor: I cannot promise a statement or a debate, but I assure my hon. Friend that I will bring his remarks and concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who I am sure will be somewhat worried about the information that my hon. Friend has given us.
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the right hon. Lady arrange an urgent debate so that we can hear the truth behind the apparently shady deal between her right hon. Friends in the Government and certain elements of the Liberal Democrat party? If it is true, it will surely have profound parliamentary and constitutional implications in ways that many of us cannot yet foresee. Surely the right hon. Lady must accept that that matter has such implications for Parliament—for example, where the Liberal Democrats should sit; if they are in bed with the Government, surely they should be on the Government Benches—as will all the matters which will flow from it and which are, as yet, completely unconsidered. Will she please give that some urgent thought?
Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman managed to say that with a straight face, but I am not sure that it is a serious point. I mentioned earlier that, on the very day that that agreement was announced, the Liberal Democrats—not the Conservative party—voted against the Government at 10 o'clock on the Social Security Bill. Perhaps I could remind the right hon. Gentleman that we were grateful for what he said about welcoming the Dearing report yesterday.
Ann Clwyd: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 201, which has 130 signatures and argues against arms sales to Indonesia?
[That this House believes that human rights should be at the forefront of decisions on arms exports; notes the appalling human rights record of the Indonesian Government; further notes that Indonesia has illegally occupied East Timor since 1975 in contravention of United Nations resolutions; further notes that United Kingdom made military, security and police equipment has been used by the Indonesian authorities, in breach of assurances given by them, against civilians in Indonesia and East Timor; believes that any further equipment exported is likely to be similarly used; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to stop the export of all military, police and security equipment to Indonesia, and to withdraw the invitations approved by the Conservative Government last year to the Commander in Chief of the Indonesian Armed Forces, and the Army and Navy Chiefs of Staff, to visit the Royal Naval and British Army Equipment Exhibition in Farnborough in September.]
Does she know that the Nobel peace prize winner, Jose Ramos Horta, the campaigner for East Timor, last week addressed the parliamentary human rights group in the House? He drew attention to the fact that things are worse than ever in East Timor—as bad as they were in 1975—and that torture, imprisonment and violence are endemic

1077
in that country. He asked for a freeze on arms sales to Indonesia. In view of the rumours in the press about the imminent sale of Hawk aircraft and in view of the Government's commitment to human rights, may we have a statement on that important issue before the House rises? It would be regrettable if a statement were made and a decision taken to sell the Hawk aircraft while the House was in recess.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend has a long interest in that matter. As she said, the reports in the press are rumours. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with that question yesterday and made it clear that any decision to revoke licences issued by the previous Government would have to be announced to the House. The matter is still under review, in terms of the new criteria that we have laid down, and the House will be informed in due course.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Given that the House will be away for 12 weeks, will the Leader of the House give thought to extending Prime Minister's Question Time next week, to enable us to put to the Prime Minister a number of issues that remain unresolved? One is the question of the sale of armaments to Indonesia.
Another is that it has only just come to light that a letter from the President of the Commission to the Spanish Foreign Minister makes it clear that the United Kingdom Government never sought any changes or derogations to the treaty in relation to quota hoppers at Amsterdam, but simply clarification of existing European Union law. How on earth that can be seen to be the great triumph that the Minister sought to present it as after he returned from Amsterdam, it is difficult to follow. Perhaps we could have an extended Prime Minister's questions, next Wednesday—a bumper bonanza, sorting out all those issues before the House rises for the recess.
Mrs. Taylor: Given the performance of the previous Administration and their abject failure in Europe on all those issues in Europe, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has had the cheek to ask that question, although it allows me to remind the House of the achievements of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture only this week. The hon. Gentleman asked for a change in the format of Prime Minister's questions—he wanted them lengthened because there is to be a long recess. As I pointed out, we have had equally long recesses before, with no consequential changes to Prime Minister's questions.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House make arrangements for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement next week on the Government's attitude towards oil exploration on the Atlantic shelf and the environmental destruction occasioned by oil exploration and pollution in the seas? That is a matter of great concern. There is obvious concern that decisions may be taken during the recess, which will have far-reaching implications for the pollution of the Atlantic.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is another experienced Member. I am sure that he will find ways to raise that
1078
issue, not least because it is Environment questions on Tuesday and Trade and Industry questions on Thursday. I am afraid that I cannot promise a debate.
Mr. John Butterfill: Will the right hon. Lady find time for an early debate on the need to defend the mutual financial institutions of this country? I am sure that she will be aware of the greedy and avaricious band of predators, led by the inappropriately named Mr. Hardern. I hope that she will be able to give the House an opportunity to discuss measures by which those activities could be curtailed. I think that she will join me in congratulating members of the Nationwide building society for showing that common sense and altruism are not entirely dead in the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Lady will be aware that Mr. Hardern has said that he proposes to move on to every other mutual building society and that when he has finished with them he will move on to friendly societies and credit unions. Is it not time that something was done?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman may have alarmed the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who gets worried when there is agreement across the Chamber. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He will have noted the comments of the Prime Minister yesterday welcoming the result of the Nationwide ballot.
Mr. John Heppell: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on legal aid? When a Danish bank sues Scandinavian ex-employees about property deals in Spain and Gibraltar and the British taxpayer ends up paying a £10 million bill for it, there is obviously something very wrong with the system.
Mrs. Taylor: Legal aid generally, and particularly legal aid for foreign nationals, is another issue on which there may be agreement across the Chamber. The House knows that the Lord Chancellor has appointed Sir Peter Middleton to review civil justice, including legal aid. We must await the outcome of that inquiry.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: May we have a full debate before the recess on the massive increase in Britain's contributions to the European Community budget? Gross contributions have risen 32 per cent., to about £8.6 billion. There was some sort of debate on the matter in European Standing Committee B yesterday, but no substantive answers were forthcoming from the Economic Secretary. She was unable to tell us what effect the changes would have on the PSBR or why there appears to have been a 78 per cent. reduction in the money allocated in the budget for fraud.
The documents were in an appallingly shoddy state, and the hon. Lady had to begin her comments by correcting many of them. Many Labour Members share our concern about increases in the Community budget, especially in respect of the common agricultural policy. The Community budget is one of the great scandals of our time. Can the House give it urgent consideration before the recess?
Mrs. Taylor: I understand that there was a full and lively debate in European Standing Committee B yesterday. I have full confidence that my hon. Friend the

1079
Economic Secretary dealt with the matter extremely well. There was also a debate on a similar matter on the Floor of the House, but it was very poorly attended.
Ms Beverley Hughes: In view of my right hon. Friend's role in co-ordinating the Government's initiative on drugs—about which I know she shares the concern of many hon. Members—when will she be able to make a statement on the matter generally, and in particular on the appointment of the so-called drugs tsar to take things forward?
Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is right to say that I and many other hon. Members are concerned about developments on this matter. I am afraid that I cannot promise a statement, but we expect to advertise for a person to fill the role by the end of this month.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have raised the issue of long recesses on a number of occasions? It would be wrong of me not to repeat that today because 88 days cannot be justified in this Chamber or, more importantly, outside it. I know that the legislation is not ready, but she has heard requests for at least 14 different debates—Adjournment debates, not Bills—on issues ranging from coal to Indonesia.
It would not be impossible to come back a week earlier and arrange debates of an Adjournment character so that all those matters could be dealt with. Back Benchers in particular would be able to raise issues. While that may not be possible this time, I suggest that she tries to do it next time. If legislation is not available, use Parliament for raising other issues.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend said that he has raised this issue before. I have heard him do so before other recesses; he is certainly consistent on the point. He knows that I am on record as having said that we could make better use of parliamentary time by better spacing of
1080
parliamentary sittings through the year. I want to consider that. He is right to say that legislation is not ready because this is a new Parliament. That is a significant factor. I have some sympathy with his overall objective. The Modernisation Committee may have views on the issue when it comes to consider it.
Mr. Oliver Letwin: In connection with her response to an earlier question, how does the Leader of the House imagine that it would have been possible for the House to debate the European Community budget before the beginning of this week, given that the draft budget was not available to hon. Members before Monday?
Mrs. Taylor: There was a debate in European Standing Committee B, which was attended by hon. Members. That is normal procedure. There was a debate in the House on a related issue, and very few hon. Members attended it.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Leader of the House address one of the questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard)? The right hon. Lady omitted any reference to the guillotine. Can she give us a firm undertaking that next week's guillotine will be the last that we will have until the House has had an opportunity to debate the Modernisation Committee's proposals, and the Government have had a chance adequately to respond to them?
Mr. Skinner: No guillotines in the recess.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend suggests that I say, no guillotines in the recess. I can give that assurance. The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. He is informing the House that there are proposals in the Committee's report that we feel may help to reduce the need for guillotines. I hope that he is right, and that we can make progress by implementing the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee, which I hope will reduce the need for guillotines.

Points of Order
5.37 pm
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance on a document, a copy of which I have sent to you in advance? It is a letter written by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy), who, I understand from the document, is the co-ordinator of the campaign activity among Labour Members in the build-up to the Uxbridge by-election for the Labour party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Did you give him notice?"] I have given him notice that I intended to raise this point of order.
The document encourages members of the Labour party to telephone a House of Commons number telephone to make arrangements for their visits to the Uxbridge by-election campaign and informs them that the Scottish Labour party has undertaken to telephone a large number of Uxbridge voters between now and the by-election.
Is it in order for House of Commons paper to be used in a circular letter whose sole purpose is campaigning in a parliamentary by-election? Is it in order for House of Commons telephones, which are paid for by the taxpayer, to be used as part of a Labour party by-election campaign? Does not the drafting in of the Scottish Labour party to undertake telephone canvassing show the desperation of the Labour party about its chances of winning the by-election?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): The House is obviously extremely careful about such matters. I would advise the hon. Lady to pass the document to which she has referred to the Serjeant at Arms for his examination.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, European Standing Committee B debated the apparent 32 per cent. increase in the size of the United Kingdom's contributions to the European Union budget for next year, which will take them to £8.3 billion. I say the "apparent" 32 per cent. increase, because that was the figure cited in the original papers submitted to the Committee; but a late paper submitted on the day of the debate suggested that the real figure might be less, although the Economic Secretary failed to give any alternative figure and failed to specify the real position. That late paper was never received by some hon. Members who attended the Committee.
In view of the lack of timely documentation about this matter and the fact that there is still confusion about the real increase in the size of our contributions to the European budget next year, I submit to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the scrutiny requirements under Standing Order No. 119 have not been discharged. The House should not now proceed to vote on the motion before it, which would give authority to the Government to cave in to that massive increase by discharging that scrutiny requirement.
Mr. William Cash: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thoroughly endorse what the shadow Chief Secretary has said. As a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation and one who participated in the so-called debate yesterday in European Standing Committee B, I have never seen such outrageous behaviour. The Government treated the Committee with contempt.
1082
The documents, which were produced incredibly late, were unsatisfactory and in a mess. They completely contradicted the recommendations by the Select Committee last year that documents should be provided to all Committees in good time. Yesterday's events were an outrage and a disgraceful slur on the activities of the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not responsible for what goes on in Standing Committees. As for the budget increase, the House will have to decide on the motion when it comes before it.
Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the Chair is the protector of Back-Bench and minority rights, so I seek some guidance from you. In 1983, the leaders of the Northern Ireland parties were advised that there were four places on the Select Committees for Members representing Northern Ireland. This time, after names have been submitted, just one Member from Northern Ireland will sit on the departmental Select Committees.
I have written to different people about the matter, and have received no clarification. Given the new arrangement between the Liberal Democrats and the Government, perhaps we might now be the custodians of minority rights in the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said, but that is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), is it acceptable to this House of Commons that matters that could involve the spending an additional not £2 million or £200 million, but £2 billion, which would be allocated to the European Union, should deal with in a Committee upstairs rather than on the Floor of the House? Is it acceptable that the documents presented on that occasion were inadequate and that one did not appear until the day of the Standing Committee?
Is this not a matter that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should deal with as a custodian of the rights of Back Benchers in the House? I view it as a very serious matter that the taxpayers of this country may have to ante up an additional 32.5 per cent. as our contribution to the European Union—in sterling, equivalent to possibly £2 billion. It is wrong that we had to decide that with inadequate documents, which were provided late to the Committee. Should not this matter be properly and fully debated on the Floor of the House, so that all hon. Members could participate?
Sir Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you to ask Madam Speaker to issue a note for guidance on the provision of documents indicating when they should properly be available so that Members on both sides of the House have a proper and adequate opportunity to know what they will be discussing?
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you to recall an incident last year in the same Committee Room when we were discussing almost precisely the same

1083
issue? Mr. Phillip Oppenheim was the then Treasury Minister, and many of the hon. Members who have made points of order today were present then, and made exactly the same case as they have done today. The Government's response was to ignore them.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Madam Speaker is always most concerned to ensure that the correct documents are before the House and I have no doubt will note what has been said. I repeat what I said earlier: the Chair—[Interruption.] Order. The Chair has no responsibility for what goes on in Standing Committees. Hon. Members will have an opportunity to vote on the matter when it comes before them.
Mrs. Theresa May: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance on the provision of information to hon. Members by Ministers? Last week, I tabled a written question to the President of the Board of Trade for answer on a named day asking when she intended to publish her Green Paper on the late payment of debt. On Monday, I received a holding response to say that the right hon. Lady would respond to my question as soon as possible.
On Tuesday morning, I read the answer to my question in The Times. Following publication of that answer in the newspaper, a response was sent to me by the right hon. Lady which confirmed the information that had been made available to that newspaper. Is it right that questions that are legitimately raised by hon. Members under the Standing Orders of the House should go unanswered while those answers are given to journalists?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not responsible for the content of answers to questions of that kind, but hon. Members certainly should be made aware of them before the press. The hon. Lady's point is well made, and will be noted.
Mr. Graham Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am a member of the Select Committee on Education and Employment which met for the first time at 4.30 pm yesterday afternoon. At that meeting we discussed a number of matters, the details of which I will not go into now, but they included whether we should divide the Committee into two Sub-Committees and who should chair them.
I was somewhat concerned to find that a copy of the Evening Standard, which I have passed to you, and which was purchased at 2.30 pm, two full hours before the Committee met, quoted one member of the Select Ctte, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), to whom I have given notice, as the Chairman of one of the Sub-Committees. That is a point of concern, because not only did that report presuppose the election of that member as one of those Chairmen: it also presupposed that the Committee would decide to form those two Sub-Committees.
Neither of those decisions had been taken by the Committee, because it had not even met. I regard it as a matter of the gravest concern that that information should have appeared in the press. Could you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, investigate that matter on behalf of the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not responsible for speculation that may appear in the press in advance of such events.

BILL PRESENTED
  MOBILE TELEPHONES (PROHIBITION OF USE IN DESIGNATED PLACES)
  Mr. Michael Fabricant presented a Bill to prohibit the sending or receiving of mobile telephone calls in restaurants, railway carriages, buses, cinemas, theatres and other designated places: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 13 February 1998, and to be printed [Bill 57].
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

  1998 PRELIMINARY DRAFT BUDGET
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. COM (97) 280, the Preliminary Draft Budget of the European Communities for 1998; and supports the Government's efforts to maintain budget discipline in the Community.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 111.

  Division No. 65]

  [5.49 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Church, Ms Judith

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Clapham, Michael

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Austin, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Barnes, Harry

  Clelland, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Clwyd, Ann

  Battle, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cohen, Harry

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith)

  Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

  Colman, Tony (Putney)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cooper, Yvette

  Benton, Joe

  Corbett, Robin

  Berry, Roger

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Betts, Clive

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Blackman, Liz

  Cousins, Jim

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cox, Tom

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cranston, Ross

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Boateng, Paul

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Borrow, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Darvill, Keith

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Davidson, Ian

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dawson, Hilton

  Burgon, Colin

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Byers, Stephen

  Denham, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Dobbin, Jim

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Doran, Frank

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Dowd, Jim

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Drew, David

  Cann, Jamie

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Casale, Roger

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Caton, Martin

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Ellman, Ms Louise

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Chaytor, David

  Etherington, Bill

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  1085

  Feam, Ronnie

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Laxton, Bob

  Fitzsimons, Loma

  Leslie, Christopher

  Flint, Caroline

  Levitt, Tom

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

  Lock, David

  Foulkes, George

  Love, Andrew

  Fyfe, Maria

  McAllion, John

  Galbraith, Sam

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gapes, Mike

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gardiner, Barry

  Macdonald, Calum

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McDonnell, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  McFall, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McIsaac, Shona

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McKenna, Ms Rosemary

  Goggins, Paul

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McNulty, Tony

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Grant, Bernie

  McWalter, Tony

  Grogan, John

  McWilliam, John

  Gunnell, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Marek, Dr John

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hanson, David

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Healey, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Meale, Alan

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Merron, Gillian

  Heppell, John

  Michael, Alun

  Hesford, Stephen

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hill, Keith

  Milburn, Alan

  Hinchliffe, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hoey, Kate

  Moffatt, Laura

  Home Robertson, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hope, Phil

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Morley, Elliot

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mountford, Kali

  Hutton, John

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mudie, George

  Illsley, Eric

  Mullin, Chris

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jamieson, David

  Norris, Dan

  Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Olner, Bill

  Osborne, Mrs Sandra

  Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pope, Greg

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pound, Stephen

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kidney, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prosser, Gwyn

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Quinn, Lawrie (Scarborough)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Rammell, Bill

  1086

  Rapson, Syd

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Raynsford, Nick

  Swinney, John

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Rogers, Allan

  Timms, Stephen

  Rooker, Jeff

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rooney, Terry

  Todd, Mark

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Touhig, Don

  Rowlands, Ted

  Trickett, Jon

  Roy, Frank

  Truswell, Paul

  Ruane, Chris

  Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Vaz, Keith

  Salter, Martin

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wallace, James

  Sawford, Phil

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Watts, David

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  White, Brian

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Singh, Marsha

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Willis, Phil

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wills, Michael

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Soley, Clive

  Wise, Audrey

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Wood, Mike

  Spellar, John

  Woolas, Phil

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Wray, James

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Stevenson, George

  Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Stott, Roger

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Mr. Kevin Hughes and

  Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Amess, David

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Fraser, Christopher

  Arbuthnot, James

  Gibb, Nick

  Baldry, Tony

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Bercow, John

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brady, Graham

  Gray, James

  Brazier, Julian

  Green, Damian

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Greenway, John

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Burns, Simon

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Butterfill, John

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Cash, William

  Hammond, Philip

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Chope, Christopher

  Horam, John

  Collins, Tim

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cran, James

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Day, Stephen

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Lansley, Andrew

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Letwin, Oliver

  Duncan, Alan

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Lidington, David

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Nigel

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Loughton, Tim

  Flight, Howard

  Luff, Peter

  1087

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Spring, Richard

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Streeter, Gary

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Syms, Robert

  Madel, Sir David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Maples, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Townend, John

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Trend, Michael

  Merchant, Piers

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Walter, Robert

  Norman, Archie

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Paterson, Owen

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Prior, David

  Willetts, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Yeo, Tim

  Ruffley, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Mr. Oliver Heald and

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Mr. John Whittingdale.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Education (Schools) Bill
  Lords amendment considered.
Clause 2

  TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR EXISTING ASSISTED PUPILS
  Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 5, at end insert—
  ("( ) in the case of a pupil with an assisted place at a school providing education for children up to the age of 13 but not beyond, at the end of the school year in which he attains the age of 13; or")
  6.4 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I must inform the House that the amendment involves privilege.
  Mr. Blunkett: In order to detain the House for as short a time as possible, I shall not go over all the old ground and refer in detail to familiar issues. We oppose the assisted places scheme; some Opposition Members support it.
  In phasing the scheme out, we are doing our best to protect children's interests. We have declined to overturn its extension, which we could have done in time for next September. We have made it clear that we will protect the interests of children who have already been guaranteed places and that, in allowing the scheme's extension to children in primary education, we are protecting their right to remain in it until the age of 11. Today's debate deals not with substance and principle, but with the issue that arises from the Lords amendment, which refers indirectly to the Kilfoyle letter.
  Mr. Don Foster: My party is as convinced as the Labour party of the need to abolish the assisted places scheme as quickly as possible, but we also believe that when a promise has been made it is important that it is kept.
  Will the Secretary of State confirm that he supports what Lady Blackstone said in the debate on the Bill in another place? She said:
  "The presumption will be that any parent who has accepted an assisted place running through to age 13 in a free-standing preparatory school on the basis of the Kilfoyle letter will have that place honoured. I can confirm that in such circumstances the commitment will be honoured through the use of the discretionary power."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 July 1997; Vol. 581, c. 1093.]
  In what circumstances would the Secretary of State not agree that the commitment given in the Kilfoyle letter is being met by the Government?
  Mr. Blunkett: I am happy to support what was said by my noble Friend. On the understanding that the promise was given as a consequence of the Kilfoyle letter, it will be fulfilled under the discretion that we have agreed.
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: The Secretary of State is dealing with the nub of the issue. What if a child

  1089
  at an independent preparatory school has an assisted place that was given according to the rules of the assisted places scheme but not on the basis of the Kilfoyle letter? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot describe circumstances that distinguish the general case from the case that has not relied on the Kilfoyle pledge, I do not understand why he has to preserve the discretion. Why can he not simply write the principle into the Bill?
  Mr. Blunkett: I think that the right hon. Gentleman understands perfectly well why we need the discretion. There are people who, although their child had entered a school that keeps pupils up to the age of 13—and had done so at an early age—had not been assured that their child would continue until the age of 13. Such people were not in the position that we are discussing.
  There have been some peculiar quirks to the assisted places scheme, and we, as a new Government, do not propose to repeat them. There have been quirks in the interpretation of the scheme—not least the fact that, when the original secondary education scheme was passed in the early 1980s, hon. Members were not necessarily aware that it would be applied to primary education by primary and prep schools. People who were obtaining places were highlighted in the press because, as the former hon. Member for Buckingham said, there was a presumption that they may not strictly have been entitled to them. We are not examining what has happened in the past, so as to protect the interests of the young people concerned. We are mindful of the fact that we must not drop ourselves into the hole of not having discretion and being unable to examine claims properly.
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: It is obvious that the Secretary of State intends to press ahead and put the legislation on the statute book. The amendment is important. How will he exercise the discretion? How much will it cost to examine the cases of each of the 2,000 children who are covered by the amendment? What extra amount will his Department put to one side to scrutinise each of those applications? No parent of any child who falls into this category will be satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's blanket assurances. If he intends to keep his pledge of putting children before dogma, he must say how much is being put aside to examine these cases.
  Mr. Blunkett rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Interventions should be short: they should not be mini-speeches. I appeal to hon. Members for co-operation.
  Mr. Blunkett: As an ex-Minister, the hon. Lady should be aware that the section, including staff at Darlington, have a duty to examine the applications and the allocation of places and to hold on file the information that is required, including details about the nature of the places that have been given up. As we are not expanding the scheme, and as that information is available, it can be made available at no expense. It is a question of using departmental time, and I am, and intend to remain, a great believer in ensuring that we use that time effectively and efficiently.
  1090
  I am not sure that the people involved in the 2,000 cases to which the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) referred will apply for their children to go through to the age of 13. Some of them will think that it is more sensible to transfer their children to secondary education at the age of 11 than to seek private sponsorship, which many appear to be doing, or to transfer them to state secondary education at an age that is inappropriate for the area in which they live. These matters have already been debated at length, and I do not intend to delay the House by going through them again for the sake of hearing my own voice.
  It is critical to understand that I am honouring our commitment to use the discretion sensitively and generously and to ensure that the young people and their families are not let down. I give that assurance again, and I have given it in the words of my noble Friend. I repeat the assurance that I gave on Second Reading about the 12 schools where children will take up places in September at the age of 10 and stay until the age of 18. We shall honour that assurance.
  Much of the debate arises from the fact that, at the general election, we chose not to overturn the Conservative Government's decision on opening up primary education to assisted places. We did that because we thought that it was in the children's best interests not to have their education disrupted, and so that they would not have to enter the state system at such a late date that there would be no preference for them or their families. Contrary to what has been said in earlier debates on the matter, we have been extremely sensitive to the needs of children and have not put dogma first.
  The amendment would not have been carried in the other place if only life peers had been voting. It would have been defeated by 79 votes to 55 if hereditary peers did not exist. It was simply a case of what I have described before as privilege defending privilege. Someone described it as democracy. This House is the democratically elected forum and has a mandate from the electorate. We had an overwhelming mandate on the Bill at the general election and no one could have been in any doubt about where we stood. We are not, therefore, debating the principle of the measure but whether discretion should be used in the way that we describe.
  I say to the House and to the other place that great care must be taken over an amendment that is designed to undermine the Bill. We are sensitive to the importance of using the discretion wisely and of continuing to give guarantees. We are making sure that we protect children's interests and are going out of our way to prevent disruption.
  6.15 pm
  I wish that Conservative Members would understand that, as in the past, discretion will be used wisely and publicly. I fully understand that light will be shed on individual children and the importance of what was promised and what will be fulfilled. We do not want to open any more cans of worms that can be used to undermine the aim of switching resources from the benefit of a few to the benefit of the many. Some 400,000 youngsters of five, six and seven in state schools will

  1091
  benefit from smaller classes. That is a clear message from the House, and it was sent at the election on 1 May. I hope that the House will reaffirm it in rejecting the amendment.
  Mr. Dorrell: I hope that the House will reject the Secretary of State's motion to disagree with the Lords amendment. In moving it, the right hon. Gentleman was softly spoken—butter would not melt in his mouth. He is determined to try to present his case in the gentlest possible way. The question before the House is simple: whether the Government should write into the Bill the commitment that was given on behalf of Labour by the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, in his letter to the chairman of the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools on 1 April.
  I disagree with the Bill's principle, which is the abolition of the assisted places scheme. The Government's policy is divisive, and closes opportunity to many children. The Bill removes choice from parents and, in short, is regressive and reactionary. However, as the Secretary of State rightly said, that is not the question before the House. The question is very precise: whether the pledge given by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), now the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, should be put into the legislation to abolish the assisted places scheme. Let us be clear about the circumstances and history of the argument.
  During the election campaign, the chairman of the IAPS sought clarification from the Labour party about how its policy to abolish the assisted places scheme would apply to his members—traditional preparatory schools offering education between the ages, typically, of eight and 13. There was some correspondence. The first response from Labour was not clear. The IAPS wrote again and received a crystal clear letter from the hon. Member for Walton, dated 1 April. It was not, in the language of the last Parliament, a statement made on a wet night in Dudley. It was a clear statement by a Labour party spokesman, no ifs or buts. I shall read it again to the House:
  "If a child has a place at a school which runs to age 13, then that place will be honoured through to 13."
  The question is whether that pledge, as given by the hon. Member for Walton, should be written into the Bill. It is a question not of the merits of the Bill, but of whether a Minister's word is his bond or simply the first convenient thing that comes into his head. It is a question that has dogged the Bill throughout its passage through Parliament.
  It all began during the Second Reading debate on 2 June, when my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) asked the Secretary of State what his response was to the Kilfoyle letter and why the pledge was not in the Bill. It is instructive to go through the various occasions when the issue has arisen during the passage of the Bill. The House should note that, each time the issue has arisen, the Government's response has been different. No wonder the Secretary of State was so modest in his presenting his case this evening. He was anxious not to present a new argument. That at least is a departure in the way Parliament has dealt with the issue because, at every stage, the Government have offered a new excuse.
  On 2 June, the Secretary of State offered his first excuse:
  "I am very clear, and so is the Bill, that assisted places will remain in primary education up to the normal age of transfer at 11. Where an alternative transfer age applies in that area, the Secretary of State
  1092
  will have discretion, and my ministerial team and I will use it wisely to ensure that we do not have a situation where 500,000 youngsters transfer at 11, but other people think that they can transfer at 13, even if 13 is not the normal transferable age in that locality."—[Official Report, 2 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 27.]
  There we have the first doctrine that defended the Bill as drafted—that we should not allow transfer at age 13 where the normal principle of the local education authority within which the prep school operates is to transfer schoolchildren between primary and secondary stage at age 11.
  I have two answers to that response. First, and most important, the Secretary of State's response on 2 June—which was not, I have to say, repeated in his speech this evening—breaks the pledge given by the hon. Member for Walton, who said that, where a child had a place at a school up to age 13, the place would be honoured up to 13. The Secretary of State's first response was that that would not apply if, in the locality surrounding the prep school, the normal habit was to transfer at 11. It was a breaking of the pledge.
  Secondly, it is, of course, a matter for parents to decide whether it is in their children's interests, given local circumstance, to transfer, in the normal traditions of the locality, into the state system at 11, or to continue to 13, as the Kilfoyle pledge made it clear they would be entitled to do.
  Just how clearly the Kilfoyle pledge was broken, if we accept the principle of the Secretary of State's response on Second Reading, was made clear in the letter that the Department for Education and Employment sent to prep school head teachers about how the Government, at that stage of the argument, intended to use their discretion. I go through this argument because, from the beginning, the Government have said, "Rely on our discretion," but at several stages in the argument they have offered different interpretations of how they intend to use it.
  The Department's letter states:
  "There is provision for the Secretary of State to exercise limited discretion to extend support under the scheme in exceptional circumstances."
  That is not what the Kilfoyle letter told the IAPS on 1 April. That contained no ifs or buts. It stated:
  "If a child has a place at a school … that place will be honoured".
  In its letter to prep schools, the Department started talking about "exceptional circumstances".
  It is small wonder, therefore, that my hon. Friends returned to the issue in Committee on 10 June. When the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), replied to that debate, she had a different line of argument. She said:
  "the commitments that we gave in our manifesto will be honoured. I shall remind the Committee of those commitments. First, children in a secondary school will be able to finish secondary school and, secondly, children in a primary school will be able to finish primary school."—[Official Report, 10 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 980.]
  Both those commitments were given, and it is welcome that the Government intend to honour them, but the Under-Secretary forgot the third commitment, which was given by the hon. Member for Walton—
  The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): That was not in the manifesto.
  Mr. Dorrell: That is a new defence. We have not had that one before. So far, on the authority of the

  1093
  Prime Minister, this has been held to be binding. Now the Minister says that it is not in the manifesto. Would he like to develop that line of argument? I do not think that the Secretary of State will thank him if he does; he is in enough trouble as it is.
  Mr. Blunkett: I wish to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention merely to the fact that he was quoting the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), in terms of her interpretation of the manifesto.
  Mr. Dorrell: So we are back to the wet night in Dudley doctrine—that it does not matter because it was not in the manifesto. In her response to a debate in which the pledge was being quoted, the Under-Secretary talked about two commitments in the manifesto Those two commitments the Government are certainly honouring, but she forgot the commitment in the letter.
  Before he gets too excited about it, the Secretary of State should remember that, the following day, the Prime Minister acknowledged at the Dispatch Box that the Under-Secretary was wrong. When challenged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) on the issue, he said:
  "Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise this, and I hope that my answer will give him some satisfaction."
  The Prime Minister recognised that the Under-Secretary and the education team had got it wrong. He went on to say:
  "the Secretary of State will make it clear today"—
  he had not made it clear until then—
  "that he will exercise his discretion in respect of those children".
  Then the Prime Minister introduced some new doctrines into the argument. They had not been mentioned before. He said that the Secretary of State was about to issue a new statement of policy that said that the Government would exercise this discretion
  "provided that they"—
  parents—
  "have been given a promise or an understanding that their assisted place will go all the way through to 13."
  That was the doctrine the Secretary of State repeated from the Dispatch Box this evening: that the commitment in the Kilfoyle letter is not an unrestrained commitment, but a commitment to honour places where a specific commitment can be shown to have been given to a specific parent that the place will be open to age 13.
  According to the Prime Minister's doctrine, the parent is not entitled to rely on the general pledge of Labour party policy given to the IAPS by the hon. Member for Walton on 1 April; any parent taking up a place in a prep school on the assisted places scheme was told on 11 June—several weeks after the commitment—that, if they wanted to rely on that commitment they had to get a specific and personal promise out of the prep school offering the assisted place. The Prime Minister had changed the terms of the argument.
  Under further questioning from my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley, the Prime Minister introduced a new principle into the defence of the Government's position. My right hon. Friend pressed the Prime Minister
  1094
  to say why we could not have this principle in the Bill in the unrestrained terms of the Kilfoyle letter and why it had to be based on discretion. The Prime Minister said:
  "It is important that there is a discretionary element, because we must avoid abuse of the system."—[Official Report, 11 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 1135–36.]
  That is the Achilles' heel of the Government's argument. Despite repeated attempts to extract from Government spokesmen, both in the House and in another place, an example of the abuse against which the Government are protecting themselves, no example has been forthcoming. The only Minister who offered any explanation about the abuse that the Government had in mind is Baroness Blackstone, about whom I shall have more to say in a moment.
  It was only in another place that the full implications of the two new doctrines introduced by the Prime Minister became clear. My noble Friends supported an amendment moved by a Liberal Democrat peer, which is why I hope the Liberal Democrats may feel that this commitment should be written into the Bill.
  My noble Friends pressed Baroness Blackstone to elaborate on the Government's policy. Part of the speech in which she set out the three circumstances in which the Government intend to use their discretion has already been quoted. Two of those circumstances are welcome. The first is where the local age of transfer is not 11 but 12 or 13, and I agree that that would be sensible. Secondly, there is the Dulwich example, where there is a secondary school that recruits at age 10. That seems sensible, too.
  Then we come to the third example—I shall quote Baroness Blackstone's words directly. We come back to the doctrine of the specific promise. She said that some schools
  "with an age range of seven, eight and nine up to 13—may have been given a clear promise that they can keep their place up to the age of 13 in the belief that the new Government gave such an undertaking. We shall honour that commitment."
  What on earth does that mean? Does it mean that, on recruiting a pupil into a prep school, a head teacher has to produce a specific commitment that the child will be welcome at the school to the age of 13? Is not any parent entitled to assume that, provided the child behaves properly and so on, that is an implied undertaking between a school and a family? Why cannot that parent rely on the implied undertaking that, on putting a pupil into a school, the place will be open until the completion of the normal cycle of education in that school? Why cannot that parent rely on the general principle of the letter sent by the hon. Member for Walton?
  6.30 pm
  The importance of the questions that I am asking is underlined further when we look at what Baroness Blackstone had to say about the Government's belief that they need to protect themselves from abuse. She is the only Government spokesman who has tried to answer the question about what sort of abuse is being referred to. My hon. Friends and, I hope, the entire House will listen with some care to the few words that she offered in answer to that question. This is the Government's defence of why we cannot have this principle written into the Bill. She said:

  1095
  "I was referring to schools which are simply using this as a bridge into independent secondary schools—in other words, providing another two years of private schooling at the taxpayers' expense for those who will then go on to pay for their child's independent ordinary schooling."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 July 1997; Vol. 581, c. 790-1.]
  Let us be clear: the abuse against which the Government are protecting themselves is the action of parents who rely on the Kilfoyle letter and who, through the assisted places scheme, are intending to use a place at a preparatory school as preparation for access to an independent school at 13. That is the case with the great majority of children going into prep schools. It is precisely what the majority of parents who put their children into an independent prep school will intend for their children. The action of those parents is being described by Baroness Blackstone at the other end of the Corridor as the abuse against which the Government are protecting themselves. That is why Conservative Members do not accept the soft words of the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Don Foster: The right hon. Gentleman said, rightly, that the House should listen carefully to what was said by Baroness Blackstone. It is also important that the House reads all her comments on this matter. If the right hon. Gentleman reads further, he will see that she talks about the fact that the majority of schools will act honourably. She said:
  "I am sure that the vast majority of schools will act honourably and seek to do the right thing by the pupils in their charge. But I am afraid that we cannot rule out the possibility that a school—perhaps giving prominence to its own interests—may not ensure that parents consider all the available options."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 July 1997; Vol. 581, c. 1094.]
  Surely the point is that many parents will want to consider what is the right thing to do for their children at the age of 11, and it is important that they should be given all the available information. That is the point that she was making.
  Mr. Dorrell: I agree that parents must be responsible for their own decisions and make their own choice about whether they want their child to switch to the state system at 11 to go on in the independent system to the age of 13 or to switch into the state system at 13. Those are the decisions that it is proper for parents to make.
  I do not accept any criticism about not reading the entire speech: I was reading the end of Baroness Blackstone's speech. I read the final paragraph of her speech to the last full stop and I read it verbatim. My point is that the Government's definition of abuse is the mainstream intention of any parent with a child on the assisted places scheme picking up on the commitment given by the hon. Member for Walton.
  The numbers attached to this argument are tiny. What is proposed makes no material difference to the Government's plans for the assisted places scheme, regrettable though I believe them to be, but it makes a huge difference to individual children and it makes an even bigger difference to the Government's reputation for straight dealing. As the Bill went through the House and another place, we were told, first, that everything would be all right because it would be against the children's interests to move them at 13. Then we were told that we could rely on the discretion because it would deliver the result that the hon. Member for Walton promised. Then,
  1096
  when Baroness Blackstone was pressed on what she meant by abuse, she made it clear that she was referring to the great majority of parents who are relying on the Kilfoyle letter. They are being defined by the Government as abusers of the system.
  The Secretary of State can use his majority if he chooses to overrule the Lords amendment. I hope that he will use this as an opportunity to show that he is bound by the specific terms of the commitment given on behalf of the Labour party which would not be honoured if the speech made by Baroness Blackstone was the guiding principle on which he was intending to use his discretion. This is his opportunity to recognise that this is an argument that has dogged the Bill from the beginning. It is an argument where right is on our side and he now has an opportunity to acknowledge that.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Secretary of State's contribution today has been most unedifying. I listened carefully, and I heard the assurances that he gave the House about the way in which those children will be treated. He said that there was nothing disreputable in his behaviour and nothing underhand in the way in which the Government will deal with this. However, the last thing that he was prepared to do was to put his words in writing in the Bill. It is that which gives the House cause for concern. It certainly gave cause for concern in another place.
  If the Secretary of State is suggesting that we do not have cause for concern, that we have been given a bankable assurance and that the reservations expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) are groundless, he has no reason to resist this modest but clear amendment. If the Government agree to the amendment, the people of this country—the 2,000 or so children who will potentially be affected—will have clear notice from the Government that they acknowledge the concerns. They would be giving an assurance to those children and their parents that they will behave honourably.
  The argument that the amendment undermines the whole purpose of the Bill is pathetic. It is a narrow amendment which deals with a specific point, not with the underlying principles of the Bill—which most Conservative Members find deeply offensive. It deals with a small number of children and parents who deserve better treatment than they have had so far from the Labour Government.
  My other point relates to the rather old-fashioned, class-warrior remarks of the Secretary of State about the decision of the other place to try to revise the Bill. His attack on hereditary peerages was rather pathetic. Their Lordships basically said that they were dissatisfied with the assurances that they had received and that there was therefore a need to revise the Bill. They were acting as the defenders not of privilege, but of those children from poor households who had been given the opportunity, by the Conservative Government, of education at independent schools regarded throughout the world as of the finest.
  I hope that the message will go out to the people of this country that the right hon. Gentleman and his party are not content simply to have the most massive majority in

  1097
  this House for decades, but are so arrogant and so new Labour that they brook no opposition, from wherever it might come.
  Mr. Blunkett: Especially from a Tory hereditary peer.
  Mr. Howarth: That is a cheap remark. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that there should be no revision; no opportunity for the decisions of this House to be revised? The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) is nodding. If this House is to be the sole authority, why have another Chamber? Why not abolish it? [HoN. MEMBERS: "Yes."] There we have it—old Labour noises from new Labour faces. They are not interested in any opposition; they wish arrogantly to promote their cause, however unjust or misguided.
  I hope that the Government will think again on the amendment. If they are anxious to show parents that they are serious in upholding the undertakings given in the Kilfoyle letter, they should accept the amendment gracefully. They should do so not because their Lordships defeated the Government, but because they recognise that they would be doing their duty in upholding an undertaking by a Labour spokesman and fulfilling their duty to the parents. I hope that they will think again about their unwise and arrogant remarks about the way that Parliament handles its business. They should understand the need for a revising Chamber.
  6.45 pm
  Mrs. Gillan: The House knows of my deep hatred of the Bill, which I have vigorously opposed at every stage. I am delighted with the way in which the new Conservative Front-Bench team have taken up the reins in opposing a vicious Bill that is based on class envy.
  I congratulate the Government on doing one thing of which I thoroughly approve—protecting the music and ballet assisted places scheme, which is aimed at children who are talented in music or dance. Of course, the cost per pupil of that scheme is £13,000, so this amendment would cost very little to include in the Bill.
  During the passage of the Bill, and not least on this amendment, we have tried to persuade, cajole and urge the Government to use common sense, despite their determination to abolish the scheme. We asked them to wait and see, because if their pledges on standards—which we all applaud—were fulfilled, the scheme would wither on the vine.
  Had the Government been prepared to wait a little, that would have given schools time to absorb the change and perhaps find alternatives ways of funding pupils from less well-off families. However, the Government would not accept that and now they will not accept this reasoned amendment, which was passed by 127 Members of the other place. I congratulate those life and hereditary peers who thought it important to send their views to this place.
  The amendment is a matter of honour. Both this and the other place are honourable Houses. I call on the Government to look on the amendment as a matter of honour. Indeed, one noble Lord—who agrees with the Government on the principle of the Bill—said that the Kilfoyle letter should be honoured. He said that the Government should start with a presumption of innocence
  1098
  in favour of those pupils and parents who are in the position referred to in the Kilfoyle letter. If we cannot appeal to the Government on logic, can we at least appeal to them on the ground of honour?
  Mr. Blunkett: Cant.
  Mrs. Gillan: The Independent Schools Information Service has estimated that about 2,000 children will fall into that category, as I said in my intervention the Secretary of State's speech. We have heard how the discretion will be applied, but we have also heard that the right hon. Gentleman considers that no expense will be involved in examining the cases of those children. It is rather sad that he considers that the departmental time of officials is not an expense. I would have thought that he would acknowledge that the officials who will no longer be required to administer the team will end their work more quickly if the amendment were accepted. If he rejects the amendment, the officials will have more of their time taken up examining the so-called discretionary arrangement, so it will be an additional cost on the taxpayer.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), I was alarmed by the attack on the House of Lords and the use of that appalling soundbite, "Privilege defending privilege." The Secretary of State should accept that it is a case of privilege defending the underprivileged—something on which his party should be concentrating, as the Conservative Government always did.
  The very fact that the right hon. Gentleman refers to privilege means that it is the privilege of the independent schools that bothers him. That betrays his antipathy towards independent schools, which was revealed so clearly on 2 June when, from a sedentary position, the right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted a colleague to preside over the demise of the independent sector.
  Mr. Blunkett: Who said that?
  Mrs. Gillan: The Secretary of State said it in a sedentary intervention recorded in Hansard.
  We have tried every means to amend the Bill. We make a final appeal that the Government accept this well-thought-through amendment from the other place—for the sake of the children and as a matter of honour.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: I want to add a few remarks to those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Secretary of State brought discredit on himself by attacking the Lords for seeking to amend the Bill in a way that was designed to give effect to the promises made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) before the election.
  I took part in the Second Reading and Committee debates on the Bill. I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell). In those debates, Ministers defended the provision by referring to a limited discretion in terms very similar to those used in a letter to schools issued by the Department. The letter talked about a limited discretion in exceptional circumstances, which were described solely in relation to
  "easing integration into the maintained sector in those areas where the normal age of transfer is later than age 11."

  1099
  The evidence asked of schools wishing to apply on behalf of parents for such discretion makes no reference to the Kilfoyle letter.
  When we debated the matter before, Ministers did not talk about discretion in the terms that were later used in the upper House. It is clear from what Baroness Blackstone said about discretion that the Government are seeking to cover up their clear failure to meet the pledges that they made before the election. They are trying to say that they can meet those pledges by the exercise of discretion, but it is clear that they will not. Baroness Blackstone said:
  "If it can be demonstrated that the offers were made on the strength of the Kilfoyle letter, then, yes, we shall exercise discretion"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 July 1997; Vol. 581, c. 1093.]
  The pledge made by the hon. Member for Walton was unequivocal. He said:
  "If a child has a place at a school which runs to age 13, then that place will be honoured through to 13."
  He did not say that the place had to be offered on the understanding of the commitment in that letter. He gave a clear expression of an intention that such places would be honoured. Ministers are trying to run away from that pledge. If they intended to honour such assisted places through to 13, they would put that in the Bill. The evidence suggests that they will not honour places in the terms of the letter issued before the election. They seek to break that promise.
  We do not know the circumstances under which they will break that pledge. When Baroness Blackstone talks about the potential for abuse, we are in murky territory. There is no evidence of such abuses. No evidence is offered that schools have been seeking to encourage parents to maintain places against the interests of their children. Quite the opposite is the case.
  I do not know about the cases of 2,000 children countrywide, but I know about the cases of five children in St. Faith's school in my constituency. The parents are continually asking the school under what circumstances their children, aged under 11, will be able to stay at the school until they are 13, as they hope. The school cannot answer. The parents are concerned that the place that they had believed would be maintained until the age of 13 will not be honoured. The school is not trying to disguise anything or distort their decision. It is trying to enable them to maintain the places that they had believed that their children would be able to enjoy up to 13.
  We are seeking to uphold a decision that brings credit to the upper House and to give effect to what should have been the Government's intention. Parents had understood that to be their policy, and it ought to be put in the Bill.
  Mrs. Theresa May: It is regrettable that we have to debate the amendment and that the Government have not seen fit simply to accept it. It will not undermine the purpose or principle of the Bill, which have been debated long and hard in the Chamber. I contributed to those debates several times, and my views are well documented.
  We are debating whether the Government are willing to abide by commitments that were freely given before the election—commitments on which people have been able to base decisions about the schooling of their
  1100
  children. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) put the issue clearly in an intervention, when he referred to supporting the Government in keeping a promise.
  The Government have not said that the commitment was not given. We are not debating whether the letter was sent by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle). He clearly gave an open-ended commitment that any child who had an assisted place at a school that went up to age 13 would keep that place up to 13.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has just pointed out, there was no suggestion in the letter that parents of such children had to have read the letter and said that they had done so to be able to believe that the place would be honoured until 13. The Government are introducing an extra criterion, which has not yet been clarified, to assure themselves not that parents were aware that the place would not be honoured but that they were aware of the Kilfoyle letter.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) asked how the Department will decide whether the cases brought before it will be subject to the Secretary of State's discretion. Will there be a test for parents? Will they be asked what the Kilfoyle letter is, and if they do not know, will their child not get the place?
  We are talking about a small number of children. If the Government want to keep faith with parents, they should be willing to accept the amendment. It is precisely because they appeared to try to forget about the Kilfoyle letter during the early stages of the Bill—to forget about a promise made by a Labour Member when he had shadow responsibility for the matter—and pretend that it did not exist, that parents are saying that they want the commitment enshrined in the Bill. They will not simply allow the exercise of discretion by the Secretary of State. It is important that people are clear about the Government's position and that the uncertainty that the Government are suggesting, through the exercise of discretion, does not continue for the parents of children who do not know the age at which the assisted places scheme will cease to apply.
  I have often sat in this Chamber brief though my time in the House has been, and heard the Prime Minister say that this Government keep their word and keep their promises. The debate on the amendment is about whether the Prime Minister is right—about whether this Government keep their word or their promises. If the Prime Minister is right, the Government should accept the amendment, because only by accepting, it will they prove that they keep their word on this issue. If they do not accept the amendment, they will be saying that the Government do not keep their word or their promises, contrary to all that the Prime Minister has said, but that they choose when and when not to keep their promises.
  7 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: I have only a brief point to add to the debate, which arises from the comments of some of my hon. Friends. My contribution is a last and, alas, perhaps a vain attempt to persuade the Government to change their mind on the issue.
  As has been frequently pointed out during the debate, the issue at stake is whether parents and pupils can rely on the word of a spokesman for the Government. It should

  1101
  be pointed out that it is in the interests of the Government that they should, in this case, make it clear that such reliance can be placed on the words of a Government spokesman. It is particularly in the interests of the Government in relation to an education issue because they seek to enact various education measures, the success of which will much depend on the ability of parents and students to rely on the words of Ministers about their future intentions.
  As we all know, the Government have a vast majority, so they can easily reverse or amend their own legislation during this Parliament. The Government intend to introduce major measures in relation to, for example, student maintenance. If those who are subject to those measures and who are forced to take out loans feel that they cannot rely on the constancy of the Government's intention, that will do much to undermine the Government's policies. It is therefore surely in the interests not just of the country as a whole, but of the Government in terms of their legislative programme, that they should show, by accepting the amendment, that one can rely on a statement made by a Labour party spokesman in terms of its full meaning and without the slightest dilution.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: During the election campaign, the Prime Minister spent a great deal of time talking about trust and honouring pledges in an age of new politics. The Bill has broken a bond of trust. The amendment would force the Government's hand and hold them to their pledge. They should have the decency and the humility to accept it.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) have not rehearsed in detail the reason for our opposition to the Government's policy on assisted places. We have concentrated tonight on the question of the honour of a Government who are now being challenged to keep their word.
  I heard the Secretary of State say from a sedentary position that our pleas were all cant. I can tell him that parents who are worried about their children's future do not regard the honouring of a man's word as cant. That is the very least they expect from a Government.
  I remind the Secretary of State of the pledge that he is being asked to honour on behalf of his Prime Minister and his Government. During the election campaign, the former shadow schools Minister, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), gave a pledge, not to the country, but to the parents of children who had been awarded places under the assisted places scheme. The hon. Gentleman wrote:
  "If a child has a place at a school which runs to age 13, then that place will be honoured through to 13."
  There was no equivocation, and no talk of potential abuse. There was a clear commitment to honour every place.
  The Government have not taken that line since they published the Bill two months ago. There has been no talk of honouring places through to 13. Indeed, as we have heard this evening, Ministers have changed the line almost
  1102
  every time the matter has been discussed. We are now told that Ministers will use their discretion in deciding who has a valid place and who does not. Possession and knowledge of the document written by a spokesman for his Government before the election will decide whether parents are in a strong position to argue their case and whether they feel that they are part of that pledge.
  Ministers' warm words offer no guarantee to parents whose children have been awarded assisted places until the age of 13 as their proposed discretionary power could, by definition, be used to guarantee a child an assisted place or to deny a child an assisted place. In effect, Ministers are saying to parents, "Trust us. We will use our discretion."
  I appeal to the Secretary of State tonight not to leave those people hanging in the balance. He should honour the words of his colleague which were used in a letter that is now on the public record. He should demonstrate to the country that the Government are honourable and that the Prime Minister is honourable. If he does not, his actions will be judged by the people.
  Mr. Blunkett: I intend to be brief in my reply. I used the word "cant" from a sedentary position because we get lectures from Conservative Members about broken promises, about letters being sent by Labour Members when in opposition and about Governments fulfilling their promises to the electorate. We are getting those lectures from people who broke every promise going in the previous 18 years. Immediately they came into office in 1979, they broke many of the promises they had made in opposition. One example was that they tripled the number of the unemployed although they came into office on a promise to reduce unemployment. Some of us have long memories and some of us remember the slogan, "Labour isn't working". Conservative Members should not quote a letter sent by a shadow Minister, and they should not talk about a promise that was not given in a manifesto and that did not form part of the election campaign and then describe our actions as cant.
  Mr. Dorrell: Would the right hon. Gentleman like to reflect a moment on the doctrine that he is enunciating? Is he really saying that the only words that the Labour party regards itself as bound by are the words contained in its election manifesto? Is he really saying that none of the words used by its spokesmen are commitments that can be regarded as binding? Alternatively, would he prefer to go back to the proposition that he should be regarded as bound by the letter written by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle)?
  Mr. Blunkett: No, I am not enunciating a doctrine, and I am not suggesting what the right hon. Gentleman suggests. I am suggesting that, outside the House, the word that might be used about people who accuse us of breaking our word is "hypocritical". We are talking tonight about precisely the opposite of what is being suggested. We are saying that, despite the fact that there was no manifesto commitment and that the matter was not part of the general election campaign, we are prepared to honour what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service implied in his letter.
  We shall use discretion to carry through the commitment to children who were promised that they would be able to hold their places up to the age

  1103
  of 13. Children in secondary schools who start at the age of 10 will be able to carry through until they are 18 years old—and we did not overturn the new primary admissions policy that the previous Government had introduced.
  What I said about the upper House—the words have been twisted—needs to be clarified. I have not disputed for a moment the right of the upper House to send legislation back to this House or to move amendments. I have not suggested for a moment that that right does not exist. I merely pointed out that, had there not been hereditary peers, the amendment would not be before us, because it would have been defeated in the upper House. I think that that is a perfectly reasonable point to make from a democratically elected legislature that speaks on behalf of the British people.
  One day, the class wars in this country will be over; we shall have a modern democracy in the 21st century—
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: When you are gone.
  Mr. Blunkett: That sedentary suggestion is very interesting. It is the kind of very silly class remark that shows contempt for an elected legislature in a democracy.
  Mr. Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I am not giving way, because I am going to finish by saying—
  Mr. Dorrell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I have given way once to the right hon. Gentleman in what I promised would be a very short speech.
  We are fulfilling the commitment that was made. We have said that in the upper House and again tonight. I shall not read further words from my noble Friend Baroness Blackstone, although I have them here. I shall commit the House to carrying through what she pledged and what we have said calmly and sensibly tonight. Those who had a promise will have that promise fulfilled. Those who believed that the letter sent on 1 April gave them a commitment will be fulfilled. I promise the House that we shall fulfil those commitments, and that is why we ask the House to reject the Lords amendment.
  Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 120.

  Division No. 66]

  [7.11 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Barron, Kevin

  Ainger, Nick

  Battle, John

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Benton, Joe

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Berry, Roger

  Ashton, Joe

  Betts, Clive

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Blackman, Liz

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Blizzard, Bob

  Austin, John

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Banks, Tony

  Boateng, Paul

  Barnes, Harry

  Borrow, David

  1104

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Grogan, John

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Gunnell, John

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Burgon, Colin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Byers, Stephen

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hanson, David

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Healey, John

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cann, Jamie

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Casale, Roger

  Heppell, John

  Caton, Martin

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hill, Keith

  Chaytor, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Church, Ms Judith

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Clapham, Michael

  Hoey, Kate

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hope, Phil

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Clelland, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Colman, Tony (Putney)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cooper, Yvette

  Illsley, Eric

  Corbett, Robin

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jamieson, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

  Cox, Tom

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cranston, Ross

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kemp, Fraser

  Denham, John

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kidney, David

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dowd, Jim

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Drew, David

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Laxton, Bob

  Ellman, Ms Louise

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ennis, Jeff

  Levitt, Tom

  Etherington, Bill

  Linton, Martin

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Livingstone, Ken

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Lock, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McDonnell, John

  Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gapes, Mike

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McNulty, Tony

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McWalter, Tony

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McWilliam, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Mallaber, Judy

  Grant, Bernie

  Mandelson, Peter

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Marek, Dr John

  1105

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Martlew, Eric

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Singh, Marsha

  Meale, Alan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Michael, Alun

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Milburn, Alan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Snape, Peter

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Spellar, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Stevenson, George

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mountford, Kali

  Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mudie, George

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mullin, Chris

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Norris, Dan

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Timms, Stephen

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Olner, Bill

  Todd, Mark

  Pearson, Ian

  Touhig, Don

  Pendry, Tom

  Trickett, Jon

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Truswell, Paul

  Pickthall, Colin

  Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pike, Peter L

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pond, Chris

  Vaz, Keith

  Pound, Stephen

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Watts, David

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  White, Brian

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Quinn, Lawrie (Scarborough)

  Rammell, Bill

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Rapson, Syd

  Willis, Phil

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wills, Michael

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Winnick, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Rogers, Allan

  Wise, Audrey

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wood, Mike

  Rooney, Terry

  Woolas, Phil

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Ruane, Chris

  Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Wyatt, Derek

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Salter, Martin

  Mr. Greg Pope and

  Sawford, Phil

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Amess, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Baldry, Tony

  Burns, Simon

  Bercow, John

  Butterfill, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cash, William

  Blunt, Crispin

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Boswell, Tim

  Chope, Christopher

  1106

  Collins, Tim

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Colvin, Michael

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  MacKay, Andrew

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Maples, John

  Day, Stephen

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Duncan, Alan

  Merchant, Piers

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Norman, Archie

  Evans, Nigel

  Paterson, Owen

  Faber, David

  Prior, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Flight, Howard

  Robathan, Andrew

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gibb, Nick

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Ruffley, David

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Gray, James

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Green, Damian

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Greenway, John

  Spring, Richard

  Grieve, Dominic

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Streeter, Gary

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Syms, Robert

  Hammond, Philip

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hawkins, Nick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Heald, Oliver

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Townend, John

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Trend, Michael

  Horam, John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Walter, Robert

  Hunter, Andrew

  Wardle, Charles

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Whittingdale, John

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Willetts, David

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Leigh, Edward

  Woodward, Shaun

  Letwin, Oliver

  Yeo, Tim

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Lidington, David

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Loughton, Tim

  Mr. James Cran and

  Luff, Peter

  Sir David Madel.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment disagreed to.
  Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment to the Bill: Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. Stephen Byers, Ms Jean Corston, Mr. David Jamieson and Sir David Madel; Three to be quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  To withdraw immediately.
  Reasons for disagreeing to a Lords amendment reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords

  Law Officers Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.26 pm
  The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is a very short Bill with the modest purpose of improving the efficiency of my office. It is, incidentally, the first legislation promoted by the Law Officers for more than 50 years.
  Before I turn to the Bill, it may assist the House if I explain briefly the constitutional duties of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. The modern title of Attorney-General was first used in 1461. An occupant in 1700 was called the bull-faced Jonas. Elwyn Jones, whom we fondly recall, preferred not to be remembered as the bulldog of the Crown, but as the corgi of the community.
  Shortly after taking office, both the Solicitor-General and I swore ancient oaths, as our predecessors did, that we would sue the Queen's process "and after our cunning". I understood that to mean that we would use all our cunning in a better sense. Both the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General are members of the Government. Together with the Scottish Law Officers, they are the Government's chief legal advisers.
  The Law Officers also perform a wide range of duties in the public interest. In those roles, they are independent of the Government and are not bound by the doctrine of collective responsibility. Some of those functions arise from custom or the common law. For example, the Attorney-General on behalf of the Crown represents the interests of charity in the courts. He can lend his name to proceedings brought by a person who wishes to vindicate a public right. He traditionally advises the sovereign on peerage claims. Other functions are conferred by statute, such as the Explosive Substances Act 1883, which requires the Attorney-General's consent before a prosecution may be brought under it.
  The Solicitor-General has been regarded as the Attorney-General's deputy since the first Solicitor-General, Richard Fowler, was appointed in 1461. However, the Solicitor-General's ability to act as the Attorney-General's deputy is curiously limited. The reason is simply that most of the Attorney-General's functions are conferred on him personally. Unless statute or the common law provides otherwise, they are exercisable only by the Attorney-General. In 1944, that became an acute problem, when the Attorney-General, Sir Donald Somervell, was in America for several months assisting—I believe—in the drafting of the charter of the United Nations. The Solicitor-General was Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, who was unable to discharge Sir Donald's functions without express statutory authority.
  Parliament duly passed the Law Officers Act, which provided—and provides to this day—that the Solicitor-General has the power to act in the place of the Attorney-General where that office is vacant, or where the Attorney-General is absent or ill, or where the Attorney-General has authorised the Solicitor-General to act in a particular case.
  That was a useful reform, but the main drawback of the 1944 Act is that, so long as the Attorney-General is present, the Solicitor-General may not act on his behalf unless he has been specifically authorised to do so.
  1108
  That is needlessly bureaucratic. There are decisions in dozens of areas that have to be taken by the Law Officers. My officials cannot put papers directly to my noble and learned Friend the Solicitor-General asking him for a decision. Instead, they must put them first to me so that I can consider them and either grant the necessary authority or take the decision myself.
  The Bill will make it possible for the Attorney-General's responsibilities to be carried out more effectively, by allowing each of his functions to be discharged by the Solicitor-General. The functions, I should add, remain in law those of the Attorney-General, and the Solicitor-General will usually act in the Attorney-General's name.
  The Bill does away with the limitations in the 1944 Act. It thereby places the Solicitor-General, broadly speaking, in the position of a junior Minister in any other Department. A junior Minister may discharge his or her Secretary of State's functions without being specifically asked to do so in every case.
  Another weakness of the 1944 Act is that it says nothing about when or how the Solicitor-General may exercise the Attorney-General's common law functions. As a result, his authority comes from the common law itself, where the leading case of Wilkes dates from 1770. The Bill introduces some long overdue certainty.
  What I have said so far chiefly applies to England and Wales. Clause 2 makes similar provision for Northern Ireland. The House may at first find that clause bewildering, so I should explain that, by virtue of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, the Attorney-General for England and Wales is ex officio Attorney-General for Northern Ireland too. The Solicitor-General enjoys no such status, but under the same Act he may discharge the Attorney-General's functions in much the same circumstances as are set out in the Law Officers Act 1944.
  Finally, I should emphasise that it is the Attorney-General, as Minister in charge of the Department, who will remain ultimately responsible for the work of both Law Officers. I shall continue to decide how work should be divided between my noble and learned Friend and myself.
  7.32 pm
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am glad to welcome the Bill. Indeed, in other circumstances my Conservative successor as Attorney-General would have introduced a similar Bill. I had been looking for some years for a suitable slot in which to introduce the provision myself. Of course the Opposition will support the Bill, although it will not be necessary to support it in the Lobby.
  The Bill is to be welcomed, because it enables the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General to work together more efficiently and, where necessary, interchangeably. It will enable the work of the Law Officers' Department to be carried on more swiftly and effectively. In recent years, in particular, the lack of such a Bill has made it necessary to formalise the delegation of work in a somewhat bureaucratic way. When the Bill is passed, we shall be able to do away with that unnecessary formalization.
  I was interested to hear what the Attorney-General said about the provenance of the Law Officers' authority. I am not sure whether the analogy with junior Ministers should

  1109
  be taken too far, because the Solicitor-General is himself a holder of office pursuant to the royal seal, and has powers of his own as well as powers delegated to him by the Attorney-General.
  The Bill makes it unnecessary to formalise the delegation of work, and will also make it impossible to take some rather unmeritorious points in court in some of the tricky litigation in which the Law Officers are inevitably involved.
  I shall add a word about Northern Ireland. As the Attorney-General has rightly said, there is no formal position of Solicitor-General for Northern Ireland—no office under that title. But the Solicitor-General is always referred to as the Solicitor-General in Northern Ireland when he is acting at the behest of the Attorney-General over there.
  It has been an honourable tradition of Attorneys and Solicitors-General over the years, regardless of party, to work closely in Northern Ireland with all those responsible for relevant duties there, as well as with the judiciary.
  I regarded it as a great honour to have been called to the Bar in Northern Ireland, and I am confident that the present Attorney-General will have been called too, and is a member of the Bar there. I expect that the Solicitor-General has also been so called, and that both of them feel as Sir Derek Spencer and I did when we were respectively Solicitor-General and Attorney-General, and as Sir Patrick Mayhew and I did in the years when I was Solicitor-General and he was Attorney-General.
  We were both called to the Bar of Northern Ireland and were Queen's counsel within the Bar of Northern Ireland, as well as Benchers in Northern Ireland. Each of us regarded that as a great honour, and in the course of the work involved we were taken to all parts of the Province.
  1110
  This sensible little Bill will enable that work to be facilitated, as well as the work in England and Wales, and I am glad to give it our support.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),
  That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Pope.]
  Question agreed to.
  Considered in Committee.
  Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported, without amendment.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

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

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  That the draft Jobseeker's Allowance (Workskill Courses) Pilot (No. 2) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 3rd July, be approved.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND)
  That the draft Local Government Act 1988 (Competition) (Defined Activities) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]
  Question agreed to.

  Electricity Pylons (Vale of York)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
  7.38 pm
  Miss Anne McIntosh: I welcome this opportunity to raise a matter of great concern to my constituents and those of neighbouring hon. Members, including the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), and my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).
  The subject of overhead pylons through the Vale of York was first debated in 1991, and subsequently in 1992 and 1995. The discussions concerned the building of a new gas-fired power station at the ICI Wilton complex on Teesside, which was granted planning permission in 1991 and has subsequently been constructed. Rumours are circulating about a proposal for a new power station to be built in the Newcastle area which would create the totally unacceptable possibility of further transmission implications. The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry may be able to respond to my concerns.
  It was only subsequent to the granting of planning permission for the ICI Wilton complex that the National Grid Company proposed to construct new transmission lines running from Lackenby in Cleveland to Pickton in North Yorkshire, and then south to Shipton near York. One point of concern on which I would like the Minister to comment is that these two applications were treated for planning purposes as two separate events. The power stations gained planning permission without any apparent consideration of the environmental impact of the subsequent construction of 60 miles of pylons through some of the most stunningly beautiful countryside in rural England.
  My first concern is the impact on the environment. The House will be familiar with the work of REVOLT, which stands for Rural England Versus Overhead Line Transmission. It has 300 active members, stretching to 10,000 signatories of various petitions. That reflects the increasingly vociferous support for the REVOLT campaign throughout north Yorkshire. REVOLT and local residents have consistently argued that the lines were unnecessary, and that is my principal point this evening.
  The Teesside complex has been built and, subsequently, there has been no transmission from the plant. The new power station will use apparently spare transmission lines. My constituents, and those of other hon. Members in North Yorkshire, are concerned about that. If there were a proven need, there would not have been the campaign or the strength of feeling against the proposed pylons.
  There is also the perceived health hazard, an aspect which has not been investigated fully either by this House or by the public inquiries. The fundamental concern is that the proposal would harm the visual outlook of rural North Yorkshire and would have a negative impact on the prices of housing and other amenities in the immediate residential areas surrounding the pylons.
  North Yorkshire county council has lent its full support to the campaign and has consistently spoken against the pylons. The council is unconvinced that the line is required, and believes that the environmental impact of
  1112
  the construction is too high a price to pay and that the procedures leading to the present situation have been wrong.
  I would like to ask the Minister a number of questions. Have the Government actively discharged their duty under the European Union directive on environmental impact assessment—adopted in 1985—specifically article 3 and annexe 3 thereof? Have they undertaken a specific environmental impact assessment to identify, describe and assess the direct, indirect and secondary effects of the proposed line of pylons on the environment? It would be a source of satisfaction to the House if the Minister could report that such an impact assessment has been carried out. We are obliged under the directive and our treaty obligations to pursue such an assessment.
  My information is that such an assessment has not taken place, and I would like to report to my constituents that it will. Have the Government considered the negative impact on local amenities and specifically house prices, which would plummet should the pylons be constructed? Are the Government in a position to rule on the inspector's report and recommendations following the last public inquiry? The report has been with the Department of Trade and Industry for approximately two years.
  During the recent general election campaign, there was without a shadow of a doubt all-party support for the campaign against the construction of the pylons. The Labour candidate for my constituency promised to deliver a decision in the early days of a Labour Government that that Government would reject the proposals. I asked whether any candidate from any party or any member of any Government could deliver such a pledge, but the Minister has an excellent opportunity to deliver.
  If the Minister is unable—or does not have the competence—to reach such a decision, will he agree that the figures placed before the inspector at the last inquiry for the cost of transmission were erroneous? Will the Minister instruct another inquiry to assess the true cost? In my view, the true cost would reflect as a 15 per cent. loss in transmission—representing, at a conservative estimate, a £660 million loss to consumers.
  I accept that power stations are competitive, but they obtain a subsidy for long-distance transmission on the grid. They have an artificial incentive to locate near the fuel source and far from the end consumer. Does the Minister agree that the preferred option for industry, the consumer and the environment is to locate the power supply as close to the point of demand as possible? Will the Government therefore consider the option of underground transmission? Has this been considered or costed? Sweden and Australia have ruled that no alternative to underground transmission of electricity and gas supplies will be considered in future.
  As Sizewell B is now on line, what need is there for increased electricity in the south? Do not Sizewell A and B together satisfy the demand in the south, with resultant cheaper transmission costs?
  If the line were consented to, the door would be open, contractually, to increase Scottish imports to the south of England, which raises a wider national issue. There is no proven need for the pylons. It is my view and that of many of my constituents that erroneous transmission costs were presented to the inquiry. I urge that the true costs be investigated.

  1113
  Information exists that could show that the previous inquiry was crucially misinformed, and that gives good reasons for an early rejection of the proposed line of pylons. Failing that, I plead for the option of reopening the inquiry so that need, finances and the environment can finally be considered.
  I invite the Minister to rule against the construction of these ugly and obscene pylons in the interests of preserving our countryside as we know it and keeping rural England as stunningly beautiful as the Vale of York that we enjoy today. The people of the Vale of York are in the Government's hands and we await with eager anticipation a definitive decision against the construction of the pylons or, at the very least, a decision to open inquiries on the perceived need, the cost, the environmental impact and the knock-on effects on amenities and housing.
  Will the Government make the necessary changes to ensure that in future, in considering whether to approve power generation schemes, the environmental impact of transmission is also considered?
  7.51 pm
  Mr. John Austin: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) for allowing me to speak in her Adjournment debate. Hon. Members may be wondering why a London Member should be speaking on an issue concerning the Vale of York. I can explain that simply: BICC Cables—one of the few pieces of manufacturing industry left in London, and a world-class business which exports about 60 per cent. of its turnover but is also dependent on its United Kingdom business, as a major supplier to the National Grid Company—is located in my constituency.
  I recognise the hon. Lady's strength of feeling and determination to campaign on environmental issues in her constituency, as I have done in mine when it has been threatened by motorways or roads through areas of outstanding natural beauty, but I must state the position as it may affect employees and businesses in my constituency.
  The National Grid Company has a statutory obligation, determined not by Labour but by the previous Government, to connect all licensed generators to its transmission system and to transmit power generated by the licence holder to areas of need, no matter how many tens or even hundreds of kilometres away. There is currently excess generating capacity in Scotland and the north-east of England. It has been estimated that restricting the use of power stations in those areas may be costing as much as £50 million a year. I believe that the Department of Trade and Industry has an obligation to avoid that waste.
  BICC is also involved with underground cables, and welcomed the decision of the first public inquiry, in 1992, to put part of the link underground. On environmental grounds, I should like as much as possible of any transmission link to be underground; that would be good news for the environment as well as for employees in Erith.
  Labour cannot be held responsible for delays. Problems have been created for BICC, which first became aware of the project in 1991. The first public inquiry was in 1992,
  1114
  and, from 1993 to 1995, BICC did a great deal of preparatory work and detailed engineering study. The public inquiry recommendation published in 1994 gave approval for the link, with the stipulation that the section at Nunthorpe should be underground. The then President of the Board of Trade said that he was minded to accept the inquiry's findings. On that basis, BICC has continued to invest in the project and to keep spare capacity available at its factory in Erith; it has therefore suffered some detriment.
  The hon. Member for Vale of York said that there was unanimity among various candidates, but the former Conservative Member of Parliament for the former constituency of Erith and Crayford, Mr. David Evennett, pressed the then Minister, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, extremely hard in September 1996 for an early decision in the matter. Lord Fraser replied in a letter of 30 September 1996 that the Conservative Government were giving the matter careful consideration and noted his request for a decision as soon as possible.
  I know that the current Minister has had the matter on his desk for only a few weeks, but a decision is required fairly urgently if BICC Cables in Erith is not to suffer further detriment.
  7.57 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on the good fortune of having been elected to the House as the Member for a constituency which, along with Ryedale, Richmond, Yorks, and Skipton and Ripon, has represented since 1 May a substantial buffer of blue surrounded by a sea of red, and which also happens to be one of the most gloriously beautiful parts of the British Isles.
  There is no doubt that the issue raised by my hon. Friend has given rise to considerable anger for about five years, and I congratulate her on securing this debate. In the previous Parliament, I raised the matter on the Floor of the House on no fewer than three occasions: twice in the three-hour end-of-Session Adjournments and once on an Adjournment of the House.
  I offer a hand of friendship and sympathy to the Minister. He deserves it, because he has inherited an extremely difficult situation. I am sure that he will tell us that the matter has sat on Ministers' and officials' desks at the Department of Trade and Industry for the best part of two years. It is a tribute to the resilience of those of us who have been fighting this for some time that we have managed to keep the ball in play and avoid a decision being taken in favour of the pylons. As the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin) pointed out, other people want a different decision because of the trade and jobs that will be associated with it. Such decisions always have that dimension.
  Three points ought to be stressed, and they present the Minister with the solution to the dilemma that I acknowledge he faces. First, the basic reasons why the National Grid Company first applied for the power lines are no longer relevant. When the application was made, the people of North Yorkshire were told that the line was needed to meet the NGC's statutory obligation to connect a power station into the national grid, as the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead said. It did that, and, in the five years since the new power station at Bilton has been

  1115
  operating, it has been taken into the grid, there has been no reduction in the power demand from the plant, and the grid has worked. There have been no difficulties. I will not explain the technical terms. Our advisers talk of trip-outs and so forth, which have not occurred. So the need for the line has never been demonstrated on the original terms, which were to connect the Bilton power plant.
  Secondly, soon after the public inquiries into the matter were launched, the rabbit came out of the hat when it became clear that the NGC was about two separate things. First, it was seeking to strengthen the grid so that it could accommodate more power from more power stations built on the north-east coast.
  Two such power stations were in the planning stage, but I think that I am right in saying that no application has ever arrived on the desk of a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry or, formerly, the Department of Energy. One power station was to be called Flotilla and the other Neptune. Neither has progressed, for the simple reason that, while all this was going on, the Director General of Electricity Supply has rumbled the fact that we are spending so much money transmitting electricity around the country that there is a transmission loss and that it would be more effective and beneficial to consumers, whether domestic or industrial, if more power were generated closer to the market.
  The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): Build more power stations?
  Mr. Greenway: Yes, why not? If two more gas-fired power stations are to be built on the north-east coast to transmit electricity to the south of England, where the market is, why not transmit the gas and build the power stations in the south? That is a logical argument, and it would be more efficient to do so.
  Secondly, there is excess capacity in Scotland, as has been mentioned, I think by the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead. Really this is about creating the opportunity for more electricity imports into England and Wales from Scotland. When that became apparent, one of the two privatised electricity generators, PowerGen, joined the campaign against the pylons, saying that there was not a level playing field. It said, by all means let there be competition in electricity supply, but that means that electricity can, equally, go into Scotland. On that basis, PowerGen said that the power lines were not necessary.
  My third point shows the Minister how he can get out of this dilemma and give the people of North Yorkshire who will be affected by the power lines the opportunity of a fairer say than they have had already. From what the NGC told the original public inquiries, it is clear that they and the original inspector were misled on the key issue of transmission costs. The Minister has the correspondence in his file and on his desk. He knows that the NGC said that it would cost it more if it did not strengthen the grid than if it did, but, following the investigations into transmission costs undertaken by the director general, the reality is that, if it builds the power line, transmission costs will rise.
  If the inspector's recommendation to go ahead, which led the former President of the Board of Trade my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) to suggest that he was minded to accept the inquiry, was based on what
  1116
  can only be described, and is described by people in North Yorkshire, as completely duff information, why should the inquiry not be reopened so that the proper facts can be established? What has the NGC got to fear from a fresh inquiry and a fresh opportunity to state its case? It has convinced no one in North Yorkshire that the power lines are needed. On occasion, it has even failed to convince itself.
  My solution for the Minister is, please, give us the inquiry for which, as he knows, I have asked for the best part of 18 months in this and the previous Parliament, as has my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, whose constituency is greatly affected by the problem.
  Finally, there is no doubt that the structure of the privatisation of the electricity industry has created some of the difficulties we are faced with, as it was bound to do. That made it difficult for former Ministers to grant the decision that we would have liked.
  The present Minister is not inhibited by that consideration. He has the opportunity to tackle many of the criticisms of electricity privatisation that we heard when we were on the Government Benches and Labour was in opposition. He should not simply accept that he must make a certain decision because that was the structure of the way things were done. He has an opportunity for a fresh approach and a fresh look at the question. The fact that the NGC knows that it has been found out and that its case to the inquiry was based on bogus information gives us the perfect opportunity to have another inquiry.
  8.6 pm
  Ms Dari Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak tonight. I must also extend my thanks to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) for allowing me to speak in her debate, for which I am grateful.
  As this is my maiden speech, I will certainly pepper it with some eulogies about my constituency, but it is not merely the visual outlook of the people of Stockton, South that is harmed by pylons and overhead lines. Their gardens, streets and schools and the lives that people in so many parts of my constituency lead are, frankly, straddled by overhead lines. The visual impact of pylons when they start in one's garden is monstrous. It is not merely that I want to tell the hon. Lady that I do not want any part of the countryside in Great Britain and its beauty harmed or damaged. I am also speaking clearly for so many of my constituents who want those things removed from their gardens and homes.
  This is my maiden speech and it is incumbent on me to say some warm words about a constituency that I love. The River Tees runs through it, some very green and pleasant lands are attached to it and it has many leafy suburbs. It has people with considerable grit and guts. People who fight and have had to fight because their industry has been destroyed—sometimes, because people thought that it was not making sufficient profit and, oftentimes, because people were not concerned to put in the investment that the industry deserved and the people certainly deserve.
  My constituency has gone through awful changes. Many of my constituents are unemployed. In some parts, 50 per cent. of the residential area has no one in work. That is a sad statement for me to have to make. Many

  1117
  children face not only existing but accumulated deprivation. I balance that by noting that, while my constituents have put up with, and continue to put up with, industrial turmoil and decline, they are still in there fighting. They would most like their environment to be cherished more and damaged less.
  I pay tribute to my predecessor, Tim Devlin, who worked very hard for his party. He was a good constituency Member, as I intend to be. One of my predecessors, Harold Macmillan, was even more notable, although not necessarily more worthy, because he served as Prime Minister. I grew up during his era and, as a small child, sat in the House listening to him. I was spellbound by him and the others then in the House. My father was also a Member, representing Burnley. This is therefore a very special moment for me, because it brings back so many warm and cherished memories.
  I am saddened to have to make my maiden speech when I am pleading for the people of constituency and their life styles, and asking the utilities to behave in a decent manner by burying the overhead lines and getting rid of the pylons. I know that one should not use the word "conflict" in a maiden speech, but there is one in this case. I question what the utilities have said about their ability to make profit. Inevitably, it is profit that has driven them to build pylons and overhead lines.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Vale of York. As she stated, it is not only a question of the visual outlook. For many of my people in places such as Yarm and Eaglescliffe, it is a question of health. They believe that a health risk attaches to pylons and overhead lines. Some medical reports suggest that that could be the case. My constituents worry about bringing up their children in such an environment when they do not know whether there is a risk. We must press for better research.
  I must point out to the hon. Member for Vale of York that, should the Lackenby to Picton line go ahead, pylons and overhead lines will be removed from a part of my constituency. Some of my constituents will receive a tangible benefit. They long for the lines to come down, because supply will increase and make those lines redundant. The fact that there will be a clear and immediate benefit for some, while for others the hideous pylons and overhead lines will remain, creates an awful dilemma for me. I should welcome more research and development, and clearer ideas about how to transmit power more effectively. I should like to believe that we can produce energy at the point of need, rather than transmitting it as we do.
  I hope that this statement is accepted as being made with warmth and not in a spirit of conflict, but I wish that we had not had to wait 104 weeks for the report. It has clearly been with the Department of Trade and Industry for some time, and we should been given it earlier. We could have made clearer and more sensible statements to the electorate in the general election, rather than merely saying that we would fight to do what we could to support their needs. We could have spoken positively and clearly if the report had been made available earlier.
  This is an important debate, which I welcome. It is crucial that we get this argument right. It is very important for the countryside, but it is also important for the residents of Stockton, South.
  8.14 pm
  The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on securing this debate. I pay her a special compliment, because this is an unusual Adjournment debate. Such debates are usually held at the end of the day and conducted exclusively between a Member raising a constituency concern and a Minister, with other Members occasionally being allowed to ask a question. The hon. Lady has displayed extraordinary generosity in letting other hon. Members take part in the debate. The fact that they wanted to take part shows that there is real concern about the issue. I almost feel that the matter was worthy of a full Wednesday morning debate.
  It is also unusual for a Member to make a maiden speech in an Adjournment debate. Although she may not wish me to speak in such terms, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), because she spoke with passion and warmth of her constituency. As it was an unusual debate in which to make such a speech, I know that she did not spend not days and weeks preparing, but responded to the terms of the debate. The natural, articulate authenticity with which she spoke augurs well. She is a remarkable speaker and captured our attention. I pay tribute to her for having had the courage to make her first speech in such a debate. Her constituents have an articulate champion in the House. I and, I am sure, other hon. Members, look forward to hearing her often.
  I compliment the other hon. Members who spoke. I think that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) raised the matter in 1985.
  Mr. Greenway: Nineteen ninety-five.
  Mr. Battle: Yes. It was in 1991 and 1992 that the Leader of the Opposition raised it. I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin) for bringing his angle to the debate.
  The matter is one of the items that I inherited. To be provocative, I was left a rather large in-tray by the outgoing Government. This item stuck out between the bars at the bottom of the tray. I am not shy about intending to get through the in-tray to put it behind us so that we can get on to the agendas that we want to address in the medium and long term.
  The North Yorkshire lines are a long-running saga. The National Grid Company put in applications for a new 400 kV line development from Lackenby, Cleveland via Picton to Shipton in 1991. All the local planning authorities affected objected, as did more than 7,000 individuals. A public inquiry was held into the development in 1992 and a further public inquiry was held into proposed diversions in 1995.
  The 1992 inquiry was lasted six months, from May to November, and reported in October 1993. Following receipt of the report of the 1992 public inquiry, a letter was issued in May 1994 by the Department indicating the overall route to which the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), was minded to grant consent. He was minded to grant consent for much of the route as overhead lines. Copies of the inspector's report from the 1992 inquiry were placed in the Library at the time.

  1119
  A subsequent public inquiry was held between March and April 1995. It considered proposed line diversions, and reviewed general issues relating to the development. The report was received in December 1995. Since then, the Department has been considering all the evidence, including the material received since the inquiry closed.
  It may be a little churlish of me to say it, but I jibbed a little at the hon. Member for Vale of York's remark about my incompetence—I have been in the job for just 12 weeks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead said, the proposed development remained in the previous Government's in-tray for 104 weeks. It is now in my urgent action file, because I want the matter to be sorted out.
  As hon. Members will be aware, however, my involvement in the statutory progress precludes me from commenting on the merits and demerits of the application. I am tempted to comment, because I enjoy debate and I enjoyed listening to the range of views expressed tonight, but I hope that hon. Members will understand my role in the matter. I can become involved only when the President of the Board of Trade has considered all the details relating to the application and taken a decision. I must confine my remarks to general ones. I hope that hon. Members will accept my reply in that spirit. I have noted what has been said, which will, of course, be recorded in Hansard, and officials at the Department of Trade and Industry will also take note of those contributions.
  In opposition, we promised that, in government, we would look at all the evidence in the light of the two public inquiries and consider local and national needs. That is exactly what we are doing, so we are already acting on the suggestion of hon. Member for Vale of York.
  A fair amount of material has built up on the case and must be absorbed. The development has rightly been subjected to the detailed scrutiny of the planning process. Given the controversy that has arisen, it has also been rightly subjected to the attention of the House in the past and again tonight. I got a hint from the hon. Member for Ryedale that it may well be referred to again if the decision on the development drags on. I accept that, but, for our part, we need to consider the conclusions and recommendations in the report on the detailed inquiry in 1995. It is not yet in the public domain, but it reviewed general issues and the specific applications for line diversions.
  The line diversions are only part of the overall scheme, and it is therefore appropriate for us to look again at the report on the first inquiry in 1992, as well as the then Secretary of State's provisional conclusion on that inquiry in his letter of 12 May 1994. Various parties have submitted additional material to the Department since the last inquiry closed in 1995, which we also need to consider. We shall also obviously want to reflect on the views expressed by hon. Members tonight. That takes time, and if the Government were so unwise as to take an instant decision either at the Dispatch Box tonight or after we had so recently come into office, there would be complaints about our precipitate response to an Adjournment debate. All I can promise is that we shall reach a view on the case as soon as we properly can, in the light of all the material available.
  1120
  That means that account will be taken of environmental impact assessments and the cost of putting the lines under the ground, an alternative to which hon. Members have rightly referred. As far as I can recall, the inspectors considered in the first inquiry that the overhead lines in the proximity of the Teesside power station served a number of needs relating to the power station, the future possible growth of generation in the north-east and increasing exports from Scotland. Although the Department of Trade and Industry was aware of the concerns raised by objectors, the consent to the power station was granted without the environmental impact of the overhead line being taken into consideration.
  I understand that the previous Government decided that it would have been wrong to treat the overhead line as an integral part of the power station project and, therefore, to have delayed consent to that power station from 1990 until now. There was a division of decision relating to the power station and the line. Having said that, I should add that the overhead line proposals have been subject to full environmental assessments as required by the environmental assessment regulations. The hon. Member for Vale of York asked about that, and I hope that that information gives her a crumb of comfort. I will take that fact into account when reaching a decision on the development.
  I am well aware of calls for all overhead lines to be buried underground. I would not claim that overhead cables are a visual amenity in any landscape, but we must balance their existence with people's desire to have electricity supplied to their homes to light them and to operate their televisions, washing machines and all the other accoutrements that are run by electricity. Although I cannot comment on the development in question, I feel that we need to be realistic when making a decision, because those overhead lines may be needed somewhere.
  We need to take into account the environmental impact of overhead lines and consider the views of local communities about them. We also need to encourage companies to bury lines underground if they are placed in sensitive locations. We must recognise, however, the limits of present technology. To put a line underground is more expensive than to erect it overground, particularly at high voltage. The indications are that developing technology is unlikely to provide any immediate help in offsetting that cost difference. Those costs could feed through to commercial, industrial and domestic consumers.
  There are also other disadvantages associated with underground cables relating to constraints on agriculture and other developments because of the need to protect those cables. They could be less reliable and take longer to repair. All that I am suggesting is that we need to look at any plans on a case-by-case basis. That is the approach which we intend to pursue on the development in question.
  At this late stage in the evening, I do not want to start a full debate on the energy market, but the debate relates to it. The electricity supply industry is proving to be one of the most changing and dynamic markets of all time. Its shape is completely different from that expected on privatization.
  Mr. Greenway: And even in 1992.
  Mr. Battle: Yes. I seem to recall that, when the Electricity Act 1989 was passed, the pool system had not

  1121
  even been conceived, but it is now the main mechanism of the market. Some argue that more power stations should be built locally, while others argue that no more are needed because of generation over-capacity. Both those views have been expressed tonight. It is interesting to note Conservative Members' perception of that market.
  Following the debates on privatisation, I sometimes wonder whether Conservative Members recall that, as a result of the changes, Governments no longer build or run power stations or lines. They are run by private companies which must make market investment decisions, subject, of course, to the usual environmental and planning constraints. Developments are occurring in the market as new power stations are coming on stream and older stations are closed down. The regulator is also considering plans to introduce a more cost-reflective system of charging for transmission losses.
  We need to be aware of all those factors, but that does not mean that we can simply scrap all that has gone before, wipe the slate clean and pretend that we can start afresh as though the present integrated system did not exist. We must start from where we are, which is why decisions on developments are always difficult.
  I am aware that there is some concern about the possible health effects of power lines. Some months ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South drew my attention to that worry. It is a serious issue. An overhead line runs near to my house in Leeds, so it is something in which I take a personal interest—perhaps I should declare that.
  We should take seriously the debate about electric and magnetic fields. For the benefit of those who have not been intimately immersed in that debate, I should say that the health implications relate to the alleged effects of electric and magnetic fields which occur from the voltage forcing electric current along wires to feed appliances.
  1122
  The higher the voltage, the stronger the field; the voltage can also exist when no current is flowing. Those fields have been debated by hon. Members on other occasions, and I do not wish to detain the House by commenting further on them. Indeed, the hon. Member for Vale of York did not discuss them, so perhaps it is not appropriate to have a lengthy debate on them now, but they are a matter of concern.
  The National Radiological Protection Board has provided a useful information sheet, "Electric and Magnetic Fields". It is important that we treat the debate as scientifically and as seriously as we can to alleviate the worst fears and ensure that we live in as safe an environment as practically possible.
  I am not advocating complacency. I do not want this matter to remain in an in-tray for another 104 weeks, as it did under the previous Government. Health issues, environmental concerns and the concerns of local communities must all be taken seriously. I understand the frustration of hon. Members at not having a definitive decision, even after two public inquiries. I also understand that they are doing more than their best to represent their constituents by raising these matters in the House tonight.
  I appreciate that constituents have had to live with the uncertainty of this proposal for far too long. However, I plead with hon. Members to be patient, as this case has been with me for a mere 12 weeks. It has now been pulled out from the lower bars of the in-tray. We shall reflect on all the points made by hon. Members during the debate. I want to get on with the business of making the decision and removing the uncertainty. As I said, that will be as soon as is properly and practically possible. I assure hon. Members who have participated in the debate that I have no intention of holding up that decision.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Nine o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to share information on immigration matters with other EU states. [9835]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The participation of member states of the European Union in the work on immigration and asylum policy taken forward under the third pillar provides a framework for the sharing of information on immigration matters. The clearing houses, CIREA and CIREFI, have been established for this purpose. The United Kingdom participates fully in these arrangements. Additionally, we exchange information bilaterally with other European Union countries where there is a particular reason to do so.

  Minimum Sentences
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to announce his decision as to whether or not to implement the provisions of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 relating to minimum sentences for persistent burglars and drug dealers. [10369]

  Mr. Michael
  An announcement will be made as soon as we have completed our consideration of the relevant provisions of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997.

  Lighter Fuel Products
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will undertake consultations with interested parties with regard to the prohibition of the sale and supply of cigarette lighter fuel products to persons under the age of 16 years. [10222]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Under the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985 it is an offence to supply a substance to a person under 18 knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the substance is, or its fumes are, likely to be inhaled for the purpose of causing intoxication. We agree with the view of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs that amendment of this legislation would be unlikely to increase the level of protection of children, although work with the industry continues in order to reduce the extent to which lighter fuel refills can be abused.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to replace compulsory competitive tendering with a duty on police authorities to obtain best value. [10867]
  678
  Mr. Michael
  The Government are keen to involve the police service in the development of best value, and it will be open to police authorities to bid to be included in the pilot scheme to run best value projects announced today by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government.

  As part of our proposals to drive forward best value in the police service, we will encourage all police authorities, whether or not they are selected for pilot status, to co-operate in the development of best value by building on work already under way to promote value for money initiatives.

  At the same time, my hon. Friend's proposals to modify the current compulsory competitive tendering regulations and guidance, also announced today, will form the basis of discussions between my officials and representatives of the police service and police authorities.

  Huntingdon Life Sciences
  Ms Fiona Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken in response to the allegations against Huntingdon Life Sciences broadcast on television on 26 March. [10874]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We were extremely concerned about the events shown in the Channel 4 programme "Countryside Undercover: It's A Dog's Life", and we know that these concerns are shared by members of the public, and by scientists and animal technicians, the vast majority of whom are responsible and caring towards animals.

  The Home Office took prompt and firm action. On the morning after the programme was broadcast, the Home Office asked the police to investigate possible offences under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and, as a result, two individuals have been charged with such offences. In replying to this question, we cannot therefore comment, at this time, about these two individuals or their actions as this might prejudice the prosecutions.

  The chief inspector, who heads the animals (scientific procedures) inspectorate, has also carried out a comprehensive and detailed investigation into the allegations arising from the programme and into the management and control of animal work at the establishment. We understand that in excess of 250 man-hours of time were spent in viewing more than 20 hours of unbroadcast video material, studying journals and company records, visiting the establishment and interviewing staff (both present and ex-employees). A report detailing his findings and recommendations was submitted to the Home Office last week and we commend the chief inspector for the speed and thoroughness of his investigation.

  The investigation has shown breaches of two of the standard conditions which apply to all certificates of designation. Shortcomings relating to the care, treatment and handling of animals, and delegation of health checking to new staff of undetermined competence demonstrate that the establishment was not appropriately staffed and that animals were not at all times provided with adequate care.

  My right hon. Friend therefore proposes to revoke the certificate of designation for this establishment, subject to

  679
  the consideration of any representations made under section 12 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. However, if the proposed revocation took immediate effect, we estimate that up to 1,000 dogs; 10 baboons; 200 marmosets; 450 macaques; 13,000 mice; 35,000 rats; 2,000 rabbits; 4,000 guinea pigs; 3,000 birds; 4,000 fish; and smaller numbers of various other species undergoing scientific procedures would have to be destroyed. In addition, any ongoing work might need to be repeated; this would require the use of more laboratory animals. It is therefore proposed that the revocation will take effect on 30 November 1997.

  Revocation would shut down the company with the consequent loss of 1,400 jobs. Whilst the failures and omissions at the establishment are extremely serious, this outcome would not necessarily be warranted. An application for a replacement certificate could, therefore, be considered if my right hon. Friend can be assured that measures have been put in place to prevent any recurrence of the events shown in the television programme. Sixteen stringent conditions have been set which must be met before any new application can be considered.

  In addition to the two individuals facing prosecution, my right hon. Friend proposes to revoke the personal licence of a third animal technician—again, subject to the right to make representations—and it has been decided that letters of admonition should be sent to two other technicians.

  The Home Office, and specifically the animals (scientific procedures) inspectorate, was criticised for having missed alleged mistreatment, for failure to implement the requirements of the "Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Used in Scientific Procedures", and for having conducted inspections during which no checks were made on the animals being cared for by the undercover investigator.

  We are satisfied that any alleged mistreatment of animals would not have taken place in front of inspectors; that there was compliance with the code of practice; and that an appropriate proportion of inspectorate resources was directed at the establishment concerned. On each of the visits of inspection witnessed by the investigator, animals in other parts of the dog unit were checked and the performance of regulated procedures observed. The current inspection policy will, however, be reviewed and we have already announced that we will be considering ways of strengthening the inspectorate.

  Whilst no breaches of the "Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Used in Scientific Procedures" were identified, we are aware of public concern about the conditions in which the dogs were kept. We have, therefore, decided that the inspectorate will audit all commercial dog facilities to identify best practice and innovations with respect to the housing and care of animals, and that this information will be used to inform national standards.

  It has also been deduced that the need for a code of conduct for the control of dogs and other species in all establishments should be considered.

  The Animal Procedures Committee is keen to consider and promulgate to establishments any other general lessons which can be learned in order to help prevent similar occurrences in the future. We welcome this.
  680
  The chief inspector's report contains information which was provided in confidence and which cannot, therefore, be disclosed under section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. It cannot therefore be published in full.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the resources available to the Prison Service. [10940]

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his plans for budgetary adjustments within the Prison Service to reflect the forecast rise in the prison population in each of the next three years. [10098]

  Mr. Straw
  In order to ensure that the Prison Service can accommodate the projected numbers safely, it will be able to spend up to an extra £43 million during this year and next. This will create 290 new places on top of the existing building programme, and provide additional staffing and funding for regime activities to support the placing of an additional 1,830 prisoners in existing accommodation, 630 of whom are already being detained.

  I will tomorrow place in the Library a report of the findings of the audit of Prison Service resources which has been carried out in accordance with our manifesto.

  Operation Quantum
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what period the contract for Operation Quantum will be awarded. [10091]

  Ms Quin
  It is anticipated that any contract will be awarded for a period of up to 10 years from completion of implementation.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of posts remaining within the Prison Service at administrative and executive grades after the completion of Operation Quantum. [10096]

  Ms Quin
  I am not in a position to make an estimate of the number of posts which will remain within the Prison Service at this stage. Final decisions have not yet been made on the scope of the project, nor on whether the services in question should be contracted-out or remain in-house.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which companies have been invited to tender for Operation Quantum. [10089]

  Ms Quin
  The Prison Service has not yet issued invitations to tender for Quantum. Three suppliers have taken part in a study of the Prison Service's requirements. These are:

  PRISM—a special vehicle company comprising Sema Group, Bull, Deloitte & Touche Consulting, Serco, Premier Prison Services Ltd. and CSL.

  EDS—with A. T. Kearney, Lockheed Martin and Securicor Custodial Services.

  Team Novus—Comprising ICL, Group 4 (Securitas), Perot Systems and Capita.

  Geoffrey Thomas
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the report of the Prison Service inquiry into the death of Geoffrey Thomas; [10094]

  (2) if an offer of compensation to Mrs. Marina Davis, the mother of Geoffrey Thomas whose death was the subject of the Prison Service inquiry has been made; and what negotiations regarding the matter are in progress; [10093]

  (3) for what reasons the disciplinary proceedings against five members of the staff of Cardiff prison arising out of the use of physical restraints upon Geoffrey Thomas whilst a patient in the University Hospital of Wales at Cardiff have commenced and been adjourned; and on what date the proceedings will re-commence. [10095]

  Ms Quin
  At present, the Prison Service does not publish investigation reports into the deaths of prisoners. The policy on the disclosure of such reports is currently being reviewed.

  The Prison Service has not made an offer of compensation to Mrs. Marina Davis in respect of her son, Geoffrey Thomas, and no approach has been made to the service by her, or her representatives regarding compensation.

  Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against five members of staff at Cardiff prison following the death of Geoffrey Thomas. The first hearing took place on 19 May. Three of the cases have been concluded: one case was proven and two were not.

  The Prison Governor's Association has questioned the legality of the actions of the governor in the investigation of the cases. The disciplinary proceedings against the other two members of staff were suspended on 22 May, pending the resolution of these legal issues.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Barristers
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many barristers were paid(a) £100,000 to £249,999 and (b) £250,000 or over out of public funds in the last available year. [9191]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for what reason

  Grade

  Civil Service equivalent

  Asian origin

  Afro-caribbean origin

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Senior Civil Service

  —

  1

  5.56

  0

  —

  Senior Registration Assistant 1

  Grade 6

  0

  —

  0

  —

  Senior Registration Assistant 2

  Grade 2

  0

  —

  0

  —

  Senior Registration Assistant (Lawyer)

  Grade 6 or 7

  2

  1.83

  0

  —

  Registration Executive 1

  SEO

  3

  1.10

  1

  0.37

  Registration Executive 2

  HEO

  6

  1.20

  1

  0.20

  The percentage figures are expressed as a percentage of staff within each grade who responded to the ethnic survey. The overall response rate is 94.4 per cent. within the Land Registry.
  682
  officials from the Public Record Office are carrying out a review to estimate the cost of opening Government files after (a) 20 and (b) 25 years; what are the terms of reference of this review; when it began; when it is expected to end; and if copies of the report arising out of the review will be made available to the public. [9469]

  Mr. Hoon
  The work forms part of the preparation of the Government's White Paper on freedom of information, which will be published later in the year.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many and what percentage of civil servants in each of grades 1 to 7, SEO and HEO in his Department are of(a) Asian origin and (b) Afro-Caribbean origin. [9566]

  Mr. Hoon
  For the Lord Chancellor's Department, including the Court Service and the Public Trust Office, the information, as at 18 July 1997, is set out in the table. Figures and percentages are based upon a 91 per cent. response to a voluntary staff survey of ethnic origin. There is no legislative requirement to monitor the ethnic origin of Northern Ireland Court Service employees and no figures are available. I have asked the chief executives of the Land Registry and the Public Record Office to reply separately.

  Respondents of Asian origin

  Percentage

  Respondents of Black African and Black Caribbean origin

  Percentage

  Grade 1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 6

  1—

  1.63

  —

  —

  Grade 7

  1—

  1

  1—

  0.5

  SEO

  1—

  0.38

  1—

  0.38

  HEO

  11

  1.18

  12

  1.28

  1In order to preserve the anonymity of individuals, figures of five or less are not specified.

  Letter from Stuart Hill to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 24 July 1997:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question concerning the number of staff within two ethnic categories.
  Following a Grading and Pay Review the Land Registry has moved to a new system of grades for staff below the Senior Civil Service. The new grades are shown against the Civil Service equivalents.
  The information is as follows:
  683
  Letter from Sarah Tyacke to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 24 July 1997:
  The Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply for the Public Record Office to your question about the numbers and percentages of civil servants of Asian and of Afro-Caribbean origin.

  Grade/Band

  Staff of Asian origin

  Percentage of total

  Staff of Afro-Caribbean origin

  Percentage of total

  Civil Service Grade 1

  No staff in this grade

  —

  —

  —

  Civil Service Grade 2

  No staff in this grade

  —

  —

  —

  Civil Service Grade 3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Civil Service Grade 4

  No staff in this grade

  —

  —

  —

  Civil Service Grade 5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  PRO Band 1 (Civil Service Grades 6 and 7)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  PRO Band 2 Civil Service Grades 8 and 9 (SEO, HEO) and equivalents

  0

  0

  1

  2.0

  PRO Band 3 Civil Service Grades 9 and 10 (HEO, EO) and equivalents

  1

  1.9

  0

  0

  Employment Advertisements
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how often since 1992 his Department has been responsible for employment advertisements which contained age restrictions upon those who could apply. [9501]

  Mr. Hoon
  This reply is given on behalf of the Court Service, the Land Registry, the Northern Ireland Court Service, the Public Record Office, Lord Chancellor's Department headquarters and its associated offices, and the Public Trust Office.

  The Land Registry and the Public Record Office do not include age restrictions in their recruitment advertisements.

  An advertisement for a combined recruitment scheme for direct entrant executive officers in the Court Service, Public Trust Office and LCD HQ in 1992 contained age restrictions; but there have been no instances since then when either the Public Trust Office or LCD HQ have included upper or lower age limits in their advertisements.

  As regards the Court Service, all advertisements for usher and bailiff posts until July last year specified a lower age limit. As such advertisements were placed locally by the courts concerned, it would not be possible to identify how often they have appeared between 1992 and July 1996 without incurring disproportionate cost.

  The Northern Ireland Court Service has included age restrictions in 18 advertisements placed since the beginning of 1992.

  In addition, there have been around 25 occasions on which advertisements for judicial appointments have been placed since October 1994, all of which will have included upper and lower age limits.

SCOTLAND

  Statistics
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to ensure that those statistics on
  684
  The details are set out below. Most of our staff are covered by our own payband system and I have given the approximate civil service grade equivalents for guidance.

  (a) poverty and (b) other social issues currently available only on a United Kingdom basis are published on a Scottish basis. [6631]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Scottish Office, the Office for National Statistics and other Government Departments work closely together to publish a wide range of official statistics for Scotland and for the UK. Working across government, the Government statistical service has recently initiated several related development tasks aimed at improving the range, value and accessibility of official statistics. Scottish Office GSS staff are closely involved in that work. They are reviewing what statistical information is published about Scotland and how it is made available, consulting closely with local authorities, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other key customers.

  Wherever possible, key statistical information is published at both Scotland and UK level. Where data are based on surveys, however, the sample size may be too small to allow statistically reliable data to be produced. In other cases, strict comparisons between Scotland and the rest of the UK may not be possible, or must be treated with caution, because of differences between the systems, such as in education.

  The latest edition of "Regional Trends", published by ONS on Thursday 10 July, gives key social and economic statistics for both Scotland and the UK. Information at UK level on those with low incomes is available in "Households Below Average Income", published annually by the Department of Social Security and the latest edition, for 1993–94 data, included some information for Scotland.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in each local authority area currently(a) receive residential care allowance and (b) do not receive residential care allowance because they are in local authority homes. [9611]

  Mr. Galbraith
  (a) The payment of residential care allowances is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. Figures for each local authority area are not available. Current data

  685
  published by the Department of Social Security for August 1996 indicate, on the basis of a sample survey, that the estimated number of people in Scotland receiving residential care allowance was 13,000. This figure includes people in residential care homes and nursing homes.

  (b) The latest available information is for 31 March 1996 and is set out in the table.

  Residents in local authority residential care homes: Scotland— 31 March 1996

  Local authority

  Number of residents

  Aberdeen

  425

  Aberdeenshire

  363

  Angus

  220

  Argyll and Bute

  173

  Clackmannanshire

  34

  Dumfries and Galloway

  275

  Dundee

  451

  East Ayrshire

  131

  East Dunbartonshire

  52

  East Lothian

  152

  East Renfrewshire

  44

  Edinburgh

  652

  Falkirk

  205

  Fife

  479

  Glasgow

  1,140

  Highland

  361

  Inverclyde

  70

  Midlothian

  143

  Moray

  143

  North Ayrshire

  127

  North Lanarkshire

  456

  Orkney Islands

  77

  Perth and Kinross

  249

  Renfrewshire

  282

  Scottish Borders

  212

  Shetland Islands

  63

  South Ayrshire

  167

  South Lanarkshire

  442

  Stirling

  158

  West Dunbartonshire

  245

  West Lothian

  191

  Western Isles

  163

  Scotland

  8,345

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hospital patients are currently occupying beds in each health board area because of local authorities' inability to provide placements in nursing homes. [9699]

  Mr. Galbraith
  In March 1997, health boards reported that around 750 patients throughout Scotland were ready for discharge from hospital but were awaiting appropriate accommodation and packages of care in the community, including in nursing homes. There are many reasons why such patients may need to remain in hospital. Information on the number of patients ready for discharge to the community is not collected routinely.

  Nursery Places
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to provide additional funding for nursery places in 1998 to match the current year's provision. [9615]

  Mr. Wilson
  Some £67 million has been set aside for provision of pre-school education in Scotland in 1998–99 compared with £47.3 million in 1997–98. This will enable Government funding of part-time education on the current basis for all children in the pre-school year. Local 686
  authorities also use their discretion to spend additional sums on pre-school education, funded from other resources. Since we are constrained by existing funding, I have no plans to make additional finance available at present.

  School Bus Drivers
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to arrange for school bus drivers to be(a) trained and (b) given powers to control any misbehaviour by passengers. [9612]

  Mr. Wilson
  The training of school bus drivers is a matter for the operator and the relevant education authority. The Public Service Vehicle (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990 enable a bus driver to remove any passenger who puts at risk, or unreasonably impedes, or causes discomfort to, any other passenger or to operating staff and to request a police constable to remove such a person. If the vehicle is operating under contract to an education authority, any additional grounds on which drivers may refuse the right of carriage are a matter for the operator under the terms of the contract. It is for each education authority to decide whether to provide supervisors on buses hired by them. In doing so, they will take into account that education authorities' common law duty of care for pupils is supplemented by a statutory duty under the Schools (Safety and Supervision of Pupils) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 to take reasonable care for the safety of pupils when under their care.

  Teachers
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to enhance the role of the General Teaching Council to provide quality control of Scottish teachers during their career. [10168]

  Mr. Wilson
  I shall give very careful consideration to how any extension of the GTC's current remit would best contribute to our objectives of increasing standards in education and making every teacher an effective teacher. I intend to consult fully on this and to bring forward proposals thereafter.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set out the age profile of primary and secondary teachers in Scotland. [10169]

  Mr. Wilson
  The latest available information is given in the table.

  Age profile of teachers in publicly funded primary and secondary schools in Scotland at September 1994

  Number of teachers (full-time equivalent)

  Age1

  Primary

  Secondary

  Under 25

  1,074.9

  614.2

  25 to 29

  1,872.0

  1,585.5

  30 to 34

  1,578.1

  2,299.9

  35 to 39

  3,291.6

  4,050.5

  40 to 44

  5,425.2

  5,849.5

  45 to 59

  4,583.5

  5,289.2

  50 to 54

  2,604.2

  2,893.8

  55 to 59

  1,511.0

  1,467.5

  60 and over

  276.0

  347.5

  Total

  22,216.5

  24,397.6

  1 Age as at September 1994.

  Travel to London
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the number of journeys each year made by people travelling from Scotland to meet Ministers, civil servants or hon. Members in London. [10170]

  Mr. Dewar
  I know there is a large volume of such journeys but the Scottish Office does not quantify them.

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the methods of artificial fertilisation available in Scotland indicating those methods funded by each health board and (b) the number of patients treated by each method (i) broken down by health board and (ii) in total for each of the last five years. [10011]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Infertility services are divided into three levels. Level 1 services are provided by a general practitioner or general gynaecologist while level 2 services, involving more advanced investigation and treatment, are normally provided by a specialist. Level 3 infertility services are high technology procedures and are available at four centres in Scotland. The range of level 3 treatments provided in Scotland are:

  Invitro fertilisation—IVF

  Intra-cytoplasmic sperm insemination

  Cryopreservation of embryos and replacement cycles

  Oocyte donation

  Super ovulation with intra-uterine insemination

  Donor insemination

  Embryo and sperm freezing and storage

  Tubal microsurgery and ovulation induction.

  Levels 1 and 2 infertility services are provided by all health boards. Individual health boards determine the provision of level 3 infertility services. I understand that all health boards provide level 3 IVF services for patients who meet specific criteria.

  Information on other level 3 methods funded by health boards and the number of patients treated by each method under each level is not routinely collected.

  Education (Fees and Awards) (Scotland) Regulations
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to revise the Education (Fees and Awards) (Scotland) Regulations. [10870]

  Mr. Wilson
  I confirm that an amendment to the Education (Fees and Awards) (Scotland) Regulations 1997 will be laid before Parliament to introduce a requirement of being settled in the United Kingdom under the immigration laws. The amendment will add this requirement to the existing residency criteria for establishing a "relevant connection" for the purpose of student fee classifications by institutions and the rules of candidate eligibility for certain awards which may be adopted under the regulations.

  Registers of Scotland
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the targets he expects Registers of Scotland to achieve in the three-year period 1997 to 2000. [10871]

  Mr. Dewar
  I have set Registers of Scotland the following key targets for 1997–2000:for the trading fund to achieve a return of 6 per cent. on net capital employed over the three-year period ending 31 march 1999 and on a rolling basis thereafter;
  to continue the land register's extension programme and achieve the transfer of the counties of Perth, Angus and Kinross on 1 April 1999; Berwick, East Lothian, Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles on 1 October 1999; and Argyll and Bute on 1 April 2000;
  to maintain and enhance customer service through the retention of charter mark and by improving customer satisfaction on first registration turnround times to 75 per cent. by 31 March 2000;
  to reduce progressively the turnround time for sasine writs to 25 days by 31 March 1999 and 23 days by 31 March 2000;
  to reduce progressively the turnround time for dealings with whole on the land register to 25 days by 31 March 1999 and to remain at 25 days during 1999–00;
  to reduce unit costs by 5 per cent. in real terms for sasine writs by 31 March 2000 from the base of £33.07 at 31 March 1997;
  to reduce unit costs by 2.4 per cent. in real terms for dealings with whole by 31 March 2000 from the base of £56.05 at 31 March 1997;
  to launch a direct access service to existing pilot customers by 30 April 1997; and
  to complete the conversion of the existing land register counties to a digitised map and computer-based text system by
  31 October 1997.

  Land Register (Scotland) Act 1979
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in extending registration of title under the Land Register (Scotland) Act 1979 to further areas of Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [10872]

  Mr. Dewar
  The original programme to extend the land register was announced in 1992. At that time, the counties of Renfrew, Dunbarton, Lanark and the barony and regality of Glasgow were already on the land register. Since 1992, the counties of Clackmannan, Stirling, West Lothian, Fife, Aberdeen, Kincardine, Ayr, Dumfries, Kirkcudbright and Wigtown have been made operational. The areas where the land register currently operates over 60 per cent. of total housing stock.

  Following the 1994 report of the Committee of Public Accounts, "Registers of Scotland: Service to the Public" Cmd 2739, the keeper of the registers considered whether the programme should be amended. A revised programme was adopted in 1996.

  Registers of Scotland is now operating as a trading fund. Because it has been experiencing unexpected difficulties in assimilating its new computer systems, and in order that it can meet its objectives in its first three years of its trading fund status, I have now approved a revised programme for the remaining counties as shown below. The main change is simply that no new counties

  689
  will be taken into the land register in 1998, but the year 2003 remains the target date for completion of the extension programme.

  Land Register Extension Programme: 1997

  April 1999

  Angus

  Kinross

  Perth.

  October 1999

  Berwick

  East Lothian

  Peebles

  Roxburgh

  Selkirk.

  April 2000

  Argyll

  Bute.

  April 2001

  Midlothian.

  April 2002

  Inverness

  Nairn.

  April 2003

  Banff

  Caithness

  Moray

  Orkney and Shetland

  Ross and Cromarty

  Sutherland.

  Ferry Services
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has made a decision for the award of subsidy for the operation of passenger ferry services to Orkney and Shetland; and if he will make a statement. [10873]

  Mr. Dewar
  I intend to lay before the House as soon as practicable a draft undertaking to secure the continuation of these ferry services. The draft undertaking will propose the payment of a block grant subsidy for the operation of the northern isles passenger ferry services to P and O Scottish Ferries. The duration of this agreement will be from 1997 to 2002. The Government have taken this decision following an evaluation of the bids received in response to an open competitive tendering exercise. I propose to commence a new open tendering exercise next year for the award of a longer—term subsidy agreement commencing in 2002. The Government expect that, by 2002, new vessels will be needed for these services and an early decision will allow sufficient time for the successful operator to build new ships. Prior to initiating a new competition, the Scottish office will, as part of the Government-wide comprehensive spending review, be re-evaluating northern isles services. The future service specification will be based on this review.

  The Government have examined the option of allowing a bid from Caledonian MacBrayne for the immediate block contract. It is clear that CalMac does not have vessels in its fleet capable of taking over the northern isles services in the short-term, nor does the current second hand vessel market currently offer suitable tonnage. However, the Government have decided to invite CalMac
  690
  to consider whether it can identify a basis for entering the open tendering exercise for the new subsidy agreement commencing in 2002 which would be consistent with the overall level of public expenditure affordable for shipping services.

  The previous Government initiated the open competitive tendering exercise in June 1995. Three bids were received and, after thorough consideration, the Government now conclude that P and O Scottish Ferries offers the best value for money.

  The Government's agreement with P and O Scottish Ferries will safeguard the existing pattern of services for the next five years and includes guarantees for the export of livestock and the carriage of hazardous goods. Under the agreement, P and O Scottish Ferries will be paid a basic annual block grant of £11.018 million subject to clawback arrangements should profits exceed current forecasts.

  The profitability of northern isles passenger ferry services has been declining over a number of years due to fierce competition from freight-only operators. This competition has resulted in a sharp fall in tariffs which, whilst good news for businesses and consumers in the northern isles, reduces the income from passenger ferry services which carry a substantial amount of freight.

  Passenger ferry operators are also required to adhere to much stricter safety regulations than freight operators. The latest regulations, the Stockholm agreement—introduced following the Estonia tragedy—will require either expensive modifications or the withdrawal of non-compliant vessels by 2002. By that date, P and O Scottish Ferries' three passenger ships will be some 30 years old. Costly upgrades to ships this old are not judged worthwhile. Instead, the Government have agreed to cover the increased depreciation charges required to write down the vessels to a realistic market value by 2002. If any modifications to P and O Scottish Ferries' three passenger ferries are required to meet safety of life at sea—SOLAS—95 regulations in the period before 2002, the Government will fund these by capital grant.

  Declining freight profits and the additional cost of depreciation require an addition to subsidy costs compared with previous years, even although P and O Scottish Ferries' bid was lower than any other. The alternative would be to impose significantly increased fares on islanders or visitors, which the Government have rejected. This subsidy agreement represents a substantial financial commitment by the Government to safeguarding the passenger ferry services to Orkney and Shetland and to keeping fares down.

PRIME MINSTER

  Digital Communications Systems
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to transfer powers between the Department of Trade and Industry and/or the Home Office and/or the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, in respect of the convergence of digital communication systems. [10339]

  The Prime Minister:
  None.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Accounts
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the accounts for the Duchy of Lancaster will be laid in the Library. [11003]

  Dr. David Clark
  I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that the accounts of the Duchy of Lancaster for the year ended 31 March 1997 have been laid in the Libraries of the House today.

  Quangos
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to extend the democratic accountability of quangos in England. [11002]

  Dr. David Clark
  As part of its programme to clean up politics, the Government are determined that all unelected public bodies should be fully answerable for what they do. They should conduct their business so that they are both efficient, effective and economical in providing their expert advice and services to the public and to Government, and accessible, responsive and transparent to the public whom they ultimately serve. The White Papers on Scotland and Wales show that this democratic approach is central to the Government's plans for devolution. Our purpose is the same for public bodies which operate on a United Kingdom or Great Britain basis, those covering England alone and those serving England and Wales.

  I propose in the autumn to issue a discussion paper considering how democratic oversight of those bodies might best be enhanced, not least through the full implementation of the recommendations of the Nolan committee. In the light of consultation, I shall bring forward proposals in the forthcoming White Paper on better Government.

  Members' Interests
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 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 Members under categories 1, 2, 3, 4(b), 8 and 9 in the Register of Members' Interests. [8066]

  Dr. David Clark
  [pursuant to his reply 17 July 1997, 332]: 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.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Employment Advertisements
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how often since 1992 his Department or its predecessor departments have been responsible for employment advertisements which contained age restrictions upon those who could apply. [9511]

  Angela Eagle
  The recruitment and employment of staff is the responsibility of each individual body—quango—which seek to attract applicants from diverse backgrounds. The Department, for its part, is keen, wherever possible, to encourage equality of opportunity within non-departmental public bodies. The information requested is not held by my Department.

  Air Quality (Brent Cross)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the impact on air quality standards of increased traffic flows arising from the proposed extension of Brent Cross shopping centre; and if he will make a statement. [9186]

  Angela Eagle
  Estimating the impacts of individual new developments on air quality is primarily a local matter, in which the Secretary of State is not involved.

  The effects of air pollution are, in appropriate cases, capable of being taken into account by a planning authority as a material consideration in relation to a planning application. The weight to be given to such considerations is for the judgment of the decision maker.

  I understand that in this case an environmental appraisal, covering air quality, was carried out by those applying for planning permission. I also understand that the local authority is currently considering the conclusions of that appraisal and monitoring air quality in the area.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what are the total capital receipts for each local authority in Hampshire arising from the sale of council houses since 1979; [9316]

  (2) how much of the capital receipts from council houses sales since 1979 has been used to avert borrowing; and how much remains in local authority accounts for each local authority in Hampshire, [9401]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Figures for(a) total capital receipts arising from the sale of council houses and flats between 1980–81 and 1996–97 and (b) housing capital receipts set aside between 1990–91 and 1995–96 are set out for each local authority in Hampshire in the table.

  The first column includes all receipts from the sales of council dwellings, including—since 1990–91—those which could be used to finance capital expenditure as well as those which had to be set aside. The distinction between usable and set-aside receipts is not relevant before 1990–91.
  693
  Information is not available on the amount of set-aside housing receipts that authorities have used to avert borrowing, nor on the amount remaining in local authority accounts.

  £000

  Receipts from sale of council dwellings, 1980–81 to 1996–97

  Receipts set aside from sales of housing revenue account assets 1990–91 to 1995–96

  Basingstoke and Deane

  (8) 197,539

  82,221

  East Hampshire

  94,801

  41,142

  Eastleigh

  (1) 81,755

  37,480

  Fareham

  (2) 29,442

  3,077

  Gosport

  38,425

  6,573

  Hart

  43,051

  18,080

  Havant

  72,892

  26,819

  New Forest

  (1) 59,209

  8,032

  Portsmouth

  129,642

  13,618

  Rushmoor

  116,116

  53,140

  Southampton

  (2) 87,729

  14,313

  Test vally

  75,667

  11,762

  Winchester

  (1)51,872

  7,949

  Source:

  Quarterly housing return (PIB), Housing revenue account subsidy claim form.

  Note:

  No figures are available for receipts from the sale of council houses prior to 1 April 1980. Figures in brackets indicate incomplete data, showing the number of quarters missing during the period. Figures for set-aside receipts in 1996–97 are not yet available.

  We are in the process of consulting the Local Government Association and local authorities on the Govnerment's capital receipts initiative. The final decision about the basis on which resources are to be distributed to individual authorities will be made when that consultation process is complete.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much of the capital receipts from council house sales since 1979 has been used to avert borrowing; and how much remains in local authority bank accounts in each local authority in the United Kingdom. [9771]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A table showing(a) the total capital receipts arising from the sale of council houses and flats between 1979–80 and 1995–96, and (b) housing capital receipts set-aside between 1990–91 and 1995–96 for each English local authority has been placed in the Library of the House. The totals for authorities in England are respectively (a) £24.6 billion, and (b) £5.3 billion.

  The first figure includes all receipts from the sales of council dwellings, including—since 1990–91—those which could be used to finance capital expenditure as well as those which had to be set aside. The distinction between usable and set-aside receipts is not relevant before 1990–91.

  No figures are available for receipts from the sale of council houses prior to 1 April 1980. Figures for set-aside receipts in 1996–97 are not yet available.

  Information is not available on the amount of set-aside housing receipts that authorities have used to avert borrowing, nor on the amount remaining in local authority accounts.
  694
  We are in the process of consulting the Local Government Association and local authorities on the Government's capital receipts initiative. The final decision about the basis on which resources are to be distributed to individual authorities will be made when that consultation process is complete.

  Information relating to local authorities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is respectively the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland.

  Foyer Schemes
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals his Department has for the development of foyer schemes; and if he will make a statement. [9177]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Foyer schemes are one of a range of solutions to help homeless and unemployed young people. There are already a large number of such schemes in operation with more in development or being planned. Large sums of public money have already been invested in foyer schemes through, for example, capital and revenue grants payable by the Housing Corporation. Further schemes may qualify for support and for additional resources released under the capital receipts initiative. It will be for prospective foyer developers and individual local authorities to identify local needs and priorities when considering the case for a foyer scheme.

  In addition, my Department and the Department for Education and Employment have jointly commissioned research from the Institute for Employment Studies and London Research Centre to look at the number and distribution of foyer and foyer type schemes and their effectiveness in meeting the accommodation and training needs of young people.

  La Hague Nuclear Processing Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what reports he has received from his French counterpart concerning the basis of the ban on fishing and swimming near the La Hague nuclear reprocessing plant; and what guidance on environmental protection has been sought from his Department by the Channel Islands state's authorities as a result of this announcement; [9944]

  (2) pursuant to the answer of 27 June, Official Report, columns 668–69, if he will request the French Government to provide the details of the radiological monitoring study covering the environment of La Hague. [9931]

  Angela Eagle
  A copy of the monitoring study commissioned by the French Government from the Office de Protection des Rayonnements Ionisants in the vicinity of the La Hague reprocessing plant is being obtained and will be placed in the Library of the House. A small section of beach, approximately 100m long, surrounding a plant discharge pipe, was closed as a precautionary measure while this monitoring was being undertaken and evaluated. My Department has received no request for guidance from the Channel Islands states' authorities concerning these developments.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those councils which have approached his Department since 1 May in relation to the compulsory competitive tendering of local services, indicating those which Ministers have agreed to meet. [9853]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There have been a very large number of local authority contacts with Ministers and officials in my Department on a range of compulsory competitive tendering issues. These include possible changes to the existing statutory framework for CCT, the development of a best value framework and pilot projects, advice on the technical requirements of existing CCT regulations, requests for exemptions from CCT requirements and casework concerned with anti-competitive behaviour and financial failure.

  Ministers in this Department have had no meetings with particular authorities on CCT issues. We have, however, met the Local Government Association on several occasions at which CCT was discussed. My officials have also held meetings with the Local Government Association and have visited a number of local authorities in connection with best value pilot work.

  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 2 June,Official Report, columns 49–50, on compulsory competitive tendering, what further progress has been made in replacing CCT with a duty of best value; and if he will make a statement. [10603]

  Ms Armstrong
  Local authorities responded enthusiastically to our 2 June announcement, which confirmed our intention to replace compulsory competitive tendering with a duty to obtain best value, a duty which will require local authorities to deliver the quality of service that local people expect at a price they are willing to pay.

  Many authorities have begun work in line with the best value principles published at that time. I now want to build on this work, setting out the proposed framework for best value in England and encouraging local authorities to work towards it consistent with the current legislation. We are therefore writing to all English local authorities inviting them to come forward with proposals to run pilot best value projects and the Home Office will be writing on a similar basis to police authorities. The letter will include the criteria which will be used to evaluate proposals, including the procedures and timetable, and will set the pilot scheme in the context of the framework of best value that we are developing. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House tomorrow morning. In considering bids, we shall be looking to test a wide range of different approaches and services within the best value framework, and to encompass different types of authorities.

  Bids will be invited by 1 October, with decisions announced in December, so that local authorities have the maximum amount of time to develop their ideas ahead of a latest start date of 1 April 1998. In coming to a decision on the pilot projects, I expect to draw on advice from a panel made up of representatives from central Government Departments, the Local Government
  696
  Association, the Audit Commission, the trade unions and the private sector. I shall be writing to each shortly to invite nominations.

  We are also to consult local authorities and other interested parties on proposals to modify the current CCT regulations and guidance. This follows a short review carried out by a working group comprised of representatives from my Department, the Welsh Office and the Local Government Association.

  Our proposals are designed to enable authorities to adopt best value practices consistent with the current primary legislation. They provide a real incentive for authorities to take the voluntary route to competitive tendering, and significantly reduce many of the prescriptive elements of CCT that have so frustrated authorities and the private sector alike. Full details of our proposals are contained in a consultation paper which I am placing in the Library tomorrow morning. At the same time we shall be consulting on revised guidance on good tendering practice which will promote fairness and transparency in procurement decisions, and a draft will also be available in the Library tomorrow.

  Taken together, these changes will build on the renewed interest of both local authorities and the private sector in the provision of quality cost-effective local services. They will release both public and private sectors from the sterile exchanges that have bedevilled CCT in recent years, and encourage innovation and best value to the benefit of those who use and pay for local services.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many monitoring experiments concerning the release of genetically modified organisms and bacteria the Health and Safety Executive has carried out on discharges from laboratories licensed to undertake activity under the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 1992; and if he will list the dates and places of such monitoring; [10213]

  (2) how the need for monitoring concerning the release and survival of genetically modified bacteria has been taken into account in the proposal for certificates of exemption for discharges of certain live GMOs in liquid wastes under the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 1992. [10214]

  Angela Eagle
  The Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 1992 require that effluent from higher risk GMOs be inactivated prior to discharge. Users have to monitor the effectiveness of this inactivation. So far as low risk GMOs are concerned, the regulations require that suitable control measures are used to limit their contact with the general population and the environment. The effectiveness of these control measures has to be tested and monitored by those undertaking the activities.
  697
  The Health and Safety Executive has not carried out any monitoring experiments. However, HSE specialist inspectors evaluate and discuss monitoring data with users during inspections.

  The proposed exemption certificate would allow direct discharge of those untreated liquid wastes containing GMOs which, on the basis of a thorough risk assessment, were judged not to pose a risk of harm to human health and/or the environment. A key factor in this assessment would be that the GMOs were capable of only limited survival in the environment. The conditions attached to the proposed exemption certificate would require compliance with all other provisions of the contained use regulations, including monitoring.

  The Advisory Committee on Genetic Modification will shortly be evaluating the outcome of a recent consultation exercise on the proposed exemption certificate. The HSE will then consider its advice before agreeing with relevant Departments—so far as matters relate to the environment—whether the certificate should be issued.

  Allotments
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what criteria he will use in the exercise of his powers under the Allotments Act 1925 in respect of the disposal of allotment land or its use for other purposes. [10291]

  Angela Eagle
  The Secretary of State's consent, under section 8 of the Allotment Act 1925, for the disposal of statutory allotment land will not be given unless he is satisfied that adequate alternative provision is made for any displaced allotment holders, or that such provision is not necessary.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list his(a) consents and (b) refusals of consent since 2 May under the Allotments Act 1925 for the disposal of allotment land or its use for other purposes. [10317]

  Angela Eagle
  The Secretary of State has given his consent, under section 8 of the Allotment Act 1925, for disposal of the following statutory allotment sites since 2 May 1997:

  7 May: Peel Street, Carlisle

  9 May: Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough Council Training Centre, Wolverhampton

  19 May: Firtree Lane, Bristol

  19 May: Troopers Hill Bristol

  19 May: 32 Nicholas Lane, Bristol

  23 May: Burton Road, Overseal, Derbyshire

  28 May: Washbrook Allotments, Leicester

  3 June: Roundwood Glen, Greengates, Bradford

  9 June: Langham Allotments, Rutland

  11 June: Bridge Street, Loddon, South Norfolk

  24 June: Lee Lane, Langley, Amber Valley, Derbyshire

  24 June: Ridgeway Allotments and Manor Hall Allotments, Southwick, West Sussex

  25 June: Broadwater Gardens Allotments, Harefield, Middlesex

  25 June: The Bartons, Much Marcle, Ledbury, Herefordshire

  26 June: Harewood Allotments, Cornfield Road, Thornaby

  26 June: Harewood Allotments, Thornaby Road, Thornaby

  26 June: Colston Avenue, Carshalton, Surrey

  698

  10 July: Cannock Road, Cannock

  11 July: Barnsfield Place Allotment, Uxbridge, Middlesex

  14 July: Primrose Hill, Stockton-on-Tees

  15 July: Dodmire Allotments, Darlington

  17 July: Britten Road, Reddith

  22 July: Scotchman Road, Bradford.

  There have been no refusals of consent under section 8 of the 1925 Act since 2 May.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will establish a review, involving hon. Members, of the future of allotments. [10318]

  Angela Eagle
  There are no current plans to undertake a review of allotments.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance the Government(a) have given and (b) plan to give local authorities concerning the release of more land for allotments. [10319]

  Angela Eagle
  Local authorities are required, where they are satisfied that there is sufficient demand, to provide an appropriate number of allotment sites to residents within their areas. There are no plans to provide any more specific guidance to local authorities.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to encourage local authorities and large landowners to release more land for allotments. [10320]

  Angela Eagle
  The provision of allotment sites is a matter for local authorities, taking into account the demand for sites within their area.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to limit the periods during which allotment plots can be left vacant. [10343]

  Angela Eagle
  Management of allotment sites is a matter for the relevant local authority or parish council, taking into account the demand within the area.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what was the total amount of money made available to Wales for the home energy efficiency scheme in each of the last two years; how much will be available in the next year; and if he will make a statement. [10243]

  (2) what was the average home insulation grant provided to eligible households in Wales in each of the last two years; and if he will make a statement. [10244]

  Angela Eagle
  In 1995–96 a total of £5.2 million was spent under the home energy efficiency scheme in Wales on grants with an average individual value of £167. The figures for 1996–97 were £3.4 million and £184. This year, I estimate that £3.8 million will be invested through this scheme in improving the energy efficiency of Welsh
  699
  homes occupied by the most vulnerable families. The 1998–99 allocation for the scheme, which I intend to review to make sure that it meets the needs of its customers, will be decided after completion of the Government's comprehensive expenditure review.

  "Planning and Affordable Housing"
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to revise circular 13/96: "Planning and Affordable Housing". [10866]

  Mr. Caborn
  Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 "Housing" (PPG3) states that local planning authorities may seek to negotiate an element of affordable housing in respect of new housing developments on a substantial scale. The intention behind this policy was that a site should be large enough to accommodate a range and mix of types of housing. The site thresholds were introduced in circular 13/96 as a way of defining what the Department considered to be a substantial site for the purposes of the policy.

  Since the circular was issued, the Department has been hearing from many local authorities and registered social landlords who argue that the threshold has had the effect of restricting the amount of affordable housing they are able to secure via the policy. I have given careful consideration to the views that have been expressed and, although I accept the principle of the use of thresholds, I have come to the conclusion that there is a case for looking again at the levels at which they were set.

  I can announce today that my Department has issued for consultation proposed revisions to circular 13/96. In particular, we are proposing to lower the thresholds below which local authorities should not seek an element of affordable housing, and to clarify the way in which financial or other contributions should be secured through planning obligations where the parties consider that such contributions towards the provision of affordable housing on a different site are preferable.

  Bus Lanes (Motorcycles)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his policy is on allowing motorcycles to use bus lanes in inner-city areas; and what consultations he has held with local authorities on pilot projects. [9303]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Nothing in law prevents local traffic authorities from permitting motorcycles to use bus lanes, although the necessary traffic signs require departmental approval. The Government are interested in experimental projects such as those which have been implemented in Bristol and Reading but are aware that they have generated concerns from cyclists on safety grounds. We will study the evidence from such schemes carefully to assess advantages and disadvantages for motor cyclists and other vulnerable road users, as well as their implications for balanced transport planning.
  700
  I would expect a local authority wishing to undertake a trial scheme to discuss its proposals with the Department at an early stage, and I would look to the authority to make adequate arrangements for before and after monitoring of the effects.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the safety of seat belts designed for car application being fitted to coaches; and what estimate he has made of the prevalence of such practices in the United Kingdom. [10238]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Provided that seat belts are approved to recognised standards and installed correctly, those approved for use on cars may be safely used on other types of vehicle. No information is available on how many coach owners or operators have chosen to fit car seat belts in their vehicles.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessments he has made of the safety aspects of loop-around seat belts not requiring fixed anchorage to seating. [10237]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Loop type seat belts can offer the same level of protection as a seat belt bolted to a fixed anchorage if they are approved to a recognised standard and properly fitted. Such belts should be secured to a part of a seat or the vehicle structure which is strong enough to take a high accident loading, has no sharp edges and positions the belt so that it can be worn properly.

  Roads Programme
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the major maintenance scheme to be undertaken on the trunk road and motorway network during the financial year 1997–98, indicating the likely cost, start and completion dates for each scheme. [10130]

  Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 24 July 1997:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, has asked me to reply to your request to list those major maintenance schemes, to be undertaken on the trunk road and motorway network during the financial year 1997–98, and to give an indication of the likely cost, start and completion dates for each scheme.
  I enclose with this letter a list of those major maintenance projects, that is those costing over £1m, which the Highways Agency intends to undertake this financial year.
  701

  Trunk roads capital roads maintenance Highways Agency's intended programme for 1997–8

  Road

  Repair section

  Area

  Estimated cost (£ million)

  Start

  End

  M1

  Junction 25 to Junction 26

  Derbyshire

  3.500

  October 1997

  November 1997

  M5

  Junction 14 to Junction 15

  Gloucestershire

  2.000

  October 1997

  December 1997

  M5/M6

  Ray Hall Interchange

  Walsall

  3.500

  August 1997

  November 1997

  M6

  Junction 14 to Junction 15

  Staffordshire

  0.650

  July 1997

  August 1997

  M23

  Junction 8 to Junction 9

  Surrey

  4.700

  January 1998

  April 1998

  M25

  Junction 23 to Junction 24

  Hertfordshire

  1.600

  February 1998

  June 1998

  M27

  Junction 8 to Junction 10

  Hampshire

  7.630

  January 1997

  June 1997

  M42

  Junction 3 to Junction 3A

  Warwickshire

  0.670

  June 1997

  August 1997

  M42

  Junction 7A to Junction 8

  Warwickshire

  2.200

  September 1997

  October 1997

  M53

  Junction 9 to Junction 10

  Cheshire

  2.160

  August 1997

  December 1997

  M54

  Junction 5 to Junction 6

  Shropshire

  2.700

  July 1997

  October 1997

  M62

  Junction 11 to Junction 12

  Manchester

  1.232

  September 1997

  November 1997

  A249

  WestMinster to Sheerness

  Kent

  1.000

  September 1997

  December 1997

  In addition the DBFO Company responsible for M40 (Junctions 1–15) has undertaken the following

  M40

  Junction 6 to Junction 8

  Oxfordshire

  n/a

  April 1997

  July 1997

  Derailment (Sidcup)
  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure adequate standards of railway inspection, maintenance and investment to take account of the findings of Railtrack's inquiry into the derailment at Sidcup station in February. [10233]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Railtrack plc is responsible for inspecting and maintaining its railway infrastructure. It has prepared and had accepted by the Health and Safety Executive a railway safety case, in accordance with the Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 1994. As part of its commitment to its RSC, Railtrack plc has undertaken to comply with Railway Industry Group standards which include standards for inspection and maintenance. HSE'S railway inspectorate monitors Railtrack plc's compliance with Its accepted RSC and enforces health and safety legislation.

  The HSE is aware of Railtrack plc's internal inquiry into the derailment near Bexley station in February. HSE'S own independent technical investigation into the cause of the incident is continuing and its findings will be made public by the HSE in due course.

  Dartford River Crossing
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 19 June,Official Report, columns 276–77, if he will publish the sensitivity analyses which were made for each of the alternatives for the third Dartford crossing with regard to variations in the base assumptions for the capital cost of the facility and the whether public sector cost of capital; the overrun in capital costs in (a) actual and (b) percentage terms for each of the alternative options would have eliminated the difference between the privately and publicly financed options for each alternative; and what increase in the public sector cost of capital would have eliminated the difference between the privately and publicly financed options for each alternative. [9764]

  Glenda Jackson
  In 1986 the assessment of the Dartford bids was essentially concerned with establishing the extent to which they offered value for money on specified assumptions. The economic costs of the various 702
  options were established so as to compare the net benefits of publicly financed and privately financed schemes. So far as can be established sensitivity tests of the kind postulated in the question were not carried out.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Communicable Diseases
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the conclusions of the Denver summit in respect of the control of communicable diseases; and if he will make a statement. [9641]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Denver summit agreed to promote more effective co-ordination of international responses to outbreaks of infectious diseases and to develop a global surveillance network working through organisations such as the World Health Organisation. There was also a commitment to accelerate AIDS vaccine research, to enhance international scientific co-operation and collaboration, and to ensure that the United Nations programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) fulfils its mandate.

  We welcome the commitment to improve international collaboration on the surveillance, monitoring, and research of communicable diseases. The UK has a strong record in combating communicable diseases, both internationally and at home, and this work will continue in the future.

  EU Legations
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the total costs of European Union legations in(a) European Union countries, on a country by country basis, and (b) non-European Union countries for 1996. [10014]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 22 July 1997]: There are no EU delegations. The Commission has representations in EU member states and delegations in third countries.
  703
  There is no figure readily available showing the running costs of Commission representations separately from those of the Commission's main offices. But as an indication, running costs for the four Commission representation offices in the UK in 1996 were around £1.3 million.

  The budget for the running costs of Commission delegations in 1996 was £152 million.

  Defence Sales
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to increase the transparency and accountability of decisions on defence export licences. [10364]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are committed to increase transparency and introduce more stringent controls over defence exports, including publishing an annual report on UK strategic exports. We will also press for a European register of arms exports to make information on arms exports available at a European level, and work to strengthen the UN Register of Conventional Arms.

  We are considering how best to take forward these commitments.

  Committee of the Regions
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times the European Committee of the Regions has met in the last two years; if he will list the attendance record of each of the United Kingdom's representatives on the committee; and if he will make a statement. [9833]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There are usually five plenary sessions of the European Union Committee of the Regions each year.

  The United Kingdom has 24 full and 24 alternate members of the CoR. When a full member is unable to attend, an alternate member may do so. The UK is rarely represented by less than 24 full or alternate members.

  We do not hold up-to-date attendance records for UK members. However, figures provided by the Local Government International Bureau show that for the 10 plenary sessions held up to September 1996 UK members attended as follows:

  Full members

  Attendance

  Dame Elizabeth Anson

  9

  David Bellotti

  9

  Albert Bore

  10

  Lord Bowness

  9

  Simon Day

  8

  Lady Josie Farrington

  8

  Robert Eccles

  11

  George Gill

  10

  Toby Harris

  6(5)

  Christopher Penn

  10

  Dennis Pettitt

  8

  Janet Sillett

  7

  Lord Tope

  9

  Colin Warbrick

  10

  Daniel Coffey

  7

  Charles Gray

  9

  Rosemary McKenna

  9

  704

  Full members

  Attendance

  Duncan McPherson

  8

  Brian Meek

  8(7)

  John Evans

  9

  Lord Kenyon

  10

  Eurig Wyn

  8

  Reg Empey

  10(9)

  Denis Haughey

  9(8)

  In some cases attendance records are incomplete. In these cases the confirmed figure is shown in brackets.

  1 Robert Eccles took up membership during 1996.

  Alternate members

  Attendance

  John Battye

  0

  Kenneth Bodfish

  7

  Peter Cocks

  1

  Doreen Fleming

  1

  Elgar Jenkins

  0

  Fraser Mitchell

  0

  John Morgan

  0

  Sally Powell

  5

  Tony Prior

  0

  Hedley Salt

  0

  Peter Soulsby

  4

  Ian Swithenbank

  0

  Paul White

  3

  Milner Whiteman

  4

  Keith Geddes

  2

  Marcus Humphrey

  2

  Jean McFadden

  1

  Peter Peacock

  1

  Clive Sneddon

  1

  Jill Evans

  3

  Keith Griffiths

  1

  Bill Hughes

  1

  Simpson Gibson

  0

  Sean Neeson

  1

  Figures are based on information provided by the Local Government International Bureau.

  Racism and Xenophobia (Monitoring)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to announce a United Kingdom nomination for the board of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia; and when he estimates the Centre will commence its work. [9923]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We are considering possible candidates and hope to make an announcement as soon as possible. We hope the centre will start work early in 1998.

  Human Rights
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out a three-year timetable for fulfilling United Kingdom reporting obligations under United Nations treaties for the protection of human rights, indicating target completion dates for periodic reports and expected dates for public hearings of the relevant committees. [9924]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The timetable for reporting is determined by the treaty itself or by the respective treaty monitoring committee. The UK's next reports are due on the following dates: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—ICCPR—June 1999; International
  705
  Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights—ICESCR—June 1999; International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination—ICERD—April 1998; Convention Against Torture—CAT—January 1998; Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women—CEDAW—January 1999; Convention on the Rights of the Child— January 1999. We aim to submit these reports as closely as possible to the due dates except in the case of ICERD where it is proposed to hold submission back until April 1999 so that the report can take account of possible developments in this field that are currently under consideration: the secretariat of the committee is being informed.

  The relevant monitoring committees have not yet given dates for public examinations of these reports, except for the CEDAW committee which has set January 1999 as the date for the examination of the previous and next reports. The ICESCR committee will examine the UK in November 1997, in respect of its latest report submitted in 1996.

  The UK also submits reports in respect of those dependent territories to which particular treaties apply. The due dates are not the same in all cases, but we aim to submit reports under ICERD and CAT together with those of the UK itself. The initial dependent territories' reports under CRC and the latest dependent territories' reports under ICCPR, ICESCR and CEDAW are now overdue but steps are being taken to ensure that these are completed and submitted as soon as possible.

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what list he maintains of international and national non-governmental organisation for the purposes of consultation; and which NGOs are included. [9925]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  This Department does not keep a comprehensive list of non-governmental organisations for such a purpose. Each policy department within this Department is, however, aware of and maintains contacts with the non-governmental organisations in its area.

  European Parliament
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will describe the oath of allegiance or equivalent declaration taken by UK members of the European Parliament. [10158]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Members of the European Parliament are not required to take an oath of allegiance. Their conduct is in certain respects bound by the European Community 1976 Act concerning the election of the representatives of the European Parliament. On taking up office they are required to sign a declaration that they do not hold an office incompatible with being a Member of the European Parliament, as et out in article 6 of the 1976 Act. They are also required to make a declaration of their financial interests.

  Hawk Aircraft (East Timor)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the evidence he has received on the use of Hawk aircraft in East Timor since 1983. [10340]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are currently studying all the information available to us in relation to allegations about the use of Hawk in East Timor. No firm conclusions have yet been drawn. Nor have we yet considered whether we could publish the information itself.

  Maritime Limits
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what will be the basis for continued United Kingdom jurisdiction over the six and 12 mile maritime limit after 2002. [9640]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The current restrictions on foreign fishing vessels within our six and 12-mile fisheries limits will continue to apply under Council Regulation 3760/92 until 31 December 2002. The Government are committed to securing their renewal after 2002 under a further regulation. The Prime Minister has received assurances from the President of the Commission that there is unlikely to be any desire to modify present restrictions after 2002.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Offal
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding the cost of removal of offal from abattoirs and knackers' yards; and if he will make a statement. [9597]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  I have received representations from across the meat supply/disposal chain, from representatives of producers to those of renderers, about the costs of disposal of animal by-products. These generally supported the continuation of Government financial support to the rendering industry.

  I and my agricultural ministerial colleagues have considered the representations put to us very carefully. Having taken into account the impact on the meat industry of withdrawing support, the original purpose of the support and the considerable additional cost of extending it, for which we have no provision in our public expenditure plans, we have concluded that the support should be phased out, as already provided for, by the end of 1997–98 within the existing spending limit of £59 million.

  I am today writing to the president of the NFU and to other industry organisations informing them of our conclusions.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make representations to other EU countries to end the payment of export refunds on the export of live cattle from the EU to the middle east and north Africa; and if he will make a statement. [10296]
  707
  Mr. Rooker
  The Government have no plans to seek an end to the payment of export refunds on live cattle. However, we welcome the fact that the ratio between refunds for live bovines and those for carcase meat has been moving towards favouring meat exports.

  In the longer term, GATT Uruguay round commitments setting progressively decreasing limits on the volume and value of export subsidies are likely to bring further pressure to bear on refund levels. We also wholeheartedly support the current Commission proposal to link the payment of export refunds to the observance of animal welfare conditions.

  Sheep and Goats Order
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the penalties applicable for contravening the Sheep and Goats (Recording Identification and Movement) Order 1996, indicating the number of farmers who have been prosecuted for failing to adhere to the order. [10348]

  Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee

  Commercial interests

  Non-commercial interests

  Member

  Name of organisation

  Nature of interests

  Name of organisation

  Nature of interests

  Professor J. R. Pattison (Chairman)

  None

  None

  Medical Research Council

  Senior Medical Adviser to the Chief Executive

  Dr. R. G. Will (Deputy Chairman)

  None

  None

  Department of Health

  Grant Holder

  Scottish Home and Health Department

  Grant Holder

  Medical Research Council

  Grant Holder

  European Commission BIOMED

  Programme Grant Holder

  Office International des Epizooties Expert Group on Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy in Related Diseases (1990-present)

  Adviser

  European Union

  Member of the Multi-disciplinary Scientific Committee

  Professor J. W. Almond

  Aplin and Barrat Ltd.

  One-off Consultancy

  Society for General Microbiology (company limited by guarantee and registered charity).

  Director

  Stanger Science

  One-off Consultancy

  Food and Drink Federation

  One-off Consultancy

  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

  Chairman of the Working Group of the Biology of the spongiform Encephalopathic Programme

  MAFF

  Member of scientific review panels

  Mr. R. Bradley

  Beacon Research

  Adviser

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Adviser

  Taylor By-Products

  Adviser

  Nordima International Trading

  Adviser

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  Adviser

  European Natural Sausage Casings Association

  Adviser

  World Health Organisation

  Adviser

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Adviser

  Office International des Epizooties

  Adviser

  National Dairy Council

  Adviser

  European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products

  Adviser

  Jackson & Walker (Attorneys, Counsellors)

  Adviser

  Kraft Jacobs Suchard

  Adviser

  Committee on Proprietary Medicinal Products

  Adviser

  National Renderers Association Inc.

  Adviser

  Medicines Control Agency

  Adviser

  Fats and Proteins Research Foundation Inc.

  Adviser

  Public Health Laboratory Service

  Adviser

  Meat Industry Forum of South Africa

  Adviser

  Infarmed (Portugal)

  Adviser

  Food and Agriculture Organisation (UN)

  Adviser

  Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens

  Adviser

  National Institute for Biological Standards

  Adviser

  708
  Mr. Rooker
  The penalty for contravening the Sheep and Goats (Records, Identification and Movement) Order 1996, is a fine not exceeding £5,000, or, if the offence is committed with respect to more than 10 animals, a fine not exceeding £1,000 for each animal.

  No prosecutions have been made under the order.

  Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the commercial and non-commercial interests of the members of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. [10809]

  Mr. Rooker
  Members of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee are not required to declare their commercial and non-commercial interests as this is a scientific advisory committee with no trading or financial objectives. However, in the interests of open government, the members of SEAC have been asked for this information and the interests declared are listed in the following table.
  709

  Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee

  Commercial interests

  Non-commercial interests

  Member

  Name of organisation

  Nature of interests

  Name of organisation

  Nature of interests

  European Commission

  Adviser

  National Governments and individuals especially in Africa, Europe and the Americas

  Adviser

  Professor F. Brown

  None

  None

  None

  None

  Professor J. Collinge

  None

  None

  Wellcome Trust

  Research Grant Holder

  Biotechnology & Biological Sciences Research Council

  Research Grant Holder

  The David and Frederick Barclay Foundation

  Research Grant Holder

  Department of Health

  Research Grant Holder

  European Commission BIOMED Programme

  Research Grant Holder

  Medical Research Council

  Research Grant Holder

  European Commission (DGVI)

  Deputy Chairman of the High Level Group on BSE (The Weissmann Committee) (Final Report completed)

  Professor W. D. Hueston

  Cargill

  Consultant

  Office Internationale des Epizooties

  Adviser

  Hancock-Jaffe Laboratories

  Consultant

  Mullin, Hoard & Brown (Solicitors)

  Consultant

  Food & Drug Administration (USA)

  Adviser

  Cyto Therapeutics

  Consultant

  Dr. R. H. Kimberlin

  Petfood Industry

  Consultant

  European Commission

  Adviser

  Pharmaceutical Industry (world-wide)

  Consultant

  United Nations (Food and Agriculture Organisation)

  Adviser

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Consultant

  Office International des Epizooties

  Adviser

  National Governments in Europe, Americas and Australasia

  Adviser

  World Health Organisation

  Adviser

  Dr. M. J. Painter

  None

  None

  None

  None

  Mr. D. B. Pepper

  Veterinary Pharmaceutical Industry

  Freelance Consultant

  None

  None

  Veterinary Defence Society Ltd.

  Claims Consultant

  Professor P. G. Smith

  None

  None

  Department of Health

  Grant Holder

  Dr. W. A. Watson

  Sheep farmer

  None

  None

  International consultancy companies

  Occasional consultancy work overseas

  Professor Allen"s commercial and non-commercial interests have not been included in the table as she tendered her resignation from the Committee on 4 December 1996, having accepted the position of Research and Development Director for Northern Ireland.

  Policy Reviews
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for each departmental policy review presently in progress or scheduled,(a) a description of the purpose of the review and (b) its expected date of completion. [10188]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 22 July 1997]: The following reviews have been announced by the Department.

  A review of the case for inoculation as a substitute for rabies quarantine has been announced. It is not yet clear when this will be completed.

  A review of the Milk Development Council has been announced. It is expected to be completed later this year.
  710
  An urgent review of the arrangements for enforcing the rules on the welfare of animals exported live to the continent has been announced. The intention is to introduce as soon as practicable changes which are shown to be necessary .

  A review of salmon and freshwater fisheries policy and legislation has been announced. It is expected to be completed within 18 months.

  A comprehensive spending review has been announced. It is expected to be completed by March 1997.

  Cattle Traceability System
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals the Government have for a computerised cattle traceability system; and if he will make a statement. [9119]
  711
  Mr. Rooker
  We intend to introduce such a system as soon as we can. Work is now under way, including discussions on detailed points of implementation with the livestock industry.

TREASURY

  Investors Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the administration of the investors compensation scheme with particular reference to the financial services firm Knight Williams and Co.; and if he will make a statement. [9698]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Oversight of the investors compensation scheme is the responsibility of the Securities and Investments Board.

  Windfall Tax
  Mr Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on pension funds of(a) changes to advance corporation tax in the Budget and (b) the introduction of the windfall tax; and if he will make a statement. [7647]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Changes to the corporation tax system announced in the Budget will encourage long-term investment. The windfall tax funds the new deal for young and long-term unemployed, for lone parents and for schools. This is a significant investment in human capital. Pension funds should benefit over the long-term from the improved company performance resulting from the strong and stable economy which this Budget promotes.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received from(a) hon. Members and (b) members of the public concerning his windfall tax proposals. [9887]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  Some 30 hon. Members have written attaching constituents' letters. Some 130 letters have been sent direct by members of the public. The vast majority were in favour of the Government's proposals to introduce a windfall tax on the excess profits of the privatised utilities.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, under his proposals in the Finance Bill, any liability to windfall tax can arise(a) in respect of the profits earned by privately owned statutory water companies, and (b) where such companies have been taken over by privatised companies, in respect of any part of the profits attributable to that part of the business which was previously in private ownership. [10146]

  Mr. Robinson
  [holding answer 22 July 1997]: The windfall tax applies only to companies previously within the public sector which were privatised by flotation and are subject to economic regulation by statute; that definition excludes water companies which have always been in the private sector. The tax is charged on the difference between the value of the floated company, calculated by reference to profits made in the initial period after flotation, and the value placed on the company at the time of flotation. Where the floated company has produced group accounts, these are used to produce the relevant profit figure.
  712
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information his Department collates on privatisation exceeding £50 million in other countries of the European Union; what were the premiums on the issue price five years after privatisation; and what windfall taxes were imposed. [10007]

  Mr. Robinson
  No such information is collated.

  Stability Pact
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the United Kingdom has official agreed to join the stability pact set out at Amsterdam in the presidency conclusions; at what point the United Kingdom will be bound by its provisions; and if he will make a statement. [10209]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 22 July 1997]: The stability and growth pact comprises two regulations and a resolution of the European Council. The first regulation, on the surveillance procedures, comes into force on 1 July 1998; and the second, on the excessive deficits procedures, comes into force on 1 Janaury 1999, in accordance with the timetable for the single currency. The pact creates no new legal obligations on the conduct of the Government's economic policy in view of the opt-out. Sanctions under the excessive deficits procedure cannot apply to the United Kingdom if we do not join the single currency.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the gross domestic products of(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern Ireland and (d) Wales as a percentage of the United Kingdom gross domestic product in each year from 1979 to 1995. [9984]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 22 July 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Martin Caton, dated 24 July 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply to your recent question on estimates of Gross Domestic Product for the territories of the United Kingdom for each year from 1979 to 1995.
  Estimates of GDP for Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Standard Statistical Regions of England for the years 1985 to 1995 were published in the article "Regional Accounts 1995 part 1" starting on page 15 of the January/February 1997 edition of Economic Trends, which is available in the House of Commons Library. Data for the whole period 1979 to 1995 are available on the Regional Accounts Database, which can be accessed by the Library.

  National Savings
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what performance targets have been set for National Savings for 1997–98. [10808]

  Mrs Liddell
  National Savings has as its declared objectives: to manage the retail component of the national debt portfolio so as to minimise the combined cost and risk of the total stock of debt and to meet funding needs cost-effectively; to promote Government savings policies in so far as is consistent with the above, and where it is not consistent to make any subsidy visible to Ministers; and to compete in the retail savings sector in a commercial
  713
  manner without distorting the market. During 1997–98 National Savings will be set the following challenging targets:

  (i) To work within the terms of the Funding Remit1 for 1997–98;

  (ii) To manage National Savings so as to deliver its aims within the resources allocated by Parliament;

  (iii) To develop agreed measures with the Treasury for tracking value creation by 31 December 1997;

  (iv) To introduce improved systems and investigate past problems to meet the recommendations in the National Audit Office report on Financial Accounting (HC 9 96/97) by 31 December 1997;

  (v) To improve efficiency by 3 per cent. in 1997–98;

  (vi) To reorganise the Agency with the aim of segmenting purchasing and internal service provision and to develop value for money options for public/private sector partnerships in service delivery;

  (vii) To achieve a 97 per cent. outturn against all National Savings published timeliness targets;

  (viii) To achieve an overall accuracy level of 97 per cent. on those transaction processes that most affect customers (purchases and repayments);

  (ix) To show 95 per cent. of customers surveyed are satisfied or very satisfied with the service received from National Savings;

  (x) To maintain the Investors in People accreditation covering at least 95 per cent. of National Savings' workforce.

  1 The funding remit sets out the costs and volume assumption that National SAvings works to. It was published in the Debt Management Report issued in March 1997.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make available the terms of reference for the separate departmental spending reviews making up the comprehensive spending review announced by the Chief Secretary on 11 June. [10807]

  Mr. Darling
  The terms of reference of the departmental and cross-departmental reviews have been placed in the Library today.

  The comprehensive spending review aims to allow the Government to bring public spending programmes into line with its priorities and objectives. It will be truly comprehensive, embracing all items of public expenditure. It will also be focused on the long term, looking at the shape of public spending to the end of the century and beyond.

  Ministers have agreed that they will examine each and every item in his or her Department to consider whether it meets the public interest, whether it contributes to the achievement of the Government's objectives, whether it is the most effective way of achieving those objectives, and whether there is scope for improving efficiency and effectiveness. This will include a thorough look at whether the best use is being made of public assets, with a view to disposing of those which are surplus and which could be used more productively elsewhere and making more use of public-private partnerships.

  The review will be thorough. As well as looking at Departments' spending it will also address issues that stretch across departmental boundaries. There will be several self-standing cross departmental reviews, including reviews of the criminal justice system, the local
  714
  government finance system, the countryside and rural policy and housing. In addition, each Department will examine jointly with other Departments those areas where important issues cut across departmental boundaries, such as aid and trade provision, science and simplifying government.

  This will be a far-reaching look at what the Government spends people's money on. It will ensure that public spending promotes opportunity and employment, investment and fairness. Its conclusions will be the basis for spending plans for the future that reflect our priorities and meet the country's needs.

  Investment Income
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total revenue yield in a full year of the imposition of a tax at the rate of 20 per cent. on the investment income, other than dividends received from United Kingdom resident companies, of pension funds and life assurance companies. [8751]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Using calculations based on my right hon. Friend's assumption an estimate of the full year yield for 1997–98 from a tax at 20 per cent. on the investment income, other than dividends paid by UK companies, of the funds of occupational pension schemes and the pension funds invested by life insurance companies is about £4½ billion. This estimate does not take account of any behavioural effects which might result from such a change. The investment income arising from the UK non-pensions business of life insurance companies is already subject to tax.

  Local Government Finance, Scotland
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 2 July,Official Report, columns 179–80, if he will list the information requested taking account of the changes in the composition of the Scottish block and the price bases to deflate the figures to 1996–97 prices; if he will list the total expenditure over the period at 1996–97 prices; and what this expenditure would have been had no changes been made to the formula. [7805]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: Table 1.3 of the "Scottish Departmental Report" (Cm 3614) details the Scottish block in cash terms. The relevant figures at 1996–97 prices for the period 1991–92 to 1997–98 are shown in the table:

  £ million

  1991–92 Outturn

  13,086

  1992–93 Outturn

  13,546

  1993–94 Outturn

  13,970

  1994–95 Outturn

  14,317

  1995–96 Outturn

  14,117

  1996–97 Forecast

  14,015

  1997–98 Plans

  13,322

  Most of the reduction in the final year of this series is accounted for by water debt commutation and by the proposed sales of the student loans book and the Scottish Homes loan book.
  715
  Tables 1.2 and 1.3 of "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses" gives the total expenditure within the control total, by Department form years 1991–92 by Department in cash and real terms (1995–96) respectively. Tables 5.2 and 5.3 detail central Government expenditure within the control total by Department for the period from 1978–79 in cash and real-terms (1995–96 prices) respectively.

  Additional information is not held in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Personal Pensions
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of people in Bolton, West who have been mis-sold personal pensions; and how many of these have received compensation. [9687]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No such estimates have been made.

  Banks (Public Funds)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the 10 banks receiving the highest amounts of payment from public funds in the last available year. [9870]

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

  British Nuclear Fuels (Pension Scheme)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will allow BNFL employees who transfer to wholly owned subsidiaries of that company to remain in the Principle non-industrial superannuation scheme. [9215]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: No. Primary legislation would be required to allow employees of wholly-owned subsidiaries of BNFL to remain in the PNISS pension scheme. There are currently no plans for such legislation. BNFL has set up and operates its own group pension scheme which closely mirrors the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's principal non-industrial superannuation scheme.

  Spring 1998 Budget
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to publish a consultative paper in relation to his spring 1998 Budget; and if he will make a statement. [9486]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: I will publish a consultative economic paper, which will include an economic forecast, some months in advance of the spring Budget. No decision has been taken yet on the exact timing.

  Public Sector Pay
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effects of the change in the GDP deflator forecasts announced in his Budget on the level of public sector pay increases for 1998–99 and 1999–2000. [9481]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: All Departments are reallocating spending within their departmental ceilings as part of the comprehensive spending review.
  716
  The Government's approach to public sector pay is that pay increases must be affordable within agreed spending plans.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Land Mines
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the countries to which Her Majesty's Government are providing assistance on the detection of anti-personnel mines. [9187]

  Clare Short
  We are directly supporting demining activities in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Cambodia, Northern Iraq, Laos and Mozambique.

  Additionally, the UK contributes to demining activities funded through the European Commission, the United Nations and the Organisation of American States.

  United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what procedures exist for ensuring value for money in commercial contracts between the UNHCR and suppliers. [9414]

  Clare Short
  The UNHCR follows a set of procurement procedures to ensure value for money. Competitive bidding is employed to ensure public accountability, including checks and audits by internal and external bodies.

  Reproductive Health Initiative
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will publish the terms of the agreement signed on 30 January by the European Commission and the UN Population Fund to launch a reproductive health initiative in Asia. [9839]

  Clare Short
  A copy of the agreement has been placed in the Library.

  Asia Initiative
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the size of the total allocation for the Asia initiative; and for how many years the programme runs. [9872]

  Clare Short
  The EC allocation for the Asia initiative for reproductive health is 25 million ecu—approximately £17 million. A further 5 million ecu is expected to be contributed by beneficiary organisations and through contributions in kind by the United Nations Population Fund, the implementing agency. The programme will run for four years, including one year for inception.

  Employment Advertisements
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how often since 1992 her Department or the former Overseas Development Administration has been responsible for employment advertisements which contained age restrictions upon those who could apply. [9504]
  717
  Clare Short
  An exact analysis of employment advertisements is not available except at disproportionate cost. The Department's policy is to recruit on merit and more than a quarter of professionals recruited since 1992 have been 50 or more years of age.

  EU Aid Funds
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make representations to the European Union against the use of EU aid funds for projects which put the interests of tourism before those of indigenous people in the areas concerned. [9918]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 23 July 1997]: My Department recognises that many indigenous groups suffer grave disadvantage in access to services, economic opportunities and in having their voices heard. We are committed to development which ensures that all local people are fully involved. At the June Development Council, it was agreed that the Commission should develop a policy paper on co-operation with and support for indigenous people. We look forward to helping to take this work forward.

  Kalahari Bushmen
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what reports her Department has received about plans by the Botswanan authorities to move Kalahari bushmen out of the central Kalahari game reserve; and if she will make a statement. [9919]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 23 July 1997]: My Department is aware of and concerned about the resettlement programme for bushmen living in the central Kalahari game reserve. We have offered to finance a conference in Botswana to discuss these issues with all parties including the bushmen, and to help develop solutions. We would welcome any suggestions the hon. Member might wish to put forward.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many and what percentage of employees in her private office are(a) of Asian origin and (b) of Afro-Caribbean origin. [9574]

  Clare Short
  In my private office, one member of staff is of Asian origin—representing 10 per cent.—the staff and one is of Afro-Caribbean origin—10 per cent.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what grants(a) have been made and (b) are planned to be made in each year to 2001 by the Millennium Commission to (i) Millennium Central, (ii) Birmingham Millennium and (iii) other Millennium celebrations. [6061]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I shall write to my hon. Friend in my capacity as chairman of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Departmental Advisers
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the special advisers in his Department, the Minister to whom each is responsible, the subjects on which they advise, and the number of advisers in his Department in the year up to 1 May. [5357]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  There are two special advisers in my Department, John Newbigin and Julian Eccles, who advise me across the full range of the Department's responsibilities.

  There were two special advisers employed by the previous administration in the year to May 1997, one from 25 March to 10 October 1996, and the other from 2 October 1996 to 6 April 1997.

  Millennium Commission
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what is the overall budget of the Millennium Commission; if he will list the projects which have been earmarked for funding; and how much has been granted to each project; [6124]

  (2) what percentage of awards from the Millennium Commission has been earmarked for projects in each of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England; and what percentage has been specifically earmarked for projects in London; [6125]

  (3) if he will make a statement outlining the basis upon which the merit of an application for funding from the Millennium Commission is defined. [6126]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 3 July 1997]: This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I shall write to the hon. Member in my capacity as chairman of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Policy Reviews
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list for each departmental policy review presently in progress or scheduled,(a) a description of the purpose of the review and (b) its expected date of completion. [10185]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  [holding answer 22 July 1997]: In common with all other Departments, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is undertaking a comprehensive spending review which will look across the whole Department at its aims, objectives and spending priorities. That review is expected to be complete by spring 1998.

  The Department is conducting a separate review of film policy, which will explore how to maximise the cultural and economic contribution of the British film industry and is expected to report in February. A review of the national lottery instigated in May has led to the publication, on 21 July, of "The People's Lottery" White Paper. That says that the Director-General of Oflot will be asked to review existing licence application procedures in the light of responses to the White Paper.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service Counsel
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will estimate the financial impact of using salaried counsel employed by the Crown Prosecution Service to represent all its cases in higher courts. [9860]

  The Attorney-General
  No such estimate is available. The Lord Chancellor and the designated judges have still to take a decision on rights of audience for employed barristers.

  Disability Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Attorney-General what discussions he has had with the president of the independent tribunal service concerning the propriety of doctors who carry out medical examinations of disability living allowance claimants for the Benefits Agency being appointed as members of disability appeal tribunals. [10219]

  The Attorney-General
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

DEFENCE

  Fixed Telecommunications System
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the defence fixed telecommunications system. [10868]

  Mr. Spellar
  The previous Government announced on 6 November 1996,Official Report, column 521 that they intended to commence contract negotiations for the defence fixed telecommunications system with the preferred bidder, the INCA consortium led by British Telecommunications plc.

  Contractual negotiations have now been successfully completed and a 10-year contract, based on the principles of the private finance initiative, has been awarded to the consortium. Under the contract, which will be signed tomorrow, ownership of and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of most of the defence fixed telecommunications assets in Great Britain will pass to the private sector. This arrangement will enable the MOD to continue to reach the required levels of performance while benefiting from access to continually evolving technology.

  The contract is worth more than £800 million, which makes it the largest MOD PFI deal so far. Savings to the MOD are estimated to be more than £100 million over the 10-year period of the contract.

  The contractor will perform the work currently undertaken by about 1,200 civilian and service personnel. Where appropriate, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 will apply. Where TUPE does not apply, the MOD will be taking all possible steps to minimise the effect on civilian staff in posts that lapse. Regrettably, the need for some compulsory redundancies among civilian staff cannot be ruled out. Military personnel occupying affected posts will be redeployed to other service duties.

  Married Quarters
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 27 June,Official Report, column 662, if he is in a position to provide information on the fees paid to National Westminster Markets Ltd. for preparing and completing the asset sale of the Ministry of Defence married quarters estate to Annington Homes. [10936]

  Mr. Spellar
  Fees paid to the National Westminster Markets Ltd. totalled £4,614,000 excluding VAT. This was a combination of monthly fixed-rate time-based fees and a commission of 0.1 per cent. of the sale price achieved for the MOD in excess of £520 million.

  Prisoners of War (Pay Deductions)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decision he has made following the review of deductions made from the pay of officer prisoners of war and protected personnel in German and Italian hands during the second world war; and if he will make a statement. [10869]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department has conducted an extensive review of the issue of pay deductions from officer prisoners of war and protected personnel in German and Italian hands during the second world war and the subsequent arrangements for repayment. Overall, the review found no evidence of lack of care, of significant injustice or of grave financial disadvantage. The long and detailed report accepts that there were real difficulties but these were recognised at the time and reasonable steps were taken to minimise them. Accordingly, there is no basis for reopening the issue. I have placed a copy of the full report in the Library of the House.

  I am writing to those individual right hon. and hon. Members who have a constituency interest. Former officer prisoners of war and protected personnel covered by the review and their families who have written direct to my Department will also be contacted to let them know the result of the review. I know and very much regret that the people who have had their hopes raised will be very disappointed. I must conclude that the contemporary evidence does not support the claims that have been made.

  Copies of my foreword to the report are also being placed in the Vote Office.

  Battle Tanks
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the Army's future requirement for a main battle tank and the number to be ordered. [7824]

  Dr. Reid
  On current plans, the Army's requirement for a main battle tank is to be met by procurement of 386 Challenger 2 tanks, which have already been ordered.

  As I made clear in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) on 10 July, Official Report, column 531, during the strategic defence review there will be no moratorium on defence procurement, and projects where contracts have already been placed will continue. Decisions on major equipment programmes not yet under contract will be considered on their individual circumstances in relation to progress with the review.

  Equipment Approvals Committee
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the equipment approvals committee will hold its next meeting. [9169]

  Mr. Spellar
  This information continues to be withheld under exemption 7 of the code of practice on access to Government information.

  Submarines
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the terms of reference of the defence review include consideration of additional conventional roles for Vanguard class nuclear-powered submarines. [9407]

  Dr. Reid
  The strategic defence review will examine all aspects of our deterrence requirements to ensure that they fully reflect changing strategic circumstances. However, the Government have no plans to use our strategic deterrent platform in a conventional role.

  Volunteers
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many volunteers aged under 18 years participated in the Gulf war. [9810]

  Dr. Reid
  Fully validated information on the number of British troops who served during the Gulf war, broken down into categories such as reservists and Territorial Army volunteers aged under 18 years, is not currently available. However, work is continuing to improve the quality of these data so that my Department can, in future, provide definitive answers to questions of this type.

  RAF Laabruch and Bruggen
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the running costs for(a) RAF Laabruch and (b) RAF Bruggen (i) in total and (ii) excluding salaries in the last year for which figures are available. [10277]

  Dr. Reid
  The estimated running costs for RAF Laabruch and RAF Bruggen for the financial year 1996–97 are £78.4 million and £90.3 million respectively in total and £20.8 million and £20.4 million respectively excluding salaries.

  National Service Medal
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will introduce a medal for all those who completed national service. [10358]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. member to the reply I gave on 5 June to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley),Official Report, column 222.

  Starstreak Missile System
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will expedite the acquisition of the laser-guided Starstreak missile system as an integral element in the Apache helicopter programme; and if he will resist US attempts to delay its acquisition until the infra-red Stinger missile system is modified and tested in an air-to-air role. [9012]
  722
  Mr. Spellar
  The MOD is currently engaged with the US in a co-operative assessment of the Starstreak missile system in the air-to-air role. Following completion of these trials next year, the Department will assess carefully all the options for meeting the attack helicopter air-to-air requirement and decide the way forward for the UK.

  Armed Forces Medical Service
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to consider the establishment of a single armed forces medical service. [9416]

  Dr. Reid
  Provision of medical support to the armed forces will form part of the strategic defence review. There are no current plans to establish a single armed forces medical service, but any changes that arise from the review will be announced when the review is complete.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of jobs in the United Kingdom(a) directly and (b) indirectly dependent on the European fighter aircraft project, broken down by (i) parliamentary constituency and (ii) region. [9686]

  Mr. Spellar
  Statistics for defence industry"related employment are collated on a regional basis and figures for parliamentary constituencies are not readily available. Current estimates indicate that there are about 6,000 high technology jobs in the UK directly dependent on the Eurofighter programme, primarily in the north-west and south-west of England, but involving approximately 100 companies in many parts of the UK. At peak production, this figure is estimated to rise to 14,000. Figures for the number of jobs indirectly dependent on the programme are currently unavailable.

  Defence Sales
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates, and with respect to which countries, his predecessors or their representatives have signed agreements or memorandums of understanding with foreign Governments since 1984 relating to sales of defence and defence-related equipment in which repayment was to be made in supplies of oil or gas. [10075]

  Mr. Spellar
  I am withholding this information in accordance with exemptions 1 and 13 of the code of practice on access to Government information.

  Debt Payment
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [9322]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: This is largely a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Bills Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member. The other executive agencies that have responsibilities for payment of bills are also required to comply with departmental policy to pay bills promptly within agreed contract terms, or 30 days from receipt of the goods or service or a valid invoice, whichever is the

  723
  later, where no such terms exists. Information on payment performance for these agencies for the current financial year could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Letter from Mr. I. S. Elrick to Mrs. Theresa May, dated 24 July 1997:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about Departmental debt payment as this matter falls, in the main, within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Bills Agency.
  Departmental policy is to pay bills promptly 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. Latest figures available for the current financial year show that during the period 1 April to 31 May 1997 the Defence Bills Agency paid 99.1% of bills within 11 days of their acceptance and 100% within 30 days. The Government will publish a league table of departmental payment performance for 1996–97 in the Autumn.

  Organisation of Joint Armaments Co-operation
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent organisation of join armaments co-operation projects are included in the defence review; and if he will make a statement. [10207]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 22 July 1997]: The organisation of joint armaments co-operation, more usually known as the Organisme Conjointe de Cooperation en matiere d'armament—(OCCAR)—is in its formative stages. At present, no collaborative projects involving UK participation are managed by the OCCAR.

  The prospective projects involving the UK currently identified for inclusion in the OCCAR framework—the counter battery radar programmes, COBRA; multi-role armoured vehicle, MRAV and the tri-national military satellite communications programme, TRIMILSAT—will be considered according to their individual circumstances and in relation to progress with the strategic defence review.

  Reserve Forces
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current strength of the reserve forces, by type. [9418]

  Mr. Spellar
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 July 1997, c. 401]: I regret there was an error in the figures for the naval services. The correct figures are as follows:

  Strength of the reserves and auxiliary forces 1 April 1997

  Number

  Naval Services

  Regular reserves

  23,100

  Volunteer reserves and auxiliary forces

  3,500

  Army

  Regular reserves

  190,100

  Territorial Army

  57,600

  Royal Air Force

  Regular reserves

  45,300

  Volunteer reserves and auxiliary forces

  1,400

HEALTH

  Medicines (Information)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to maximise public access to information on medicines. [9930]

  Ms Jowell
  We have asked the Medicines Control Agency to examine current policies on access to information about medicines. We will consider, in due course, what further action may be necessary to maximise such access whilst safeguarding legitimate confidential interests. We shall do so, taking account of the forthcoming White Paper on freedom of information and in the context of European Community licensing and control procedures.

  Legal Costs
  Sir Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total cost of legal advice, damages and out of court settlements met by the NHS in defending or resolving claims made by former patients and their families in the most recent year for which figures are available. [9623]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information in the form requested is not kept centrally. Payments made in respect of compensation under legal obligation and clinical negligence/personal injury cases settled out of court in England in 1995–96 are shown in the table.

  £000

  Compensation under legal obligation

  48,730

  Clinical negligence with qualified legal advice

  110,672

  Personal injury with qualified legal advice

  12,925

  Other clinical negligence and personal injury without qualified legal advice

  1,033

  Total

  173,360

  Source:

  1. Annual accounts of district and regional health authorities and the special health authorities for the London postgraduate hospitals.

  2. Annual accounts of NHS trusts.

  Waste and Bureaucracy
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the adequacy of his powers to tackle waste and bureaucracy within the national health service. [9904]

  Mr. Milburn
  Ministers are able, through the national health service executive, to introduce measures to tackle waste and bureaucracy in the NHS and we have already done so. On 22 May we announced a package of measures including a £100 million reduction in NHS management costs in 1997–98.

  The Audit Commission also has an important role in promoting efficiency in the NHS

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the various appeals related to the recent PFI hospitals announcement will be heard; and when the decisions will be announced. [9784]
  725
  Mr. Milburn
  Representations are currently being considered. I will write to the parties concerned informing them of our decision very shortly.

  Inequalities in Health
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the need for further research on occupationally-based inequalities in health. [10175]

  Ms Jowell
  Research on socio-economic differences in health are usually based on data derived by occupational classifications.

  We have asked Sir Donald Acheson to carry out a review of inequalities in health, which will include occupationally based inequalities in health. In the light of that review the Department will assess the need for further research in this area.

  Year

  Trusts

  Health authorities

  Family health services authorities

  1988–89

  —

  114(212)

  —

  1989–90

  —

  177(212)

  175(90)

  1990–91

  —

  104(211)

  184(90)

  1991–92

  2(57)

  53(206)

  30(90)

  1992–93

  25(126)

  89(199)

  83(90)

  1993–94

  23(292)

  67(167)

  71(90)

  1994–95

  36(419)

  65(121)

  70(90)

  1995–96

  94(433)

  92(115)

  67(90)

  1996–97

  128(429)

  59(100)

  —

  1 The figures for 1989–90 and 1990–91 refer to Family Practitioner Committees.

  1. The figures in brackets identify the total number of trusts/authorities in the relevant year.

  2. Information is from the published accounts except for 1996–97 where the figures are from the Quarter 4 monitoring information.

  3. Trusts were first established in 1991 and there are therefore no figures for earlier years.

  4. Health authority figures for the period 1988–89 to 1995–96 include District, Regional and Special Health Authorities of the London postgraduate teaching hospitals.

  5. The 1996–97 Health Authority figures are for merged health authorities (previously separate District Health Authorities and Family Health Service Authorities).

  6. HA Accounts before 1991–92 are not comparable due to organisational changes.

  7. Figures for earlier years, and in respect of FPCs for 1988–89 are not readily available.

  8. Changes in accounting policies mean that not all years accounts are prepared on a comparable basis.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the increase in funding for the NHS in each of the past 10 years in(a) cash (b) real and (c) percentage terms; and what are those figures for 1997–98. [10087]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  National health service increases in funding

  Year

  Increase in cash (£ million)

  Increase in real terms (1996–97 prices) (£ million)1

  Percentage growth (real terms)1

  1987–88

  +1,495

  +1,036

  4.3

  1988–89

  +1,745

  +889

  3.5

  1989–90

  +1,442

  +206

  0.8

  1990–91

  +2,471

  +1,079

  4.1

  1991–92

  +3,027

  +1,841

  6.7

  1992–93

  +2,617

  +1,712

  5.9

  1993–94

  +971

  +170

  0.6

  1994–95

  +1,629

  +1,259

  4.1

  1995–96

  +1,388

  +564

  1.7

  1996–97

  +1,196

  +313

  1.0

  1997–98

  +1,359

  +285

  0.9

  1 GDP deflator of 2 July 1997.

  726
  The Economic and Social Research Council has recently assessed the need for research on socio-economic inequalities in health. It is currently commissioning a £4 million programme of research. The Department is currently commissioning research which will evaluate steps that the national health service has taken to reduce inequalities in health, including socio-economic inequalities.

  Health Service Funding
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health authorities and NHS trusts were in deficit at the end of the financial year in each of the past 10 years. [10074]

  Mr. Milburn
  The numbers of trusts and health authorities in deficit at the end of each year since 1988–89 were as follows:

  Ophthalmic Surgery
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will increase the resources available for ophthalmic surgery; and if he will make a statement. [10012]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have just announced an increase in resources for the national health service for 1998–99 of £1.2 billion. It is for health authorities and general practitioner's to use these extra resources to plan and arrange services for their residents, following an assessment of their needs, and to make decisions about the level of resources required for any particular service.

  Health Authorities
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the duties devolved to health authorities under the National Health Service Act 1977. [10177]

  Mr. Milburn
  The roles and responsibilities of health authorities will be considered as part of the Government's plans to replace the internal market.

  Consultant Lists
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors have(a) applied for and (b) been accepted on to specialist consultant lists; and how many are awaiting accreditation. [10068]

  Mr. Milburn
  Since 12 January 1996, the General Medical Council has received approximately 40,000 applications for entry to the specialist register. To date, the names of 29,219 doctors have been entered onto the register. These include both existing specialists and doctors who have completed their specialist training since 12 January. Since 1 January 1997, it has been a legal requirement for a doctor to be entered on the specialist register before taking up a substantive or honorary NHS consultant appointment.

  The system of accreditation by the medical royal colleges was replaced from 12 January 1996 by the introduction of the certificate of completion of specialist training, awarded by the Specialist Training Authority. To date, the STA has awarded 1,589 CCSTs to doctors who have completed their specialist training.

  Medical Negligence (Legal Actions)
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many medical negligence legal actions have been brought against NHS trusts and health authorities in the last three financial years; and what were the total(a) legal costs involved in defending the actions, (b) legal costs paid out to plaintiffs in the actions and (c) awards made by courts or agreed out-of-court settlements to plaintiffs in the actions; and if he will make a statement. [10083]

  Mr. Milburn
  At present, information on the number of medical negligence legal actions and associated legal costs is not held centrally, although plans are in hand to improve the range and quality of data on clinical negligence. The total amount paid in respect of compensation under legal obligation, and clinical negligence and personal injury cases settled out of court in 1995–96 in England was £173.6 million.

  Community Pharmacies
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish his Department's targets relating to payments to community pharmacy contractors; and if he will make a statement. [10235]

  Mr. Milburn
  A payment representing approximately 80 per cent. of the amount due is paid on the first day of the month following that in which the prescription is submitted for pricing. The remainder is paid on the first day of the following month.

  Infant and Nursery Education
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the different levels of resources available to(a) his Department and (b) the Department for Education and Employment in respect of the achievement of targets relating to (i) infant school class size and (ii) nursery places for four-year-olds. [9905]

  Mr. Byers
  I have been asked to reply.
  728
  The Department for Education and Employment will use the savings from the phasing out of the assisted places scheme, amounting to over £100 million by 2000, and £100 million or more each year thereafter, to secure reductions in infant class sizes; and some £672 million per annum, together with elements of revenue support grant, will be used to secure a nursery education place for all four-year-olds whose parents want one. The Department of Health is not expected to make resources available for these purposes.

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for the quinquennial review of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work; and if he will make a statement. [10587]

  Mr. Boateng
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 July, c. 599]: Three contextual matters for the review of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work should be included. A full text of my announcement including these three matters is as follows:

  The Department, in collaboration with the Scottish Office, Welsh Office and Department of Health and Social Services Northern Ireland, will conduct a thorough review of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. The review, which is now due as part of the regular five-yearly examination of non-departmental public bodies, will take the form of a prior options study. It will assess the extent to which the functions of the council are necessary for the achievement of the Government's policies and consider, with particular regard to the importance of securing the best value for money, the scope for rationalisation, privatisation, contracting out, market testing or transferring all, or part, of its functions to another body. We will consult widely with all parties who have an interest in the work of the council.

  The review will have regard to and take account of:

  the implications of the Government's National Training Organisation initiative for the personal social services sector;

  the recommendations of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education—the Dearing Report;

  the Government's plans for the training of probation officers;

  the Government's proposals for devolution in Scotland and Wales, and

  the Government's intention to establish a General Social Services Council.

  To minimise uncertainty, we expect this fundamental review to be completed by the end of October. Throughout, the Government's objective remains to ensure that quality services are delivered through a workforce trained and qualified to appropriate levels of competence. Nothing must get in the way of achieving that objective.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans the Government have to reduce the bureaucracy connected with the regulation of small businesses. [9982]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I have been asked to reply. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 2 July,Official Report, column 279.

  British Airways Disputes
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions her Department has had with the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service concerning the disputes at British Airways. [8598]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My Department speaks regularly to ACAS about issues of common interest. My officials are aware that ACAS has been pursuing its independent role in seeking to assist the parties in the British Airways disputes and have kept in touch with progress.

  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions she has had in respect of the multilateral agreement on investment; and if she will make a statement. [9901]

  Mrs. Roche
  This Government are working hard for a successful conclusion to the negotiations on a multilateral agreement on investment. In addition to regular contact with other Government Departments, there has been contact with representatives of business, labour, environment and other non governmental organisations. As part of the MAI outreach programme the UK has taken an active part in discussions with developing countries with an interst in the agreement.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many overseas visits to promote British exports she and her departmental Ministers have made since 2 May; how many such visits are planned for the remainder of 1997; and how many visits were undertaken by her Department during the year ending 1 May. [10132]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Since 2 May, my colleagues and I have made five overseas visits promoting British exports. At this stage, a further seven visits are planned for the remainder of 1997. During the year ending 1 May 1997, Ministers in the Department undertook 28 trade promotion-related visits. In addition to this, officials in my Department undertake regular overseas visits to promote UK trade and investment overseas. Information on these visits could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what instructions she has issued to Ministers in her Department relating to restriction on their overseas travel. [9763]

  Mrs. Beckett
  My colleagues and I are fully committed to our responsibility to promote trade and investment and appreciate the importance of overseas visits as one 730
  method of fulfilling this responsibility. However, I have agreed with my colleagues that ministerial visits will be undertaken only if and when fully justified.

  Hawk Aircraft (East Timor)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will publish the evidence she has received on the use of Hawk aircraft in East Timor since 1983. [10341]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to her today by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett).

  Consumer Education and Information Scheme
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 11 July,Official Report, column 649, if she will list each consumer education and information scheme funded by the Government and the amount of funding in the current year. [9475]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: I have inherited no budget specifically for schemes as such.

  Minster for Competition and Consumer Affairs
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what payment the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs or his staff have received for his articles in Travel Weekly. [9879]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: None. Prior to 1 May, payments were made to my researcher and these were declared in the Register of Members' Interests.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what occasions the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs met(a) Stelios Hasi-Ioannou and (b) other members of Easyjet management; what was the purpose of each meeting; and where they took place. [9818]

  Mr. Griffiths
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: I am not aware of Stelios Hasi-Ioannou.

  However, I have met Mr Haji-Iannou on four occasions. In 1996, when he spoke at the Association of British Travel Agents convention; and in 1997 on three occasions—at the British travel industry hall of fame dinner, at lunch with the president of ABTA and others, and socially with one of his management colleagues when I attended the Institute of Travel and Tourism conference in Athens.

  Hazardous Chemicals
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the companies licensed to produce(a) thionyl chloride, (b) ethyl succinyl chloride and (c) propane phosphoric dichloride. [8973]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 17 July 1997]: Propane phosphoric dichloride is not know to my Department, although propane phosphonic dichloride is known. The production of this chemical, as well as of thionyl chloride and ethyl succinyl chloride, does not require a licence.
  731
  My officials advise that thionyl chloride is manufactured in the UK by three companies, ethyl succinyl chloride by one company and propane phosphonic dichloride by two companies, and that further information is available from the Chemical Industries Association Internet site, "Sourcerer"— http://www.sourcerer.co.uk.

  Advisers
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the(a) special advisers and (b) outside advisers to Ministers in her Department, indicating if each (i) receives a salary, (ii) has an office with clerical-secretarial support and (iii) can claim expenses. [8994]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 17 July 1997]: Dan Corry and Sheila Watson are salaried special advisers, who can claim expenses according to DTI rules. Lord Hollick is an unpaid special adviser, who does not claim expenses. They share a private secretary and a personal secretary. I also seek a range of external advice from a wide variety of sources.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the likely impact of the single currency on the interests of British business. [7554]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 17 July 1997,Official Report, columns 244–45.

  BP
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received from BP since her appointment. [8972]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 17 July 1997]: Personally, none. However, Ministers and officials in the Department have frequent contact with major UK companies such as BP and will have discussed a range of issues with them since the election.

WALES

  Welsh Office Budget
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his proposals to compensate for the real term reductions in the Welsh Office budget for 1997–98. [8428]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 16 July to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce)Official Report column 208.

  Stationery
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department spent on stationery provision in respect of paper items in each of the last five years. [8870]
  732
  Mr. Ron Davies
  Information in the form requested is not held centrally. The cost of my Department"s stationery provision, which includes the cost of all paper items, in each of the last five years is as follows:

  1992–93: £508,320

  1993–94: £560,868

  1994–95: £455,118

  1995–96: £470,598

  1996–97: £509,968

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of whether the stated economic benefits of the proposed Cardiff Bay barrage constitute imperative reasons of overriding public interest under article 6(4) of the EC habitats and species directive (92/43/EEC). [8653]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I have reviewed the content of the discussions between my Department and the European Commission on this subject. The Commission has accepted that the measures proposed by the Government would meet the requirements of article 6(4) of the habitats directive.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what estimate he has made of the number of staff who will remain responsible to him after the establishment of a Welsh Assembly; and what percentage of the total number of Welsh Office staff this will represent; [8914]

  (2) what plans he has to establish a staff commission for his Department, following the establishment of a Welsh Assembly. [8915]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I have set out my proposals for the staffing of the Welsh Assembly in the White Paper "A Voice for Wales" which was published on 22 July.

  Referendum
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his policy in relation to homeless people voting in the referendum on devolution. [8931]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  People living in Wales will be able to vote in the Welsh Assembly referendum if they are included in the local government electoral register in Wales. It is for electoral registration officers to determine whether an individual qualifies for inclusion in the register.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many civil servants there are in total on each pay band in his Department. [9573]
  733
  Mr. Ron Davies
  The following is the information:

  Grades

  Number of pay bands within grade

  Number of staff within grade

  Senior Civil Service

  10

  63

  Principal Nursing Officer

  1

  0

  Nursing Officer

  1

  4

  Grade 6 and equivalents

  3

  18

  Grade 7 and equivalents

  4

  145

  SEO and equivalents

  8

  119

  HEO and equivalents

  11

  296

  EO and equivalents

  9

  505

  AO and equivalents

  7

  566

  AA and equivalents

  4

  561

  Industrials and MSG

  8

  134

  GLS and student placements

  1

  7

  Some of the paybands within a grade may have no population, but that information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many and what percentage of employees, in each pay band, in the quangos for which his Department is responsible, are of(a) Asian origin and (b) Afro-Caribbean origin. [9572]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many and what percentage of employees in his private office are(a) of Asian origin and (b) of Afro-Caribbean origin. [9571]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The information requested would breach confidentiality as it would allow the identification of individuals.

  Clwydian Community Trusts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to improve the morale of employees in the Clwydian community trusts. [9941]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The morale of staff in any organisation is a matter for its managers. The Government's intention to abolish the internal market and damaging inter-trust competition will, however, lead to a situation where staff can concentrate on their vocations rather than wasteful and unnecessary activity.

  Internet
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to expedite the construction of his Department's web site; if he will ensure that priority is given to access to press notices and that adequate links to and from the web site of the Central Office of Information are included; and if he will make a statement. [9843]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) on 26 June 1997,Official Report, column 625. I confirm that my Department's press notices will appear on the Welsh Office Internet site
  734
  on the day of publication and that there will be a Hypertext link with the Central Office of Information web site. In addition there will be a dedicated site featuring information relating to the referendum for a Welsh Assembly.

  European Committee of the Regions
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to change the Welsh representation on the European Committee of the Regions; and if he will make a statement. [9834]

  Mr. Hain
  The term of office of the current three Welsh members of the Committee of the Regions and their alternates, like all UK members, will expire on 25 January 1998. The Government will be considering in due course the question of appointments after that date.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to consult on proposals to modify the current compulsory competitive tendering regulation and guidance; and if he will make a statement. [10937]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Welsh Office officials will be writing tomorrow to local authorities and other interested parties with our proposals to modify the current CCT regulations and guidance. This follows a short review carried out by the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Welsh Office in consultation with the Local Government Association.

  The Government are committed to ensuring the delivery of cost-effective quality services in local government. To this end, the proposals are designed to make the CCT statutory framework more consistent with the principles of best value. They are also intended to provide an incentive for authorities to take the voluntary route to competitive tendering and significantly reduce many of the prescriptive elements of CCT.

  Full details of these proposals are contained in a consultation paper which will be placed in the Library of the House as soon as possible. We will also be consulting on revised guidance on good tendering practice which will promote fairness and transparency in procurement decisions. A draft will also be placed in the Library of the House.

  The Welsh Office and local government in Wales are committed to developing the duty of best value. To take this initiative forward, we have agreed that a project group will be established to develop this important policy. The group will be co-chaired by the Welsh Office and the Welsh Local Government Association and will include representatives from the Audit Commission, Wales TUC and Wales CBI.

  In developing this policy in Wales, the project group will build upon the work already undertaken by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Scottish Office and apply it to the circumstances of Wales. Its first report should be available by mid-August.

  I will make a further announcement once I have considered this report.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of employees, in each pay band, in the quangos for which her Department is responsible, are of(a) Asian origin and (b) Afro-Caribbean origin. [9578]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  There is no statutory requirement on employers to maintain personnel records about the ethnic origin of their employees. Moreover, the recruitment and employment of staff in non-departmental bodies are generally operational matters for each individual body. The information requested is not therefore formally maintained by Northern Ireland Departments.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of employees in her private office are(a) of Asian origin and (b) of Afro-Caribbean origin. [9577]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The figures for employees in my London private office are two of Asian origin 16.7 per cent., and one of Afro-Caribbean origin, 8.3 per cent. It is not possible to provide the information requested in respect of employees in my Belfast private office. Staff in Northern Ireland are not monitored in respect of ethnic origin, but the Department will be reviewing monitoring polices to take account of the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 when it is implemented.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many civil servants there are in total on each pay band in her Department. [9579]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Northern Ireland civil service is currently undertaking a review of its pay and grading structures and no decision has yet been taken on revised pay bands.

  The table has been prepared on the basis of the current pay bands. The left-hand side shows the numbers of staff in the senior civil services in the pay band ranges set out in £5,000 bands, and, the right-hand side, the numbers of general service and analogous grades below the SCS in the relevant pay bands. The figures are full-time rates of basic salary, excluding allowances.

  The figures for the general service include a number of specialist grades which, although analogous, have a higher maximum point on the particular pay range. For some specialist grades, this pay lead may result in the maximum point being up to 10 per cent. higher than that for the analogous general service grade.
  736
  The figures cover all NICS staff and include a number of home civil service staff who work in the Northern Ireland Office.

  Number of staff in each pay range/band

  Grade (or analogous)

  Pay range band (£)

  Number of staff in grade

  Senior Civil Service

  105,000+

  1

  100,000–105,000

  —

  95,000–99,999

  1

  90,000–94,999

  —

  85,000–89,999

  1

  80,000–84,999

  3

  75,000–79,999

  3

  70,000–74,999

  4

  65,000–69,999

  14

  60,000–64,999

  19

  55,000–59,999

  23

  50,000–54,999

  75

  45,000–49,999

  78

  40,000–44,999

  28

  Below 40,000

  6

  Total

  256

  Unified Grade 6

  29,844–50,261

  268

  Unified Grade 7

  26,154–40,909

  867

  Deputy Principal

  19,611–30,371

  1,501

  Staff Officer

  15,839–21,491

  2,403

  Executive Officer Grade I

  13,324–18,639

  3,399

  Executive Officer Grade II

  11,323–15,839

  3,453

  Administrative Officer

  9,080–12,735

  7,782

  Administrative Assistant

  7,166–10,735

  5,049

  Total

  24,722

  Marches (Leaked Document)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether a restricted circulation copy of the leaked internal Government document on marches was made available to the Anglo-Irish secretariat; if the proposed inquiry into the leaked document will be authorised to investigate Irish civil servants and Irish Ministers associated with the Anglo-Irish secretariat in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement. [9188]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The leaked internal document dealing with marches was copied to the British side of the Anglo-Irish secretariat. In common with established practice regarding protectively marked British material, it was not made available to the Irish side, so no question of involving Irish Ministers or civil servants arises.

  Private finance Initiative
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if she will make a statement on the implications of the PFI for public service employees; [9770]

  (2) if the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 apply to staff involved in a project under the PFI. [9773]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  If the outcome of a PFI is the transfer to the private sector of an undertaking—within the meaning of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—TUPE will apply.
  737
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to establish a Northern Ireland consultative forum of employers, trade union and Department of Education, Northern Ireland representatives to examine the application of the PFI in the education sector in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement. [9800]

  Mr. Worthington
  The Department of Education has already consulted widely about the application of PFI in the education sector, and will continue to do so. I have no plans to establish a consultative forum for this purpose.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the terms of reference of the joint Police Authority for Northern Ireland and RUC working group established to tackle the imbalance in the number of women and Catholics in the force; and when it is expected to report. [9921]

  Mr. Ingram
  The first meeting of the joint RUC and Police Authority for Northern Ireland working group to address the under-representation of women, Roman Catholics and minority groups within the RUC has been set for late July. At this meeting, formal terms of reference and the time scale for completion of the work will form part of the discussion.

  Human Rights
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of the recommendations contained in a report of the public hearings in Washington DC organised by the House International Relation Sub-Committee on Human Rights into the protection of human rights in Northern Ireland and if she will make a statement. [9926]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have not yet seen the report and the recommendations of the House International Relations Sub-Committee on Human Rights. When I have seen the report and studied the recommendations, I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of that letter in the Library.

  Business Development Service
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what key performance targets have been set for the Business Development Service in 1997–98. [10726]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Business Development Service is a next steps agency within the Department of Finance and Personnel. It provides business support services in the areas of telecommunications—voice and data—management services, training, information technology and systems services and other central business facilities to Government Departments, their executive agencies and the wider public sector in Northern Ireland, where best value for money is achieved by central provision of the service.

  I have set the agency the following targets for 1997–98:

  at least 85 per cent. of customers to be satisfied with the service that they have received;

  at least 85 per cent. of customers to be satisfied with the way in which services were provided to them;

  738

  an efficiency saving of 8 per cent. to be achieved in total running costs over the allocation for 1996–97; and

  the Business Development Service to be positioned to recover from its customers the costs of all its services, commencing 1 April 1998.

  Copies of the agency's corporate and business plans for 1997–98 to 1998–2000 will be placed in the Library.

  Water Service
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what key performance targets have been set for the Water Service in 1997–98. [10727]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  For 1997–98, the following key performance targets have been set for the Water Service:

  1. To achieve 98.2 per cent. compliance with drinking water standards set in the Water Quality Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1994.

  2. To achieve 67 per cent. compliance with the sewage treatment works discharge standards set by the Environment and Heritage Service.

  3. To ensure that fewer than 0.8 per cent. of properties experience unplanned interruptions to water supplies lasting greater than 12 hours.

  4. To issue substantive replies to 90 per cent. of written complaints within 15 working days of receipt.

  5. To deliver water at a unit cost of 53p per cubic metre.

  6. To treat sewage at a unit cost of 46p per cubic metre.

  7. To maintain expenditure within cash limits and to approved budget plans.

  8. To achieve efficiency gains of 3 per cent. on running costs expenditure.

  The targets are included in the Water Service's 1997–98 corporate-business plan, a copy of which will be placed in the Library.

  Statistics and Research Agency
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency for the financial year 1997–98. [10767]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  For 1997–98 the following key performance targets have been set for the agency:95 per cent. of key government users of the agency surveyed rating its overall service as satisfactory or better, with 40 per cent. rating it as very satisfactory.
  95 per cent. of registered non-government users of the agency surveyed rating its overall service as satisfactory or better, with 30 per cent. rating it as very satisfactory.
  To produce no fewer than 45 statistical publications and 12 ad hoc research publications during 1997–98.
  80 per cent. of NISRA readers rating key publications as satisfactory or better, with 40 per cent. rating them as very satisfactory.
  To complete a comprehensive census test of 9,000 households in Northern Ireland by July 1997.
  To process 98 per cent. of postal and personal applications for general register office certificates within eight and three working days respectively.
  To reduce by 2 per cent. the unit cost of producing civil registration certificates by the general register office.
  To achieve a minimum 3 per cent. efficiency saving.
  739
  Full details are set out in the agency's corporate and business plan, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House before the summer recess.

  Jury Trials
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to increase the number of jury trials in Northern Ireland. [7306]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 17 July 1997]: In Northern Ireland, for good reason, trials of terrorist offences are conducted without a jury. The Government are currently examining the existing procedures for designating offences as "terrorist" and they will change the procedures in due course if they consider there to be a good case for doing so.

  Debt Payment
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary for Northern Ireland 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. [9526]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: The policy of the Northern Ireland civil service and the Northern Ireland Office on the timely payment of debts is the same as for Great Departments. NI Departments are signed up to the NI CBI prompt payment code and are committed to the current target that no Department should fall below 95 per cent. attainment for prompt payment of undisputed bills.

  The prompt payment consolidated statistics for NI Departments for the first quarter of the current financial year are not yet available. The statistics for the last period of 1996–97 show that 99.3 per cent., met the policy target.

  Heterosexuals and Homosexuals
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what factors determined the present age of consent for heterosexuals and homosexuals in Northern Ireland; and what are the reasons for, and origins of, the differences from those in Great Britain. [10150]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 23 July 1997]: The age of heterosexual consent was raised from 16 to 17 years by the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1950. The then Minister of Home Affairs accepted a recommendation in the report of the Lynn committee, "The Protection of the Young and the Treatment of Young Offenders", that the age of consent be raised to 17 years. The Government are not aware of any public pressure of demands from within Northern Ireland to lower the age or consent to 16 years.

  The age of homosexual consent was reduced from 21 to 18 years, for the United Kingdom, by section 145 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people over the last two years were convicted of consensual sexual offences relating to(a) 16-year-olds and (b) 17–year-olds; and if she will indicate how many cases involved (i) heterosexual and (ii) homosexual acts. [10151]
  740
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 23 July 1997]: The information is not available in the form requested. However, in 1995 and 1996, 16 and nine persons, respectively, were convicted of unlawful and carnal knowledge of a girl under 17. The figure for 1995 includes one 17-year-old and, for 1996, one 17-year-old and one 16-year-old. Information is not available about the ages of persons convicted of, or involved in, homosexual offences.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions Review
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the bodies and individuals who have been invited to participate in the pensions review. [10215]

  Mr. Denham
  We shall be engaging in an extensive level of public consultation to ensure that everyone with an interest can contribute to the pensions review. As part of this process, I wrote on 17 July to a large number of bodies and individuals representing pensioners, employers, employees, consumers, pensions experts and others, inviting contributions to the review. The distribution is shown on the following list.

  The list is not meant to be exhaustive and letters will be sent to others on request. We would welcome contributions from any individuals or organisations with an interest in helping us to address the major pensions challenges that we have inherited. The widest possible consultation is essential if we are to achieve a wide and non-partisan consensus on the future for pensions.

  The National Pensioners' Convention will be playing a specific and central role in the review to ensure that views of today's pensioners are at the heart of the review process. The NPC will be passing details of the review to all its delegates so that they have the fullest opportunity to contribute.

  Following the end of the initial consultation period on 31 October 1997, there will be a period of further work and consultation after which the Government will prepare proposals for publication and further consultation in the first part of 1998.

  Members of Parliament/House of Lords

  All MPs

  Spokesmen in the House of Lords

  Pension Industry/Employer Representatives

  Association of Pensioner Trustees

  Association of Consulting Actuaries

  Association of Unit Trusts and Investments

  Association of Friendly Societies

  Association of British Insurers

  Association of Pension Lawyers

  Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia

  Association of Investment Trust Companies

  Auditing Practices Board

  Bank of England

  British Insurance and Investment Brokers Association

  Chartered Insurance Institute

  Chartered Institute of Taxation

  Confederation of British Industry

  Corporation of Insurance and Financial Advisers

  Engineering Employers Federation

  Engineers and Managers Association

  Faculty and Institute of Actuaries

  Federation of Small Businesses

  741

  Friendly Societies Commission

  Independent Financial Advisors Association

  Industry Wide Pension Schemes Group

  Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales

  Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland

  Institute of Management

  Institute of Directors

  Institutional Fund Managers Association

  Insurance Brokers Registration Council

  Investment Management Regulatory Organisation

  Joint Working Group on Occupational Pensions

  Law Society of Scotland

  Law Society

  Life Assurance Association

  National Association of Pension Funds

  Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority

  Pensions Compensation Board

  Pensions Ombudsman

  Pensions Management Institute

  Personal Investments Authority

  Securities and Futures Association

  Securities and Investment Board

  Society of Financial Advisers

  Society of Pension Consultants

  SORP (Statement of Recommended Practice) Working Group

  The Association of Corporate Trustees (TACT)

  The Pensions Advisory Service

  Commercial Organisations

  Abbey National

  Allied Dunbar

  Barclays Bank plc

  British Airways

  Colonial Unity Trust Bank

  Commercial Union

  Eagle Star

  Equitable Life

  Godwins Ltd.

  Halifax

  Hartshead Pensikons

  ICI

  IFA Promotion

  Legal and General

  Lloyds Bank plc

  M and G Group plc

  Marks and Spencer

  Midland Bank plc

  Nat West Group

  Nationwide Building Society

  Nestle UK Ltd.

  NPI

  Pearl Assurance

  Pension Store

  PPP Lifetime Care plc

  Pro-Share

  Prudential

  Rentokil Initial

  Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance

  Royal Bank of Scotland

  J. Sainsbury

  Save and Prosper

  Scottish Widows

  Scottish Amicable

  Scottish Equitable

  Scottish Life

  Skandia Life

  Standard Life

  Storehouse plc

  Sun Life

  The Post Office

  Virgin Management

  Virgin Group Ltd.

  Willis Corroon

  Winterbourne Trustee Services Ltd.

  742
  Academic experts/Think Tanks/Individuals

  Institute of Fiscal Studies

  Policy Studies Institute

  Social Market Foundation

  Social Security Advisory Committee

  Centre for Policy Studies

  Politeia

  Adam Smith Institute

  Fawcett Society

  Fabian Society

  Institute for Public Policy Research

  Professor Robert Walker, Centre for Research in Social Policy, Loughborough University

  Social Policy Research Unit, York University

  Pensions Institute, Birkbeck College, University of London

  National Institute of Economic and Social Research

  Lombard Street Research Ltd.

  School of Social Sciences, University of Bath

  Dr. Andrew Sentence, London Business School

  Professor John Gray, Jesus College, Oxford

  Professor George Yarrow, Hertford College, Oxford

  Professor Tony Atkinson, Nuffield College, Oxford

  Professor Roy Goode, St. John's College, Oxford

  Dr. Corelli Barnett, Churchill College, Cambridge

  Professor David Marsland, Brunel University College

  Professor Townsend, Bristol University

  Ruth Hancock, Age Concern Institute of Gerontology, Kings College, University of London

  Citizen's Income Trust

  Mr. Tony Lynes

  Mr. George Taylor

  Heather Joshi, Social Statistics Research Unit, City University

  Sara Arber, Surrey University

  Ceridwen Roberts, Family Policy Studies Unit

  Sue Ward, Independent Pensions Research Group, Northern Pensions Research Group

  Sir Michael Partridge

  Martin Werth, Munich Reinsurance Company

  Bryn Davies, Union Pension Services Ltd.

  Carnegie UK Trust

  Mr. Carroll, PAPRI

  Mr. Brian Holden

  Trades Unions

  TUC

  AEEU

  CCSU

  GMB

  GPMU

  MSF

  NCU

  NFU

  NUT

  PTC

  RCN

  TGWU

  UNISON

  USDAW

  Pressure/Consumers Groups/Churches etc.

  Abbeyfield Society

  Age Concern

  Age Concern Cymru

  Association of Retired Persons over 50 (ARPO5O)

  Campaign for Pension Fund Democracy

  Care Forum Wales

  Carers National Association

  Consumers Association

  COPAS (Confederation of Occupational Pensioners Association)

  Disability Alliance

  Disability Wales

  Disability Income Group

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  Help the Aged

  Joseph Rowntree Foundation

  743

  NACAB

  National Federation of Post Office and BT Pensioners

  National Federation of Women's Institutes

  National Federation of Consumers Groups

  National Council of Women

  National Consumer Council

  Office of Fair Trading

  PARITY (formerly Campaign for the Equalisation of State Pension Age)

  Pensioners Voice

  Pensioners Rights Campaign

  Plain Language Commission

  Plain English Campaign

  Public Service Pensioners Council

  Royal National Institute for the Blind

  T and G Retired Members Association

  VOICES (Voluntary Organisations involved in caring in the elderly sector)

  Wales Council for Voluntary Action

  Wales Assembly of Women

  Wales Pensioners

  Welsh Consumer Council

  Women's National Commission

  Church of England

  Roman Catholic Church

  The Chief Rabbi

  Church of Scotland

  The Church in Wales

  Local Government Bodies

  Audit Commission

  Bradford City Council

  CIPFA

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  County and District Councils (England and Wales)

  County and County Borough Councils in Wales

  Environment Agency

  LIBA

  Local Government Association

  London Borough Councils

  London Pensions Fund Authority

  MPO

  Scottish Regional, District and City Councils

  Society of County Treasurers

  Society of Metropolitan Treasurers

  South Yorkshire PTA

  South Yorkshire Pensions Authority

  South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council

  Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council

  The Town Clerk, City of London

  UKSC/LGMB

  Welsh Local Government Association

  Welsh Association of Health Authorities and Trusts

  West Midlands PTA

  Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

  Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough Council

  Other Government Departments/Bodies

  No. 10 Policy Unit

  DTI

  HM Treasury

  Department of Health

  Inland Revenue

  Scottish Office

  Welsh Office

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  LCD

  Environment

  MOCOP—(public service pensions committee)

  Government Actuary

  Agricultural Wages Board

  Office of Public Service: Better Regulation Unit Civil Service Pensions Division

  744
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the members of the pensions review team. [10217]

  Mr. Denham
  The pensions review team is led by me as the Minister with responsibilities for pensions, supported by a small group of officials. In keeping with our commitment to manage within current cash plans, the cost of the pensions review will be absorbed within the Department's existing running costs limit.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if copies of the papers prepared for the meetings convened by her between October 1996 and April 1997 to prepare for the pensions review have been supplied to the pensions review team; and if she will place copies of them in the Library. [10218]

  Mr. Denham
  I am making the papers prepared for the series of meetings held before 1 May available to officials in the Department's pensions review team. The wide-ranging review of pensions that we promised in the manifesto was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 17 July,Official Report, columns 239–41.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the terms of reference are of the group of pensions experts who have been asked to report on the state of pension provision in the United Kingdom and future trends; which experts have been invited to be members; what their qualifications are; what remuneration they will receive; and which of them have expertise relating to state pensions. [10216]

  Mr. Denham
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has appointed Tom Ross of Alexander Clay and vice-president of the National Association of Pension Funds to chair the group of pensions experts. We shall announce further details of the expert group, including the group's terms of reference and the names of the experts, soon.

  Disability Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions she has had with the president of the independent tribunal service concerning the propriety of doctors who carry out medical examinations of disability living allowance claimants for the Benefits Agency being appointed as members of disability appeal tribunals. [10221]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  On 9 July, we introduced the Social Security Bill which will modernise the delivery of social security, including the appeals system. This Bill provides for the Lord Chancellor or Lord Advocate in Scotland to appoint all tribunal members in the future. Medical members will be appointed in consultation with the chief medical officer.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not had any discussions with the president of the independent tribunal service regarding the propriety of doctors, but is satisfied that the current procedures in place for the appointment of members of disability appeal tribunals do not give rise to any conflict of interest.
  745
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what proportion of appeals to social security, disability and child support appeal tribunals an oral hearing is requested. [10220]

  Mr. Bradley
  On 9 July 1997, we introduced the Social Security Bill which will modernise the delivery of Social Security. This Bill contains measures to provide a simpler and more efficient appeal system.

  The information is set out in the table.

  Appellants requesting an oral hearing

  21 October 1996–30 June 1997

  per cent.

  Social security appeal tribunals

  38

  Disability appeal tribunals

  68

  Child support appeals

  35

  All figures are estimates.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the parent-plus pilot schemes to help lone parents obtain work have been cancelled. [10306]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Government launched their new deal for lone parents on 21 July. This will provide help with moving into work, for initially up to 40,000 lone parents in England, Scotland and Wales. From October 1998, help will be offered to half a million lone parents whose youngest child is over five.

  The Budget included £200 million over the life of this Parliament to fund the new deal for lone parents and improvements in help with child care costs. We will not therefore be proceeding with parent-plus.

  Pensions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the annual value of the basic pension for a single person in each year from 1997–98 to 2039–40, at 1997 prices, if it is uprated in line with average earnings, assuming that earnings rise in real terms by 2 or 1.5 per cent. per annum. [10114]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is in the table.

  Annual value of standard rate category A retirement pension, at 1997–98 prices

  Year

  Real earnings growth of 1.5 per cent. per annum (£)

  Real earnings growth of 2.0 per cent. per annum (£)

  1997–98

  13,247.40

  13,247.4

  1998–99

  3,296.10

  3,312.35

  1999–00

  3,345.55

  3,378.60

  2000–01

  3,395.75

  3,446.15

  2001–02

  3,446,70

  3,515.05

  2002–03

  3,498.40

  3,585.35

  2003–04

  3,550.90

  3,657.05

  2004–05

  3,604.15

  3,730.20

  2005–06

  3,658.20

  3,804.80

  2006–07

  3,713.05

  3,880.90

  2007–08

  3,768.75

  3,958.50

  2008–09

  3,825.30

  4,037.65

  2009–10

  3,882.70

  4,118.40

  2010–11

  3,940.95

  4,200.75

  2011–12

  4,000.05

  4,284.75

  2012–13

  4,060.05

  4,370.45

  2013–14

  4,120.95

  4,457.85

  2014–15

  4,182.75

  4,547.00

  2015–16

  4,245.50

  4,637.95

  746

  Annual value of standard rate category A retirement pension, at 1997–98 prices

  Year

  Real earnings growth of 1.5 per cent. per annum (£)

  Real earnings growth of 2.0 per cent. per annum (£)

  2016–17

  4,309.20

  4,730.70

  2017–18

  4,373.85

  4,825.30

  2018–19

  4,439.45

  4,921.80

  2019–20

  4,506.05

  5,020.25

  2020–21

  4,573.65

  5,120.65

  2021–22

  4,642.25

  5,223.05

  2022–23

  4,711.90

  5,327.50

  2023–24

  4,782.60

  5,434.05

  2024–25

  4,854.35

  5,542.75

  2025–26

  4,927.15

  5,653.60

  2026–27

  5,001.05

  5,766.65

  2027–28

  5,076.05

  5,882.00

  2028–29

  5,152.20

  5,999.65

  2029–30

  5,229.50

  6,119.65

  2030–31

  5,307.95

  6,242.05

  2031–32

  5,387.55

  6,366.90

  2032–33

  5,468.35

  6,494.25

  2033–34

  5,550.40

  6,624.15

  2034–35

  5,633.65

  6,756.65

  2035–36

  5,718.15

  6,891.80

  2036–37

  5,803.90

  7,029.65

  2037–38

  5,890.95

  7,170.25

  2038–39

  5,979.30

  7,313.65

  2039–40

  6,069.00

  7,459.9

  1 Actual.

  1. The convention of rounding the standard weekly rate of Retirement Pension (RP) to the nearest 5p at each uprating has been applied.

  2. The figures in columns 2 and 3 represent the appropriate weekly rate multiplied by 52.

  3. The figures for 1997–98 are based upon the actual RP standard rate.

  4. From April 1998–99 onwards the standard RP rate has been uprated in line with the assumptions requested.

  Benefits Agency (Wales)
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the current status of the document, "Benefits Agency (Wales), Blueprint for the Future." [10939]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Government have new priorities for improving the delivery of social security, and we shall not be proceeding with the separate Welsh strategy set out in the blueprint for Wales.

  We are determined to overhaul the service that we have inherited, to develop a modern integrated system that is simpler, streamlined and more efficient, and that strikes the right balance between people's rights and responsibilities.

  We shall be looking at service provision to ensure that an equitable service is provided for all. This may be best achieved through a flexible approach, involving partnerships with other service providers, perhaps using other facilities on a casual basis or by using officers to visit customers in their homes or elsewhere. This is part of the Government's approach to getting public service agencies to work more effectively together. Concentrating staff in this way can improve the accuracy of work and can also bring efficiency gains. We are, however, clear that our strategy will continue to require a network of offices in which staff can speak to an advisor, as well as locations where customers can get access to information through direct-access kiosks.
  747
  The Government have promised to live within the budget set by the previous Administration and I have told staff to look for ways of improving efficiency and improving customer service.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people who have been denied incapacity benefit due to their inability to fulfil the all work test have also been denied jobseeker's allowance because they cannot fulfil the requirements of the jobseeker's agreement(a) in the Durham area and (b) in England. [7656]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We are committed to a review of the objective of reducing poverty and welfare dependency and to promote work incentives. We want to develop a system that supports work, savings and honesty. One of our first steps is to focus on helping people off welfare and into work. Support for sick and disabled people will form part of the review. The administration of incapacity benefit and jobseeker's allowance is a matter for Peter Mathison, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 23 July 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people who have been denied Incapacity Benefit (IB) due to their inability to fulfil the all work test (AWT) have also been denied Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) because they cannot fulfil the requirements of the jobseeker's agreement (a) in the Durham area and (b) in England.
  The information is not available in the format requested as statistics are collated by Benefits Agency (BA) District. The number of customers who failed the IB AWT during 1996/97 in the BA Districts of North and South Durham, which include the offices at Bishop Auckland, Chester-Le-Street, Darlington, Durham, Peterlee, Seaham and Stanley, was 4,000. The total number of customers who failed the IB AWT in England in 1996/97 was 140,000. These figures exclude a small number of clerical cases or disallowances where customers did not return IB questionnaires or attend examinations.
  Information relating to the number of people who have been denied JSA because they could not fulfil the requirements of the jobseeker's agreement is not available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. You may be interested to know that this information, from May 1997 onwards, will be available towards the end of the year in the JSA Quarterly Statistical Extract.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Unemployment Forecasts
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons the(a) unemployment and (b) total cost of cyclical social security is forecast to 2002; and what reasons this date is different from the date to which unemployment is forecast. [6837]

  Mr. Darling
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is no published forecast of unemployment, in line with conventions adopted by previous Governments. For the purposes of prudent planning of public finances, expenditure plans assume that unemployment remains at present levels, in line with long-established convention used before the 1996 Budget, and approved by the National Audit Office.
  748
  Latest forecasts of cyclical social security for the period 1997–98 to 1998–99 are set out in table 4.6 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" 2 July 1997. They are based on the assumption that UK unemployment will be flat at its recent level of 1.65 million—para 4.28. In the absence of spending commitments for future years, three variants for medium-term projections of total general Government expenditure were published in table 4.7, although cyclical social security was not shown explicitly.

  The November 1996 FSBR gave projections to 1999–2000 based on the economic assumptions of the public expenditure survey—given on page 117. Projections for 2000–01 and 2001–02, the two years beyond the survey period, were based on illustrative unemployment assumptions.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Sixth Forms
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the criteria used by his Department in determining whether a secondary school not currently having a sixth form can successfully apply for one. [8614]

  Dr. Howells
  All proposals for changes to schools will be considered on their individual merits, taking account of all relevant considerations, including the effect on other schools and colleges in the area. In the case of proposals to add sixth forms, we will have particular regard to whether there is a need for additional provision in the area, whether the provision will be delivered at reasonable cost, and whether the proposed curriculum would be appropriate for the needs of students and parents and would be likely to improve the staying-on rate in the area.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on changes to funding arrangements for sixth form colleges; and if he will introduce a standard unit of resource for 16 to 18-year-olds. [8622]

  Dr. Howells
  The funding of sixth form colleges is a matter for the Further Education Funding Council. We currently have no plans to introduce a standard unit of resource for all 16 to 18-year-olds.

  Welfare to Work
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he will take to ensure the quality of the provisions under the Government's welfare-to-work plans. [8620]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We intend, throughout the design and implementation of our welfare-to-work provision, to define clear standards of quality designed to meet the needs of our clients. We will set in place mechanisms to ensure that the Employment Service and its partners share and deliver those standards rigorously and consistently.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the training requirements expected of employers who participate in the welfare-to-work programme. [8627]
  749
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Under our new deal for young people, we will expect employers to provide, or release participants for, one day's training or its equivalent each week, leading towards an accredited qualification. We are making £750 available per person, on top of all other costs, for this purpose.

  We will be working in partnership with employers, training and enterprise councils and other key organisations to ensure that the training is of high quality.

  Evesham College
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will visit Evesham college to discuss its funding; and if he will make a statement. [8621]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit the college. It is for the Further Education Funding Council for England to allocate funds to individual colleges.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of state for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the application of the principle of zero tolerance to local education authorities. [8623]

  Mr. Byers
  As the "Excellence in Schools" White Paper explains, LEAs must demonstrate to their own schools, to parents and the local electorate and to the Department that they are doing a good job in improving their schools. The Government expect all LEAs to play their part in driving up standards.

  Where it appears that an LEA is failing, the Secretary of State may direct the Office for Standards in Education to undertake an immediate inspection. If that inspection confirms the failings, it may be necessary for the Secretary of State to intervene, either by directing LEA officers or by enabling others to perform some functions until the LEA has demonstrated its capacity to resume its full responsibilities.

  Youth Employment
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has had from small business representatives about his proposals to provide employment for young people. [8624]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for North-west Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor).

  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what role further and higher education colleges will play in delivering his proposals for providing employment for young people. [8633]

  Dr. Howells
  Further and higher education have a vital role to play in delivering the skilled work force we will need in the next century. We have a wide range of proposals for improving young people's participation in high quality education and training, including the new deal and Target 2000. Our new deal for young unemployed people will start across the whole country next April. Under the new deal people who do not have basic qualifications will have the opportunity to undertake 750
  full-time education or training. Participants on this option may undertake courses lasting up to 12 months, which will give them time to gain an accredited and useful qualification.

  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultation he is undertaking on his proposals for providing employment for young people. [8634]

  Mr. Smith
  There will be three national design workshops, two in London on 24 and 30 July and one in Birmingham on 28 July. There will also be 24 regional consultation meetings and these will be followed by extensive local consultation on partnerships to deliver the new deal.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to reform the work permit system. [8625]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  There are no proposals at present to reform the arrangements for considering work permit applications. Criteria for approval of work permits are kept under review in the light of developments in the labour market. Of course, I should be interested in any observations my hon. Friend may wish to offer to improve existing arrangements.

  University for Industry
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent discussions he has had about proposals for a university for industry. [8626]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton).

  Higher Education (Low-income Families)
  Dr. Lynda Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to assist people from low-income families into and through higher education. [8628]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government's preferred approach to future funding arrangements for higher education includes continuing access to free tuition for students from lower-income families, no parental contributions from lower-income families and repayment of future maintenance loans on a basis related to income after graduation. But, as the report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education makes clear, the main factor determining access to higher education is the level of educational attainment up to age 18, the policies which my right hon. Friend has set out in the schools White Paper are designed to increase educational attainment in school and thereby encourage wider access to higher education.

  Schools (Parental Choice)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his policy on parental choice in schools. [8629]
  751
  Mr. Byers
  We want as many parents as possible to be able to send their children to their preferred school. But we recognise that where one school is more popular than another some parents will be disappointed. The White Paper "Excellence in Schools" explains that schools will work in partnership with each other and with the local education authority to develop helpful and timely information for parents and common timetables for applications.

  Investors in People
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many small businesses have been recognised as investors in people. [8630]

  Dr. Howells
  On 1 June, 2,849 in the UK organisations with fewer than 50 employees were recognised as investors in people.

  Rural Schools
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his Department's policy in respect of the current network of rural schools. [8632]

  Mr. Byers
  Our policies are designed to raise standards in all schools, wherever they are situated, and we are currently consulting about the best means to do this. All proposals for changes to rural schools that come to the Department for decision will be considered on their individual merits, taking into account all the consequences of the proposals. We recognised the important role played by rural schools and will want to adopt policies which reflect this.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the(a) benefits and (b) costs of merging TECs and chambers of commerce. [9683]

  Dr. Howells
  In June 1995, this Department commissioned Pieda plc to evaluate the impact of mergers between training and enterprise councils and chambers of commerce. Pieda reported its findings to the Department earlier this year. It concluded that the merged organisations the study looked at"appear to be well on the way to creating a much stronger and more influential business led organisation in the areas concerned."
  The study did not identify any major disbenefits of merger.

  The report will be published on 11 August and a copy put in the House of Commons Library.

  Ex-offenders
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has for agreeing a protocol on the employment of ex-offenders with the main employer organisations and the trade unions. [10256]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Employers are encouraged to consider all applicants on their merits, including ex-offenders; those released from prison have early access 752
  to appropriate DfEE programmes. We have no proposals for a protocol with employers organisations and trade unions; nor have we received any.

  Veterinary Science Students
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will review the need of veterinary science students for supplementary maintenance grant in respect of additional weeks spent on work experience as part of their training during the summer vacation period; and if he will make a statement. [9774]

  Dr. Howells
  The National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education has been considering possible future arrangements for student support—including supplementary maintenance grants—and is due to report shortly. The Government will set out their proposals in the light of the committee's recommendations.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what has been the average yearly pay rise for principals of further education colleges in Greater London since 1993; [9167]

  (2) what has been the average yearly pay rise for lecturers in further education since 1993 in Greater London. [9168]

  Dr. Howells
  This information is not held centrally. As from incorporation on 1 April 1993, further education corporations assumed responsibility for their own finance and organisation, including the appointment, dismissal, redundancy and conditions of service generally of their staff.

  School Standards
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list his main proposals for raising standards in schools. [8631]

  Mr. Byers
  The White Paper "Excellence in schools", published on Monday 7 July, sets out in detail the Government's proposals for raising standards in schools and summarises what we aim to achieve over the lifetime of this Parliament. Copies have been sent to all Members of Parliament and are also available in the Library.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what role local education authorities will have in supporting schools to raise standards. [8612]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend gave earlier to my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) and for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock).

  General Teaching Council
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will be consulting on the establishment of a general teaching council. [11047]

  Mr. Byers
  A consultation document has been published today, setting out options for the role and composition of a general teaching council. We envisage the council having a key role to play in promoting high
  753
  standards of teaching, and in raising the status and morale of the teaching profession. We are seeking views by October from teachers and a wide range of other interested parties. A copy of the consultation document has been placed in the Library.

  Education (Fees and Awards) Regulations 1994
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to revise the Education (Fees and Awards) Regulations 1994. [11048]

  Dr. Howells
  Revised Education (Fees and Awards) Regulations will be laid before Parliament to add a requirement of being settled in the United Kingdom under the immigration laws to the existing conditions of residence in Great Britain, the United Kingdom and islands, the United Kingdom, England and Wales and England for the purpose of student fee classifications by institutions and the rules of candidate eligibility for certain awards and studentship which may be adopted by education authorities and other specified bodies. These changes and others are described fully in a policy briefing sheet issued today by the Department for Education and Employment, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many civil servants there are on each pay band in his Department. [8963]

  Dr. Howells
  The number of civil servants by grade level in the Department of Education and Employment at 1 June 1997 was:

  Number

  Administration Assistant

  546

  Administration Officer

  1,119

  Executive Officer

  1,074

  Higher Executive Officer

  937

  Senior Executive Officer

  374

  Grade 7

  424

  Grade 6

  41

  Senior Civil Service

  106

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what proposals he has to reduce the running costs of the special educational needs tribunal; [10019]

  (2) what plans he has to introduce changes to the special educational needs appeals process; [10020]

  (3) if he will reduce the number of appeals administered by the special educational needs tribunal. [10021]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We will consult widely on the special educational needs appeals process, as part of an extensive consultation on SEN, through a Green Paper to be published in September. As part of that, we shall be looking to improve arrangements for conciliation between parents and local education authorities, so that fewer appeals need to come to the tribunal. That should in due course reduce pressure on tribunal running costs.
  754
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will estimate the average cost of a special educational needs tribunal hearing, including indirect costs borne by his Department; and if he will estimate the average cost of processing an appeal sent to the special educational needs tribunal; [10017]

  (2) if he will estimate the average cost of processing parental appeals concerning special educational needs statements for (a) local education authorities in 1993–94 and (b) the special educational needs tribunal in 1994–95. [10018]

  Ms Morris
  The budget for the tribunal is held by the DfEE, but the Department has no involvement in special educational needs tribunal hearings. For the 1995–96 financial year, the SEN tribunal president has estimated that the average cost to the tribunal of a hearing is about £820 and the average cost of processing an appeal, including hearing costs, is about £730. The discrepancy is due mainly to something approaching 50 per cent. of appeals being withdrawn before reaching a hearing. It is not possible to offer meaningful averages for the cost of processing appeals in the 1994–95 financial year.

  The Department has no information about the cost to LEAs of SEN appeals processed by local education authorities in 1993–94.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many appeals to the special educational needs tribunal were heard during the latest year for which figures are available; and in how many of these appeals there were parents or other witnesses representing the child for whom the appeal was being held; [10024]

  (2) in respect of how many cases of appeals to the special educational needs tribunal the wishes of the parents were upheld; and in how many of these cases witnesses were present for the appellant. [10025]

  Ms Morris
  Between September 1995 and August 1996, the special educational needs tribunal conducted 903 hearings, 111 of which were preliminary hearings at which parties to the appeal were not normally present. Parents were present at the remaining 792 hearings. In the same period, parents' appeals were upheld, either in full or in part, in 620 cases. The tribunal does not collect data on the number of witnesses who attend hearings.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many appeals to the special educational needs tribunal(a) followed a rejected appeal to the local education authority responsible for the education of the child concerned and (b) took the place of an appeal to the relevant local authority in the last year for which data are available. [10022]

  Ms Morris
  The special educational needs tribunal came into existence on 1 September 1994 when it replaced local education authorities as the body responsible for hearing SEN appeals. Appeals after that date came direct to the tribunal. We have no information about whether any appeals heard by the tribunal had been conducted by LEAs prior to that date.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the total expenses paid for the latest year for which figures are available for hearings of the special educational needs tribunal(a) for

  755
  members of the appeals panel and (b) for parents and other witnesses of those children whose appeals are being held. [10023]

  Ms Morris
  Members of the tribunal were paid £425,000 in the 1995–96 financial year to cover fees and expenses. In the same period, parents were paid £3,000 and parents' witness, £13,000.

  Social Work Courses
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of recent changes to the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations for vocational courses involving work experience and a work placement on the take-up rate for places on two-year certificate of qualification in social work courses; and if he will make a statement. [10153]

  Dr. Howells
  Further to the previous reply I gave to the hon. Member on 24 June 1997,Official Report, column 446, only sandwich courses leading to the DipHE (social work) will be affected by the recent changes to the provisions for sandwich courses in the regulations, DipHE (social work) courses are offered by 54 institutions in the United Kingdom, with about 6,000 students in attendance. Not all these students will hold mandatory awards. On the evidence provided so far to the Department by the Central Council for the Education and Training of Social Workers, no course has yet been discovered that has clearly been affected by the new provisions.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Unmarked Graves
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what steps are taken, when burial grounds are sold to private developers, to ensure that the location of unmarked graves is not lost. [9858]

  Mr. Bell
  Under the Parochial Registers and Records Measure 1978 parishes are required to maintain a burials register—including that of unmarked graves—for each Church of England burial ground in the parish. Such records as exist regarding the location of unmarked graves would be preserved even in the event of a disposal of the burial ground concerned. Where the Commissioners make a scheme under section 30 of the Pastoral Measure 1983 enabling the secular development of a surplus burial ground it is the responsibility thereafter of the new owner—initially usually the Diocesian Board of Finance—to ensure that the provisions of section 65 and schedule 6 to the Measure regarding the disposal or otherwise of human remains are complied with.

  The Secretary of State for the Home Department is also involved in this procedure whereby the removal of any remains and their new point of burial have to be recorded by the owner in a certificate in a prescribed manner and deposited at the General Register Office. Where a burial ground is being disposed of with a redundant church similar provisions apply.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Utility Regulation: Review
Lord Borrieasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to make binding the rulings of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission when the commission arbitrates in disputes on prices between a utility company and a specific industry regulator.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade announced on 30th June an interdepartmental review of utility regulation. The review will look at the existing framework of regulation against guiding principles of transparency, accountability, consistency and predictability. The relationship between the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and regulators will be considered in that light.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. I welcome the review of utility regulation. That is overdue and concerns a subject that the previous government sadly neglected. Does the Minister agree with me that the present position is most unsatisfactory? I refer to recent examples of Northern Ireland Electricity and British Gas, where the regulator asked the monopolies commission for a thorough examination taking a period of six months. Witnesses were examined and a report was published. However, the regulator then seemed to want to reject the verdict of the umpire. Would it not make more sense if the conclusions of the monopolies commission were fully binding and effective?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that observation. While I am unwilling to enter the lists, as it were, with probably the most experienced umpire we have in the House on issues of this nature—I record my grateful thanks for the work the noble Lord has done in the area of competitiveness—this is precisely the issue that we think the utility review should look at; namely, the relationship between the commission and the regulator, and indeed the regulator and the licensee. I certainly would not want to invoke television replays of the umpire's decision, but we need to think carefully about where accountability lies.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I of course defer with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, as the great expert in these matters. Is it
1506
not a fact that, despite what the Minister has said, the Secretary of State could still overturn the monopolies commission ruling if he had a mind to do so?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, it is clear that the relationship between the commission and the regulator allows the regulator to apply the commission's decision in the way which is best fitted to ensure competition. As regards prices, some are already fixed, as in the case of the water industry, but others are free.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if and when there is devolution in Scotland of the kind which we understand is envisaged, what will happen if the utility company is situated in Scotland and the regulator is a nationally appointed official? In particular, which Secretary of State might have any responsibility for considering the outcome?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, we would prefer to leave the definitive answer to that question to the Statement when we shall hear about Scotland. Of course, we must all remember that we are always trying to define the relevant market here.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Minister mentioned predictability as one of the parameters of this internal investigation of the DTI into the role of the regulator. Does predictability mean that there will be a single umpire, or is that not part of the department's thinking?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, that is another matter that should be decided by the review. However, I believe that it is clear in principle from what I have said that differentiated regulation is appropriate in differently dynamic markets. As we have freed up the system for the utilities, markets are developing in different ways and therefore different regulatory decisions and processes are necessary at this stage. That is a statement of principle and approach to regulation; let us wait until we have the review.

School Teachers: Dismissal
3.6 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkesasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their proposals whereby school teachers will be liable to dismissal with four weeks' notice on the ground of lack of capability have implications for employees in other sectors.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the Government have no plans to change the legal protections against unfair dismissal that are available to teachers and employees generally. The Government's aim is to put in place speedy but fair procedures to

1507
remove teachers who cannot do the job. Local authority employers will be setting up a working group to consider how that can be done.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I know nothing about education but I have sat for over 20 years on an industrial tribunal. I still cannot understand why there is to be no change in employment law, given that the Minister has said that people can be dismissed within four weeks. I tabled this Question because I am genuinely puzzled about this matter. Is the Minister saying that these people will continue in paid employment but will no longer teach children? What procedure is she suggesting? Many other sectors of the community may follow similar procedures if they wish to dispense with people they consider are not capable of doing their jobs.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we are not proposing the removal of any statutory protections for teachers or indeed for anyone else. The working group will consider what can be done within the framework of the existing statutory employment protection. During the debate in another place on the White Paper, Excellence in Schools, my honourable friend the Minister for School Standards set a target of six months to remove an incompetent teacher. That does not seem an excessively short time. He also set a target of a matter of weeks to remove a grossly incompetent teacher. We shall see what the working group can do within the framework of statutory employment protection. It is, of course, always possible for someone to appear, after dismissal, before an industrial tribunal.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if a teacher is dismissed, whatever procedures may exist for rectifying mistakes afterwards, the fact of the dismissal will be known to every member of staff, every parent and every pupil and it will not be practicable in the real world to put the clock back? Is not four weeks a little peremptory to take such an important decision?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, of course it may be difficult to put the clock back after an industrial tribunal. However, what the Government are concerned to do is to protect pupils, and indeed other teachers who are doing a good job, from those teachers who are clearly hopeless and utterly incompetent and are unable to control a class. Surely it is in the best interests of our education system that such teachers should be removed.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister may be somewhat consoled by the fact that we agree that bad teachers should be removed from the classroom. I assume that the teacher would be dismissed within four weeks. That is what the Secretary of State said in another place. How can dismissing the teacher within four weeks be reconciled with giving appropriate notices, an opportunity to improve, putting in support systems, and so on, which is the system at present, without any change in the legislation?
1508
Is there any read across to other sector workers, or are teachers to be treated differently from all other workforces?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, no. Of course teachers will not be treated differently. I have already made it absolutely clear that the statutory requirements regarding employment law will stand. The noble Baroness shakes her head. Perhaps I could finish. No, we do not intend to change the statutory requirements in this respect. I think that the noble Baroness would agree that were a pilot to be found to be grossly incompetent we would wish to remove the pilot rather quickly. Similarly, were we to find that a brain surgeon was grossly incompetent we would wish to do the same.
The procedures laid down by ACAS must be adhered to. It is necessary to give, first, an oral warning, then a formal warning, before dismissal takes place. There would also be the right of appeal. But it is premature to jump to too many conclusions before the working group of local authority employers has had an opportunity to consider the matter.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's reply. There is no disagreement between us about removing a surgeon from a theatre or a teacher from a classroom who is grossly incompetent. But dismissing a teacher within four weeks and complying with all the legislation seems to me incompatible.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I can only repeat what I said. We have to allow the working group led by the local authority employers to see whether it is possible to remove grossly incompetent teachers in that period. After all, they are damaging the education of children.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, my noble friend may be surprised by a conversation that I had at a social occasion last week—the question is coming. Government proposals to get rid of unsatisfactory teachers within four weeks have some support within the teaching profession. However, the question I was asked was whether that procedure will apply also to incompetent builders, solicitors or accountants.
A noble Lord: And politicians?
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the question of incompetent politicians was not raised. No doubt it would read across to that also. I hope that my noble friend can provide some succour to the teaching profession.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify. We are not talking about unsatisfactory teachers. We are talking about people who are grossly incompetent; people who are completely incapable of controlling a class. Some of us who went to school many years ago can remember such teachers. It is very difficult for much education to go on in those circumstances.

1509
We are not simply talking about those teachers who are not very good at their job. They will be offered training, support and help. There are no proposals to deal particularly with the other categories to which the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, referred.
Baroness Young: My Lords, my noble friend Lady B latch raises an important point. We all agree that we should find a mechanism for removing grossly incompetent teachers. However, does the Minister agree that she is saying something contradictory? Some of us are chairmen of governors and may have to carry out the policy. The Government have said that their policy will allow the dismissal of teachers in four weeks. If I understand the Minister correctly, she says that the employment law will stand and that dismissal will take six months. Many of us would like to know which statement is true.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may explain again. The working party has been asked to look at ways in which grossly incompetent teachers can be dismissed more rapidly. Perhaps I may explain the current procedures. As the noble Baroness probably knows as she has been a chairman of governors, all schools have negotiated a set of procedures, usually at local level with the local education authority and the teachers' unions. Some of those procedures have five stages of warnings with provision for appeal at each stage, and a term for the teacher to act on each warning. It is no wonder that it often takes up to two years to remove unsatisfactory teachers.
As I said earlier, ACAS recommended a minimum of a formal oral warning, followed by a written warning, followed by dismissal. I cannot say whether it will be possible to go through those ACAS procedures within four weeks. The working group has been asked to look at the issue. It may not be possible.
On the noble Baroness's point about the difference between six months and four weeks, in general it will take at least six months to dismiss unsatisfactory teachers. But we are not talking about unsatisfactory teachers.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that no profession has faced such dramatic change in the past decade as the teaching profession, and that that has affected both recruitment and teaching morale? Can the Minister give an assurance that the latest plans will not affect recruitment and morale?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the purpose of the proposals is to improve teacher morale. There is nothing more demoralising for those teachers who are doing a good job than having to work with a tiny minority of
1510
teachers who are completely incapable of reaching the standard that we should all expect a competent teacher to reach.

Pensions Mis-selling
3.17 p.m.
Lord Evans of Parksideasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to deal with the mis-selling of private pensions to the public.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government are determined to see the case reviews completed quickly, and redress made where it is due. On 9th July, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury published details of progress towards redress, or lack of it, by the top 24 firms. The Government will continue to publish information on progress and will not hesitate to see that further action is taken, as necessary, to speed up reviews.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does he agree with me that the risible progress of the 24 pension companies named by Treasury Minister, Helen Liddell, in compensating the victims of mis-selling of pensions is a disgrace that has besmirched the good name of the City of London? Can my noble friend confirm that some 20,000 victims of the scandal have died uncompensated since the companies began their review of the fiasco some three years ago, and that unless the Government take harsh and swift action within the next two or three months many thousands more will die uncompensated before their cases are reached?
Finally, does my noble friend agree that the Tory Government Ministers who launched this privatisation of pensions some years ago bear as much responsibility for the scandal as the pension companies?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on my noble friend's first question, the aim of the Personal Investment Authority is to see that 90 per cent. of claims are dealt with by the end of this year, and 100 per cent. by the end of next year. I am not at all convinced that it will be achieved and, even if it were, I do not think it is good enough, for the reasons that my noble friend gives.
On the second question, about the responsibility of the previous Government, I have only too good reason to agree with him since I ran a company pension scheme myself for 30 years. The previous Government weakened company pension schemes by allowing individuals to opt out; weakened SERPS by reducing the returns; and encouraged people to opt out by what might be termed the DSS short-term bribe. The result was that hundreds of thousands of people opted out, many of them losing out because of mis-selling and the lack of adequate company contributions.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the Minister accept that no one can support the mis-selling of pensions where

1511
that existed and that resolution of the matter is long overdue—it should have been cleared up to a much greater extent and faster than it has been so far? However, will he further accept that the removal of tax credits has resulted inexorably in a large number of pensions, sold and purchased in good faith, now being clearly inappropriate for those to whom they were sold, purely and solely as a result of the Government's action?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, I do not agree at all. On the contrary, the Association of British Insurers has recognised that, in the longer term, the switch to greater capital appreciation and the reduction of lower dividend streams will actually be of benefit to pension funds. In the shorter term, I hope that insurance companies and pensions sellers will not use ACT as an excuse for delaying compensation.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, while I accept the fact that some pensions have been jeopardised as a result of mis-selling, does the Minister agree that the change in the fiscal treatment of dividends in pension funds is bound to mean that those pensioners will be jeopardised as well? Will he further agree that it is quite illogical for the Government on the one hand to try to encourage people to save for their old age and, on the other, to penalise that fund when it is set up?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the first part of the noble Lord's question was the same as that asked by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. I notice that the noble Lord now acknowledges that "some" pensioners were victims of mis-selling. That is a gross under-statement.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, for the lower-paid, personal pensions were always unlikely to be a very good vehicle for retirement? Would it not be a good idea if some of these considerations were pointed out to people? Could not the financial services industry be given deadlines by which this whole fiasco should be cleared up?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to look to the future of pensions and not merely at the past. As she will know, the President of the Board of Trade announced only yesterday that there would be a new, arm's length financial services regulatory body which will be under the ministerial control of the Treasury rather than the Department of Trade and Industry. I hope she will feel that that, combined with the review announced by the Department of Social Security, shows our firm intention to see to it that in future the best kind of pension scheme is available to all, including the low-paid.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, will the Minister accept that I agree with him that there was no excuse for pensions mis-selling, and there is no excuse for not putting the matter right—just as there was no excuse for the ex-Labour MP, Robert Maxwell,
1512
pillaging his members' pension funds? Nor is there any excuse, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, for Chancellor Brown taking £5.4 billion from pension funds in the future. If the Minister doubts that, will he read the comments of the National Association of Pension Funds?
On a more positive note, will the Minister agree with me that, for very many people whose employers do not provide pension funds, personal pensions are a perfectly appropriate and correct vehicle to provide income for their retirement?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall reply to the noble Lord's positive points rather than to his diversionary tactics. Yes, of course it is true that there are many people, particularly the self-employed and those who are likely to change jobs frequently, for whom personal pension schemes are more appropriate than the kind of final salary scheme which denies individuals transferability from one employer to another. However, it is also important that, where possible, there should be employer contributions, as well as a minimising of the administrative costs which are too common a feature of personal pension schemes.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, as the Minister may be aware, most of us welcome the action taken by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in dealing with this very unfortunate matter. Is he also aware that, whatever we may think of the Chancellor's Budget so far as pension provision is concerned, the central question for the House is the mis-selling of pensions by disreputable salesmen working for some of those 24 companies? That is the central issue. I am sure that all of us would welcome vigorous action by the Government to deal with it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for returning to the original Question on the Order Paper. He is quite right. I suspect that he is also asking when criminal proceedings will be taken regarding some of the grosser examples of mis-selling. I can only say to him that, regrettably, it will not be possible to consider that until the redress procedure is complete or almost complete.

Indonesia: Arms Exports
3.25 p.m.
Lord Moynihanasked Her Majesty's Government:
What conclusions they have reached regarding arms sales to Indonesia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the British Government will not issue licences for the export of arms, to Indonesia or any other country, which might be used for internal repression or international aggression.

1513
We expect to announce the result of our review of the criteria used in considering licence applications for the export of conventional arms shortly.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, since the gracious Speech, I have had the privilege of debating human rights issues with the Minister in this House covering Burma, Indonesia, the Sudan and many other parts of the world. If the sale does proceed, as seems likely from the Foreign Office briefing to the press, I should like to congratulate the Government on a seamless transition of policy from the previous administration. Will the Minister give the House one concrete example of circumstances where the Government believe that the much-heralded application of the human rights criteria at the centre of foreign policy decisions will result in a change of policy from that of the previous administration?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government stand by their eight-point plan on policy towards arms exports that was published before the election. We will not sell arms to regimes which might use them for internal repression or external aggression. We want an EU code of conduct governing all arms sales. We announced on 22nd May that the Government would carry out an urgent review of the criteria used in considering licence applications for the export of conventional arms. Human rights will play an important part in that. As I indicated, the noble Lord and the rest of the House can expect us to announce our conclusions on this very important matter shortly.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, have the Government yet suspended deliveries of the armoured vehicles and water cannon about which evidence was supplied to them? Photographic evidence, as well as eye-witness statements, indicated that these devices exported from the United Kingdom had indeed been used in action against demonstrators. Will the Minister accept that the commitment in the mission statement is no different from that entered into by the previous government in regard to the principles governing conventional arms transfers of the OSCE in December 1993, and that what is lacking is any means of checking violations and enforcing the code of conduct, agreed not merely by the United Kingdom but by every other state in the OSCE, under which we will not sell arms that might be used for internal repression?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government are very concerned about the allegations, to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred, of the past misuse of UK-supplied equipment. We have asked officials for full details. As yet, there are no firm conclusions to be drawn. We are currently studying all the information available to us in relation to allegations about use of the Hawk in East Timor; however, as yet, we have no firm conclusions. I am therefore unable to give the noble Lord the detailed answer that his Question requires. I hope that such answers will be forthcoming very shortly.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, have the Government now solved the problem which has defeated experts over
1514
the years; namely, how to distinguish between weapons that can be used for aggression and for internal repression? Is the Minister aware that there is scarcely a single weapon which, under certain circumstances, could not be used for internal repression, with the possible exception of a nuclear weapon? Is she further aware that there are very few weapons or weapon systems which cannot be used in aggressive warfare? I should be interested to know whether the Government have solved that problem.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point. All such matters are far too important for rushed decisions. The review was set up barely two months ago. Many issues have to be fully considered, involving a great number of different Whitehall departments, as the noble Lord knows. The Government are determined that the issue and all the implications involved in it, such as the one to which the noble Lord has drawn our attention, are fully considered before reaching conclusions which I hope will be announced shortly.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is the Minister hopeful of avoiding a situation in which reduced sales from this country are simply made up by sales from such outlets as China and South American countries?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we would be hopeful in those circumstances of being able to persuade other countries to follow our lead in putting human rights at the heart of their policy too.

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

Business of the House: Summer Recess
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may also be for the convenience of the House if I remind your Lordships that, subject to the progress of Business, the House will rise for the Summer Recess on Thursday 31st July. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on that day.
I am now in a position to announce for the convenience of the House and of the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition that the House will return on Tuesday 14th October.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may say how grateful I am and this side of the House is for the

1515
statement that the Government Chief Whip has just made. That is particularly so regarding the date of the return of the House of Lords on 14th October. It has perhaps not been the best kept secret, since I am aware that the Refreshment Department has known of the date for some weeks and it has filtered out.
However, it would be helpful for all Members of the House if in future we have notification of the dates rather earlier than has been the case this year. I understand the difficulties in which the noble Lord found himself. Furthermore, I understand that another place is not due to return until 29th October, over two weeks after our return. That is not unwelcome because I assume that it means that there will be a number of important Bills for the House of Lords to deal with right at the start of the Session. There is a good reason for that, following the point made by my noble friend Lord Cranborne last week.
It is important for the Government to provide a balance for the legislative programme. My colleagues and I would regard it as an unhappy event if we were to find ourselves dealing with big, controversial and detailed Bills, including some that may contain items of constitutional importance, in the final months of the summer. I hope that the Government do not plan for Royal Assents to be required at the end of July or even the beginning of August when at this stage there seems to be no pressing need for it. That is particularly so since the House of Commons will return long after we do.
I hope that the noble Lord will take this in the spirit of co-operation and helpfulness with which it is intended, as has always been our direction here in Opposition.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words in the same spirit of co-operation and helpfulness as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. Is the Government Chief Whip aware that on a number of occasions during the period of the Conservative Government the House of Lords was recalled before the House of Commons? There is nothing unusual in the situation.
Is the Chief Whip also aware that I very much welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said about the need to avoid a large amount of constitutional legislation coming to this House in May and June? I join implicitly with the noble Lord in the desire to avoid during Committee and Report stages of a Bill wearisome, repetitive speeches, Second Reading speeches being made in any part of the House.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest to the Government Chief Whip that once the Bills start rolling he makes every attempt to get your Lordships' House to bed before two o'clock in the morning. That became the accepted practice by the present Opposition when they were in government.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all those who have spoken. I believe that the Opposition Chief Whip is aware that the usual channels have to flow across this House and also down the corridors.
1516
I have done my best through the usual channels to make possible dates available. Any Member of the House who did not know that we were likely to come back on 14th October was misinformed.
The reason the Commons are returning after us is a matter for them. However, I should remind the House that we have a number of important items of business to be getting on with such as the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, the Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill and, of course, we should not forget the Plant Varieties Bill.
I understand entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said about the balance between the two Houses. He knows that when we are able to inform him and the House of the way in which the balance will be achieved—of which we are entirely aware—he will be told as soon as possible. We understand the point that he makes about the weight of the legislation between the two Houses.
Regarding the Summer Recess next year, it is a long way off and we shall do our best to ensure that we rise in good time. However, I can only repeat the point made by my noble friend the Leader of the House last week. I see the noble Lord, Lord Denham, in his place and he told me that one year he kept the House sitting until 12th August.

Ministerial and Other Salaries Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a money Bill; read a first time, and to be printed.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 22nd July), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Magistrates' Courts (Procedure) Bill [H.L.]
3.38 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill that I bring before you today is distinctly less momentous than others to which your Lordships have given consideration. It is modest but important in its effect. Its origins lay in the Efficiency Scrutiny commissioned in 1994 to examine administrative burdens on operational police officers in the context of the whole of the criminal justice system. The scrutiny team undertook a thorough investigation, encompassing every police force in England and Wales, magistrates'

1517
courts, Crown Court centres and the Crown Prosecution Service and examined research and initiatives from a wide range of interested bodies. It reported in June 1995. This is the right approach. There are rarely single culprits when our interconnected justice system fails to deliver as it should. The scrutiny considered, among other areas, fixed penalty offences, summonses and specified proceedings. I should like to describe the current process in a little detail.
At present, provisions in the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 allow defendants on certain charges to be summonsed by post and to submit a guilty plea by post, if they wish. A significant number of those "guilty by post" pleas are for summary traffic offences; for example, exceeding speed limits or failing to comply with traffic light signals. Offenders who are ready to admit their guilt and accept the penalty merited by their crime can do so quickly and efficiently. They save both their own time and the time of the court. There is, of course, no question of the plea-by-post process allowing people to escape the penalty due for their offence. The Efficiency Scrutiny reported that one survey recorded that 38 per cent. of those summonsed in that way submitted guilty pleas by post. From informal consultation, that level appears to be generally representative.
Anyone summonsed in that way who wishes to plead not guilty can do so, and plead his or her case in court in the usual way. The great flaw in the present system which I have just described is that a very significant proportion of defendants simply do not respond to the summons at all. Of these, some do not respond for quite innocent reasons of error, and the law has remedies for them. But the survey to which I referred found that 35 per cent. of defendants made no reply to the summons whatsoever. The obvious truth is that, for a great many of them, ignoring the summons was nothing more than a means of delaying what is their due.
When a summons has produced no response, the court has no choice under our present arrangements but to adjourn the case. The prosecution may, perhaps, decide that there is no point in proceeding and the charge will simply be dropped. Should they proceed to trial, there are options available which seek to ensure that the defendant is in court for his or her trial. But the prosecution must be able, if necessary, to try a case in the complete absence of the defendant.
Under current legislation, a summons will usually include what is known as a "statement of facts", essentially a concise summary of the case details as recorded by the police. That information is sufficient for a defendant to acknowledge his or her guilt by post. But if they do not, the Crown Prosecution Service will take over responsibility for the prosecution. This may require written statements as described by Section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, which specifies the form for statements admissible in those proceedings; or witnesses may he required to attend court in person. Your Lordships will see that each summons ignored places heavy administrative duties on police, prosecutors and courts, which far outweigh those for processing a "guilty by post" plea.
1518
The Efficiency Scrutiny proposed a solution. to be evaluated through piloting by the relevant criminal justice agencies. Two pilot studies, in Gloucestershire and Lancashire, have recently been completed. Although they have not yet submitted formal reports on the pilot outcomes, both are showing most encouraging results and I hope to be able to report on these in detail at Committee stage. It is, however, worth mentioning that those who undertook the pilot schemes are all continuing to operate the procedures in question, although the actual pilot studies have been completed. At the time of the scrutiny, a comprehensive project was being undertaken in Leeds to test the very same process, and I shall return to that later.
The scrutiny suggested that the police should prepare a witness statement, as specified by Section 9 of the Act, and serve it with each summons. That would ensure that admissible statements were available to the court at the first scheduled hearing, whether or not the defendant had troubled to respond. If a defendant failed to answer the summons, the court could in most instances proceed immediately to trial, since the witness statement as served on the defendant would provide sufficient evidence to prove the case.
That is exactly what Clause 1 of the Bill will allow. It provides for an amendment to Section 12 of the Act, permitting a plea of guilty by post where either statements of fact or Section 9 witness statements have been served with the summons. When a statement of facts is served with the summons, the procedure for a guilty plea or a trial will be exactly the same as at present. When a Section 9 statement is served instead, this may be used equally as a summary of the facts, if a plea of guilty by post is received, or to prove the case, if no response is received to the summons. Further, including a Section 9 witness statement within the Section 12 procedure will not oblige the Crown Prosecution Service to take over prosecution from the police, as at present. The police will be able to continue as the de facto prosecutors and to claim the appropriate administrative costs. The amendment will not affect any other Section 12 provisions for pleas of guilty by post.
This Bill also provides one further refinement to the existing procedures for minor summary motoring offences. At present, where a defendant is convicted of a summary offence under the traffic Acts, previous endorsements on his or her driving licence may be taken into consideration by the court when sentencing. However, Section 104 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 states that, if the offender has not produced his driving licence to the court, previous endorsements on it cannot be considered until the court has served at least seven days' notice on the defendant of its intention to cite those previous summary convictions, by using a print-out of the driver's record from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.
That computer print-out, which mirrors the endorsements noted on the licence, is usually available to the court at the time of sentencing. But, again, defendants who fail to respond to their summonses will delay proceedings, since the court is obliged to adjourn and notify them of its intentions. Otherwise, should it wish to pass sentence on the day in question, the court

1519
must simply, contrary to the justice of the case, ignore those previous endorsements. That should obviously be changed. The remedy to the problem is set out in Clause 2 of the Bill. It provides simply that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency print-outs may be used by the court to prove any previous summary convictions, but without any requirement to serve notice on the defendant. The remaining two clauses of the Bill are simply administrative, updating a number of references in related legislation and allowing implementation of the Bill to be delayed until the necessary changes to court and police documentation can be effected.
I mentioned earlier the extended project undertaken at Leeds from 1994 to 1996. It involved the co-operation of local police authorities, the Crown Prosecution Service and the magistrates' courts, and it gave the theories later encapsulated in Recommendation 35 as thorough a practical airing as possible without legislation. At the end of the Leeds study, the police estimated that using the new process had saved about 70 per cent. of their costs for the old process over that 18-month period. The Crown Prosecution Service estimated more modest savings of about 18 per cent. For the magistrates' courts, some 50 per cent. of the current process costs were saved. Those savings are well worth making. They are, largely, not realisable in cash terms. They represent an estimate of the manpower and other resources released for use on other work by expediting the processes in minor motoring cases. But they are every bit as valuable to the criminal justice system as new funds would be.
Perhaps the most eloquent evidence of the study's success in Leeds is the average clearance time for the cases concerned. About 13,000 cases were handled using the revised procedures, procedures which will be assisted throughout England and Wales by the Bill. In 1994, before the study began, the average time from summons issue to finalisation in court was 22 weeks. By 1995, that figure had fallen to 12 weeks. By the end of the project in 1996, the average figure for clearance times for those cases was four weeks. The time which this Bill can save in the court process is a benefit to everyone in the process. Those who are guilty receive the due sentence for their crime more promptly, reinforcing the connection between crime and punishment. And the time and resources freed for the courts, for prosecutors and for police by this modest Bill—which it is estimated will affect over 500,000 cases each year—will help to expedite the progress of all cases in the criminal justice system.
I apologise for taking a little time. These are simple and practical procedural reforms which I imagine will be uncontroversial and should therefore receive general acceptance. I commend them to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.50 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor set out with admirable and customary lucidity the contents of the Bill. His account
1520
needs no embellishment from me. It is wholeheartedly supported from the Opposition Benches. Indeed, the Opposition may claim some credit for the Bill's contents. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, the Efficiency Scrutiny survey was initiated by my right honourable friend Mr. John Major and bore fruit in its publication a year later in the form of many excellent and practical suggestions, of which this measure is only one. I am confident that the noble and learned Lord will be looking at other parts of that report to bring other measures forward in the near future.
It is a sad fact that in the magistrates' courts nowadays it often takes almost as long to bring a guilty plea to court as it does to bring a not guilty plea to court. Your Lordships will agree that in that sense this measure is a positive step forward.
It is also important to emphasise that what has been going wrong in this area is not in any way the fault of the lay magistrates; it is entirely the fault of the legislation itself. I say that because, as the Lord Chancellor will be aware, there has recently been a lot of criticism of the lay magistrature. Indeed, there are some who compare it adversely with the work of stipendiary magistrates and I have even seen it recommended that there should be a massive increase in the number of stipendiary magistrates to take over the work of lay justices.
The noble and learned Lord has already gone on record as saying that he does not accept such a development. I hope that he will, in future, take every opportunity he can to repeat that wise sentiment. It is true that there are disputes coming before lay magistrates nowadays—for example, environmental measures which flow from the Environment Act 1995—which may prove difficult for lay magistrates to deal with—simply because of their length.
But most of the problems that face the lay magistrates can be solved by better case management. After all, we have an excellent new procedure in the Crown Courts called "pleas and directions"; we have the admirable initiative of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, now enshrined in legislation, trying to do something similar—the task of case management—in civil courts. It is desirable that we pursue exactly the same objective in our magistrates' courts, where, after all, 98 per cent. of the legal business in our nation is done.
If any part of the professional world needs to play a greater role, it is not the stipendiary magistrates but the court clerks who can take away much of the administrative burden from the lay magistrates, leaving them to decide the important questions of bail, custody and sentencing.
The Efficiency Scrutiny survey, to which the noble and learned Lord addressed himself, will sort out those issues which require legislative change from those issues where better case management will improve the work of the magistrates' court. The Opposition are delighted with this piece of legislation and we trust it will be swiftly followed by measures of a similar sort.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I welcome this Bill, which the noble and learned Lord the

1521
Lord Chancellor described as "modest". He also emphasised how important it is to save the time and resources that are available to the magistrates' courts.
In my youth adjournments were the curse of the magistrates' courts. In the courts in which I practised it was customary to spend the time between 10 o'clock and 11.30—the coffee break—in simply dealing with adjournments. It was said that the clerk, a very worthy man, had turned the granting of adjournments into something of an art form. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said a moment ago, it was not the fault of the magistrates nor of the magistrates' clerks that adjournments of that sort were so necessary.
Turning to the contents of the Bill, I hope that the practice of serving written statements—Section 9 statements—is adopted generally and becomes the norm. In most cases where that procedure is followed the statements are in pro forma anyway and the police officers who are reporting the offences which are the subject of the procedure will normally fill out a form which simply complies with the Section 9 statements.
The problem with the summary of facts that is prepared by the police is that the facts are not necessarily properly stated. I recall some years ago that a friend of mine with whom I was fishing in Scotland decided to leave the river on the Thursday and return to Caernarvon to contest a speeding summons. He did that against the very best legal advice that was offered to him—by the ghillie I have to say—and went there on the basis that he had been charged with speeding on a motorcycle when in fact he had been driving a car.
As soon as my friend arrived and pointed out the error and pleaded not guilty, the written statement of facts was immediately amended to the fact that he was driving a car. He pleaded guilty. He lost two or three good fishing days. That is what can happen when the summary of facts is prepared wrongly. I hope that, if the serving of Section 9 statements becomes the norm, copies of those statements will be produced in court by the person who presents the prosecution case and handed to the magistrates' clerk while the prosecutor himself gives a brief summary of the facts to the magistrates so that they can deal with the case.
As to Section 2, dealing with print-outs from the DVLA, I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor if there is any reason why such a print-out should not be sent out with the summons itself. When a person is stopped for a road traffic offence he is either required to produce a driving licence at that time or to produce it to a police station within a five-day period. At that particular moment in time such endorsements as he has upon his licence are made known to the police and are no doubt one of the reasons why they decide to prosecute rather than to caution.
It seems to me that it would be perfectly possible under the new procedure for the DVLA print-out to be sent out with the summons and for a brief check to be made, perhaps by the prosecutor or his staff, immediately before the court hearing to cover the period between the issue of the summons and the actual hearing itself. That in itself may save money.
1522
Those are some brief points that I make. We accept the need for this Bill and wish it well on its course.
3.59 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I hope it may come as something of a relief to noble Lords if I say that I only intend to speak on this matter briefly.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already said all there is to say about this short Bill and, in addition, thoughtfully and courteously circulated an explanatory note on its contents. As a serving magistrate—a claim I can make at least for the next three months if not afterwards—and therefore with an interest to declare in this subject, I hope I may be permitted to make a few observations on the contents of the Bill.
I doubt whether the earth will move in legal circles with its passage and, indeed, the attendance here this afternoon would scarcely seem to suggest that it possesses parliamentary "oomph", if I may use a show business phrase, unlike, perhaps not surprisingly, the Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Bill which is to follow. But, for all that, it is, I suggest, an important step in the right direction.
The provisions have been given a trial run in Gloucestershire and Lancashire, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already said, and, I think, with great success. Other courts have been fast-tracking as well. For example, I know that north west Hampshire has been committed to this for the past nine months and my own bench, in north east Hampshire, for the past six months. The heavens have not fallen as a result.
I hesitate to suggest that the former over-elaborate procedure dating from a time of considerably fewer minor offences is more honoured in the breach than the observance. But with perhaps 60 per cent. of the lower courts' work being taken up with road traffic offences, enshrining this streamlining procedure in the law must be welcomed by all involved with court work. It may be—I hope this will be the case—that other desirable short cuts will present themselves in a short time. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has already mentioned something which seems to me to have considerable merit in this area. For example, can we not go a little further? Perhaps a DVLA print-out can be sufficient to prove the identity of a disqualified driver.
All would acknowledge that there are defects in our legal system at the present time. Thankfully, some have been identified and remedied but others remain to be solved. Perhaps the most pernicious is delay and the time taken between the commission of an offence and the sentence. Clearly, this is particularly important in specifically criminal matters, but motorists and other lesser offenders surely have a right to swift justice as well. The reduction in the administrative burden will bring relief all round.
This Bill will help in these tasks. If it is an acorn of a Bill, we look forward in time to the oaks which will surely spring from the adoption of its principles in the

1523
execution of justice in this country. I warmly support its provisions and congratulate the Government on bringing it forward so quickly in the new Session.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, short Bills, however meritorious, deserve short speeches. Noble Lords will have observed that that rule has been carried out by my predecessors who have spoken; I intend to follow it. I am able to report, having inquired of the Law Society, the Magistrates' Association and the Automobile Association, that all those worthy bodies feel that this is an extremely wise and useful Bill.
The Bill, we hope, will save manpower. However, fellow practitioners—those who practise in the magistrates' courts—tell me that it still happens, when guilty pleas have been entered in regard to motoring offences, that a police officer is present waiting for the case to come on and that that officer departs only when the case is over. That officer should not be there at all; there is no need for him. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can tell the House that police authorities will be told in good time that the policeman responsible for the case is not required.
I wish to make only one other observation. The magistrates' courts, whether looked after by a lay bench or by a stipendiary—I welcome and concur with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, about lay magistrates—are very largely the courts of little people, working people. Many of them find it difficult, even if they have a case when accused of one of these minor offences, to appear in court during the daytime when so often they are kept waiting for hours and hours and are usually deprived of a day's pay. I wonder whether the question of magistrates' courts sitting in the evening—if only on one day a week—in order to accommodate those who are inconvenienced very considerably if they have to attend during the day can be addressed.
Lay magistrates may often find it more convenient to sit in the evening than during the day time. Stipendiary magistrates, I feel sure, would not mind making that sacrifice for the sake of justice in courts which, as I say, usually look after working class people.
4.6 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for the general welcome given to this measure. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, said quite rightly that it is something of an acorn lacking "oomph". I did not begin by over-selling it; you can of course often do good without being able to be exciting. I am ready to acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said. All this comes out of the efficiency scrutiny survey initiated by the previous Prime Minister. I shall look at the points the noble Lord made about other recommendations in the survey. However, as I understand it—although I will check—very few, in order to be implemented, require legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, asked why the print-out could not be sent out with the summons itself. There is an answer, but it is probably an insufficient
1524
answer. The answer is that it is not usually available at the time the summons is sent out because it is still awaited from the DVLA at Swansea. I shall certainly be asking my officials to advise me whether those working in the DVLA in that part of the Principality could do better and whether it could be automatically requisitioned before the summons is served and so accompany the summons as served.
As usual, my noble friend Lord Mishcon makes an important point. There is no legal requirement on police officers to attend court where a plea of guilty by post has been entered under the Section 12 procedure. I am sure—and I know he would agree—that most police forces must be very keen to keep officers' attendance at court to a minimum. They have much better things to do than to hang around court when nothing is required of them. In some instances, of course, they are genuinely needed in court to explain technical or other obscure aspects of the evidence before the magistrates. Clearly, however, it is preferable for all concerned that attendances are confined to those occasions which are strictly merited.
I agree with my noble friend that there may be many instances where there is a failure to notify police officers that they will not be required to attend court for guilty by post pleas. Therefore, it will be helpful to consider how to secure the necessary notification; that is to say, who will "de-warn" the police. It has to be examined administratively. Should it be the police themselves, the CPS or the court? Clearly, better communication among all the agencies involved (police, prosecutors and courts) is required. I therefore undertake to make inquiries about how to achieve the necessary changes in practice in order to give an answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, which will satisfy him.
The point to which he called attention links to one of more general application across the whole of the criminal justice system. In a major speech I made this morning to the council of the Magistrates' Association, which I intended should deal with all the current concerns of the magistracy and in particular delays in the youth justice system, I said this:
"I am conscious that real improvements can only be achieved if all the agencies—the police, the CPS, Probation Services, Social Services and the defence—play their full part. There is no one culprit. The Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord. Lord Bingham, in a recent speech to the Prison Reform Trust called for the active collaboration of all the agencies involved directly or indirectly in the causes and consequences of juvenile offending. He said, and I entirely agree, that it was vital that 'lines of functional demarcation do not impede effective and harmonious co-operation"'.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, well appreciates how these observations are in line with the necessary solution to the problem to which he rightly calls attention.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will be pleased to hear that in the same speech this morning I nailed the false story which appeared in the Observer—followed by the story run the next day by the Daily Mail—that the Government plan to substantially destroy our 700 year-old system of lay justices. There are 30,374 of them in the country, according to the latest count. The story was that they were to be substantially replaced by stipendiary magistrates, of whom there are a mere

1525
90 across the country. Where that crackpot idea came from I know not, but it is without any substance whatever.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, who spoke of what, I dare say, was a very early experience when at the Bar and of appearing at a magistrates' court, that there is of course a culture of adjournments and that it is one of the things that afflicts the youth justice system. One of my very first actions in the office which I now occupy was to send a letter to magistrates across the country urging them to think very hard before granting adjournments in these cases.
Of course, even above the elimination of delay there is a value which is higher, and that is to ensure that justice is done in these cases. But spree-offending by young offenders is one of the afflictions of our times. It is often desirable not to wait until perhaps the many offences committed by these young people can be dealt with on a single occasion by the courts. In the interests of the protection of the public and of bringing such young people to their senses at an early stage it is often wiser to deal with a single offence early in order to impose the very necessary, timely connection between the commission of crime and punishment.
I believe—I certainly hope—that I have responded to all the points raised in this short and interesting debate. As I make that large claim I realise that I have not because the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised the question of evening magistrates' courts. A further gain from this short debate today is that I will ask my officials to report to me on that possibility.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that I do not want to mislead the House. I said that the Automobile Association thoroughly approved of the Bill. After I had sat down a note was passed to me. I propose only to read the paragraph and I do not ask the noble and learned Lord to reply to it, although I know that he would courteously if he wanted to and still will if he wants to. I am told that there is a problem in regard to Clause 2. The note states:
"DVLC records may be incorrect and if the defendants are not shown what is produced, it could all go badly wrong, [for example] if the print out from the DVLC shows more than I name, the wrong person may get the endorsement".
The note adds:
"DVLC's records are quite often incorrect".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I shall certainly seek the advice of officials on that point. At first sight it goes only to support the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. If the print-out accompanied the summons and it was seen to be inaccurate by the defendant, then he would have the opportunity, from the procedure suggested by the noble Lord, to contest the matter if he so chose.
Lord Torphichen: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that if the DVLA print-out was in front of the court, it might not be considered as evidence and, therefore, it would be immensely prejudicial before a verdict. That would not
1526
be allowed in any other court proceedings. You could not say, for instance, that there were three previous convictions for murder before a murderer came to trial.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not sure from where the noble Lord gets that idea. Having sat for many years as a recorder, I can assure him that judges quite often know about the previous convictions of defendants.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Scottish Parliament
4.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement on the Government's proposals for a Scottish parliament which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about our plans for the Scottish parliament. Copies of this Statement and the White Paper are now available in the Vote Office.
"On 1st May, the people of Scotland—like the people of the United Kingdom as a whole—voted for our manifesto and the comprehensive programme of constitutional change. At its heart was our commitment to create a Scottish parliament and a Welsh assembly giving the people of Scotland and Wales more control over their own affairs within the United Kingdom.
"Our aim is to make government more open, more accessible and more accountable to the people whom we serve, and to give the United Kingdom a modern constitution fit for the 21st century.
"The Government are losing no time in turning these commitments into reality. On Tuesday, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales published his plans for devolution to Wales. Today I am laying before the House the detailed proposals for the Scottish parliament.
"Like many others in this House and beyond, I have campaigned long and hard for a Scottish parliament over the years. Few occasions in my long parliamentary career have given me as much pleasure as coming here today to present our firm proposals for that Scottish parliament.
"In my time I have seen many devolution schemes. I genuinely believe this is the best; and right for Scotland. We have renewed, modernised and improved on the plans agreed with the broad coalition of Scottish interests in the Scottish Constitutional Convention. It will provide a new, stable settlement which will serve Scotland and the United Kingdom well in the years to come.

1527
"Let me outline what we propose. The Scottish parliament will have the power to make the law of Scotland in devolved areas. Entrusting Scotland with control over her own domestic affairs will better allow the people of Scotland to benefit from and contribute to the unity of the United Kingdom. The Scottish parliament will hold to account an executive headed by a First Minister which will operate in a way similar to the United Kingdom Government. Together, the Scottish parliament and executive will be responsible for the wide range of domestic matters which affect everyone living in Scotland, including: health; education and training; local government; housing; social work; economic development; transport; the law and home affairs; the environment, including the natural and built heritage; agriculture, fisheries and forestry; and sport and the arts. The details are there in the White Paper.
"A key aspect of the Scottish parliament's role will be to create and maintain an effective oversight of other Scottish bodies, the health service and particularly local government. We expect the Scottish parliament and executive to complement and not encroach upon democratically elected local government.
"Let me tell the House why this is an advance on any scheme that has gone before and why I believe not only the time is right but the scheme is right. The parliament will have extensive law-making powers. Unlike 1978, the full range of the Scottish Office's functions will be devolved. This will provide the opportunity to make a real difference in the areas that matter. The legislation will define reserved matters, not devolved matters, and the Scottish parliament will be able to exercise its law-making powers in all areas which are not specifically reserved to Westminster. The relationships between the Scottish executive, the UK Government and the Crown will provide clarity and stability for the future. The parliament will have the discipline and responsibility of defined financial powers. The Scottish executive will be closely involved with the UK Government in European decision-making.
"Throughout the White Paper our guiding principle is to trust the Scottish people to make the right decisions on their own behalf. The detailed procedures, the working arrangements and the practical issues relating to the governance of Scotland will properly be left to the parliament and the executive, answerable as they will be to the Scottish electorate.
"The UK Parliament is and will remain sovereign in all matters: but as part of our resolve to modernise the constitution, Westminster will be choosing to exercise that sovereignty by devolving legislative responsibility to the Scottish parliament without diminishing its own powers. Those matters more appropriately dealt with on a UK basis will remain at Westminster. They will include the constitution of the United Kingdom; foreign policy; defence and national security; the stability of the United Kingdom's fiscal, economic and monetary system; common markets for
1528
UK goods and services; employment legislation; some health issues, including abortion; social security matters; and most aspects of transport safety and regulation.
"After devolution, Scotland's MPs will continue to play a full and constructive role in the proceedings of this House. This is right both for Scotland and for the United Kingdom because devolution is about strengthening the United Kingdom.
"The distribution of seats is regularly reviewed by the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions which follows criteria defined in statute. At present, special statutory provisions stipulate a minimum number of Scottish seats. This has led to Members for constituencies in Scotland representing, on average, fewer constituents than Members in other parts of the United Kingdom.
"Our devolution proposals mean that, in practice, Westminster will no longer be the forum for scrutinising much of Scotland's domestic legislation. This brings into sharper focus the imbalance in the current arrangements. The Government have decided that the requirement for a minimum number of Scottish seats should no longer apply. Primary legislation will be needed. This will be put in place before the next full Boundary Commission review.
"Other statutory requirements such as the need to give due weight to geographical considerations and local ties will continue to apply. The actual number of seats allocated to Scotland will be for the Boundary Commission to recommend exercising its judgment in accordance with the criteria laid down.
"There will continue to be a Secretary of State for Scotland who will work with the new Scottish parliament and represent Scottish interests within the United Kingdom Government.
"The staff of the Scottish executive will continue to be part of a unified Home Civil Service. The Scottish executive and the UK Government will work closely together at ministerial and official level. The stability of the system is of the utmost importance. The White Paper sets out detailed arrangements for these working relationships; and for resolving any disagreements.
"The people of Scotland will continue to benefit from the influence which the United Kingdom has as a major state within the European Union. Relations with the EU will remain the responsibility of the UK Government, with the Scottish executive making an effective and appropriate contribution to UK decision-making on Europe. Ministers in the Scottish executive will have an opportunity to participate in relevant meetings of the Council of Ministers and in appropriate cases could speak for the United Kingdom.
"There will be a Scottish representative office in Brussels; this will complement the role of UKREP and will allow the Scottish executive to operate more effectively in Europe. The Scottish executive will have an obligation to implement EU legislation on devolved matters. Our proposals are very much in line with developments across the European Union.

1529
"The financial framework for the Scottish parliament will be based on the present "block and formula" arrangements for the Scottish Office, known as the Barnett formula, adapted to match the range of the Scottish executive's future responsibilities and to maintain and improve transparency and accountability. This will give the Scottish parliament the ability and freedom to approve spending decisions which are fully in accordance with Scottish needs and priorities.
"As an integral part of these financial arrangements, the control of local government expenditure, non-domestic rates and other local taxation will also be devolved to the Scottish parliament, with appropriate safeguards to protect all UK taxpayers. The Government's objective is to ensure that Scotland's spending decisions are taken in Scotland in the light of Scottish circumstances.
"Subject to the outcome of the referendum, the Scottish parliament will be given power to increase or decrease the basic rate of income tax set by the UK Parliament by up to 3p. The parliament will have a guaranteed right to raise or to forgo up to £450 million (index-linked) irrespective of changes to the UK income tax structure. Liability will be determined by residence in Scotland, according to Inland Revenue rules. The tax-varying power will not apply to income from savings and dividends. The Inland Revenue will administer any tax variation, with the Scottish parliament meeting the administrative costs.
"Let me now turn to the arrangements for the Scottish parliament itself. The Scottish parliament will consist of 129 members, 73 directly elected on a constituency basis, plus 56 additional members (seven from each of the current eight European parliamentary constituencies) allocated to ensure that the overall result more directly reflects the share of votes cast for each party. Eligibility to vote will be based on residency.
"In the late 1970s there was, without doubt, a fear that a Scottish parliament would be dominated by one point of view. The fear was that minorities, geographical or political, would be less than fairly represented. The changes in the electoral system now proposed have ended that possibility. The composition of the parliament will fairly reflect opinion throughout Scotland.
"The Government want to see people who represent the widest possible range of interests coming forward for election to the Scottish parliament. The aim must be equal opportunities for all—women, members of ethnic minority groups and disabled people. The selection of candidates is of course a matter for individual political parties, but others hopefully will follow our lead in encouraging women representatives.
"The Government are determined to have a parliament building worthy of the new century and ready to provide working conditions which will encourage open and accessible government. It is for that reason that a number of possible sites in Edinburgh, including the old Royal High School, are under consideration.
1530
"Subject to the passage of the referendums Bill, the people of Scotland will make their historic choice in the referendum on 11th September. Theirs is the judgment that matters. I believe that they will endorse our proposals. As soon as possible following that referendum result we shall introduce the legislation to establish a Scottish parliament. Once that legislation has been enacted we can look forward to elections in the first half of 1999. The Government's target is for the Scottish parliament to assume its full responsibilities in January in the year 2000. That indeed will be a new parliament for the new millennium.
"Now is the time for Scotland to choose. Twelve weeks ago Labour was elected on a promise to deliver a parliament for Scotland. This White Paper fulfils that promise. We have delivered. All the essentials are here—modernised and improved for the next century. This settlement offers an effective voice for Scotland. It recognises Scotland's distinctive identity and the strong ties which bind us together as one United Kingdom. Reform and renewal will give strength to an enduring partnership.
"I know, none better, the strength of feeling and the intensity of argument there has been on this subject over the years. Constitutional change requires good will. I believe there will be a broad welcome for our proposals which will reach out across party lines and across the range of our communities. It is my belief that it will be so. I commend the White Paper to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement. I also thank him for giving me reasonable time to digest both the Statement and the White Paper. Although I am not the fastest reader on earth, I have managed to skip through the White Paper.
I am afraid that I cannot share the pleasure of the Secretary of State for Scotland in listening to the Statement that has just been repeated by the Minister. Rather than a day for rejoicing, I believe that this is a day of great sadness for our 300 year-old Union. I fear that this marks the beginning of what Tam Dalyell describes in his book as the end of Britain.
Every page and paragraph severs strand by strand the links that bind us in this island, just like a knife cutting through a mooring rope in order to cast a ship adrift. The knife takes out each strand until the whole is broken and the link is severed. Rather than provide a new stable settlement which will serve Scotland and the United Kingdom well in the years to come. I fear that it will lead to instability, friction and disruption and that Scotland's influence will be lessened here at Westminster and down Whitehall.
For example, how will all of the detailed discussions that those of us who have been in government know about—all the letters, minutes and meetings that take place in and between government departments, especially those whose responsibilities are to be

1531
devolved to the Scottish assembly—take account of Scottish interests? Will the Whitehall paperchase (if I may so describe it) include the Scottish executive in its Civil Service? If so, how can confidentiality be secured, especially if the Scottish executive does not like what it sees? Whether the same or different parties are in charge, I cannot believe that these papers will be circulated outside the UK Government and their ministries. I cannot therefore believe that Scotland's interests will be other than diminished within the Government of the United Kingdom. It is the relationship between London and Edinburgh that is at the very heart of the difficulties that I foresee.
I believe that Europe is a good example. In chapter 5 the Government recognise the problems of Europe and discuss the formulation of policy and co-operation. At the end of paragraph 5.4 they state:
"This will require, of course, mutual respect for the confidentiality of those discussions and adherence to the resultant UK line, without which it would be impossible to maintain such close working relationships".
I do not believe that one can ask a parliament and executive answerable separately to their people to maintain and adhere to a UK line if they do not agree with that line. We all know that we have to do that within one government. Often we have to argue with our colleagues. Sometimes we lose and we then have to accept collective responsibility. I cannot for the life of me see how that collective responsibility can be widened to include the Scottish executive. Perhaps the Minister can tell me whether he has a secret answer to that.
It is said that the role of Scottish Ministers and officials in Europe will be to support and advance the single UK negotiating line which they have played a part in developing. In a previous existence I came to know a little about fishing and the common fisheries policy. Very often extremely difficult balances must be achieved between the interests of fishing communities in different parts of the United Kingdom. Sometimes Ministers have to return to Scotland to explain to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation why they have come up with the compromise that they have. It will be extremely difficult to ask a Minister responsible to an Edinburgh parliament to adhere to a UK line which is being attacked by Scottish fishermen for being too generous to the fishermen of the south west of England or Northern Ireland. It is interesting that, I understand, in Spain these matters are not delegated. The Spanish Government hold the reins and negotiate in Brussels. The Government should think again about matters such as fishing.
Will the Minister assure me that a person who is not a member of the UK Government can represent the UK at the Council of Ministers? Have the Government checked that out? Will they need to change any of the Acts relating to the Treaty of Rome or the Maastricht Treaty?
I turn to Scottish legislation. I presume, from the absence of any mention of it, that there is to be no role for this House in Scottish legislation. So I presume that the Minister will be the last in a long and distinguished line of Scottish Office Ministers in this Chamber. The Government themselves accept the need for a revising
1532
Chamber. They may not like the composition of this one, but my understanding is that they do not dispute the need for a revising Chamber. Not in Scotland, it would appear: no revising chamber there. Are the Government convinced that that is a sensible way to proceed?
If any secondary legislation arises from UK legislation which needs the attention of the Scottish parliament, will that go to the parliament or here? In the absence of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, perhaps I may ask whether the parliament will be able to alter secondary legislation which is sent to it by the other place, or will it, like this Chamber, be under convention not to make alterations in secondary legislation?
Paragraph 3.38 in the Welsh White Paper is an interesting one. It suggests that the assembly will be able to consider and debate legislation which is being considered at Westminster. Although I had a good deal of time, I have not noticed a similar provision in the Scottish document. Am I therefore right to conclude that the Welsh assembly might be asked for its view on, say, the Social Security Bill now before the other place, but that the Scottish parliament will not be asked to comment? Is that right? The Scottish parliament will have no right to comment, although the Welsh assembly will.
In case the Minister says that the Scottish parliament will have a right to comment, let us take Clause 68 of that same Bill, which brings one-parent benefit down to the same rate as that for other parents. I can foresee the Scottish parliament not being happy about that. What happens when it is not happy and it complains about UK legislation? We need some answers on that.
In addition to fishing, which I have already mentioned, the Minister is the UK forestry Minister. I presume from reading the White Paper and seeing that forestry is to be devolved that the Forestry Commission will now be split. That is a great pity. The Minister shakes his head. Does that mean that English and Welsh forestry will be the responsibility of the Scottish parliament? The Minister is shaking his head about that as well. Will he clarify the position, because I—if I may say so—cannot see the wood for the trees in this one. If it is to be separated, which English Minister will take it over?
Paragraph 3.3 deals with some of the matters which are not to be devolved. We shall have to consider carefully those which are listed under:
"Certain other matters presently subject to UK or GB regulation or operation".
I ask with some interest why certain things such as abortion, human fertilisation and embryology are not to be trusted to the Scottish parliament. I am certain that Cardinal Winning will not be keen about that. I can understand some of the reasons, but if the general proposition is that that parliament can be trusted, why cannot it be trusted with that important legislation as well?
I turn to finance, which is largely in Chapter 7. Paragraph 7.2 clearly states:
"Scotland will continue to benefit from its appropriate share of UK public expenditure".

1533
Paragraph 7.6 talks about block arrangements. A few weeks ago we had a Statement about a fundamental expenditure review. Under questioning from me, we discovered that that was to include the Scottish Office. That review is to be the basis of the public expenditure survey in year three. Years one and two are already determined. They were laid down by us when we were in government. I was told that the Barnett formula will be in place for the next two years, but that thereafter it will not be. So I shall be interested in knowing what will happen to that Scottish block after the fundamental expenditure review, and what commitments the Government are prepared to give about that.
I notice that paragraph 7.12 states clearly that it is income tax only. I trust on that basis that the Government will not overturn the amendment your Lordships insisted upon earlier in the week.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, you have not got it yet.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall turn now to the number of MPs, which is one of the little surprises in this document, although it was not too much of a surprise because it was leaked all over the Scottish press this morning. We read what we see in the document. Is there any truth that 58 is to be the number? Will the Minister tell me? After all, that was the heavy Scottish Office briefing. Perhaps I may remind him what George Robertson, then the Shadow Secretary of State, said in January 1996:
"I think that if 72 is the right number now, then it is the right number after devolution".
What has changed, apart from the fact that poor George Robertson was sacked from his Scottish Office brief and sent to defence? What I find interesting is that that is an acknowledgement of the West Lothian question—a question whose existence has been steadfastly refuted over the past 20 years. If it is an acknowledgment, that is good. It is not an answer, because the remaining 58 Scottish MPs will still have the same dilemma: how can they vote on matters that affect England when they have no votes over similar matters which affect their own constituents to whom they are responsible? What does the Minister have to say about that? He can no longer say that it is not a problem, and that it no longer exists, because paragraph 4.5 makes it clear that the Government think that it does exist and that it is a problem.
As to the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland, to whom will he be answerable—the UK Government and Parliament or the Scottish government and parliament? Or will he be a message boy between the two? Will he be bound by the collective responsibility of the UK Parliament? To revert again to the Welsh White Paper, I noticed in that document that the Welsh Secretary will be allowed to attend and speak in the Welsh assembly. Will the same be true of the Secretary of State for Scotland? Does that mean that he will have to go there and answer for what that parliament may think are the sins of the Westminster Parliament?
I turn to the polling system in Annex C. The Welsh White Paper sets out the polling system rather better than this one does. It is rather clearer. It is helpful to see
1534
the way through. I have not had time to study this, but I think that it is different. I suspect that it ends up with the same answer. I shall be wondering to myself later today why there is a difference. What is a bit odd is that the Government, having decided that we should never again use European electoral seats to elect European MPs, will base the electoral system on European seats. In all logic, before we come to a Bill, if that is what we come to eventually, the Government should look at another way of dealing with the problem and not keep in being seats which no longer have any relevance because we will not have such a thing as European parliamentary seats.
Paragraph C.4 worried me a bit:
"The Government intend to legislate for the registration of political parties".
I am not keen on governments registering political parties. I can see why they need to do it, but we will need to look with a great deal of care and caution at the protections that will exist against a government deciding, because they do not like a party—we may all not like that party—they will refuse to register it. We have to look at that.
On page 5 of the Statement the Secretary of State says:
"The UK Parliament is and will remain sovereign in all matters".
That is a bit better than Mr. Tony Blair's statement that, "sovereignty rests with me"; but it is a statement of the truth. Can the Minister say how that squares with the Secretary of State's signing of the "claim of rights" which said that sovereignty rests with the Scottish people? It seems to me that it cannot rest with both: it is one or the other. Can the Minister say which?
I have always felt that this proposal represented a slippery slope. I have always been upheld in that view by the fact that the Scottish National Party is very keen to support devolutionary proposals. In fact, the Government are very keen to get that party on board on the "Yes, yes". Therefore, the SNP will campaign for a "Yes, yes", wanting to drive the UK apart, while the Government, in their campaign for a "Yes, yes", will say that they do not want to drive the UK apart. The lion may well lie down with the lamb in biblical terms, but I am not sure that a unionist can lie down with a separatist.
I know that the Minister and his right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Mr. Donald Dewar, are men of honour. I know that they genuinely believe that if they do not go down this devolution road the Union will break up. I do not agree with that view. I believe that we are on far safer ground where we are at present, with Unionists among us, holding the arrangement of one United Kingdom Parliament. I believe that it would strengthen the Union if we were all to do so. The very fact that the SNP has actually gone backwards since it won 11 seats in 1974 illustrates that its threat is not nearly so great as the Minister and his party seem to fear.

1535
As I said, I know that the Government believe that what they are doing here will strengthen the Union. If this proposal comes into being, I earnestly hope that they are right. However, if I may say so in the Scots tongue, "I hae ma doots".
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, this is an historic day for Scotland and not a day for nitpicking. I believe that the White Paper will be widely welcomed and very thoroughly debated in Scotland; and, indeed, in this House, as well as the other place. We in this party have espoused the Scottish self-government cause over many decades and we are glad to have played some part in the fruition of the White Paper. The Statement made by the Secretary of State, and repeated in this House by the Minister, correctly pays tribute to the work of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. Indeed, the whole basis of the legislation rests on that work which was painstakingly carried out over some four or five years.
It is right that the Government claim in the Statement to have improved on the proposals of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. Perhaps I may give a particular welcome to the announcement in the White Paper that there will indeed be a reduction in the number of Scottish Members in the other place. That has always seemed to me to be totally correct. However, I have to say that we lost that argument in the convention and I am delighted that wisdom has finally dawned on the Government. They have agreed that, while it is not an answer to the West Lothian question, it is a mitigation of it to reduce the number of Scottish Members in Westminster so as to be on a par with those in England and Wales.
My one point of puzzlement on the latter is, why leave the actual number to be decided by the Boundary Commission. Surely that is a matter of political judgment. I see the noble Lord the Leader of the House shaking his head, but I remind him that we had a Royal Commission on the constitution in the 1970s. It came up with a specific recommendation in that respect. Therefore, why not found on that rather than leave it to the uncertainties of a non-political body to decide on the actual number? The principle should be that the number be reduced so that, now that we will have our own Parliament, Scottish Members at Westminster will no longer have smaller constituencies than those in England and Wales. That principle is one of political judgment. It is a new and welcome one from the Government's previously espoused position, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay.
Will the Minister confirm that there are other substantial differences between what is proposed this year and what was put to the Scottish people in the legislation of 1979? In particular, the proportional representation system is, to my mind, of crucial importance. I say that because if one studies the referendum results of 1979, one finds that there was great suspicion in the outlying areas of Scotland, including the area that I represented, about the proposals. As they stood in 1979, those proposals could have led to a minority among the population capturing a majority of the seats. It was a real fear that the Scottish
1536
parliament would be dominated, to put it bluntly, by a central Scotland Labour Party. Therefore, I pay tribute to the Labour Party. During the work of the convention, they recognised that that was a legitimate fear in Scotland and that has now been put right. It is a major advance on what was on offer in 1979.
A second advance which was not mentioned in the Statement—but one I am sure the Minister will confirm—is something that, again, will make a difference. I refer to the fact that in 1979 we argued for a third tier of government in Scotland, because we had two tiers of local government. From his own experience, the Minister will know that, because we now have a single tier of local government in Scotland, we are operating against a quite different background. We do not propose to have three tiers of government; indeed, there will in fact be two in Scotland—the national parliament in Edinburgh and a single tier of local authorities.
The third difference is the taxation powers. I was not present in the Chamber for the interesting debate which took place the other day on the issue. I hope that the Government will indeed reverse the amendment passed in another place and that they will leave the question of taxation powers as open as possible within the framework of the agreements in the White Paper.
There is one further point that I would like to draw to the attention of your Lordships' House; namely, that the White Paper is extremely liberal on the question of who is eligible to stand for this parliament. Members of your Lordships' House will be able to stand and that is something of great interest. However, so also will ministers of religion and priests. That is certainly of great interest to certain ministers of religion and priests in Scotland. We do not have a state established church in Scotland. Therefore, this is a welcome and new provision.
I also noticed that European Union citizens who are resident in Scotland will also be able to stand. That means that the noble Lord's Italian waiter, of whom we have heard so much in previous debates, will certainly have that possibility conferred upon him. Indeed, I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, would have given a particular welcome to that provision in view of his obsession with that particular gentleman.
I have one particular suggestion to make to the Government. As they say that they plan to hold the elections in Scotland in the first half of 1999, it seems to me that it would make administrative and financial sense to try to hold these elections on the same day as the European elections which fall due in June of 1999.
On the question of parliamentary premises, I counsel the Government against the dangers of grandiose extravagance. The Scottish people will not want to see a new architectural exhibition in the search for some new building. The public paid for the conversion of the Old Royal High School to a parliamentary chamber back in the late 1970s. I quite accept that it is not adequate on its own as regards the provision of parliamentary offices, but I suggest that a look should be taken at the old Scottish Office across the road. Indeed, it would be

1537
cheaper to bore a tunnel between the two than to construct a new building. I recommend that as a possible solution to the Government.
One very important point of principle in the White Paper is that we are to legislate to define "reserve matters" for Westminster and not the other way around. I regard that as a very important point of departure because it means that the Scottish parliament will have a momentum of its own. "Reserve matters" will be specifically allocated to Westminster and the Scottish parliament will be left to get on with every other aspect of life. I believe that to be correct.
I do not share the gloomy view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, as regards the possibility of constant unhappiness and dissention over European Union discussions. I look forward to a second visit from the President of the Catalan Government during the referendum campaign when he will visit Scotland. I believe that he will be able to enlighten people like the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, as to what actually happens at present in a successful devolved parliament which has benefited greatly from its direct relations with the European Union.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, seemed to think that the Scottish parliament would, on occasions, be unhappy. I dare say that it will be; indeed, sometimes this Parliament is unhappy. The idea that this White Paper, or any legislation, can guarantee a state of perpetual bliss in the Parliament of Edinburgh is nonsensical. I believe that we shall see a state of sensible, creative political tension between Edinburgh and London which will be greatly to the benefit of the people of Scotland in particular but also to the people of the United Kingdom as a whole.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, it is rather difficult to reply in detail to the catalogue of what were not so much questions as accusations made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I have the feeling that basically his position is that if we proceed with legislation on the basis of the White Paper, we run the risk that civilisation as we know it will come to an end. I do not think that. I believe that his fears are based on a faulty analysis and his argument is flawed. In the White Paper, we have a coherent, clear and comprehensive way forward. But, above all, it is a way forward which is fair and balanced, stable and enduring. Those are extremely important objectives which we should seek to achieve.
That was one reason that we revisited the question of the number of Scottish MPs in the UK Parliament. We wanted to remove once and for all any lingering belief that somehow, the settlement itself would not be fair. It was in order to remove that doubt, to deal with that problem, that we took the view that it was right and proper to come forward with a fair and balanced proposal affecting the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, wondered what would happen if a Scottish parliament were unhappy about a matter which had been reserved to the Westminster Parliament. It is very simple. The
1538
Scottish parliament can debate any matter reserved to Westminster but cannot legislate on it. That is the point. It can debate what it likes, but on a reserved matter legislative competence rests with Westminster. Therefore, there is a clear difference of role and function which leads to clarity and stability.
The noble Lord also drew attention, as I expect will a number of other noble Lords during the course of the eventual Bill, to the fact that we do not propose anything like a second chamber. What we propose and what everybody who has been involved in the debate on a new parliament for Scotland has been advocating for the best part of 20 years is that a Scottish parliament should innovate and try to adopt new and modern procedures. Above all, it should address itself to what is seen as being some of the fundamental weaknesses of the legislative process. It should increase the amount of pre-legislative scrutiny. It should have a strong committee system, with an emphasis on pre-legislative scrutiny, and that removes the need for a formal second chamber. That can be worked into the processes.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, referred to the Forestry Commission. That is a nice one and is simple to deal with. Legislative power and competence are devolved, so a Scottish parliament would be legislatively responsible for forestry. But clearly it is open to that body to make such administrative arrangements as it thinks appropriate. Those administrative arrangements could well mean the maintenance of a GB structure such as the way in which the Forestry Commission operates in any event. It may be that the noble Lord fails to recognise the difference between devolving legislative competence, on the one hand, and from that position to have the ability to make strong and effective GB or even UK administrative arrangements, on the other. They are not incompatible. They are often very sensible indeed.
I turn to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. I recognise all that he said about the way in which the Government have moved and, I think, improved these proposals, certainly from those made in 1978. One important additional factor is that it will be remembered that in 1978 the Secretary of State for Scotland was to have considerable overriding powers. They now disappear and are not part of the procedures at all.
Yes, we have proceeded. We have given the new parliament stronger powers and a wider range of powers. Universities and higher education was not included in 1978. On the electoral system, we have moved to recognise the need to have an electoral system which makes the parliament inclusive rather than exclusive so that all the parts of Scotland can identify and accept ownership of the parliament.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the Statement indicates that the Government, in my opinion, are taking grave risks in relation to stability not only for the new proposed body but also for the workings, structures and systems of the United Kingdom.

1539
I have one particular point to raise. Almost all the functions to be allocated to the new body, including all those mentioned in the Statement, are already devolved as a result of massive administrative devolution to the Secretary of State for Scotland and his Ministers and to the Scottish Office. I should point out, as it was a long time ago, that I had the onerous duty of being in the appointment of Secretary of State for Scotland from 1970 to 1974. Indeed, no Secretary of State for Scotland before me is still alive.
Will any of the present Scottish Office functions remain with the Scottish Office? Will the Secretary of State still have any of his present functions? The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, mentioned higher education. Of course, that was transferred to Scotland about four years ago. Other functions which have been transferred in the past 20 years to Scotland—and there have been others—are now naturally included but were not included and in 1978 higher education was then with the Department of Education.
My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish made some penetrating comments. Your Lordships will be glad to hear that I shall not make any further comments now but I shall reserve what I have to say further about this for the debate on Wednesday.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I think perhaps unintentionally the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has actually made the case for devolution. He pointed out quite rightly that there has been substantial administrative devolution to Scotland. We are addressing the democratic deficit which administrative devolution creates. We are matching that administrative devolution with legislative devolution and democratic accountability within Scotland. That is the whole argument. Administrative devolution is not enough.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, there is one small thing I am not quite clear about—among others—that is, will the Scottish parliament be able to vote for independence or to increase its own powers in other areas?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am happy to reply to that question directly. As independence is a matter for the constitution of the United Kingdom, it is a reserve matter. The parliament could vote to express an opinion but it would have no consequence at all in legislative terms. It cannot extend its own powers; the powers are devolved from the Westminster Parliament.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, it was with great pleasure that I heard the Statement which my noble friend the Minister repeated in this House today. I look forward to discussing at greater length the contents of the White Paper which is clearly a document of considerable constitutional and historic importance. At this point I merely ask my noble friend the Minister whether he can expand just a little on how Scotland's voice will be heard in Europe. I ask that question in quite a different spirit from the questions on Europe put by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
1540
I wish in particular to know how the measures proposed compare to the proposals from the Scottish Constitutional Convention on this question.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, we have addressed the problem of relations with the European Union in chapter 5 of the White Paper. We recognise—we make no bones about it—that relations with Europe are the responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament and Government. That is the starting off point. Having said that, we have made it absolutely clear that we are doing everything possible to ensure that Scotland's voice will be heard and will be heard effectively in Europe. I refer my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale to specific points in the White Paper. It states,
"The UK Government wishes to involve the Scottish Executive as directly and as fully as possible in the Government's decision making on EU matters. It is part of the Government's intention that Scottish Executive Ministers and officials should be fully involved in discussions within the UK Government about the formulation of the UK's policy position on all issues which touch on devolved matters … The Government also propose that Ministers and officials of the Scottish Executive should have a role to play in relevant Council meetings and other negotiations with our EU partners … The Scottish Parliament will be able to scrutinise EU legislative proposals to ensure that Scotland's interests are properly reflected".
We are determined that Scotland will be properly represented in Europe. We envisage that there will be a Scottish representative office in Europe. We shall build upon the regional framework which is developing in Europe to make sure there is an effective Scottish presence in Europe and that Scotland effectively contributes to the UK line in Europe.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the Statement states with regard to finance,
"The tax-varying power will not apply to income from savings and dividends".
Does that mean that it will apply to everything else? Will it apply to all other income? The Statement continues,
"The Inland Revenue will administer any tax variation, with the Scottish parliament meeting the administrative costs".
Can the Minister give us any idea at all of the order of the administrative costs?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the income tax power will apply to all income that is subject to income tax except savings and dividend income. On the administrative cost of raising income tax, there is at chapter—
Lord Strathclyde: 7.19.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Opposition Chief Whip for that. The White Paper states,
"Their setting up costs are estimated to be around £50m (which could be phased) and running costs at around £6–£15m".
That refers to collection through PAYE which will generate additional cash for employers. Costs will fall upon the parliament in changing and administering the

1541
new tax system—the modification to the tax system—and there will, of course, be a compliance cost for employers.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have been advocating a Scottish parliament longer than anyone else in this House. I started to do so in the election of 1950. I am delighted that this has come about at long last. I am astonished at how good the White Paper is. I did not think the Government could be so generous. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, also advocated a Scottish parliament at one time. I am amazed that he does not praise the generosity with which the Government will throw away at least a dozen seats in Scotland and will introduce PR, which will give us a fair chance of a fair parliament in Scotland.
The White Paper is enormously promising. Of course there are difficulties, but in congratulating the Government on the White Paper which delights me, I ask them how they propose to apply the sensible provision in chapter 4.15 which might solve many of the problems referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. Paragraph 4.15 states,
"The Scottish Executive and the UK Government may from time to time take different views … There will therefore he procedures for identifying and resolving".
That is a sensible measure. Will the Minister say a little more about that?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, for what he has said about the White Paper. I repeat that our guiding principle in working towards the White Paper and its publication and the policies that it contains has been to establish a fair, stable and enduring settlement. In some areas that may work against the immediate interests of my party but that is a price worth paying.
The noble Lord asked about the dispute procedures on vires. That matter would be dealt with during the progress of legislation through the Scottish parliament. It would be for the presiding officer to reach a view on the competence of any piece of legislation, whether or not it fell within the competence of the Scottish parliament. However, it would be open to the UK Government to seek to challenge the vires of an Act of the Scottish parliament. If that could not be resolved by agreement, it would be resolved through the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I refer to next steps. Legislation in this field and in the case of Welsh devolution will not necessarily be easy. Could not a series of research papers be produced which would not reflect government policy but provide ideas on how these various matters may be dealt with? It is worth looking at the Act concerning the government of Ireland which went through this Parliament in the 1920s. How did that Act deal with issues concerning Members of Parliament elected for this Parliament and Members of Parliament elected for the devolved administration? In my early days in the other place there were Unionist Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland voting on matters which affected the United Kingdom, although
1542
they had pronounced powers relating to devolution in Northern Ireland. The excellent ideas of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, for power sharing in the Province—they came to naught for other reasons—should be considered. All the papers relating to that are available. The rolling devolution of the noble Lord, Lord Prior, should be looked at.
Lastly, let us consider how Northern Ireland encompasses the European aspect. Northern Ireland has offices in Brussels, New York and London. The question of what to do about Europe is not new. I see people shaking their heads. It is answered for Northern Ireland; why not for Scotland?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a number of powerful points. Some of us have been reading research papers, and even writing the odd research paper, on this issue for some long time. Some of us are even familiar with the precise details of the Government of Ireland Act 1920.
The valuable point that the noble Lord makes is to draw our attention to the Ulster situation. During the period of the Stormont Government, Westminster Members of Parliament from Ulster came to Westminster and voted on a full range of issues. There was never any questioning of that. We have never dealt with the problem of regional legislatures in the United Kingdom by adopting a two-tier membership approach, an in-out approach. Parliament has consistently set its face against that move. It is unworkable, and we have shown how we seek to move forward on the basis of a fair and just settlement.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the Minister answer the question of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy about the ultimate responsibility of the Secretary of State to the United Kingdom Government and Parliament? Will he also tell us what is to happen when there is a conflict of interest between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish executive and parliament on a European Union matter? The White Paper does not answer that question.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I apologise if I did not answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. Let me make clear that the ultimate responsibility for the Secretary of State for Scotland will be to the Westminster Parliament. It is unlikely that he will be a member of the Scottish parliament. He is a Member of the UK Government and will be a Member of this Parliament. He is responsible and accountable to the UK Parliament.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, that was not quite my question. I asked what functions that he now retains through the Scottish Office will he retain, if any?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the areas of domestic policy that the noble Lord identified will pass to the Scottish parliament. Those functions will no longer stand to be exercised by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

1543
One of the clear responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland in these devolved arrangements will be to represent Scotland's interest in the reserved matters: to make sure that Scotland's voice is heard across the important range of reserved matters which remain at Westminster. Secondly, he can make an effective contribution by acting—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, amused us in an earlier debate with his use of the word "conduit"—as a means of communication. Heaven's above, my Lords, we are a mature democracy. We must recognise that a Scottish parliament and a UK Parliament may have differences of views. As we are mature politicians in a mature democracy, one of the important contributions that the Secretary of State could make is to act as an effective line of communication between those two governments.
There was a second point which escapes me.
Lord Renton: My Lords, who is to have the last word when there is a conflict of interest between the UK Government and the Scottish executive in parliament on a European Union proposal?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, we are absolutely clear on that in the White Paper. It is the fact that there will be an agreed UK line; and in the end it is the responsibility of the UK Government to represent the United Kingdom in Europe.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I welcome the White Paper with great pleasure, apart from some uneasiness about which he knows concerning the proposed electorate for the referendum? I leave that aside.
I wish to question the Minister on the unicameral nature of the proposed assembly. He says that scrutiny will be done largely through pre-legislative committees. It may be more complicated than that. But is it not a weakness that in the proposal the scrutiny and legislation will be carried out by the same people? Under the Westminster system the legislation, and the scrutiny of it, are undertaken by two different sets of people, with two different sets of expertise? Is the noble Lord quite sure that the proposal is better than the bicameral nature of the Westminster Parliament?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his endorsement of the White Paper. The noble Lord makes a valid point, but I do not think that it is persuasive. The point can equally well be made that in a unicameral system one can set up scrutiny committees which have that specific role. Therefore the same people are not scrutinising the legislation. There is a difference of function built into the committee structure of the parliament.
My noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale is the expert in this area, but I am aware that there are some extremely interesting and effective examples of how Scandinavian parliaments build a scrutinizing
1544
mechanism into the structure of unicameral parliaments. That is a matter that the new parliament will wish to examine, and perhaps adopt.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, perhaps I may—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I am sorry. This matter arose the other day. I am afraid that the 20-minute period is mandatory. There is nothing that I can do about it.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understand that the 20 minutes of Back-Bench time has now been completed. However, before the next business commences, will the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, follow the example set yesterday by his noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn? Will he write to noble Lords who asked questions which have been unanswered and make sure that those answers are in their hands before Tuesday and that copies are placed in the Library? That will be extremely helpful for the debate on Wednesday.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am happy to give a general undertaking of that nature. However, I have to make the reservation that I shall do my best to ensure that they are available by Tuesday night.

Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Bill [H.L.]
5.28 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty which bans any nuclear weapon test explosion and any other nuclear explosion. The United Kingdom is one of the states whose ratification is a precondition for the treaty's entry into force. I am confident that this measure is supported by all political parties and, I hope, is supported by all noble Lords.
The treaty is the culmination of nearly 40 years of effort involving difficult negotiations. The previous government signed it on 24th September 1996. The treaty is a significant step forward in non-proliferation and brings the world closer to the goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons. Indeed the parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty attached the greatest importance to the comprehensive test ban treaty when they agreed, in May, 1995, a document concerning Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. The United Kingdom is fully committed to these goals and is therefore working for entry into force of the treaty at the earliest possible date; 144 states have now signed the treaty and four have ratified.
As I have said, the treaty bans nuclear explosions. Each state party must forbid anyone on its territory and its citizens abroad from undertaking any nuclear explosions.

1545
The treaty establishes a number of new international bodies to ensure that its provisions are properly observed. First, there is the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organisation which will be set up in Vienna once the treaty enters into force. This will co-operate as closely as possible with the International Atomic Energy Authority, also in Vienna, and other relevant organisations. Part of the treaty organisation will be a technical secretariat, which will be responsible for ensuring the effectiveness of the treaty. To this end, the treaty will set up an international monitoring system. This will consist of a worldwide network of monitoring stations at locations which were agreed following negotiations between scientific experts. (A number of these are in the United Kingdom and the dependent territories.) These stations will use various technologies to detect, identify and locate the source of a suspicious event anywhere in the world. The data from the stations will be transmitted to an international data centre, which will be part of the technical secretariat in Vienna. The international data centre will then make the information available to states parties.
The verification regime in the treaty provides for consultation and clarification in cases of indications of possible non-compliance. If necessary, and if a certain proportion of states parties agree, an "on-site inspection" can start within 96 hours of its being requested. These inspections will be carried out by trained inspectors chosen from an agreed international list of experts. They will report back to the technical secretariat and to states parties.
The United Kingdom has for many years had a national research programme into the means of detecting and verifying nuclear explosions. This programme enabled the United Kingdom to play a major role in the negotiations on how best to verify the treaty. We aim to retain a national capability to allow us to reach an independent judgment on the data produced by the international monitoring system. This will strengthen our ability to justify requests for an on-site inspection to investigate a suspicious event. We are considering how best to provide this capability on a long-term basis.
The treaty will come into force six months after 44 states named in an annex to the treaty have ratified it. These states all took part in the negotiations on the treaty in the conference on disarmament in 1996 and are listed by the International Atomic Energy Authority as having a civil nuclear capability. The United Kingdom is one of them. Forty-one of these have already signed. The remaining three are North Korea, Pakistan and India. We are doing what we can to encourage all three states, and indeed all non-signatories, to sign and ratify the treaty quickly.
In the meantime, a preparatory commission is working in Vienna to develop the many detailed arrangements for implementation, including the establishment of the international monitoring system. A provisional technical secretariat has been established and is being progressively built up. We do not want to lose any time once the treaty enters into force and the United Kingdom is playing an active part in the work that is under way.
1546
With the advent of the treaty, the implications of any changes or deterioration in our Trident warheads will now have to be assessed without nuclear testing. Similarly, after any corrective action or refurbishment we will have to requalify warheads as safe and reliable without nuclear testing. These requirements will place great demands on the alternatives to nuclear testing. We intend to use experiments and computer simulation for this purpose. Both are consistent with the terms of the treaty.
The treaty requires each state party to establish a national authority to act as the point of contact with the treaty organisation and to be the focal point for the operation of the treaty on its territory. In the United Kingdom, the national authority will be set up within the Ministry of Defence.
Notes on Clauses are now available in the Library of the House, but perhaps I may turn briefly to the provisions of the Bill. These fall into two broad categories: those relating to the prohibition of nuclear explosions and those enabling inspections to be carried out in the United Kingdom under the terms of the treaty.
Clauses 1 and 2 make it an offence, punishable by life imprisonment, to cause a nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, other than a nuclear weapon explosion carried out in the course of an armed conflict. The offence can be committed in the United Kingdom by anyone. Abroad, the offence can be committed by United Kingdom nationals and corporations. No prosecution can be brought without the consent of the Attorney-General or the Lord Advocate.
Clauses 4 to 9 cover various aspects of inspections in the United Kingdom, such as their formal authorisation by the Secretary of State and the necessary privileges and immunities for the inspection teams. Clause 10 covers the issue of warrants authorising entry and search of premises, if offences are suspected. Clauses 11 to 15 contain various technical provisions but also provide for the Act to bind the Crown.
I hope I have explained the importance of the treaty and the United Kingdom's adherence to it. As I said at the beginning of my speech, both the treaty and the Bill should command the suport of the whole House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
5.37 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I would first like to agree with many of the views expressed by the Minister today and say on behalf of the Opposition how warmly I welcome the Bill to provide the legislation necessary for the ratification of the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. This is another milestone on the historic journey undertaken by the United Nations General Assembly last September when it voted overwhelmingly for a treaty banning all further nuclear weapons test explosions and all other nuclear explosions. I pay tribute to all those who steered the treaty negotiations last year, including the chairman of the talks, Ambassador Ramaker of the Netherlands, and also the Australian Government whose diplomatic skills ensured that the CTBT had the opportunity for UN endorsement.

1547
There is consensus on the overwhelming importance of this issue in your Lordships' House. Much hard work was done by my predecessors in government towards the signing of a universal, effective and verifiable treaty. We remain committed to early ratification to bring it into force as soon as possible.
Clearly, with the backing of the five declared nuclear powers, the CTBT is a major step towards non-proliferation. The very fact that the CTBT has been adopted will now make it difficult for any country to conduct nuclear test explosions in defiance of international opinion.
Nevertheless, the CTBT is not without its critics. To compound this, even though it has successfully established the framework for the banning of all further nuclear explosions, its future implementation and ultimate success remain vulnerably exposed to the dictates of international realpolitik.
Over the course of this Bill and beyond, the Government have the task of addressing some of the perceived international fundamental flaws in the treaty. I would welcome clarification from the Government on their policies to address the three broad areas highlighted by critics of the treaty; namely, ratification, the wider issues of disarmament and the lack of sincerity of purpose within the international community. I would equally welcome a statement of intent from the Government on how they will work to surmount those problems to achieve an effective treaty, signed by all and ratified by all, within the context of this Bill.
I take those issues one by one. The first is the question of ratification. I am grateful to the Minister for highlighting this in her introductory remarks. The CTBT will only come into force once the treaty has been ratified by all 44 countries which possess nuclear installations or weapons on their soil. That is proving elusive.
I should like to ask the Government, in the light of the ratification requirements, whether India's continued opposition to the CTBT will prove an insurmountable obstacle by effectively vetoing the treaty and preventing its universal effectiveness. If that is the case, what steps are being taken to persuade the Indian Government to review their position never to sign the current treaty? In the negotiations leading up to the CTBT, India had been looking to the treaty as a means for total disarmament, seeking to link a time frame for the five principal nuclear powers (the US, Russia, Britain, France and China) to eliminate all their weapons. Some more cynical observers have suggested that India's opposition was and is merely an attempt to stall the process until it has improved its own nuclear technology.
Furthermore, what assurances do the Government have from the United States that there will be Senate approval for ratification in the face of suggestions that ratification will obstruct necessary improvements in the United States nuclear arsenal and therefore may be delayed?
Although the treaty is so structured—by means of a clause allowing provisional application—that failure to ratify will not automatically scupper it, it is perceived
1548
that the cost of monitoring and inspection of nuclear testing will render that solution impracticable. If delays occur in the ratification process, what is the Government's plan of action to ensure that no one state or small group of states can render void the treaty? It is clear that for the treaty to be fully effective, it must become universal. What additional steps are the Government taking to urge all states to sign and ratify?
Secondly, some critics—most notably India—have expressed their disappointment that the CTBT has not been directly linked to the goal of nuclear disarmament. Such criticism has had a knock-on negative effect for so long as the Indian Government refuse to ratify it is likely that Pakistan will follow suit, in view of the mutual suspicion they share of one another.
Thirdly, it has been argued that failure to promote disarmament and to continue to allow sub-critical tests which use small quantities of high explosive charges mixed with pellets of nuclear material will only reinforce the view of an exclusive nuclear club which has no real desire to surrender its technological superiority.
On the issue of disarmament, I venture to say that nuclear disarmament cannot realistically be pursued independently of the broader security context. I should like clarification of the Government's position.
While the CTBT offers the tantalising prospect of a nuclear-free horizon, the surrounding waters remain troubled as we continue to face a world where nuclear weapons and political instability co-exist in a potentially volatile partnership. Defence and foreign affairs are more closely linked than ever before. The strategic threat to western Europe may have evaporated, but more localised, less coherent threats based on instability, unrest and ethnic and regional tension have taken its place.
While the threat of Soviet communism seeking world domination no longer exists, the challenges facing the international order remain daunting and in some ways are of a greater and more diverse magnitude. Political instability in Russia has on occasions appeared to push the democratic process to the brink of reversal while rekindling the flames of xenophobic nationalism. The political volatility of the Middle Eastern regimes, which sit on top of the majority of the world's oil supplies, threatens not only to undermine their own fragile existence but could also impact on the global context.
Similarly, rogue states such as Libya, Iran and North Korea seem to revel in their pariah status and are ever willing to defy international opinion and diplomacy. Those states in particular are suspected of having developed a clandestine nuclear weapons programme.
In Iran, the international community is becoming increasingly perturbed by intelligence reports that Tehran's nuclear research programme is beginning to produce disturbing results. It is believed that foreign nuclear experts have been working at the Karaj nuclear research centre on the assembly of a cyclotron, an instrument used for enriching uranium to weapons-grade standard. Iran has publicly maintained that its nuclear ambitions are purely for civilian purposes—an argument that has been used elsewhere to justify decisions to

1549
complete nuclear energy plants, not least by Russia in Bushire and its agreement to supply Iran with nuclear reactors. Does the Minister have any observations on that question?
North Korea's missile technology may pose a greater threat in the short term to the international order. With the assistance of Iranian funding, North Korea has developed the Nodong ballistic missile which has a 700-mile range. Both Iran and Libya have already expressed their keen desire to acquire that technology.
The development of the technology raises the spectre of those missiles in North Korea reaching Japan, or, if based in Iran, falling on Israel. Whether North Korea possesses the technology to arm the missiles with nuclear warheads is still open to speculation. However, according to a report prepared by the North Korean defector Hwang Jang-yop, the Stalinist state is ready to resort to war to deflect attention from its grim economic situation and,
"is capable of scorching South Korea with nuclear weapons".
The Government's view of the position in North Korea would be of value to the House.
In a world of doubt and insecurity, nuclear weapons still provide for the major powers a sense of security and deterrence, an issue which has been much debated by noble Lords on both sides of the House. Although such reports as that of the Canberra Commission—which I know has been discussed in your Lordships' House—called for sensible measures such as negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty and the continuation of the American/Russian START process, its assumption that deterrence no longer has a role to play in today's world is in my view premature. I should therefore like an assurance from the Government that, in harmony with NATO, they judge that nuclear deterrence continues to play an essential role in maintaining peace and security.
Nor must we underestimate the potential danger of the highly accessible nature of nuclear technology today. Advances in technology mean one only has to surf the Internet to obtain the recipe for a nuclear cocktail. Anyone with a computer, a modem and a mission can download instructions (although not necessarily accurate ones) on "How to build an H-bomb" or "Making a bomb using plutonium from a power reactor". I quote from today. The recipes are quick to point out that the acquisition of the ingredients—weapons-grade uranium and plutonium—is no longer the sole preserve of national governments. Consequently, in light of the nuclear ambitions of nations such as Iran, Iraq and North Korea, it is hardly advisable to proscribe the nuclear club only to see a another one formed with less noble intentions vis-à-vis the international order.
In such a climate, the promotion of international peace and stability serves the interests not only of countries like the United Kingdom but the international community as a whole. I am sure that the Government will continue Britain's policy of taking an active and positive role and of leadership by example.
1550
It is unrealistic to believe that around the corner we will arrive at a zero-nuclear weapons situation in this world. The way forward is through internationally agreed treaties such as the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the CTBT. We must strengthen viable, verifiable and enforceable arms control agreements which are firmly grounded in international law and we must lead the way in setting standards of international behaviour.
Our actions should be designed both to stamp out the perception by some states that the acquisition of nuclear technology is commensurate with international prestige and to smoke out any cloak-and-dagger pariahs, while guaranteeing our own security. I welcome the comments that the Minister made in her opening remarks. It is that approach which will end the development of advanced new types of nuclear weapons and lead us to our ultimate goal of a nuclear-free world where nuclear weapons, nuclear testing and nuclear arms races are historical fact, not present reality.
In conclusion, the CTBT is more than just a noble gesture in a nuclear world. The treaty represents a determined step in the right direction, seeking to restrict proliferation and ultimately facilitate disarmament. It is true that, irrespective of the treaty, states can still develop and deploy a basic nuclear capability without nuclear testing. But a sophisticated nuclear capability cannot be achieved without testing.
The Government have a vital task ahead, underlined by the Second Reading of the Bill, to navigate the most effective course through the pragmatism of today's international politics and to fulfil the aspirations of tomorrow's generation. In that objective we wish the Government well.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, let me first apologise to the Minister in that I was not in my place when she spoke at the Dispatch Box. I miscalculated the long-windedness of my Scottish colleagues.
I congratulate the Government on the speedy steps that they have taken so early in their period of office to enable ratification of the treaty through the passage of this Bill. I hope that the Bill itself will pass swiftly through Parliament so that final ratification can take place by Christmas. That might help greatly in the process of ratification in the American Senate and perhaps elsewhere among the signatories to the treaty.
I want to make one or two more general points, some of which have been covered by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I believe that it is a good treaty but it has weaknesses. One major weakness is the provisions for entry into force of the treaty in, I believe, Article 14 and Annex 2 of the treaty. Those provisions are now there. We have to live with them and they are a challenge to the Government's diplomacy. But the provisions are far too rigid and I believe that they owe a good deal of their rigidity to the way the previous government dragged their feet in aspects of the negotiations. We are left with a situation in which all 44 nuclear-capable states have too sign before the treaty can come into general operation and the processes of verification and inspection and so on can operate effectively.

1551
As the Minister said, 41 of those states have already signed. But India has not signed and has said, on occasion, that it will never sign. It has sought to veto the negotiations in the conference on disarmament. I feel that the treaty to a great extent was rescued by the diplomacy of Australia at that stage. So long as India does not sign, Pakistan will not sign. There is also the special and in many ways rather menacing case of North Korea. Incidentally, it is curious that Iraq is not included at all in the treaty.
If the treaty does not come into force, it will lose a great deal of its authority and there will be a great deal of difficulty about financing the processes of verification. The Indian position has to be considered very carefully by Her Majesty's Government and indeed the other five nuclear states. I understand that India wanted a declaration of commitment to worldwide nuclear disarmament and also a commitment that the treaty should have as one of its objectives the ending of the qualitative improvement of the existing systems. In my view, both those objectives seem to have a good deal of force and close attention ought to be paid to them. In this field, I urge the government to give an important lead.
In practical terms, I agree that Britain's nuclear capacity must be part of our defence provisions. On this matter I probably disagree with the noble Lord who will follow me in this debate. There are ways in which we could give a lead in this field. One of them would be to say that we are ready to enter into a commitment not to seek qualitatively to improve our existing nuclear capacity. Perhaps more precisely, in the transfer from our Polaris system to the Trident system, we could give a commitment not to increase the number of warheads or even that we might decrease the number of warheads. In that way we could help create a climate that might influence those states which have not yet signed. Britain needs to work as closely as possible with France to press India, Pakistan and North Korea to join in support of this treaty. A great deal is at stake in having a truly effective CTBT. It is an essential part of a wider nuclear non-proliferation regime.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that it is at least arguable that the balance of nuclear terror in the cold war system concentrated on the Soviet bloc and the NATO alliance. It was, perhaps, marginally a safer situation for humanity than the one into which we have now moved—a situation of nuclear proliferation among many smaller states, including, to use the vivid phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, a number of rogue nations.
For those reasons, giving the treaty effective force is a very important aim to achieve. Britain should seek progress on nuclear disarmament more widely as part of its efforts to make sure that the provisions in the treaty for bringing it into force, for all their inadequacies, are met and the treaty may become a reality.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I was not altogether surprised to find myself in large measure in
1552
agreement, if not wholly so, with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. However, I was rather more surprised to find myself agreeing with the preliminary part of what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said. Unhappily, he did not quite maintain that level. But it seemed to suggest that opposition suits the Conservative Party. I am rather tempted to wish them many long years in that capacity because I have discovered what I did not expect to find; namely, a capacity to learn. That is an excellent thing and I hope that it will be maintained.
Turning to my noble friend, I congratulate her and the Government most warmly on their decision to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty. They do it equally comprehensively by introducing this Bill. When my noble friend comes to reply, I wonder whether she can tell us something about the likely date on which the statement of ratification will be made. I think I am right in saying that the passage of the Bill in itself simply enables the Government to ratify the treaty. I should like to know, as would the House, I am sure, whether ratification will immediately follow the conclusion of the Bill or whether there will be an intervening period. Perhaps my noble friend will tell us when she comes to wind up the debate.
Perhaps I may mention the failure of the House to see in the Bill an opportunity to move forward toward a non-nuclear decision. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, guessed that I might wish to say some such thing. It would be a remarkable feat, if we could bring it off. But what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, did not say—I am afraid it did not become the Conservative Government—was that they were responsible for the mess we are in about India. The normal practice in measures of this kind is that ratification—bringing into effect the consequences of the Bill—takes place when a number of states have signed. It was the then government's insistence that, instead of the usual practice, a number of specifically named states—seven I believe—should be required to ratify before we brought into effect the whole Bill. That virtually gave India a position in which they could operate a veto, if not on the ratification, on the bringing into effect of the Bill.
We must rely upon Labour's long and, for the most part, friendly, relationship with India to see what can be done to resolve the difficult impasse which has arisen from the position which India has taken up in this matter. No single country should be placed in that position. That is why in the past one always had the number of countries stated rather than naming countries, which in effect gives each one of those countries the power to nullify the desired effect of the Bill.
The change to which I referred is made more difficult. That action has had the effect I described. Perhaps we can offer India some assurances which will enable her to resile from the position that she has taken up. I believe my noble friend said in her introduction that she had hopes in that direction. Perhaps she can confirm that. We shall make every endeavour to find a solution to this impasse when we ourselves ratify.

1553
The treaty will be a good step forward, but only a step towards the elimination of the nuclear weapon. As your Lordships will know, that is not only the ambition of myself, but also of many other people, including the Canberra Commission to which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred. The Government can help by asking our defence spokesmen to make clear that elimination includes Trident and by making it clear that we will not test prior to the coming into force of the treaty. It is perfectly possible for us to say that we shall regard the treaty as being in force within our own ratification and other countries may join us in that so that we are not all brought to a complete halt by what I call the "Indian question"—the pre-nuclear question.
Discussions to remove the objections should be one of the aims of the Government. I believe I detected in my noble friend's opening remarks a hint that the Government will hold international discussions to see whether those problems can be resolved. The world is weary of living under the nuclear threat. Leading international military men have recently made it clear that they do not consider the threat of the mass destruction of humanity and its works to be a responsibility any soldier, sailor or airman should be required to carry. It is something that no generation of military men has been asked to do—that is, to use a weapon which could be so destructive as virtually to bring our own civilisation to an end.
As was originally said by Lord Mountbatten in the 1950s: this is not a weapon at all; we ought not to be asked to use it; it should be eliminated. That is a long time ago. I hope the measure that we have been discussing this evening will be a step towards that elimination.
6.5 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this brief debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. It is clear that the Bill enjoys the general support of all noble Lords who participated, but a number of specific points were raised and I shall do my best to cover most, if not all, of them.
A question was raised about the attitude of the United States and in particular what assurances we have received from the United States in relation to Senate approval. We are in close contact with the United States authorities and understand that they will begin their ratification process very soon.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was characteristically graceful in the way that he put his argument about the Bill. In particular, he raised a number of difficulties on ratification. It is perhaps worth gently pointing out that the difficulties over ratification are the difficulties inherent in the treaty, which was the same treaty he congratulated his noble friends on having negotiated. But there are important points to be resolved, as many noble Lords pointed out, in relation to ratification.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, it is probably only fair to say that the questions I put to the Government today
1554
on this Bill—which I warmly welcome—are exactly the sort of questions that I would have put to my officials before coming into this House to defend this important Bill, in order to see not only how the international community will respond to these issues, which are the thrust of the points the noble Baroness will answer in a moment, but also how much progress we can make with this Bill towards ratification.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I hope he will be as pleased as I am that those were also the points I put to officials before coming to the House today. Perhaps I may start with the question of North Korea.
North Korea is a party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and it is therefore already prohibited from testing. We see no reason why the North Koreans should not sign and ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty in due course. Of course, the far more difficult question is the question of India. We all want to see the treaty work and the best way would be for all the states specified to ratify it. There can be no difference between us on that point. The question is what happens if India refuses to sign. The implication of some of the remarks was that perhaps the treaty would lose all purpose.
We do not take that view. This is a treaty supported by almost all the international community. That includes seven of the eight countries with a capacity to test which are not already prohibited from doing so through other international agreements such as the non-proliferation treaty and the regional nuclear weapon-free zones. We believe that the treaty will act as an international moral and political norm against testing. The rest of the international community must now work to persuade India and other non-signatories to support it. The UK is not alone in believing that all states should be parties to the treaty. We shall endeavour to do everything we can to persuade other states to do so.
We therefore urge India and Pakistan to sign the treaty. We believe it is in their interests and in the interests of international security. Of course we understand the domestic background. The UK and others, however, have made sacrifices in accepting the treaty and we hope that, through the international pressure and the moral arguments that we shall bring to bear upon India and Pakistan, they will feel able to sign. Even if the treaty does not enter into force because India refuses to sign, we shall still have a monitoring system. That is a very important point. The monitoring system will still be there. We will still be able to scrutinise what is happening around the world.
Other questions were raised in relation to the sustaining of the nuclear deterrent in this country. We are committed to our obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. Our goal is the global elimination of nuclear weapons. This must be achieved, as I have said in the House on a number of occasions in answering questions, by mutual, balanced and verifiable reductions. Our overall objective remains a strong defence against the security challenges of the post-cold war world.

1555
Questions were raised about what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to as the rogue states. We have said that we will retain Trident. We have strong armed forces. We are pledged to maintain robust British defences. Our overall objective remains a strong defence, in the way I have described, facing, yes indeed, the different challenges in the current world situation. We have said that we will retain Trident for as long as necessary while we work for our goal of the elimination of nuclear weapons.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, asked about the number of warheads on Polaris. Our deterrence requirements, including nuclear warhead numbers, will be examined by the strategic defence review. We believe that we already have the fewest nuclear warheads of any nuclear weapons state.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, referred to the ratification process. Clearly, the earliest time that we could ratify is shortly after Royal Assent. The treaty cannot enter into force before September next year but we hope to ratify before that date. As we have said, the treaty can only come into force six months after the 44 states named in the annex to the treaty have ratified it. I come back to the point with which I opened. With regard to the three states which at the moment have not ratified it, all our energies and the energies of those who support the goals in the treaty must now be bent towards persuading those states to ratify the treaty in the way that we were able to do.
Let there be no doubt about it. The treaty ends nuclear weapon test explosions for all time. It therefore constrains the development and the qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons and it ends the development of advanced new types of nuclear weapons. We believe that this constitutes an effective measure of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation in all its aspects. I welcome the support that noble Lords have expressed for the Bill. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Jobseeker's Allowance (Workskill Courses) Pilot (No. 2) Regulations 1997
6. 13 p.m.
Baroness Blackstonerose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 3rd July be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I wish today to seek your Lordships' approval to introduce two pilot schemes that will allow us to assess flexible arrangements for helping people into work by allowing them to undertake education and training while receiving the jobseeker's allowance. These will be introduced under Section 29 of the Jobseekers Act 1995 which provides for regulations for pilot schemes to test whether new arrangements will encourage or help people to get and retain work.
1556
As your Lordships know, the Jobseekers Act provides that people studying full-time cannot normally receive JSA as they are not considered available for work. JSA was designed as a benefit for those available for and actively seeking work. People receiving JSA are allowed to undertake part-time training and education as long as they meet the entitlement conditions which include being available for and actively seeking work.
The Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 1996 provide a definition of part-time education and training. Courses funded or part-funded by the Further Education Funding Councils for England and Wales are part-time if they consist of an average of no more than 16 guided learning hours per week. There are comparable provisions for students on further education courses in Scotland. For all other courses—for example, those in the private or voluntary sectors—each case is decided on its merits, as was the practice pre-JSA.
It has always been difficult to balance the aim of helping people on benefit to return quickly to work with measures designed to help them to improve their longer-term employability. There are no easy answers and we need to proceed carefully. We have made clear our intention to introduce measures to improve the skills of the workforce through lifelong learning and to help people back into work. The pilots will help us in this. They involve a significant expansion of the existing workskill pilots. We need good quality evidence about the potential effects, short-term and long-term, of changes in benefit rules before going any further. That is why we want to introduce this second round of pilots. They will extend beneficial flexibilities to four more areas, allowing about 2,000 people voluntarily to take part in each area. They will provide us with a firm basis for evaluation.
The pilots also support our plans for the New Deal for unemployed young people. There we are seeking to help 18 to 24 year-olds from benefit dependency to work. We are including provisions to improve their employability. For the 25 year-olds and over who have been unemployed for two years or more, we want to change the JSA rules to allow them access to full-time education and training while receiving JSA. These are important matters. We will further review the jobseeker's allowance rules on education and training in the light of the results of the workskill pilots and early experience in the New Deal.
I should like to introduce the regulations to the House by explaining briefly the powers we are seeking and describing how the pilot schemes would work. We want to introduce the pilots on 1st September 1997. People who have been receiving JSA for six months or more will be able to apply for a workskill course for up to one year.
There will be two types of pilot schemes: full-time and part-time. Full-time pilots will be run in Scotland, in the Glasgow and Dumbarton districts and in the north-west region in the Lancashire and Cumbria districts. These pilots will allow people to undertake certain full-time courses of up to a year and to be excused from the normal JSA rules on availability for work and actively looking for work while they are on the course.

1557
Part-time pilots will be run in the London and south-east region, in the south and south-east London districts and in the south-west region, in the Avon, Somerset and Wiltshire districts. These pilots will allow people to undertake certain part-time courses of up to a year and to be available and look for part-time work which can be fitted around their course. Participants will be able to choose from a wide range of courses, most of which will lead to an approved qualification. The course will have to be employment-related; that is, it will help people to get skills needed for work, for particular occupations or for jobsearch. It will help them to obtain a job.
We know from the correspondence we have received that people will want to take up these opportunities and to succeed in the courses they undertake. For the few who might be tempted to take the opportunity less seriously, we will provide an incentive to fulfil their commitment. The regulations will not encourage people to leave a course without a good reason. Those who do so may lose their JSA for two weeks.
Your Lordships may wonder what is happening to the existing pilots which were introduced on 7th April this year under the Jobseeker's Allowance (Workskill Courses) Pilot Regulations 1997. Those pilots, which operate in other areas, will continue as planned for one year. Together with the pilots we are seeking to introduce under these draft regulations, they will provide us with valuable information.
The new pilot schemes under these draft regulations will allow a period of one year for applications starting on 1st September in the new specified areas. These regulations, if approved, would be in force for one year and would establish pilot schemes which will operate in the specified areas. I hope that my opening explanation has helped the House. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 3rd July be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blackstone.)
6.20 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the main thrust of the Minister's remarks with regard to the new pilot schemes. The measures proposed aim to improve the skills of the workforce through lifelong learning and to help people back to work—a move which I am sure would be welcomed by all noble Lords. Indeed, the Minister said that there are no easy answers and I believe that we all accept that, too.
We are pleased that the Government recognise the importance of the Workskill pilot schemes, which were launched by the previous Government. At that time the Opposition parties were not so supportive and indeed many expressed their concerns. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, when moving an amendment at Committee stage on Recommitment said:
"We regard it as a mean, nasty, rather vindictive piece of legislation which will make life more difficult for some of the most vulnerable sections of our society".
1558
The party opposite now recognises the benefits of such pilot schemes and we are pleased to add our support. The schemes should provide good quality evidence about the potential effects, short and long term, of the changes in benefit rules. The Minister highlighted the importance of a careful evaluation of the practical effect of specific changes in benefit rules to check that the schemes deliver good value and that we accurately refine our rules when the pilot schemes are established.
I have three questions for the Minister. The first concerns the monitoring of the new pilot schemes. Will the evaluation be the same for schemes whether they are in the city or rural-based, or will there be any additional factors? Secondly, the Jobseekers' Allowance (Workskill Courses) Pilot (No. 2) Regulations give a great deal of power to the employment officer. Is that of any concern to the Minister? Thirdly, under paragraph 8, will the Minister consider giving greater flexibility, for those who are studying for exams, by adding:
"or revision the week before exams"?
During the past five years, we have seen a steady reduction in the number of young people between 18 and 24 years of age who were unemployed. From the 789,000 in January 1992 the figure fell to 479,000 in April this year. That is still too many, but the previous Government encouraged the right economic climate and hundreds and thousands of our young people have entered or re-entered the workplace as a result of the range of measures and economic policies that were pursued.
As I said at the beginning, we welcome the measures proposed to improve the skills of our young people and to ensure that they are not consigned to a life which is dependent on benefit. With these few comments and questions, we are pleased to support this further initiative extending the pilot schemes to a further four areas and benefiting another 2,000 young people.
6.23 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Crosby, who spoke on behalf of the Conservative Opposition, I believe that the Government are attempting to do the best they can with a piece of legislation which I regard as having been vindictive, arbitrary and in many ways cruel. In moving these regulations, I believe that the Government are attempting to make the best of what we can only describe as rather a bad job.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, about the Jobseekers Bill when it was going through this House. Only last week, in a telling and trenchant report by the Citizens Advice Bureau, which some noble Lords may have seen, it used these terms as regards the Act and its effects—"arbitrary", "cavalier", "crude" and "mechanistic". Even the noble Lord, Lord Richard, could hardly have spoken in stronger terms.
The truth of the matter is that deep in the very centre of the Jobseekers Act was an extraordinary degree of arbitrary judgment allowed to employment officers. I once worked for the Department of Labour, as it then was, and I have great respect for employment officers.

1559
They have a tough job and they do it as well as they can, often under tremendous pressure to produce results. But the truth of the matter, as anyone who has read and knows this Act will have seen, is that it gives an extraordinary level of arbitrary judgment to the employment officer, as the noble Baroness has just said, although I have to say that it is in the Act itself and not in the regulations that this degree of arbitrary judgment was instituted.
There is the sheer breadth of the terminology of the legislation as to how one defines such phrases as "availability for work" and "actively seeking work". Not on the face of the Bill, but in every decision that is made under its umbrella, we see the real effects and consequences of this legislation. Some of those consequences are only now emerging. Those noble Lords who read last week's report in the Observer will know that, among other things, we now have some people who are unable to work their way through the traps and mazes of the benefits system and are becoming heavily dependent on charity, often through no particular fault of their own. For example, noble Lords will recall the case of the man who was obliged to look after his young children when his wife was detained in hospital during a very difficult birth. He was told by his employment officer that he was regarded as no longer actively seeking work and was cut off from every possible form of benefit.
I now turn briefly to the regulations and then I shall ask the noble Baroness whether she will respond to a few questions. She will probably be the first to admit that these are modest schemes. There is also a danger that they may be bogged down in the levels of bureaucracy that surround them. It is about that that I wish to ask the noble Baroness a few questions. The requirements are stringent. They are that people must have been unemployed for six months; that the course they take must be employment-related; that they must be willing to work for at least six months or more; that they must receive the approval of the employment officer; and that there must be regular reports back on attendance and satisfactory progress, and I do not complain about that.
As the noble Baroness will know, in paragraphs 7 and 12 there is consistent reference to the phrase,
"as often as may be required by an employment officer".
That may be an innocent phrase as regards the insistence on receiving reports back on attendance and on satisfactory progress. But the phrase is also an open door to bureaucratic regulation of a kind that could make life difficult for people who are quite genuinely seeking to follow through a course. Therefore, first, can the noble Baroness give an assurance that that phrase will be subject to a reasonable interpretation of what those words convey?
Secondly, I am somewhat troubled by the difference in the regulations. There is a reference to "guided learning hours" in England and Wales. In a more elaborate way there is a definition of the application to courses in Scotland. It seems to me that the Scottish definition is much more precise and better. I am not sure
1560
what "guided learning hours" means when it comes, for example, to work done at home to complete a project or when reading the textbooks required for the course. If the textbook is read at home in my own time, is that "guided learning" because the member of the faculty teaching me said that I must read the book or is it unguided learning because she is not leaning over my shoulder while I do it? Can the noble Baroness respond on the definition of what is a "guided learning hour" and why there is this strange distinction between Scotland on the one hand and England and Wales on the other?
Thirdly—this is perhaps rather less of a matter of detail—I refer to the purpose of the original pilot scheme. The then Minister, Mr. Forsyth, said in another place that the main measure of the pilot's success will be how quickly unemployed people get into work. He made it plain that not only was that the guiding requirement, but that—perhaps more significantly—a ceiling would be put on recruitment to such courses, set at about 1,000 for each of the group of pilot schemes, because if the courses did not get people back into work, he was not particularly interested in people completing their courses.
The new Government have said repeatedly that one of the matters about which they are most concerned is the need for this country to have a skilled and flexible workforce. At the moment, 41 per cent. of the people of Britain hold a vocational qualification at level 3 or above, but 59 per cent. hold a qualification at a lower level. Therefore, I would have expected—I am sure that this is the case—the Government to place the greatest possible premium on people acquiring qualifications and skills that will enable them not just to pick up a job at McDonald's, but to get a job that will serve them for a substantial period of time.
The latest figures on this, in the current issue of The Economist (dated 19th July), indicate—not surprisingly at a time of rapid growth—that serious skills shortages are once again emerging in the British economy. The Economist makes specific reference to the representations made by the Construction Industry Training Board and the Engineering Industry Training Board about the lack of apprentices coming forward and the difficulty in finding people to fill vacancies requiring true trade qualifications. Given that—and this is my third penultimate question to the Minister—can some thought be given to the link between these courses for those who have been unemployed for six months or more and the Government's general strategy of welfare to work for young people to ensure that we step up the provision of training for skills? We have lots of training for higher education, but we have pathetic training for what one might describe as the craftsman, tradesman, or technician level, from the shortage of which this country still suffers badly in competitive terms.
My final question picks up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, who spoke on behalf of the Opposition. Would the Minister be willing to consider giving advice to employment officers that, on the balance of uncertainties which they are constantly having to judge, the assumption should be that if a man or woman has started a course and is showing

1561
indications of being seriously committed to that course (that is to say, fully satisfies the attendance and performance criteria), that person will not then he pushed into a dead-end job?
I am sure that the Minister is aware that in DfEE circles it is quite widely known that there is a small group of extremely poorly paid, unattractive and low skill jobs which are nevertheless full-time and which are available as a kind of benchmark of how successfully employment officers are meeting their quotas. I do not believe that the new Government would put the meeting of quotas above all other considerations. However, I wonder whether the Minister can give us some assurance that employment officers will be asked to weigh considerations of skills and training in at least equal part—and perhaps in a somewhat more than equal part—as against getting people into jobs, however unattractive and pointless those jobs may be.
6.33 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise to welcome the regulations which have been introduced by my noble friend Lady Blackstone and to thank her for the clarity with which she explained them to the House. Of course, the regulations fulfil to some extent the manifesto commitment made by my party and I am sure that the intentions behind them will command widespread support. It is right to try to get people off benefit and into employment. The mandate given by the electorate was precisely to that end.
I particularly welcome the factors to be taken into account by employment officers. Incidentally, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, about the power of employment officers. That power, however, resides in the original Act rather than in these regulations. Nonetheless, I agree that there should be some sort of brake upon the way in which such bureaucratic powers are exercised. If there is no such brake, I do not think that the regulations will be as successful as everybody hopes.
The factors which particularly attracted me come under paragraph 3(3). Paragraph 3(3)(b) states that,
"an employment officer must take into account … whether the course would assist him [the claimant] to acquire new skills and qualifications".
Paragraph 3(3)(g) states than an employment officer must also take into account,
"the number of jobs in the labour market and, if relevant, the local labour market, which require the skills and qualifications which he [the claimant] would acquire on the course".
One of the complaints that is often made, particularly by young people, about previous schemes is that they would often take course after course, but at the end they would still not have skills that could get them any kind of position. The training that they had received simply did not qualify them for the jobs available, such as they were, in the locality. As a result, people became disillusioned and frustrated.
I hope that the new regulations will match the skills in which people are trained with the local job opportunities so that those emerging from training will be able to find a job of a reasonable level and of good
1562
quality. I share the view expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, with regard to monitoring. I hope that the courses will be effectively monitored to ensure that they are of a reasonable level and quality.
Similar considerations apply with regard to the long-term unemployed. Perhaps I may now put in a plea for older workers. I know that the regulations are aimed primarily at young people. That is quite right because action must speedily be taken to deal with the problem of youth unemployment and the lack of skills among many of our young people. However, as a result of widespread downsizing, many older people have been landed on the labour market at an age when they find alternative employment difficult to come by. They may still have much to offer, but the skills in which they have previously been trained have been rendered obsolete by the onward march of technology and they may not yet be ready to contemplate early retirement. Although the regulations are clearly aimed at younger people, I hope that the Government will take into account the position of older people.
I very much welcome the fact that there will he a pilot scheme and opportunities to discover how the regulations will operate in practice in regard to benefits, the level and quality of training and the extent to which people manage to obtain employment at the end of their courses. That is what training is all about.
I welcome also the reference to carers and the disabled. Clearly, special arrangements have to be made in those areas.
However, there are problems and I turn first to the problem of sanctions. There have always been sanctions against people who break the rules and who are not prepared to participate. We know that there will be sanctions under the New Deal and that the sanction will be the loss of JSA. I am worried by that. Although those provisions existed under the previous regime, I am concerned about those who may be extremely disadvantaged and who may slip through the net. I do not want to see more young people sleeping on the streets, which could very well happen unless there is a proper safety net. I should like to he assured that there will be such a safety net to look after those who are desperately disadvantaged. We know very well that there are such young people in our society.
The regulations have clearly been introduced with the very best of intentions and I wish them well, but as we said repeatedly when we were in Opposition—I say it again now—it is the job of government to protect the vulnerable. I should like to be sure that in operating the regulations (with this new concept of training, which is admirable in itself), we shall not overlook the duty of looking after the vulnerable. We have had extremely divisive social policies over many years and we have seen the result, over the past decade, in the very large numbers of disadvantaged young people. It will be difficult to accommodate some of them, even under a very well intentioned scheme. This must be handled with sensitivity, and I very much hope that the Government will bear those considerations in mind. Having said that, I thank my noble friend for explaining the regulations this evening, and I wish them well.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to make a contribution to this debate, although not in the depth as my noble friend the Minister or the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who have long experience in this area. When I saw the regulations I believed that I could contribute on the basis that I have two sons in their thirties who, unfortunately, needed to apply for jobseeker's allowance. It is soul destroying to see someone who is fit, who is able and who wants to work, presented with what is ostensibly a golden package of training and skill relearning yet still seeking the right package and the right encouragement.
I join my noble friends in congratulating the Government in doing what they can—I believe that that was the expression used by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams—to improve the situation following one of the bitterest battles that we have had in this Chamber. My noble friend Lady Hollis, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and others were involved. Those on the then Opposition Benches attacked the Bill for what it was. It was described as cruel, vindictive, mean, petty and destructive of the enthusiasm of young people who found themselves in difficulties. Sometimes Ministers and those who advise them, who have decent jobs, pay and prospects, have no idea of the soul-destroying situation faced by someone in Britain who is out of work in 1997 irrespective of whether or not he contributed to that job loss. Such people need all the encouragement that they can get both from the Minister and those who work in employment offices.
The intention behind the regulations is to help back into work about 8,000 people in addition to 4,000 in existing pilot areas. Given that there are more than one million people out of work, 8,000 is a tiny proportion of the total. Nevertheless I believe that each of them will be grateful to the Government for this measure. I start on the basis that almost any work, skilled or unskilled, is better than the prospect after training of getting a better job. What is required is work. The money is not necessarily important to someone out of work and living on allowances who is given the prospect of a job.
I should like to know whether the Minister agrees that in the short term it is important to get a person into work. My noble friend will inform the House that pilot schemes are experiments carried out in different parts of the country in different circumstances in order to provide the right mix of opportunities. Based on the experience of my two sons and close observation of the position, I am not convinced that the enthusiasm, dedication and honesty of those whose job it is to train them and to provide the skills are as they should be. For many years part of the solution, apart from finding jobs, has been to retrain people or give them better training. There are many situations in which the training that is provided is half-hearted, inadequate and certainly not tailored to suit particular needs.
What are the needs of someone who is out of work and desperate to find work? Certainly, he wants more money, but he also wants greater respect and skills. Many noble Lords have pursued the same route I have.
1564
They have become better qualified for certain posts. Sometimes qualifications are useful; sometimes they are not. The ethic that drives a person to become better qualified in the abstract is a glorious thing. Most people seek education and attend classes or skill centres as a means of obtaining jobs. Leaving aside the laudable objective of helping 8,000 people, I take up the point made by my noble friend Lady Turner. The regulations are designed to aid the young more than the old. But we must not forget those who are no longer classified as young jobseekers. One knows that unemployment, which stood at 1 million in 1979 and went up to 3 million, is now below 2 million. However, one realises the enormity of even 1.5 million unemployed. And even that figure is suspect, until my noble friend does a better job than the previous government in being honest about the situation. There are many more people who are without work but who are not classified as unemployed.
Someone who is not desperate for a bob or two may be turned off by the questions and procedures under the scheme. I see on page 2 of the regulations a long list of definitions under "Interpretation". Someone who goes into an unemployment office is met by an officer with an order and an Act. A number of matters must be interpreted: "the Act"; "benefit"; "receiving benefit"; "caring responsibilities"; "casual employment"; "employment officer"; "employment-related course"; "examination"; "full-time employment"; "full-time student"; "the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations"; "jobseeking period"; "made a claim for jobseeker's allowance"; "part-time employment"; "period of study"; "qualifying person"; "region"; "term-time"; "vacation"; "week"; and "workskill course". That is just for starters.
I am sure that my noble friend will inform the House that an interpretation is necessary, and it is. I merely point out the difficulty faced by officers if they have to interpret these matters and receive guidance upon them. Occasionally, they will misinterpret. The effect is that a young person or perhaps older person who seeks assistance will find that he or she is on the wrong side of the interpretation of the officer.
I turn to page 3. Under "Application" one sees that Regulation 3(1) has four subparagraphs; Regulation 3(2) has three; and Regulation 3(3) has nine. I can well imagine that in those circumstances a person will lose heart. One comes to the availability for employment in term-time and the tortuous way in which an applicant may fall on the right or wrong side of the interpretation. The Minister has been quite fair in saying what she seeks to improve. I believe that that is right. Without wishing to nitpick, someone may be turned off by the wording of the regulation that deals with the availability of carers in term-time if the applicant is pressed, challenged or monitored as to whether he or she is inside or outside the law.
Is my noble friend satisfied that the level of education and training is approved or monitored by the department? I know her well, and I admire her background in education. Is she satisfied that the courses provided will be tailored to the needs of the individual? It is all very well having a youngster who wants to be trained and a set of training modules, but they must be

1565
matched. Is my noble friend satisfied that her department and her colleagues are ensuring that individuals are dealt with as individuals?
Will my noble friend clarify the position with regard to people who have savings of more than £16,000? They find themselves disqualified because they have some savings. There need to be minimum amounts above which one cannot claim. Do my noble friend and her department consult the DSS about easing those limits?
The regulations are described as a new deal. They are designed to improve the employability and labour market prospects of young people who have been unemployed for six months or more. That is laudable, and we must welcome it. The task is daunting. The resources are limited. The prospects for those who have been unemployed for six months or more, as many people have been, must be depressing and terrifying. I hope that my noble friend will be able to say more about other measures of which she may be aware to ease the passage from welfare to work. I welcome what she said and look forward to hearing something even more hopeful when she responds.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I have what may be an interest so I might as well declare it. I am chairman of a charity called Training for Life. It takes young people who have left school without qualifications and gives them life skills, numeracy and computer literacy and places them in work. It is a small but successful charity.
I welcome the order and the way my noble friend presented it. That is not an empty formal compliment. A long time ago when I was briefly on the Opposition Front Bench I had to discuss an order. It had something to do with the income entitlement of 16 and 17 year-olds. Like my noble friend, I have three degrees and four honorary degrees. I am sure that she has many more than I have. It was extremely difficult to understand what was going on.
As my noble friends Lord Graham and Lady Turner have said, some of the regulations are complicated. I do not know who understands them. I shall make a general point which I have made before. We have created a welfare state that is so complicated that few of us understand it. The claimants' book that the Child Poverty Action Group publishes contains 500 pages. It is difficult to understand what one's entitlements are. There is a great difference between whether you are a 17 year-old woman who has previously worked but who is now pregnant, or who has not worked and is pregnant or is not pregnant. The difference between those categories amounted to 35p per week either way. Someone has set up lots and lots of pigeonholes and lots and lots of regulations, because what we have set up in the welfare state is suspicion of the claimant.
I hope that with the new Government and the new climate that is being created there will be room to rethink the welfare state so as to trust the citizen rather than suspect him. We have to create a great many regulations because we have got into the way of thinking that the claimant is out to cheat us. It is not for very much, because we do not pay the claimant very
1566
much. The claimant is out to cheat us by claiming what he or she is not entitled to or by claiming in a different category from the one they are entitled to. So we set up lots and lots of little pigeonholes. We create work for ourselves, waste resources and cause a great deal of unhappiness.
To return to the jobseeker's allowance. I remember the Bill clearly. I recall what I said at that time. I did not say anything about the Government being vindictive, because I was used to that. The jobseeker's legislation was predicated on the belief that there were jobs out there if only people looked for them. People were unemployed because they were not looking for jobs.
The City, the Bank of England and everyone admits, that we are currently at the top of a business cycle. We have between 1.75 million and 2 million people unemployed, depending upon whether one uses the claimant formula or the labour force survey method. I do not deny that unemployment has been going down. Between 1993 and 1997 cyclical demand-created employment has meant that unemployment has declined. But there are still about 1.75 million people unemployed. They are not the same people. There has been a bit of churning around. However that shows us that unemployment is not at the top of the cycle. It means that old-fashioned demand policies do not work. People are not unemployed because they are not looking for jobs, they are unemployed for supply-side reasons.
I would go further than that. The fact that the previous government set up the pilot schemes was a recognition of the fact that some people do not get jobs because they do not have the appropriate skills. It is not laziness. I welcome the order. Early in the new Government's term of office we are adding new pilot schemes to the previous pilot schemes. We want to be generous and help people and not hinder them. So when we relax the rules and look for supply-side measures to create employment, we want to create opportunities which will not further frustrate people, and make them unhappier, but which will give them the skills needed to do a job.
We have to look at the schemes within the wider context of the welfare-to-work scheme which was announced in the Budget. That is a rolling programme which will continue for the next five years. It will begin slowly. It is a big adventure. It is almost a gamble. How do we know that supply-side policies will work? Everyone has said that they will work, but no one actually knows that they will. Indeed, people who assert supply-side policies do not actually need them; they are already in jobs and very comfortably off.
One very important point—and this is perhaps something that my noble friend the Minister can either answer this evening or later—is that, if we create such pilot schemes, it is extremely important for us to analyse the results carefully. Moreover, the scheme to analyse such results should be set up either before the pilot starts or simultaneously with it. I would even urge the Government to employ an anthropologist to analyse such schemes. I say that because we actually do not know, except at a kind of bar-room conversational level, how unemployed people seek work. What do they actually do? How do they try and what are the

1567
frustrations that they face? Economists do not carry out such studies, but anthropologists observe and an urban anthropologist would be ideal.
We really need to understand such frustration. For example, what is it that frustrates the unemployed? Why is it, as my noble friend Lady Turner asked, that some people join courses which are not suitable for them? Of course, it takes some time for them to realise that the course is not suitable. The regulations may state that within five days one has to report that the course is not suitable, but how does one know that in such a short space of time? How do people get on to such courses? What are the real obstacles? The evaluation of such schemes must be set up very early on so that the 12,000, as it were, units of observation can be studied very carefully and quickly. That will enable us to make policies for the next 100,000 or 200,000 places which will be required under the welfare to work scheme.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, mentioned skills shortages. Again, with all the electronic data and information that we have, I wonder whether we can somehow ease and speed up apprenticeships or placements aimed at acquiring such skills at work. There is no denying the fact that the shortages are there. Someone in some part of the Government has recorded such shortages—for example, the Construction Industry Training Board, and so on. In other words, somewhere else in the machinery of government people know that there are people seeking work. But, even in these modern days, it is difficult for us to match the two concepts.
From my experience of another charity with which I am involved, I know that the Government have a co-ordinating arrangement concerning drugs across several ministries. Perhaps we ought to have such an arrangement whereby someone is always tracking the problem of skill shortages. That is especially important because, over the next few years while the spending boom lasts, skill shortages might actually cause inflationary problems to arise sooner than we would like and that would only lead to the Bank of England going even more berserk than it already is and putting up interest rates. I believe that somewhere here there is a co-ordination problem. I do not know quite how we can fix it, but I believe that it is necessary to do so.
I am not a very practical person, but when I look at Regulation 3(3) under "Application" I wonder whether employment officers are adequately trained and capable of handling so many considerations. Indeed, one has only to look at all those considerations—like, for example, paragraph (g) which refers to,
"the number of jobs in the labour market and, if relevant, the local labour market, which require the skills and qualifications which he would acquire on the course"—
to understand my point. As a professional economist I know for a fact that labour market data are not easily and quickly available. Moreover, local labour market data are even more difficult to get hold of and not very accurate.
The regulations actually require someone to look at the labour market data for particular kinds of skills. But the local labour market may not be relevant. What are
1568
we really asking such people to do? Is it really necessary? Broadly speaking, we want to know that the person who is trying to claim the jobseeker's allowance while doing something else and looking for jobs—or, indeed, taking a course—is not defrauding the state. That is all we want to know. I am sure that all the other conditions set out in the regulations are surplus to requirements.
The regulations before us have already been presented. However, as we become more experienced in such matters and as we need to place more and more people on such schemes to tackle the out-of-work problem, I hope that we will think completely differently about how we monitor or check people's sincerity in seeking training and skills. Perhaps we should reverse the burden of proof and trust people to know what they are doing. In that way we could help them. Indeed, if they have gone into courses which are not suitable for them, we must not blame them; it is not their fault. We must help them along in a positive way.
It is very rare that people go out of their way deliberately and repeatedly to cheat. There are, perhaps, better illegal ways of making more money than this—which I am not recommending. People do not cheat for such amounts of money all the time. Let us change our way of thinking on the matter and start to trust people. The next time that an order is placed before the House, let us approach the matter in a more positive and helpful way. Employment officers should become helpers for the people who are seeking work and actually become more positive, rather than just being negative monitoring persons—in other words, powerful people hanging over the jobseeker, which is the picture that we have at present.
Such regulations worry me when I read them. I do not expect a jobseeker to understand them; he does not have to do so. The jobseeker will be examined when he goes to claim the allowance and state that he is doing this or that course. However, at that stage, I worry about the situation. After all, employment officers are only human. Perhaps we are making them do far too much. We have actually not thought the problem through in a positive way and, as I said, we ought to think about a much greater simplification of rules. There ought to be much more leeway, a greater degree of tolerance and much more trust in our citizens. Basically, we want our welfare state to be good for our citizens; indeed, we are talking about their entitlements. If we become more helpful, more positive and indeed more trusting, I believe that we might be able to create a better welfare state than the one we have at present. It seems to me that the more suspicious we get the less efficient we become. So let us trust people and thereby help them.
7.8 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we have had a very interesting and helpful discussion about the regulations, in which a number of important matters have been raised. I was also interested to note that a number of my noble friends were able to draw on their personal experiences and bring in the useful information that one

1569
can always glean when one has relatives, or people that one knows well, who are unemployed and are having to rely on JSA.
I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, speaking on behalf of the Opposition, for her welcome to the regulations. However, I was a little surprised by some of her remarks in relation to what my noble friends said regarding the JSA legislation before the election. I should point out that the Government entirely stand by what was said by Members of what was then Her Majesty's Opposition in this House at that time. I fully endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said.
I am grateful for what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said about the regulations. As she said, they are designed to mitigate what we have inherited from our predecessors. The schemes are quite modest. I am ready to admit that. But they are a helpful beginning. They are about providing us with much better information to help us consider how to make progress towards a better regime for the long-term unemployed than there has been for the previous 18 years, before the general election in May 1997.
Of course, it is very much at the centre of this Government's ambition to put the greatest possible premium on people acquiring skills. I say that by way of starting. I hope that everything that I say as I go on will fill that out and convince the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who asked that that should be at the centre of everything that we do.
I now turn to the large number of questions which have been asked in the debate and shall do my best to answer them. But if I fail to deal with anything, I shall write to noble Lords who have asked questions. There were one or two quite specific questions to which I may not be able to give the answers.
A number of participants in the debate were concerned about employment officers in a variety of different ways. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and my noble friend Lord Desai were concerned about the powers that were given to employment officers. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about the very difficult job which employment officers must now do. Many of the problems which they face are a direct result of the legislation which they must implement.
But having said that, employment officers are being trained and will receive extra training through the coming months to operate properly the provisions in these regulations. They are being given very detailed guidance and we are confident that they will play a vital role in helping people to take up courses. I should tell my noble friend Lord Desai that they have access to a national labour market computer system which provides very full details of local jobs, opportunities and the training courses which the long-term unemployed, for whom these regulations are intended, can take. Employment officers build up good contacts with local employers; they hold marketing events throughout the year; and they know the importance of keeping up to date with local labour market needs. I hope that that satisfies my noble friend Lord Desai.
1570
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, asked whether we would be willing to advise employment officers that someone who is on a course and looks totally committed to that course should not be pushed into a dead-end job. There is absolutely no question of participants being forced to take up either unsuitable or very low-paid work. Employment Service advisers take their work seriously and seek to match people properly with vacancies. The service would not be able to place people into work if it acquired a reputation with employers for submitting unsuitable people for their vacancies. I do not quite understand why it is suggested that participants should be forced into unsuitable work once they have taken up a Workskill course when they had not been forced into unsuitable work by the Employment Service in the previous six months. It would be highly undesirable if that were to happen.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, asked also about reports which may be required by the employment officer. I assure her that those powers will be used sensibly, as they must be.
My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton asked whether we are satisfied that the lever of education or training is monitored adequately by the department. Again, that relates to the role of employment officers. The courses must be approved. An employment officer will help an applicant to choose a course which is appropriate to his skills, qualifications and abilities and also a course which interests him. An employment officer will then make sure that the course which the applicant takes is relevant to the job which he is interested in obtaining in the longer term.
My noble friends Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Desai made the point that applicants are likely to face a long, complicated and bureaucratic list of rules and regulations. I am sure that all noble Lords will understand that legislation is necessary, detailed and complex. It must be in order to ensure that we are clear about what we are trying to do. But employment officers are trained—I have already said this and I repeat it—to help people to decide whether they wish to participate and will explain the rules to them. There will also be explanatory leaflets available which will be short, simple, clear and easily comprehensible for all applicants. That is vital. It is extremely important that anyone who is to take part in a pilot scheme should be clear as to what he is doing, why he is doing it and what he is likely to get out of it.
The noble Baroness speaking for the Opposition asked about monitoring. She questioned whether the evaluation would be the same for rural areas as for city schemes. In relation to the rural schemes, it will be necessary to look also at any problems which might be specific to rural areas; for example, where a participant must travel a long distance. Apart from those rather special considerations which relate to people who live in the country and some way from an urban area, the same detailed monitoring and evaluation will apply.
She asked also whether we should be introducing greater flexibility in order to treat participants as available for employment, as actively seeking work, the week before they take examinations. We have already

1571
relaxed the rules as regards availability for employment. We are seeking to ensure that part-time students undertaking a Workskill course under these regulations, both during term time and the vacations, take up such employment which allows them to successfully complete the course. We certainly do not believe that we should treat a person as available for employment and actively seeking employment in the weeks before examinations. That would completely defeat the object of the regulations and the pilot schemes which we are introducing; namely, not only to help people undertake a course but to achieve a qualification at the end of it. That means that they must be able to take their examinations and not be pushed into a job at that point in time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked a rather specific question about guided learning hours and what the English definition includes. I think she asked about the distinctions between Scotland and England. As I understand it, the definition does not include homework or voluntary study. Definitions reflect the way that education courses are designed by colleges in England and Scotland, and they are, of course, different because of the different education system in Scotland. The Further Education Funding Council does not fund courses in Scotland.
The noble Baroness also asked whether it would be possible to provide advice to employment officers, asking them to assume that if someone is committed to a course that person should not be pushed into a dead-end job. I believe that I have already touched on that.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I hope I may assist the noble Baroness because I was not trying to make a tedious point. The Scottish definition includes classroom and also work experience. The guided learning hours in the English definition might not include the concept of work experience. I was not clear whether it included that. The Scottish definition is more precise, and that is why I asked the question.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, that is extremely helpful. In a more general sense we see gaining and developing skills that can get people off benefit and into work as absolutely central to the way in which we respond to the problems of long-term unemployment. Clearly, obtaining a skill will almost by definition increase employability. We do not want people to stay unemployed and on benefit to study indefinitely. JSA is not a source of funding for full-time students, nor should it be. Most people want to get back into work quickly and want to know what job opportunities are available to them. It is a question of judgment as to how much leeway we allow people to continue studying when a suitable job opportunity is available.
We expect all those on the pilots who are notified by the Employment Service of a full-time, permanent job—I do not mean just any job—to apply for it, even if that may occasionally mean giving up a course. However, people who are within a few weeks of finishing a course
1572
or taking examinations will be able to turn down a job offer so that they can finish the course. We shall evaluate that aspect of the pilots extremely carefully.
I shall now address comments made by my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden and the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. The regulations allow anyone receiving JSA for six months or more to participate in the pilot areas. There is in fact no age requirement. Older people can take part, and indeed they should be encouraged to do so. It is part of lifelong learning, creating employability and avoiding large numbers of people in long-term unemployment, and the poverty and marginalisation that are entailed in that, to consider people whatever their age—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. However, one knows the resistance of many employers to take on older people. Are my noble friend and her colleagues in the department conscious of that and are they seeking ways to encourage employers to give prospective, older employees a chance?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, that is certainly a matter that I shall convey to my right honourable friend the Minister for Employment. I cannot give a precise answer as to whether there are any particular proposals to encourage the employment of older workers. However, as I say, I shall certainly raise that matter with my right honourable friend Mr. Andrew Smith.
I turn to another point made by my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden. She requested that sanctions should be handled sensitively. There are rules and sanctions governing the Workskill pilots which can result in loss of JSA for people who break the rules. People should not be allowed to waste time and money if they cannot be bothered to put in the time and effort needed to complete a course at taxpayers' expense. Sanctions will be imposed resulting normally in the loss of JSA for two weeks if people drop out of courses through misconduct or without a good reason. However, people who have merely chosen the wrong course will be able to leave it in the first four weeks without receiving a sanction. Obviously from time to time people will misjudge a course and start a course which is not suitable. Those who are genuinely unable to keep up with a course will also have a good reason for leaving it, as will those on an unsuitable course. Those sanctioned can apply for JSA hardship payments if they are in a vulnerable group.
My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton asked about savings. To take part in Workskill pilots a participant has to be in receipt of JSA for more than six months. This is based on the longstanding principle that savings are taken into account for means tested benefits. Income based JSA is not payable to those with significant savings of more than about £8,000. My noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton mentioned the new deal and asked about the relevance of these pilots to the new deal. The Workskill pilots support our general approach on a new deal which seeks to improve employability and labour market prospects for young people who are unemployed for six months or more and for long-term unemployed people.

1573
All four programme options for young people aged 18 to 24 will include education and training. One of the options is for full-time education or training. Those aged 25 or over who have been unemployed for two years or more will be able to undertake full-time education and training for up to a year and remain on JSA. We shall learn much from those pilots in implementing the new deal next spring.
However, the new deal will operate differently to these pilots. I should make that absolutely clear. The new deal for 18 to 24 year-olds is a compulsory programme aimed at helping that age group avoid benefit dependency. Our plans to allow the 25-year plus long-term unemployed to undertake education and training while on JSA is targeted to ensure that we deal with a particular problem. With the pilots we are looking at a voluntary entering into education and training for all age groups while on JSA. The pilots will allow us to assess the case for a change to the rules for all those on JSA.
My noble friend Lord Desai asked about fraud and said that we should not assume that people are trying to cheat. Of course we do not assume that people are trying to cheat. However, the Government are determined to bear down on fraud and abuse where they take place—that is only right. There is no question of assuming that in general people cheat, but I regret to say that some people do and we must tackle that when it occurs.
My noble friend Lord Desai and a number of other speakers asked how we would analyse the pilot schemes and referred to the importance of doing so properly. I hope I can reassure him by saying that they will be analysed in great detail. Monitoring starts at the beginning of the scheme and as well as collecting basic facts the participants will be tracked to see how the courses have affected their later employment prospects. That is important.
I believe that I have answered most of the questions that were put. I hope that I have done so. I conclude by reminding the House of the purpose of these regulations. This second wave of pilots will allow us to offer many more people the opportunity to undertake education or training while receiving JSA and to see what effects this has on their efforts to obtain and stay in work. They will play an important role in our review of the jobseeker allowance rules on education and training which we intend to go forward with as soon as possible. I commend them to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.30 to 8 p.m.]

Education (Schools) Bill
8 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reason be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reason be now considered.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO THE LORDS AMENDMENT
[The page and line refer to Bill 10 as, first printed for the Lords]
LORDS AMENDMENT
Clause 2, page 2, line 5, at end insert—
("() in the case of a pupil with an assisted place at a school providing education for children up to the age of 13 but not beyond, at the end of the school year in which he attains the age of 13; or")
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following Reason:
Because it would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons; and the Commons do not offer any further reason. trusting this reason may be deemed sufficient.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason stated.
During Report stage we passed an amendment to Clause 2 of the Bill. This would require the Government to support all pupils with assisted places at free-standing preparatory schools through to age 13 regardless of whether they were given an assurance that they could hold the assisted place until the end of their time at that school.
The Commons have now considered this amendment and have disagreed with it,
"Because it would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting this reason may be deemed sufficient".
I urge your Lordships to agree with the Commons.
We have made clear that we will use the discretionary power so that where the child was given a clear promise of a place to age 13, on the basis of the letter written by Peter Kilfoyle to the chairman of the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools on 1st April, that place would be honoured. It is clear that that has been the main concern of your Lordships.
But Amendment No. l goes further. It would require the Government to support all pupils with assisted places at free-standing preparatory schools through to age 13, regardless of whether a promise of a place was made. Of course some preparatory schools will have offered pupils a clear promise of a place to age 13 on the basis of the Kilfoyle letter. Subject to a check of the commitment given to the parents, and provided the parent wants the child to continue through to age 13, then we will provide support through to age 13. So, if there was the promise of a place to age 13, then we will honour that place.

1575
But making the entitlement automatic would mean extra support at the expense of the taxpayer for a commitment that never existed. It would mean that some cases would receive support when no promise was made. That would not be a proper use of public money. There will be cases where no clear promise of a place through to age 13 was given. We must have a mechanism to identify these. The discretionary power will allow the detail of individual cases to be checked. It means that we can ensure that parents understand that, after age 13, they will not be able to take up an assisted place at a senior school. These points need to be verified. Only through the use of the discretionary power will there be a mechanism for ensuring that support goes only to the deserving.
There are no broken promises. We are honouring our commitments. I ask the House not to insist on its amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her statement. I am rather sorry that Mr. Kilfoyle did not include all the qualifications in his letter. That is the basis of the Opposition's objection to this particular measure.
I regret very much that the Government have used their majority in the Commons to overturn this amendment. I repeat: the qualifications made were not made in the original letter. That is the basis of my case. A promise was made, a promise without qualifications, and it has now been reduced to a discretion. Mr. Kilfoyle may have been over-generous; he may have been carried away by the conviviality of the prep school gathering. However, he made a promise.
The noble Baroness's command of English is almost certainly better than mine. She knows as well as I do that "discretion" means, "freedom to make decisions one way or the other"; while a promise means, "an agreement to follow a defined line". The Government know that what will happen to these worried parents is that they will have to approach bureaucrats in the Department for Education and Employment. Letters will be exchanged and an enormous burden will be placed upon them merely as a result, so far as I can gather, of the indiscretion of a shadow spokesman of the party now in government, then in Opposition.
I go further. I absolutely trust the noble Baroness's promise. Since she says that she will observe the spirit of the Kilfoyle letter rashly though it was given, as I gather from the qualification that she makes, I fail to understand why the Government are not prepared to accept this amendment since it was their Member, their shadow spokesman, who made this rash promise. This amendment clearly puts on the face of the Bill, without any equivocation, the intent of that letter. The noble Baroness has said on more than on occasion—and I repeat that I respect her assurances—that she will fulfil the spirit of the amendment. I remind the House
1576
or the third time that Mr. Kilfoyle did not put any qualifications on his promise. Why not leave it in the Bill?
I make this comment for the record. For us this is a matter not just of principle but of integrity. It is a sad business when promises are not kept. I do not include the noble Baroness in this, but it is dishonourable. A member of the party then in Opposition and now in Government made a promise on which the Government are now reneging. We all know that "discretion" will mean endless letters and endless distress.
We have made our feelings clear. We shall not oppose the decision of the other place to remove the amendment from the Bill. We shall go to dinner and I shall enjoy my dinner more than noble Lords opposite in that I command the moral high ground. A promise was made and a promise was not kept. My digestion will be better than that of noble Lords opposite, particularly for members of a party who profess to believe in trust. We shall see what happens in the next four years, but this is a bad beginning.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have no intention of going back over all the arguments again. I do not think that the noble Lord opposite would expect me to do so.
However, I wish to say that there is nothing dishonourable about what we have agreed to do. We made a concession to look, on a discretionary basis, at those cases where people may have been influenced by the Kilfoyle letter and where a genuine promise had been made. We are not in any sense reneging on promises.
The noble Lord used a term relating to the bureaucrats in my department somewhat disparagingly. The officials in my department will operate the system honourably.
Finally, we on this side of the House will enjoy our dinner greatly because we shall have put through a Bill which was in our manifesto—a commitment which we made which we believe will help the many hundreds of thousands of five, six and seven year-old children in state schools who deserve to receive their education in smaller class sizes than the party of the noble Lord opposite was able to achieve when it was in power.
It is in keeping with the role of the non-elected revising and debating Chamber to ask the other place to think again on certain aspects of the Government's proposals. But when the other place disagrees with your Lordships' amendment, particularly when privilege is involved, we do not insist on the matter. Earlier today, Members in another place debated the principle of the amendment in some depth. So, while the reason given relates to the financial aspect of the amendment, I can assure your Lordships that the other place took full account of the principle behind the amendment in reaching the decision to disagree. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past eight o'clock.

  Government Offices for the Regions
  Government Offices for the Regions
  Seat Belts: Correct Adjustment
  Seat Belts: Correct Adjustment
  Industrial Performance Benchmarking
  Industrial Performance Benchmarking
  Questions for Written Answer
  Questions for Written Answer
  Privy Council Judicial Committee
  Privy Council Judicial Committee
  NHS Waiting Lists
  NHS Waiting Lists
  Smoking-related Deaths
  Smoking-related Deaths
  Smoking: Statistics
  Smoking: Statistics
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Huntingdon Life Sciences: Investigation
  Huntingdon Life Sciences: Investigation
  Cookham Wood Secure Training Centre
  Cookham Wood Secure Training Centre
  Secure Training Order
  Secure Training Order
  Treaty of Amsterdam: Effect of Article K7(7)
  Treaty of Amsterdam: Effect of Article K7(7)
  Exceptional Risk Prisoners: Visits
  Exceptional Risk Prisoners: Visits
  Prison Service Resources
  Prison Service Resources
  Student Loans
  Student Loans
  Sterling: Appreciation
  Sterling: Appreciation
  Pension Values
  Pension Values
  Administrative Decisions: Publication of Reasons
  Administrative Decisions: Publication of Reasons
  Crown Copyright
  Crown Copyright
  BSE and the Rendering Industry
  BSE and the Rendering Industry
  Angling: Cruelty to Fish
  Angling: Cruelty to Fish
  Prisoners of War: Review of Pay Deductions
  Prisoners of War: Review of Pay Deductions
  Trident and UK Nuclear Arsenal
  Trident and UK Nuclear Arsenal
  Gulf War: Chemical Weapons
  Gulf War: Chemical Weapons
  Gulf War: Biological Agents
  Gulf War: Biological Agents
  Anti-personnel Landmines
  Anti-personnel Landmines
  Reactor Grade Plutonium: Use to Construct Nuclear Device
  Reactor Grade Plutonium: Use to Construct Nuclear Device