Sitting of 10 June 1997

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

    PRIVATE BILLS (PROCEDURE)
    Motion made,
    That—

    (1) the Promoters of every Private Bill which originated in this House or was brought from the House of Lords in the last Parliament shall have leave to proceed with that Bill, if they think fit, in the present Session;

    (2) every such Bill which originated in this House shall be presented to the House not later than the fifth day on which the House sits after this day;

    (3) there shall be deposited with every Bill so presented a declaration signed by the Agent for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the last Parliament;

    (4) every Bill so presented shall be laid by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the Table of the House on the next Meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill was presented;

    (5) every Bill so laid on the Table shall be deemed to have been read the first time and (if the Bill had been read a second time in the last Parliament) to have been read a second time and—

    (i) if such Bill had been referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills in the last Parliament, it shall stand so referred;

    (ii) if such Bill had been referred to a Committee during the last Parliament and not reported by that Committee to the House. the Bill shall stand committed and—

    (a) all Petitions against the Bill which stood referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present Session, subject to the determination of any outstanding objection to the locus standi of any petitioner; and

    (b) any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present Session;

    (iii) if such Bill had been reported by any Committee, it shall be ordered to be read the third time unless it had been reported with Amendments in the last Parliament and had not been considered as so amended, in which case it shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;

    (iv) if such Bill had been read the third time in the last Parliament, it shall be deemed to have been read the third time;

    928

    (6) paragraph (2) of Standing Order 166 relating to Private Business (First reading) shall not apply to any Bill brought from the House of Lords in the present Session and to which this Order relates;

    (7) when any Bill which was brought from the House of Lords in the last Parliament and to which this Order relates is brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the House of Lords in the last Parliament and, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House—

    (i) unless the Examiner had reported pursuant to Standing Order 74 relating to Private Business (Examination of bills brought from the House of Lords, etc.), the Bill shall stand referred to the Examiners;

    (ii) if the Examiner had so reported, the Bill shall be ordered to be read a second time, or, if it had been read a second time, it shall be read a second time and committed; but

    (iii) if the Bill had been reported by a Committee with Amendments in the last Parliament it shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means who shall make only such Amendments to the Bill as had been made thereto by the Committee in the last Parliament, and shall report the Bill to the House forthwith, and the Bill shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;

    (8) any Bill which under the provisions of this Order is deemed to have been read the first time, or the first and second time, or the first, second and third time, shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having been so read;

    (9) without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph (5) of this Order, only those Petitions against any Bill which stood referred to the Committee on the Bill and which had not been withdrawn or had been deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business (Reference to committee of petitions against bill) shall stand referred to the Committee on the same Bill in the present Session;

    (10) in relation to any Bill to which this Order applies Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business (Right of audience before committees on opposed bills) shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)" were omitted.

    (11) where any Standing Order had been dispensed with in respect of any private Bill in the last Parliament, those Standing Orders shall be deemed to have been ordered to be dispensed with in respect of any such Bill presented or brought from the Lords in pursuance of this Order;

    (12) any Standing Orders complied with in respect of any Bill originating in the House of Lords to which this Order relates shall be deemed to have been complied with in respect of such Bill if the same is brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, and any notices published or given and any deposits made in respect of such Bill in the last Parliament shall be held to have been published, given and made, respectively, for the Bill so brought from the House of Lords in the present Session;

    (13) no further fees shall be charged in respect of proceedings on a Bill in respect of which fees have been incurred in the last Parliament.

    That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.— [The Chairman of Ways and Means. ]
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be considered on Monday 16 June at 7 o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Government Communications Headquarters, Cheltenham
    Mr. Trickett: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on trade union rights at GCHQ. [1158]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I announced on 15 May that we were fulfilling our long-standing commitment to restore to staff at GCHQ the freedom to join the independent trade union of their choice. Management and unions will shortly commence negotiations on a collective agreement to provide safeguards against disruption. GCHQ staff make a valuable contribution to protecting the liberties and freedoms of our country. They are now able to share fully in one of the important liberties that they defend.
    Mr. Trickett: Will the Foreign Secretary accept that millions of people, both here and abroad, will welcome his statement this afternoon? Does he agree with the sacked GCHQ workers that this was a wrong that was righted at long last? Does he accept that the ban on trade unions at GCHQ has done us profound damage abroad and that, while the ban continued, it was impossible for this country to lecture others on respect for human rights?
    Mr. Cook: I am glad of the warm welcome that has been given to our announcement by many of the 14 members of staff who were dismissed because of their refusal to give up trade union activity. The Labour party has never accepted the vile slur on which the ban was based: that people cannot be patriotic and also loyal to a trade union. That was a slur not just on the GCHQ staff, but on millions of patriotic trade union members and I am glad that we have put that right.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it was a mistake for the national unions to call GCHQ workers out on strike? Will he name another country in the western world where people involved in signals intelligence were able either to join a union or to go on strike? Would he care to say whether he would like his staff overseas to be able to go on declaring around the world that this country is now virtually national-strike-free?
    Mr. Cook: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this country will continue to do its duty and will see that duty done by its staff abroad. We have seen an excellent example of the way in which Foreign Office staff work without regard to any consideration of rights and conditions in the way that our staff at Sierra Leone managed the magnificent evacuation of 2,000 people, which was done by only five people working around the clock. Therefore, the slur that the hon. Gentleman makes on Foreign Office staff is unacceptable.
    930
    We are considering the provision, by collective agreement, against disruption by GCHQ staff, but the hon. Gentleman is very wide of the mark. Far from being the odd one out now because we have restored the rights to join a trade union at GCHQ, it was during the period of the hon. Gentleman's Government that Britain was out of step with the rest of the world and was nearly required to leave the International Labour Organisation because we could not meet its conditions.
    Mr. Nigel Jones: I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on removing the ban on trade union rights for GCHQ staff.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the possibility of compensating those 14 workers who were sacked because of continuing to stick to their principles? Most of them are my constituents. Mike Grindley, Clive Lloyd—all those brave people stuck to their principles through thick and thin and deserve some recognition for that.
    Mr. Cook: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's congratulations.
    I understand that compensation is being discussed between management and the 14 people concerned. Compensation was paid to the limit at the time of their dismissal. We would have to think carefully before we undertook any commitment to compensate people who lost employment during the 18 years of the previous Government, or the bill could be very large indeed.

    Human Rights
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the Government's policy on human rights. [1159]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): We have made it clear that human rights will be a central element of this Government's foreign policy. As set out by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in the mission statement of 12 May, we shall work through international forums and bilateral relationships to spread the values of human rights, civil liberties and democracy that we demand for ourselves.
    Mr. Hutton: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment, and welcome the new emphasis that the Government are placing on promoting human rights around the world. I think that it will be strongly supported by the British people.
    Does my hon. Friend agree that a significant step towards protecting human rights would be the establishment of a permanent international criminal court with extensive jurisdiction to try cases involving serious human rights abuses? What measures will the Government take in that regard?
    Mr. Lloyd: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. We appreciate the warm reception that the changed policy on human rights has received not just in this country, but throughout the world.
    We support the proposal for an international criminal court, not only in principle but in practice. We intend to participate actively in the work of the preparatory

    931
    committee, and in the other meetings to negotiate a statute for the court. We strongly support the idea of holding a diplomatic conference in 1998 to establish that court. We intend to ensure that any doubts that have existed in the past about the British Government's commitment will be dispelled by this Government: we want an effective international criminal court.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Would the Minister be sympathetic to the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into domestic law?
    Mr. Lloyd: Yes, we would be sympathetic to that.
    Mrs. Clwyd: May I say how glad I am to see my hon. Friend and the rest of the foreign affairs team on the Front Bench, and how delighted we are that human rights has been put at the front of the Department's agenda?
    Given the continuing evidence that arms exports to Indonesia are being used for internal repression, what consideration has my hon. Friend given to banning arms exports to Indonesia outright?
    Mr. Lloyd: We have serious concerns about human rights in Indonesia. One of the first actions of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister of State was to ask for an investigation of the events in Bandung and Jakarta.
    My hon. Friend will know that, on 22 May, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced that the Government would conduct a review of the mechanics and the detailed criteria used in the issuing of licences for exports of conventional arms. Perhaps my hon. Friend will forgive me if I say that it would be practically premature for us to give any specific country-by-country response at this stage.
    Dr. Fox: I, too, welcome the Minister to his post. Does he agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the last Government were right to export Hawk aircraft to Indonesia?
    Mr. Lloyd: I can only repeat that, while we make it clear that the human rights dimension is an important part of the way in which we shall consider applications for export licences, the review announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not yet been completed, although it will be completed very rapidly. Until that time, it would be foolish for us to make any further comment.

    China
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about UK relations with China. [1160]
    Sir Archie Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the implications of the Government's human rights stance for trade relations with China. [1170]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): China has emerged as a major power with a rapidly growing economy. That, in turn, will lead to internal change within Chinese society. We want to open a new chapter of more constructive relations with China across the board, addressing both trade and more difficult issues such as human rights. Transparency and the rule of law are important both on human rights grounds and as a basis for sound commercial relations.
    Mr. Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. In the recent past, our European partners have had better relationships with China. Does my hon. Friend envisage any stumbling blocks in the future? Can the handover of Hong Kong become a bridge towards a better relationship with China, rather than the stumbling block that it has constituted in the past?
    Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is right to say that it is important to open a new chapter in our relations with China. We are all keen to make a success of the handover of Hong Kong, and to ensure that it constitutes a bridge between our two countries rather than a barrier; but, at the same time, we must address difficult and important issues with China. The human rights agenda will be important to us, and I can tell my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend and I have already raised our concerns about human rights in our meetings with the ambassador.
    Sir Archie Hamilton: Does the Minister agree that there is a balance between trade and human rights, and that, if he presses the human rights case too hard, we shall lose in trade? What are the implications of that for British jobs?
    Mr. Fatchett: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is a balance, but it is not a question of either/or. We must be concerned about human rights, as we are concerned about developing trade, and we can use the opportunities of trade to expand the human rights agenda. I am a little surprised, however, that the right hon. Gentleman finds time to lecture the Government on their record of trade with China, when the previous Government did not pay much regard to the human rights agenda. Their trade performance with China was considerably worse than that of other countries, which gave much more priority to the human rights agenda.
    Mr. MacShane: I welcome my hon. Friend to his post and invite him to take no notice of lectures on human rights from the Conservatives, whose performance in office was an international scandal.
    On China, may I invite my hon. Friend to continue to exert pressure for the release of Wei Jing Sheng, the distinguished democracy wall writer, often called the Sakharov of China, whose continued imprisonment for his writings remains very much a stone in the shoe of amicable relations between China and our and other democratic countries?
    Mr. Fatchett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening comments and for the comments that he made about the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton). I must say that it is a pleasure to see

    933
    the right hon. Gentleman here, rather than carrying out his other duties as returning officer today, which I thought might be even more important to him.
    My hon. Friend draws attention to an important case in China. I give my hon. Friend a clear commitment that, on individual cases and in general, we shall continue to press the human rights agenda. It is important to us, and my hon. Friend will see the change in the flavour of the Government's approach.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman make certain that, in all Her Majesty's Government's dealings with China, the issue of Tibet is not forgotten and rolled under the carpet? Is it not the case that the systematic abuse of human rights and of the people of Tibet for very many years by the Chinese authorities has seriously prejudiced the view that people in the free world hold of the People's Republic of China, and that, in the long term, it must be detrimental to trading relations also unless the authorities do something to improve human rights in Tibet?
    Mr. Fatchett: I share the hon. Gentleman's concerns. We also appreciate the important human rights agenda in relation to Tibet; the hon. Gentleman made those points with great force. In the meetings that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have had individually with the ambassador, the issue of human rights has been raised, and Tibet is on that agenda.
    Mr. Barry Jones: How will the Ministers assist the exports into the republic of the products of British Aerospace and Airbus Industrie, in Europe? Does my hon. Friend agree that aerospace is one of our biggest industries, using skilled labour, and that there is a huge market in the republic?
    Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is correct to point out the importance of raising our trade profile with China. As he knows from my earlier response, we have not performed as well in China as we have other countries, and there is a clear lesson to be learnt from the failures of the previous Government in that regard. We shall build up a much more positive relationship with China.
    On the specific issue of Airbus, I notice the success of President Chirac in his recent visit. Perhaps we should send a few words of thanks to President Chirac, because he brought work and jobs, not only to France, but to the United Kingdom.

    Middle East Peace Process
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister of Israel to discuss the middle east peace process; and if he will make a statement. [1161]
    Mr. Fatchett: When I visited the front-line peace process states, on 25 to 30 May, I was not able to meet Prime Minister Netanyahu, who was attending an urgent summit with President Mubarak. My visit reflected the high priority that we give to the search for a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the middle east, and the close contact that we maintain with the region's leaders.
    934
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs very much hopes to visit the region in the autumn.
    Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful for that answer. Will the Minister join me in condemning the murder of three Palestinian land agents and the attempted murder of a fourth Palestinian land agent by fellow Palestinians? Is he aware that those murders have been tacitly encouraged by certain senior officers of the Palestine National Authority? Does he agree that that can be of no help to the peace process?
    Mr. Fatchett: I can do better than join the hon. Gentleman in the points that he makes. I have already publicly condemned the actions and the events to which he refers, and I have already made it clear to the Palestine National Authority that, equally, it should condemn such activities. I have made the same point to the Authority in another way, by telling it that, although it has many friends in the United Kingdom who understand the Palestinians' case, it does not help that case by failing to condemn the type of activity mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Ivan Lewis: When he spoke to the Palestine National Authority, did my hon. Friend offer it the Government's support for its difficult work? However, did he also make it clear that there are significant concerns about the Authority's use of the public money that it is receiving from international sources, because of serious allegations that a significant proportion of that money is not being used appropriately?
    Mr. Fatchett: I can assure my hon. Friend that I expressed those concerns publicly, and privately, in my meeting with Prime Minister Arafat. It is important to all public and private donors to the Palestinian Authority that all money is accounted for and that there is a clear rule of law in the administration of public funds. I have made those points clear, and, in the context of Palestine, I have said that our approach to human rights is not a la carte. We shall have universal principles, and we shall apply those in each and every circumstance.
    Mr. Soames: If the Government are truly interested in promoting human rights, will the Minister confirm that, when he next meets the Israeli Prime Minister, he will tell him that the Government of Israel have done a great wrong and harm, as they continue to do, to the Palestinians? To move the peace process further and faster along. will the Minister assure the House that he will listen with care and attention to the views of our friends and allies in the Gulf, whose views on those matters are not always given the attention that they deserve?
    Mr. Fatchett: I always felt that the hon. Gentleman would do better in opposition than in government, and his question shows that that is the case. We are keen to push forward the peace process, to ensure that we achieve a just and comprehensive peace that provides political integrity and prosperity for the Palestinians and security for the Israelis. We shall do all we can to ensure that we are an active player in that process.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: I congratulate my hon. Friend not only on taking up his position as Minister with responsibility for middle east affairs but on his most recent visit to the area, which went down very well.

    935
    I also congratulate my hon. Friend on his visit to Har Homa. Does he regret that he was unable to meet Prime Minister Netanyahu, so that he could make it clear to him that the Alon-plus plan—which Mr. Netanyahu has begun to float as a means of resolving the final settlement of Palestinians—is not acceptable either to the Palestinians or to the international community should it deny the possibility of a land link between a Palestinian state and its Arab neighbour, Jordan?
    Mr. Fatchett: I am again grateful for the kind words from my hon. Friend, although I do not know how long the love-in between Ministers and Back Benchers will continue.
    My hon. Friend is right to say that any final settlement must take full account of the wishes and aspirations of the Palestinian people. If the Palestinian entity is to be successful and durable, it will have to ensure that it has a proper land mass and a proper identity to meet those aspirations. Those are issues for the final status negotiations, which we are keen to ensure start with a real chance of success.

    BBC World Service
    Mr. Öpik: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of the BBC World Service. [1163]
    Mr. Fatchett: The BBC World Service makes a vital contribution to the promotion of Britain abroad. We want it to flourish and in doing so continue to build on its outstanding international reputation for objective news and comment. Through the Foreign Office and BBC World Service working group, we shall continue to ensure the maintenance of a special quality, style and ethos for the World Service's output.
    Mr. Öpik: I thank the Minister for his answer. Would he consider introducing the practice of providing the World Service with funding intentions for five years ahead so that it can improve its strategic planning ability? Will he reaffirm the Government's support for the World Service's intention to create programmes in foreign languages for areas it deems best served by television rather than by radio?
    Mr. Fatchett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, which gives me the opportunity to sing the praises of the BBC World Service. It is an important part of this country's diplomatic activities. It is clear, whatever country one visits in the world, that the reputation of the BBC and therefore of Britain is extremely high.
    On the specific issues that the hon. Gentleman mentions, I reassure him that the number of languages covered by the BBC World Service has increased in recent years. The question of balance is always under consideration. The hon. Gentleman's funding point will be taken into account along with all the other funding issues in the Government's comprehensive spending review.
    Mr. Pond: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment to his post and I welcome his comments about the importance of the BBC World Service, not only because of its diplomatic importance, but because of the important cultural role it performs. As my hon. Friend will be aware, until fairly recently the World Service was subject to a three-year funding programme which gave it some opportunity to plan ahead and to take advantage of potential developments. Under the previous Administration, without consultation and unilaterally, that arrangement was withdrawn. The World Service now has to operate on the basis of annual funding which makes it difficult for it to fulfil its potential. Will my hon. Friend consider reviewing the basis of funding?
    Mr. Fatchett: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that any decisions taken about the BBC World Service's financial structure will follow detailed consultation with the BBC World Service. The detail and the outcome are, of course, subject to the Government's comprehensive spending review.
    Mr. Gamier: How much money has the Foreign Office given the BBC World Service in this financial year and how much will it give in the next two financial years?
    Mr. Fatchett: I am slightly surprised by the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, because he raises an issue to which he clearly knows the answer. The rules are set out in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office annual report. I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman finds the Library; the information will be there and readily available to him. He will also find there the figures for the next two financial years. I said to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) that I thought that he would do well in opposition. One thing is certain; the hon. and learned Gentleman's performance in opposition will be no better than his performance in government; it will be equally bad.

    Hong Kong
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the handover of Hong Kong to China. [1164]
    Mr. Robin Cook: A successful transition for Hong Kong is one of our highest priorities. We are committed to doing all that we can, working with the Government of China and the incoming Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, to secure Hong Kong's continuing stability, prosperity and freedoms through and beyond the handover, on the basis of the Joint Declaration.
    Mrs. Mahon: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his position. Does he agree that Hong Kong's continued success will depend on the rule of law and on civil and political freedoms?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the success of the Hong Kong economy depends very much on the rule of law and the liberties of Hong Kong, which are protected by the Joint Declaration until 2047. I can assure the House that the Government will continue to monitor the observance of those liberties and report on

    937
    that to the House every six months. The Joint Liaison Group has a continuing role until 2000 monitoring the conduct of the Joint Declaration. We shall play a full part in that. We shall also work with our international allies to make sure that international interest continues to be shown in Hong Kong so that we fulfil our obligation to the people of Hong Kong that the handover terms are honoured in the years ahead.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I also congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his appointment.
    Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the House, and indeed the other place, should have a continuing role in monitoring what goes on in Hong Kong until 2047? Does he consider that it would be appropriate to set up a special Committee for that very purpose?
    Mr. Cook: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Britain's interest in Hong Kong must not end at midnight on 30 June. We shall have a strong continuing interest, both commercially and as one of the architects of the Joint Declaration, in making sure that its freedoms are observed. A Committee of the House may well serve a purpose, but that is essentially a matter for the House to resolve. I certainly intend to keep the House informed, and I hope that hon. Members will wish to participate in debates on the matter.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Chinese authorities have announced their intention to dismiss some of those who were democratically elected in Hong Kong and carry popular support? Will he therefore convey to the Chinese authorities our strength of feeling on that issue and encourage our European Union partners and the United States to do so as well?
    Mr. Cook: I can assure my hon. Friend that, in opposition, in government and in the House, I have roundly condemned the action of the Chinese Government in dismissing the elected Legislative Council of Hong Kong and their intention to replace it on 1 July with a Legislative Council appointed by a committee set up by Beijing. There is no way in which we can accept that as a proper implementation of the Joint Declaration or as demonstrating respect for the democratic choices of the people of Hong Kong. We shall continue to press that view. In the meantime, we attach particular importance to the commitment of the Chinese Government to hold free and fair elections for a new Legislative Council within 12 months, and we expect that commitment to be fulfilled.

    Social Chapter
    Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his European colleagues on the introduction of the social chapter into the United Kingdom. [1165]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): Incorporation of the social chapter into the main EC treaty and its extension to the United Kingdom are being considered within the intergovernmental conference. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have discussed the issue with a number of my European colleagues both in bilateral meetings and at IGC sessions.
    Mr. Streeter: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post.
    Given that future new directives under the social chapter can be introduced by qualified majority voting, what guarantee can the Minister give the House today that future new directives will not be imposed on the United Kingdom if they are harmful to its interests?
    Mr. Henderson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his initial kind remarks.
    I remind the non. Gentleman that the previous Government participated in the initial discussions on the establishment of a social chapter and had the opportunity to become involved in the regulations that were drawn up at that time. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are provisions for extension under qualified majority voting. One of the proposals currently under consideration concerns the burden of proof. I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that our European partners are following Britain's example, principles and practice in that matter. That is an early sign of the positive contribution that Britain is making to the new climate in Europe.
    Dr. Palmer: Is the Minister aware of the widespread astonishment in Europe that a national political party in Britain actually opposes the very limited rights laid down in the social chapter? Is he further aware that that astonishment is shared by my predecessor, the former Conservative Member for Broxstowe?
    Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is interesting at European meetings when our partners ask why Britain failed to score any goals in the past. I am delighted to say that one could not expect anything else when they were not on the playing field in the first place.
    Mr. David Davis: The Minister signally failed to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter). He has clearly forgotten that Labour proposed to sign the social chapter. If the proposal to extend the works council directive to firms of only 50 employees is carried by majority voting, will the Government implement the decision?
    Mr. Henderson: The Government are bound by European treaties. There is no question of a British Government not complying with treaties. Due to the positive climate in Europe, we are able to insist among our colleagues that there be a full examination of all the issues and principles involved and that British organisations, such as the Institute of Directors, be invited to give evidence. When we have heard that evidence, we will come to conclusions.

    Kashmir
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions Her Majesty's Government have had with representatives of the Pakistan and Indian Governments about the position in Kashmir. [1166]
    Mr. Fatchett: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed Kashmir with the Indian Prime Minister's envoy on 21 May. I intend to discuss the issue during visits to India and Pakistan later this week.
    Mr. Pike: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. Would there be any better way in which to celebrate the 50th anniversary of independence for Pakistan and India than to resolve the long outstanding problem of Kashmir? Although the key to unlocking the problem is clearly in the hands of India, with a positive response from Pakistan, will my hon. Friend make it clear that the new British Government intend to take a much more positive attitude in trying to end this long-running problem?
    Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend has taken a long and very keen interest in the issue of Kashmir and what is happening in Kashmir and to the people of Kashmir. He is absolutely right to say that a breakthrough in relations between India and Pakistan would be very appropriate in the 50th year of independence.
    We warmly welcome the new atmosphere that seems to have been generated recently and anticipate with hope the talks between the Pakistan and Indian Governments. We hope that they will create a totally new framework of relationships between India and Pakistan. As my hon. Friend knows, we as a party, and now as a Government, have expressed our keen interest in developing relations with India and Pakistan and looking for a solution to the problems in Kashmir. We have also said on many occasions that, if it would be of any assistance to the two Governments, we would be willing to play a constructive role.
    Mr. Colvin: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Government Front Bench. Will he consider two initiatives that the United Kingdom could take? First, the Government could convene a conference between India and Pakistan under the provisions of the Simla agreement of 1972 and, with the agreement of both sides, chair that conference. Secondly, bearing in mind that the dispute is between Commonwealth states, will he consider finding a way of putting the problem of Kashmir on the agenda of the next conference of heads of state of Commonwealth countries?
    Mr. Fatchett: We would very much encourage the talks between the Indian and Pakistan Governments. We see that as the most appropriate way in which to make progress. The framework for the talks has been provided by United Nations resolutions and the Simla agreement, but we would initially look to the parties themselves as the best way in which to get a lasting and just solution to the problems.

    Europe (Government Policy)
    Mr. Radice: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards Europe. [1167]
    Mr. Robin Cook: We believe that our membership of the European Union is vital to Britain's exports and jobs, improves the security of our continent and increases our clout in trade talks and world affairs. We are committed to developing a people's Europe that is more open to the citizens of Britain and the continent and more relevant to their concerns about jobs, crime and the environment. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made excellent progress towards that objective yesterday when
    940
    he obtained agreement at Ecofin to boost jobs through improving employability, completing the single market and promoting economic growth.
    Mr. Radice: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new position and thank him for his statement. Does he agree that last night's Division, in which the biggest pro-European vote ever was recorded in the House, is an overwhelming endorsement of the Government's new constructive approach and makes it much more likely that we will get an agreement in Amsterdam that is good for Britain and good for Europe?
    Mr. Cook: As my hon. Friend will have observed, in our first month in office we have achieved our first objective in relations with the European Union, transforming the negotiating climate for Amsterdam. We shall go ready for some tough bargaining to secure hard gains for Britain. We have every prospect of achieving progress for Europe and a good deal for Britain, including a legal basis for our border controls, which was never obtained by the Conservatives.
    Miss McIntosh: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the mood of the country is not to sign up to any further erosion of sovereignty or any moves towards federalism? Does he agree with the Director General of the Confederation of British Industry, Mr. Adair Turner, that the only way to maintain our sovereignty is not to sign up to the social chapter and not to give away any more powers to qualified majority voting?
    Mr. Cook: I am happy to say that I shall meet Mr. Adair Turner later this week, when I shall have an opportunity to explore his views. This Government are here as a result of the views of the British people who, every time they have been asked, have come out overwhelmingly in support of the social chapter. I find it depressing that, despite the result of the last election, which contributed to the outcome of last night's Division, the Conservatives seem to have learnt no lessons and not changed their tune, despite their overwhelming rejection by the British people.
    Mr. Derek Foster: I welcome my right hon. Friend and his colleagues to their Front-Bench positions. Now that the Prime Minister has put Great Britain at the heart of Europe, will he explain to our European partners that, if economic and monetary union is to succeed, it has to address the people's agenda of jobs and growth and that, if it does not address that agenda, regardless of whether it goes ahead on time, it cannot succeed?
    Mr. Cook: I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend said firmly in Sweden that what is important for the peoples of Europe is that we strengthen our economies, not necessarily that we integrate them. That is why we are opening up an agenda addressing the concerns of the people of Europe that will tackle the economy and growth and will focus on their worries about the environment and about organised crime, which knows no borders. If Europe switches to tackling the issues that affect the quality of life of the citizens of Europe, we can restore popular legitimacy for the European project.
    Mr. David Heath: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm one issue on which there is a scintilla of doubt? Does it remain the Government's clear intention to introduce proportional representation in time for the 1999 elections to the European Parliament?
    Mr. Cook: I am happy to repeat what I said during the month before the general election. It is our wish and intention to introduce a new electoral system based on lists and proportional representation for the next European elections. I said at the time that the timetable is very tight and that legislation will need to be carried through this winter if it is to happen. We are still examining whether that is possible, but we have certainly not ruled it out.
    Mr. Gapes: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his post. Will he confirm that the policy of this Government, as opposed to that of their predecessors, will be to work co-operatively—to build alliances rather than to seek inglorious isolation?
    Mr. Cook: Glorious isolation did not prove a useful position from which to negotiate. We have demonstrated that by going to Europe in a spirit of partnership, seeking solutions to common problems. We get a much better hearing and a much better answer than if we go in a spirit of sterile, negative opposition, which the Conservatives chose. We go to Europe to do a deal, not to strike postures for a domestic audience as the Conservatives did.
    Mrs. Ewing: The Foreign Secretary has rightly placed employment at the heart of the policy issues for the European Union. On behalf of the coastal communities of the United Kingdom, I ask him to respond more effectively to the points raised yesterday about quota hopping by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) and by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor).
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Lady raises a serious and important point, and we have stressed that the issue of quota hopping and the economic future of our fishing communities is one of our high negotiating priorities for Amsterdam. We are hopeful that our discussions with the Commission will produce a package that we can confirm at Amsterdam and that will bring significant economic gains to those communities.

    United States
    Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to visit Washington to discuss UK-US relations. [1168]
    Mr. Robin Cook: I met Secretary of State Albright two weeks ago in Washington and we had a positive and full discussion on US-UK relations. Both sides of the House will want to welcome warmly the outstanding success of President Clinton's visit the other week.
    Mr. Smith: Did my right hon. Friend raise with his American counterpart the need for substantial progress at the international environment summit in New York later this month? Will he also raise with her in the future the problem of toxic and radioactive pollution that was left in the United Kingdom in the bases used by the US military?
    Mr. Cook: I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that I had a full discussion with Secretary of State Albright on environmental issues of international concern. We are both agreed that, in the next century, the environmental agenda will become much more prominent in international relations, and we look forward to working together at Denver to try to prepare statements on climate change that we can take to the summit in New York the subsequent week. The toxic contamination of US bases is primarily an issue for domestic Departments, but if they ask us for help, we will be pleased to raise the matter with the United States. When we go to international summits to call on other countries to meet the targets necessary to safeguard the global climate, it is important that we show an example in our back yard by ensuring that we have a healthy environment for our people.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm to President Clinton when he visits him the importance and primacy of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and, in particular, American involvement in it? Will he confirm that nothing in his future policies in connection with a European defence policy, whether through the Western European Union or any other body, will water down the importance of NATO's role?
    Mr. Cook: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that we have repeatedly stressed to our American allies the importance we attach to NATO. We have worked closely with the Americans in the North Atlantic Council, and will work closely with them on the preparations for the Madrid summit on enlargement. We hope that we will be able to prevent text at the Amsterdam summit that commits us to a merger of the WEU with the European Union. We can see a useful role for the WEU in providing help with peacekeeping and humanitarian missions: we do not see it as a vehicle for the collective defence of western Europe.

    Falkland Islands
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his talks with Guido di Talla on the future of the Falklands-Malvinas. [1171]
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend is finalising the details of proposals for an early meeting at which he intends to discuss matters with the Argentine Foreign Minister to improve our already good relations with that country.
    Mr. Dalyell: What will we say about the problem of greedy over-fishing in the south Atlantic?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend will know that it was the policy of the previous Government—as it is of this one—to obtain a fisheries agreement with Argentina. We will certainly raise the issue with the Foreign Minister when he visits London and we will ensure that the Argentines understand that we place a high priority on obtaining such an agreement, which would help conserve stocks, which is in the interests of those who fish from the islands and from Argentina.
    Mr. Tom King: In view of recent unhelpful comments from Buenos Aires about the expectations that the Argentine Government have of the new Labour Government, will the Minister take this opportunity to make it clear that there has been no change in policy on the sovereignty of the Falklands from that of the previous Government?
    Mr. Lloyd: My answer is a firm yes to that question.

    Export Trade
    Ms Shipley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the measures taken in his Department in co-operation with the Department of Trade and Industry to promote Britain's export trade. [1172]
    Mr. Robin Cook: The Foreign Office works hand in hand with the Department of Trade and Industry on export promotion. Together, we have established a new export forum which will consider how to improve our export promotion initiatives.
    Ms Shipley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, among France, Germany, Italy and ourselves, Britain is the only country to have experienced a fall in its share of exports to the tiger economies and in its share of total world exports?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes her point tellingly—[Laughter.] I thought that it was superbly researched. It is precisely because of the factors that she described that we made promoting exports and boosting jobs high priorities in our Foreign Office mission statement. I am currently exploring with Lord Simon at the Department of Trade and Industry how we can increase the exchange between business and the Foreign Office to ensure that, both abroad and at home, we have business expertise. I hope to make an announcement before the House rises for the summer on increasing the number of business men on short-term secondments at our posts abroad.
    Mr. Baldry: The right hon. Gentleman knows that, excluding Japan, we export more per head of population than any other country in the world. It is, of course, good news that the Foreign Office still intends to promote exports, but how does the right hon. Gentleman intend to reconcile, in many markets, our need to promote exports with the much higher profile to be given to promoting human rights?
    Mr. Cook: Of course the hon. Gentleman is right to say that, historically, back into the previous century, Britain has exported a much higher proportion of GDP than many other nations. We have been living off that inheritance, and over the past 10 years the growth in our exports has not been as fast as that of our competitor nations, which have proved more competitive.
    Moreover, during that period many of those nations have observed a regard for human rights that outstrips the regard that Britain has shown. I see no contradiction between our twin commitments to ensure that we boost Britain's exports to free economies and its contribution to supporting free
    944
    democracies. It is Conservative Members who must explain the £800 million loss that they made by exporting arms and other machinery to Saddam Hussein.
    Mr. Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a good sales pitch to have a good human rights record? In the course of his duties, will he do an audit—a proper assessment—of best practice in our outposts around the world? Many of us have experience of our embassies. Some of them in some countries are absolutely excellent, but others are not. I hesitate to name names, but I will mention Berlin, where our embassy is difficult to contact and is hardly ever open to British business men. I hope that we can examine best practice and try to spread it.
    Mr. Cook: I hope that our embassy in Berlin will be open in time for the transfer of government. It will be a prestigious building—one of the prime architectural designs of the century. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend made a serious point. He raised an important issue for the many millions of people who work in British exporting industries and made the important point that there may be good practice that succeeds in some embassies which we need to transfer to others. That is one of the reasons we are anxious to take more business men with expertise in the export industries to some of those embassies. They will bring a culture of business application, and share with the diplomats who will remain behind after they have gone the knowledge of what business needs from our posts abroad, so that it can be provided better.

    Religious Freedom
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's policy in respect of freedom of religious practice and expression. [1173]
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: We are strongly opposed to religious intolerance and discrimination in any form. The Government are committed to the principles enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights, the international covenant on civil and political rights, the European convention on human rights and the declaration on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I thank the Minister for that response. Does he agree that, where there is intolerance in religious practice, whether in Israel, Saudi Arabia or elsewhere, we shall oppose it, because when people come to this country we allow complete freedom of religious practice and expression—which also includes the right to change?
    Mr. Lloyd: I endorse the hon. Gentleman's remarks. We extend freedom of religion to all who seek refuge within these shores. We continue to raise questions of religious intolerance with those who practise it in their countries—and will continue to do just that.
    Mr. Corbyn: What pressure can my hon. Friend bring to bear on the Iranian regime to lift the fatwa against Salman Rushdie?
    Mr. Lloyd: That is an important question. While we view the election of a new Iranian president with interest, it must be made clear to Iran that any improvement in relations between Britain and Iran will depend greatly on the lifting of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, who is after all a British citizen. Indeed, it is outrageous that the fatwa was issued against him in the first place.
    Similarly, Iranian Government operations around the world continue to cause concern, not just in terms of religious intolerance but because of their attacks on the basic human rights of their own citizens and others.

    European Parliament
    Mr. Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of the European Parliament. [1174]
    Mr. Doug Henderson: We look forward to a close and fruitful relationship with the European Parliament, which has an important legislative function in the EC, particularly in areas that are subject to majority voting in the Council of Ministers.
    Mr. Lansley: In the c
    oming intergovernmental conference, will the hon. Gentleman resist any extension of powers of co-decision for the European Parliament?
    Mr. Henderson: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware from his research background, there are already some such powers. Where there is any extension of qualified majority voting, in many instances we shall be looking for an extension of co-decision.
    Mr. Barnes: Why do we not take the high ground in the European Union and argue for fully democratic institutions—including the European Parliament, which should be the fulcrum of democratic activity?
    Mr. Henderson: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a democratic deficit in Europe, partly caused by the Conservative party's inability to elect Members to the European Parliament, so the Conservatives' view is never put. We would welcome an enhanced democratic process in Europe, which is why, in the IGC negotiations, we emphasise the need to extend co-decision in areas of qualified majority voting.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Minister acknowledge that there is great lack of understanding between Members of this House and Members of the European Parliament? If we are to improve our relationships and thereby underpin the democratic process, what is the Government's view of the plan for greater co-operation between Members of this House and of the European Parliament? Surely that would help us to understand one another much better.
    Mr. Henderson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is certainly important that the European Parliament liaises closely with national Parliaments. One reason
    946
    why, during the IGC negotiations, we have strongly supported moves to improve transparency is to make information more widely available and to enable sensible dialogue to take place between the European Parliament and national Parliaments.

    Hong Kong
    Mr. Love: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the proposals for the handover ceremony in Hong Kong. [1177]
    Mr. Fatchett: The joint handover ceremony between Britain and China in the grand foyer of the new extension to the Hong Kong convention and exhibition centre will begin at about 23.30 hours Hong Kong time on Monday 30 June. The ceremony will be attended by up to 4,000 invited guests, including His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and me.
    Mr. Love: In the light of earlier discussion of this issue, will the Government take the opportunity provided by the handover ceremony to discuss with other Governments represented there the importance of a continuing close interest in the affairs of Hong Kong after the ceremony is over?
    Mr. Fatchett: I can assure my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom will have a continuing interest in Hong Kong. We have an interest under the joint declaration and through the work of the joint liaison group. We have an economic interest in Hong Kong's continuing success, and a moral and political interest in maintaining human rights and democratic freedoms. The United Kingdom will continue to be an active partner in Hong Kong's future.
    Mr. David Davis: Will the Minister clarify whether the Prime Minister will be attending?
    Mr. Fatchett: The right hon. Gentleman will know that no decision has yet been taken on my right hon. Friend's attendance. When a decision is made, he will be among the first to be told.

    Commonwealth Summit
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the arrangements for the Commonwealth summit in Edinburgh. [1178]
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Arrangements for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh in October are progressing well. We are working closely with the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Scottish Office and local police authorities in Scotland to ensure a successful meeting, which will serve the Government's aim of strengthening the Commonwealth.
    Mr. Morgan: If the Government's plans for a Scottish Parliament reach fruition, what role would the Minister see for it in future summits?
    Mr. Lloyd: The question of a Scottish Parliament does not as far as I am aware arise in this context; nor will it be on the agenda for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh. I can, however, assure the hon. Gentleman that the meeting will be a successful advertisement both for the Commonwealth and for Edinburgh and the whole of Scotland.
    Miss McIntosh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to give the Minister for Europe the
    948
    opportunity to withdraw his remark that it is impossible for Conservatives to elect Members of the European Parliament. I am living proof that that is not the case.
    Madam Speaker: That is barely a point of order. I am aware of the hon. Lady's status, and I recommend the use of Vacher Dod. I think that the Minister should have something to say on that. He should not be churlish in respect of lady Members.
    Mr. Doug Henderson: I am grateful, Madam Speaker. I think that I may inadvertently have said impossible; I meant nearly impossible.

Point of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you have had a request from either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement this afternoon, given that there have been various reports that prescription charges are to be introduced for pensioners.
Madam Speaker: No Minister has informed me of a statement to be made on any issue today.

Orders of the Day

  Education (Schools) Bill
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 5 June].
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

  Education (Schools) Bill
    Clause 2

      TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR EXISTING ASSISTED PUPILS
      Amendment proposed [5 June], No. 11, in page 2, line 1, to leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Forth.]
      3.32 pm
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means: I remind the Committee that we are also discussing the following amendments: No. 27, in page 2, line 1, after '(2)', insert `Subject to subsection (2A),'.
      No. 3, in page 2, line 5, after 'or,' insert—
      'b) 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 '.
      No. 34, in page 2, line 5, after 'or', insert—
      (a) at the end of the school year in which he completes his education within the school where he was provided with an assisted place; or'.
      No. 28, in page 2, line 10, at end insert—
      '(2A) Unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the pupil in question will receive secondary education which is comparable to the primary education which he has received in regard to—

      (a) its religious content;

      (b) the curriculum provided;

      (c) opportunities for sport;

      (d) size of classes; and

      (e) single-sex provision,

      he shall determine that that pupil shall continue to hold that place during the period which he receives secondary education.'.
      No. 25, in clause 5, page 5, leave out lines 7 to 17.
      Mr. Francis Maude: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) moved the amendment in a powerful speech in the small hours of Friday morning. The Committee should not lose sight of what lies behind the amendments. They are neither probing nor wrecking. We will continue to pursue the argument that the Bill is fundamentally bad, that it will destroy and not build and that the Government are mistaken in their determination to ram it through. That, however, is not what the amendments are about.
      The amendments are about putting right a grievous wrong and a grievous breach of trust. I confess that, when the Government Chief Whip moved the Adjournment of the Committee in the small hours of Friday morning, I hoped in my naivety that the purpose was to allow Ministers to reconsider the position that they had adopted and to come back to the Committee later say that they accepted the amendments and would agree to our proposals. If the Minister is willing to make it clear that

      951
      that is the case, I will gladly sit down, but it appears that the Government have not taken the opportunity of a few days' cool reflection to do that. That is the course of honour, but they have decided not to pursue it.
      Why does the amendment matter? Let us remind ourselves what is at stake. The assisted places scheme was properly extended to include children younger under 11. Larger numbers of children now hold assisted places and attend independent junior schools through the benefit of assisted places.
      The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): The reason we sought the Adjournment of the House last Thursday was that an agreement had been reached with Conservative Members that today's proceedings would be timetabled and completed at 10 pm.
      Mr. Maude: I have no knowledge of any agreements made through the usual channels. If the Minister is threatening another guillotine motion so that the Government can again railroad the Committee, that is a different matter. I had hoped that he was pursuing the course of honour and reconsidering the Government's dishonourable position of seeking to break a pre-election pledge.
      I return to my theme. In opposition, the Labour party threatened to abolish the whole scheme. Those engaged in the independent junior sector wrote, as is their entitlement, to the then Labour spokesman to inquire how that would apply to children in independent junior schools who had the benefit of assisted places. The answer they got in the first instance was unclear.
      Cautiously and sensibly, the chairman of the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools sought and got clarification. It is not as though the letter that I shall cite was poorly drafted, or dashed off on the back of an envelope. It was a considered letter sent by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), which makes a very specific pledge.
      The pledge was essentially that any child in an independent junior school with the benefit of an assisted place would continue to have the benefit of it until the normal age of transfer out of independent junior schools, which is typically 13. For greater accuracy and the avoidance of doubt, I quote the letter, which states:
      "Much will obviously depend on the school to which the child has been admitted. If a child has a place at a school which runs to age 13. then that place will be honoured through to 13."
      I have examined the letter carefully to find whether there are any clues as to why that pledge should not be honoured in the legislation. I found no clues; it is a clear pledge. The only possible clue is that the letter is dated 1 April. The Government may mount the defence that it was an April fool and never meant to be taken seriously.
      Mr. Eric Forth: Does my right hon. Friend think that the fact that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) was not appointed to a ministerial position in the Department for Education and Employment suggests that the Government thought that they could, by that sleight-of-hand, slide out of the commitment that he had made on behalf of the Labour party and, therefore, one would assume, the Government? Does my right hon. Friend think that that washes as an excuse?
      Mr. Maude: It is not for me to give an explanation. The only inference that we can draw is that the
      952
      hon. Member for Walton gave a public pledge, in honour, and that the Government cynically, knowing that the pledge was to be dishonoured, chose to sideline him into the murky depths of the Cabinet Office, where he co-exists with the Minister without Portfolio.
      The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): On Second Reading, I made it clear on behalf of the Government that we would use discretion if circumstances were appropriate, but that we could not give a carte blanche on the primary or prep school assisted places scheme, which will be introduced from September. We could not say that it would apply universally to people who, presumably before this year's tranche of assisted places, could take up the scheme only from the secondary school point of entry. The hot air that is being described this afternoon and was described into the early hours of last Friday morning is, frankly, bizarre given the key pledges that we have made, on the record, about protecting the interests of those children who were in assisted places—I stress the word "were"—through to this summer.
      Mr. Maude: I will come to that, because I intend to deal with what the right hon. Gentleman said on Second Reading. It is important and demands to be considered in detail.
      Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Clearly, this is a matter of concern. The Secretary of State said that discretion would be used. I wonder whether he has any comment on a letter that I have here from the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett) to a Mrs. Brookes in connection with the education of her son, aged 10. This letter is dated 27 February and states:
      "You were rightly concerned about possible disruption to your child's education. David Blunkett's office have confirmed that Labour will honour those existing places which have already been given. Your child will not be forced to move school."
      I assume that that is one child in respect of whom discretion has already been exercised.
      Mr. Maude: Time will tell. It is important for the Committee to hear the different ways in which the pledge has already been given, so that it can judge the extent of the breach of trust that we are talking about.
      Mr. James Clappison: Before the Secretary of State gets too far away with trying to fudge that pledge, may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what is said in the letter that was sent out to head teachers about the extent of the discretion to which the Secretary of State referred? That letter states:
      "There is provision for the Secretary of State to exercise limited discretion to extend support under the scheme in exceptional circumstances."
      Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is not much of a fig leaf there?
      Mr. Maude: Again, I will discuss the way in which the Secretary of State sought on Second Reading and today to justify that breach of trust. My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point. The terms in which that pledge was put in a letter shows that the discretion will not be wide ranging. The fact that it will be used in "exceptional circumstances" shows exactly the reverse.
      Mr. Blunkett: I object strongly to the notion that there has already been a breach of trust when the measure has not

      953
      yet been implemented. I must make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have some respect, that the pledges on the incoming prep and primary school assisted places, which the outgoing Government forced through the House, and the old secondary school places, which assured people—perfectly reasonably in my view—that we would not take away their places under that pre-dated scheme, are being combined.
      The two are being put together, and hon. Members are trying to make an intellectual case that anyone taking up a place from September, prior to the age of 11 and going through to 13, should automatically be able to carry it forward. One cannot have it both ways—one cannot retrospectively pick up a pre-11 situation that did not exist and apply it to the secondary school level.
      3.45 pm
      Mr. Maude: This will not do. The Secretary of State has spoken kindly of me and I shall return the compliment. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman is a dishonourable man, and I do not believe that he would deliberately put his reputation as a man of honour at stake. I urge him, even at this stage, to take the provision away to think about it. I regret to have to tell the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman is wriggling; he is seeking to disentangle himself from a pledge made in the clearest possible terms.
      The Government did not have to make that pledge; they could have justified their position by saying, "No, we are sorry. If your child has an assisted place at a junior school, it must finish at 11; we do not care if that causes you hardship or if it disrupts plans that you as parents have made—that is just tough." That would have been a harsh decision, but it would have been an honourable position to have taken. It is dishonourable to have made the pledge in such specific terms and then to break it.
      I urge the Secretary of State to turn his mind to the matter. The words are not capable of misinterpretation. The pledge was made in the plainest terms and, in the plainest terms, the legislation breaches it.
      I shall return in a moment to the way in which the Secretary of State unsuccessfully sought to disentangle himself from the pledge on Second Reading.
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what we are seeing is proof positive that the Labour party was prepared to promise anything and to tell people what they wanted to hear before the election, only to break the promises within a few weeks? We could not trust what the Labour party said before the election; in government, they are breaking their promises very quickly.
      Mr. Maude: We Conservatives raise the issue much more in sorrow than in anger, although anger is amply justified. I shall return to the general point that my hon. Friend raised, as it is important and goes to the heart of the basis on which the Government were elected.
      I shall now turn to the way in which the Secretary of State sought to extricate himself on Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) asked a question that went to the core of the debate and the amendments. He said:
      "Why is the Secretary of State going back on that pledge in clause 2 and finishing education at the age of 11? Is it not the clearest example of a breach of promise?"
      954
      The Secretary of State replied using terms similar to those that he has used today. He said:
      "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 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.]
      It is abundantly clear from what the Secretary of State said then, from what he has said today and from the letter that the Department has sent out and from which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere quoted a little earlier, that the Government have no intention of using the discretion contained in the Bill to give effect to the pledge made before the election.
      If there is an interpretation to be put on what the Secretary of State said, it is that, where the state system of education in a particular locality allows for the transfer of children aged 12 from a middle school to a secondary school, as happens in some areas, discretion may be used to allow the assisted place to continue until age 12. We welcome that measure, which we think is a good one, but we think that it should not be left to discretion. The Secretary of State and his team invite us to place our trust in their wisdom and discretion. The Secretary of State may ask us to trust him, but we may not feel as disposed to do so as we did before this legislation.
      Mr. Tim Boswell: I come fresh to the debate on the amendment, and it seems to me that the Secretary of State's remarks about the normal age of transfer must mean the age of transfer within the state sector only and have no relevance to the normal arrangements for transfer of primary and secondary school children in the private sector. Is that my right hon. Friend's interpretation?
      Mr. Maude: Even when the words are examined carefully and in the most generous and charitable way, they bear no interpretation other than that which my hon. Friend places on them. However they are interpreted, they are bleakly at odds with the clear terms of Labour's pre-election pledge—what I might call the Walton pledge—which was given, somewhat ironically, on 1 April. We have clearly established that the Bill breaches that pledge.
      It is also clear, and the silence of Ministers amplifies it, that the modest discretion in the Bill is not intended to be used to give effect in any meaningful sense to that pledge. The Government stand indicted, and, unless they move swiftly to rescue their reputation, they will stand convicted, of a grave breach of trust.
      Labour made many reckless promises before the election which will be found increasingly difficult to keep, because they are contradictory in so many ways. The Government have made so many contradictory promises to so many groups that at some stage those contradictions will fall to be resolved and will be found incapable of resolution.
      However, I do not think that the Government would, without reason and so early in their life, put their reputation so recklessly at risk. Therefore, we must seek an explanation of why the Government should so quickly go back on their word and so lamely attempt to defend it. The explanation lies at the heart of another contradiction between the pledges.

      955
      The justification for the Bill is that the savings from phasing out the assisted places scheme will be used to pay for reducing infant class sizes. As the Committee knows, we have questioned that and we think that the sums are nowhere near right. Much of the independent research confirms our view that the figures, as often happens with the Government's figures, simply do not add up. When we probe this sorry little saga, we find that the Government themselves are beginning to realise that the sums do not add up. They are beginning to see that they will not even get close to the savings they need from abolishing the assisted places scheme to pay for the reduction in class sizes that they promised.
      What do the Government do about that? As so often, they go on the grab. They think, "Where else can we grab some money? Where can we find a soft target who will not complain too much and will not be able to fight back and defend himself? We shall go for the 11 and 12-year-olds who have the benefit of assisted places. What do promises matter? We shall get the extra savings in future years by grabbing back those assisted places."
      Those places were given and accepted in good faith, but it seems not to matter that children's education was planned on the basis of the scheme, which was reinforced by Labour pledges when the party was in opposition. That matters nothing, and the Government will push it to one side because there is a little more money to be grabbed to try to make their figures add up.
      I suspect that that was the reasoning in the minds of Ministers. That is why they have gone down the path of callously ignoring the pledge and disappointing the hopes and plans of real people. This is not a technical or academic argument; this is about people and children at a vulnerable age—children, almost by definition, from less advantaged homes, because if they were not from such homes, they would not be in receipt of an assisted place to begin with—whose hopes are being dashed cruelly and cynically.
      I invite any of my right hon. and hon. Friends to volunteer an explanation as to why the Government should expose themselves to the contempt not only of the Committee but of the country by behaving in this way. It must be no more than this: the Government have realised what we have been telling them for so long—the sums do not add up. They will not be able to deliver the reduction in class sizes through the Bill and, therefore, they have used this provision in clause 2 to grab back a bit more and to go beyond what they said they would do. Frankly, nothing that we have heard goes any way to justify it.
      Therefore, we have to look a little beyond the provision and make a case which I hope appeals to the decency in Ministers. I hope that the Committee will join Conservative Members in urging Ministers to take the provision away, even at this late stage, reconsider it and find out whether they can do a little to rehabilitate their reputation.
      If the Prime Minister had applied his mind to the issue, he would be urging Ministers to do the same. He has made many remarks about trust and promises. If he understood that this saga was going on and that this breach of trust had taken place, I feel sure that he would intervene. Let us consider just what the Prime Minister said in the Loyal Address debate. Talking about the difference between the Labour Government and the Conservative party, he said:
      "There will be one other difference. This Government will keep their promises."
      956
      He went on to say—recklessly, the Committee may think:
      "Conservative Members find that an extraordinary proposition."—[Official Report, 14 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 62.]
      Well, we certainly do now, given that the first opportunity Ministers have to deliver on a promise, they break it. But it is not just on that that I rest my case and urge Ministers to take this provision away and redeem their reputation—or, failing that, that I urge the Committee to accept the amendments and restore some decency to the Bill. On 1 May, as reported in The Independent, the Prime Minister said:
      "The promises we have made are specific".
      I add in parenthesis: what could be more specific than the Walton pledge in the letter? He went on:
      "and if we deliver on these, then I think we are entitled to trust. If we do not deliver on those, then we'll not be."
      If Ministers do not respond positively to the amendments, they will have broken their promises, they will have betrayed the trust that has been put in them and their reputations will have been irredeemably damaged.
      Mr. Ted Rowlands: The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) bandied about the words "breach of trust" and "promise". I say to my Front-Bench team that our biggest, most important promise was that we would use the funds that would arise from the Bill to lower primary class sizes in state schools. There would certainly be a breach of trust if we accepted the amendments, as funds would be less likely to be obtained for schools. There is a straight difference of values and priorities.
      Mr. Peter Luff: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Rowlands: I have scarcely started. The right hon. Member for Horsham developed his case at length.
      I want briefly to say that, in relation to values and priority, there could be no greater contrast than that between the speech of the right hon. Member for Horsham and the one that I am about to make on behalf of schools in my constituency.
      Mr. Maude: I am encouraged—well, discouraged really, but at least the hon. Gentleman is being honest about it. He admits that the reason for the provision is to grab back a little more money. What he is also saying is a little more bothersome: if the Government keep one promise, it does not matter if they break another one. That is exactly the point that we are making: they have made contradictory promises.
      Mr. Rowlands: I am about to tell the right hon. Gentleman why I support the Bill, and why I shall vote against the amendment. I want to contrast the schools that I suspect he has been describing with a school in my area, whose current position illustrates the problems that face our community here and now. Parents, governors, children and teachers involved with primary schools in our community will face problems in September—
      Mr. Luff: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      4 pm
      Mr. Rowlands: No. I want to answer the case put by the right hon. Member for Horsham.
      Let me describe to the Committee, and to Ministers in particular, what is happening to Cwmsyfiog primary school at this moment. The core group of governors are having to make decisions. They will have to sack, or lose, one member of the teaching staff. The school's 1996–97 resources budget is to be cut from £5,000 to zero, which means that there will be no money to spend on learning resources—not a penny. I wonder how many schools that Opposition Members have described—schools that they say will be affected by the Bill, and will have problems—face a nil increase in learning resources, or a learning resources budget of nil.
      The core group will also have to cut the supply teacher budget by a further £2,000. The consequences of the reduction in the school's resources have been described vividly. Class sizes will rise: there will be 35 children in class III. I want to make this point to Ministers. While we hope that, at some future date, the Bill will provide resources that will make it possible to reduce primary school class sizes, we currently face the prospect of rising class sizes this September, and no doubt the following September. Ministers must address the crisis facing primary schools now and in the next year, before the provision of any funds that may derive from the Bill.
      Mr. Forth: We note the hon. Gentleman's apparent support for the Bill. Is he aware that the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), said in earlier debates—it is one of the few things he did say—that he did not expect any significant savings to result from the Bill, and hence did not expect any improvements in class sizes, until the year 2000? What has the hon. Gentleman to say about that?
      Mr. Rowlands: That is the point that I am making. I welcome the resources that will be transferred: that will be a sensible redistribution of public finance and expenditure to support schools that are in desperate need, such as Cwmsyfiog primary school.
      Mr. Luff rose—
      Mr. Rowlands: I am answering the point made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
      What I am saying to Ministers is that the crisis is hitting us now, before those resources become available, because of the local government settlement made by the previous Government, which left education in smaller primary schools in a dreadful plight. I am describing to Ministers the problems that are arising now, in the hope that the funds will be provided as soon as possible and will not be further eroded by the host of amendments proposed by Opposition Members. If those amendments were accepted, the amounts would be less, and, I suspect, would take longer to reach primary schools such as Cwmsyfiog.
      When Ministers deal with the White Paper that they are to publish, they will have to address the present crisis in our primary schools. That is a simple point, and it is my reason for opposing the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and others.
      Mr. Clappison: I listened with interest to the comments by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who spoke with some passion about a school in his constituency whose name I will not begin to attempt to pronounce. I appreciate that he and, no doubt, his constituents feel passionately about their schools, but I must say that I found his logic somewhat surprising.
      He seemed to be saying that the only way in which the Government, with their massive majority, could honour their commitments and pledges to the hon. Gentleman's constituents was by breaking promises that they had made to others. I find that a hard line of argument to follow from this all-powerful Government, with their massive majority and their ability to do as they wish within the purview of policy in education.
      Mr. Peter Brooke: In as far as the hon. Member for Merthyzr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) was replying to the charge made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), one derived from his speech the impression that, under new Labour, the end will always justify the means.
      Mr. Clappison: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Notwithstanding my recent remarks, I do not want to be confrontational about this, because we understand that that is no longer the mode in which we should behave, and I am very concerned about being non-confrontational, being helpful and honouring promises, all of which, I understand, are important attributes and considerations of the present Government.
      In the spirit of the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), I say that I hope that the Minister can think carefully about this, listen to the arguments and accept that it is a straightforward question of honouring a promise.
      We have debated other aspects on Second Reading and in Committee, but the group of amendments that we are debating raises wider considerations than support for, or opposition to, the idea of assisted places. Even hon. Members who do not support the idea of assisted places will feel uneasy about those issues and may well wish to support the amendments, because this is very much a question of honouring promises.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) set the scene very effectively when the Bill was last considered in Committee, and dealt with the documentary evidence that is of concern in this case, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham has done. The key element is the promise that was made in the letter on 1 April—"the Walton promise", as it has been termed—by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), who was then the shadow Minister with responsibility for schools. He made that promise on 1 April to the chairman of the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools—a shadow Minister, speaking about policy to the chairman of an important organisation, representing many children in preparatory education.
      As has been made clear, there can be no way of quibbling over or fudging the terms in which the letter was phrased. The promise, freely given, is specific:
      "If a child has a place at a school which runs to age 13, then that place will be honoured through to 13."

      959
      That is about as specific a promise as one could possibly have, and it is clearly given.
      A parent, reading of or hearing of that promise through the chairman of the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools, would think, "There is not much room for doubt there; I can act in reliance on that promise."
      Mr. Boswell: Does my hon. Friend recall the remarks made by the, sadly late, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, who was in his time the hon. Member for Liverpool, Huyton—not far from Walton? He once referred to something said in the House being not merely a lightly given promise, but a pledge. Should we not view the remark in the letter as being in that category?
      Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is right. It can be seen only as a pledge. It was given to the chairman of a large organisation, at an important time—1 April, only a few weeks before the general election—it related to a matter that had been the subject of considerable correspondence and discussion, which was of great interest to the chairman of the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools, and it is about as clear as it could possibly be.
      It would not be entirely surprising if parents acted on that pledge, regarding it as a cast-iron guarantee. Indeed, we understand from a later letter to the Secretary of State by the chairman of the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools, complaining about what had taken place, that several parents may well have acted on it. The chairman quotes the words of the pledge given in the letter:
      "if a child has a place at a school which runs to 13 then that place will be honoured through to 13"
      and continues:
      "On that basis we, in common with a large number of Preparatory schools, have offered places to 7 and 11-year—olds and although we have warned parents that the Assisted Place will terminate when their child is aged 13, we did not, of course, sound any cautionary note about termination at age 11."
      Parents will have expected those places to be available for their children to age 13, because they had a cast-iron pledge from the Labour party that they would be available.
      I remind Ministers that, after relying on the words and pledge of the Labour party, many parents made an important decision about their children's future education. Abolition of assisted places is a very serious subject for those parents. I invite the Minister to direct his attention to the issue and to realise its seriousness for those parents. I share those parents' concerns, because there are many assisted places in my constituency.
      I appreciate that part of the Labour party's manifesto was elimination of the assisted places scheme, and I noticed that the scheme's abolition was one of the principal elements of the Queen's Speech. Therefore, on 15 May 1997, during the debate on the Loyal Address, I asked the Secretary of State for Education and Employment about Labour's pledge.
      The Secretary of State gave no hint that any such breach of pledge would occur, and I was fortified and reassured by his words and by his attitude to assisted places and to the children in them. He said:
      "During the general election campaign, I said that children who have been allocated places will be permitted to take them up. We shall legislate within weeks to ensure that schools do not abuse the licence that was given to them to look after the interests of children by agreeing to places for 1998 or 1999 onwards. The hallmark of
      960
      this Government will be to put children before dogma. It will be to ensure that the interests of our children come first on every occasion."—[Official Report, 15 May 1997; Vol. 294. c. 183.]
      One week later, we discovered that those sentiments do not apply to the 2,000 or so children who have received assisted places to age 13. When I read the Bill and an accompanying letter of guidance to headmasters in schools offering assisted places, I was surprised to find that places would not be available to 13 but would end at 11. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham was right to mention the response that I received from the Secretary of State in the debate on the Bill's Second Reading. The Secretary of State said:
      "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 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. It would not do the children a favour if we pretended that we could do that. Discretion is the better part of valour, and we will use it wisely."—[Official Report, 2 June 1992; Vol. 295, c. 27.]
      If one reads the words in the Department's letter to headmasters alongside the Secretary of State's words about his discretion and how he will use it wisely, it becomes clear that—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham quite properly and appropriately said—that discretion will be very limited. The letter describes
      "limited discretion to extend support under the scheme in exceptional circumstances".
      That limited discretion apparently will apply only when the normal transfer age in the state sector is 13 and there is a system of middle schools. The discretion will therefore apply only to a very narrow range of pupils, and it demonstrates a great diminution of the Government's unconditional pledge to all children in assisted places that should last to age 13.
      I have studied the Secretary of State's words in the Second Reading debate, and I appreciate the reason that he gave for his decision. The question, however, is one not so much of the reasons of the Secretary of State—or of whoever took the decision—in making the decision, but of whether the decision was justified. People who break promises have reasons for doing so, and the question is whether they are justified in doing so. In studying this decision, I find it very hard to find any possible justification for the Secretary of State's proposals.
      Is it the case that, since 1 April, circumstances have arisen which have made it impossible for the Secretary of State to carry out the pledge he gave? That is not the case. Is there any change at all in the circumstances? No. Have facts come to light which were not known to the Labour party when it gave the pledge and which put quite a different complexion on matters? No. That is an important point, because all the factors that the Secretary of State has given as reasons for not honouring the pledge were ones that he and his colleagues must have known of when the pledge was given on 1 April. Nothing new has come to light; these are all matters that are well known to the Government.
      I am sure that, for the Minister of State, who has long experience of education, these matters are ABC matters. He and his team would have been perfectly well aware of all the circumstances when the decision was made on 1 April and when the pledge was given. If they knew of

      961
      those matters then and decided to go ahead and give the pledge, they should now keep it, because there is no justification for not doing so.
      4.15 pm
      Since the Secretary of State spoke on 2 June, some discretion seems to have been used by him. Indeed, he seems to have taken at face value his comment about discretion being the better part of valour because he used his discretion when the head of the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools wrote to him by not responding to the letter. He left it to a civil servant to respond. I will not go into what the civil servant said in that letter; I think that it is gobbledegook and does not take the matter any further. The original letter was written to the Secretary of State and I am a bit surprised—I do not want to criticise the Secretary of State too much because I am trying to get him and the Minister of State on my side-that he was not prepared to reply to it himself.
      Before the election, the Labour party and its spokesmen were keen to correspond and communicate with those whose children were in independent education. I understand that the hon. Member for Walton—I give him credit for this—attended the conference of the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools. He wrote numerous letters to that organisation on matters that might be of concern to it and he even wrote an article for one of the independent school's magazines, which was headed "Now is the opportunity to build bridges and forget the divisions". I do not want to be too confrontational, but I must say that all that has happened so far is that the Labour party, through the Bill, has created divisions and forgotten its promises. That is what this amounts to.
      When the Minister of State wound up the debate on Second Reading, he chose to ignore the matter altogether. No doubt the Secretary of State would say that he was using his discretion wisely. The hon. Member for Walton, the then shadow Minister, who made the original promise, has been moved on to other things. The Secretary of State does not want to answer correspondence on the matter. The Minister of State tries to ignore it altogether when he speaks in the House. We see at an early stage in this Government's life a decision that has become an orphan, one of those unfortunate decisions by Government which travel from in-tray to in-tray without anyone wanting to take responsibility for them. It is a sad little decision and it is sad that it should have been made so early in the life of this Government.
      It is incumbent on Labour Members and particularly on Ministers to accept that there is a question of trust and promise. The promise was given in the clearest possible terms to the low-income parents of 2,000 or so children who were very concerned about their future and who wanted to make the best decision for them. Those parents will be very interested by the approach taken by Ministers on this occasion.
      I must say to the Under-Secretary of State that parents will not want to hear too much of the refrain we heard the other evening—that we are the many and they are the few, so we can do what we like. That refrain should not be used on this occasion. I would like Ministers to look again at the matter and to show that they can be flexible. I would
      962
      also like them to show that on the important matter of honouring promises, they are prepared to face up to their responsibilities.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham was right when he referred to the Prime Minister's words. Those words about trust and keeping promises stand in contrast with what the Government propose to do now. Surely the amendments give the Government an opportunity to find a way out of the dilemma in which they have got themselves. It should not take too much for the Government, riding high, with their massive majority and enormous power, to stop and think about honouring pledges made to a few parents from low-income families. Surely the Government have the wisdom, discretion and sense to recognise their plight.
      It is an important issue, and I hope that the Government will not act in a confrontational way, but use their discretion and their power. I hope that they will reconsider the matter and show that they are sensitive to keeping promises to parents who regard the education of their children as, in the Secretary of State's words, of paramount importance.
      Mr. Phil Willis: I begin by saying that the Liberal Democrats support amendment No. 3 and, with your indulgence, Sir Alan, we will call for a separate vote on it.
      Given the enormous amount of rhetoric that we have heard from Conservative Members, it seems incredible that they did not manage to table one sensible, composite amendment. Instead, on Thursday they chose to spend the entire evening filibustering so that we could not have a sensible debate on the key issues.
      Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
      Mr. Willis: No. I have only just begun my speech.
      Mr. Luff: On a point of order, Sir Alan. Can you confirm that the Bill is likely to make substantially faster progress in the House than it would have in Standing Committee and to accuse us of filibustering is a remarkable and possibly disorderly suggestion?
      The Chairman: I cannot imagine that any of my colleagues in the Chair during the proceedings on Thursday would have allowed any conduct of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We shall make more progress if we get on with the substantial points.
      Mr. Willis: I humbly apologise for the use of the term "filibustering". Perhaps it just took an incredibly long time for Conservative Members to speak.
      On Thursday, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) referred to my involvement in education. I thank him for his kind remarks and I return the compliment. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has a great commitment to seeing the Bill squashed and particular aspects of it reversed.
      Oddly enough, I rise today in support of his amendment, but I do so with an extremely heavy heart. One of my principal desires in coming to the House was to redress some of the damage that the previous Government had inflicted on state education through their pernicious attacks based almost entirely on dogma and

      963
      division. Having listened to some of the seven-hour debate on Thursday, and having heard Conservative Members arguing in defence of a scheme that, in many ways, was the very embodiment of the divisions of the past 18 years, I am now placed in the invidious position of having to warn the present Government against making the same mistakes.
      Indeed, my party supports the amendment because we want to put an end to injustice based on division. If the amendment is not carried today, that legacy of division and mistrust will continue. If the Government insist on ending the assisted places scheme for all children at the age of 11, they will stand accused, quite rightly in our view, of placing dogma before reason and expediency before compassion.
      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Given his previous experience in education, does he agree that the only important issue is continually raising standards? Does he consider that the Bill does anything at all to raise standards in the state education system?
      Mr. Willis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to confirm that, over the past 18 years, the previous Government made a pernicious attack on state education in the name of standards. When Conservative Members attack the Government for the pernicious way in which they have introduced the Bill, that seems to be perfectly okay, but when the compliment is reversed by those of us who are committed to state education and not private, independent education, we are told that we are quite ridiculous.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Willis: No, I will not.
      I am dismayed that Conservative Members, who spoke so eloquently on Thursday and put on such mock shows of outrage and injustice, failed to recognise that the assisted places scheme did absolutely nothing for the vast majority of Britain's children, particularly when resources were in such short supply. What logic is there in an argument that states a desire to raise standards for all, yet deliberately sets out to disadvantage those in the greatest need by removing resources from them? Yet, that is exactly what the assisted places policy did and why it is monstrous for hon. Members to try to continue to justify such an unjustifiable policy.
      Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) spoke of his experience during the election campaign of hundreds of people rushing up to him to express their anguish at the possible ending of the assisted places scheme. I did not have that experience once.
      What I did encounter in virtually every household where there was a school-aged child was a deep concern that further Government cuts would mean yet larger primary school classes, yet further delays in urgent building repairs, yet more need for parental contributions to music and swimming lessons and the purchase of text books, and the cancellation of capital programmes.
      964
      That is what they were concerned about and what they rushed up to me to talk about—not the ending of the assisted places scheme.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: The only person who came to me during the election campaign to raise anxieties about the assisted places scheme was someone who asked whether their child would be able to remain in the scheme until the age of 13, which is the transfer age and the objective of the amendment that my hon. Friend is supporting.
      Mr. Willis: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention.
      The assisted places scheme is not an issue in my constituency because we have an education system in which every school is a good school, where every school achieves at or above national standards, and where every school has rejected the siren calls of the previous Secretary of State to opt out and cause further division. We want high quality, high-value-added education for all, not simply a few.
      Yes, we have two excellent independent schools, which have a total of 71 assisted places. Their examination results are on a par with the comprehensives, and their sporting and music traditions are also strong. Indeed, apart from two key components, they offer a comparable standard of education to the state comprehensives. The first is that in neither of the two independent schools—we have not heard this mentioned once in the debate—does one find one special educational needs pupil on an assisted place. Yet, in the six comprehensives, there are 854 such pupils.
      The second factor is the element of grant that is received from the state—
      The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I ought to point out that he is making a rather general speech, whereas we are discussing specific amendments, which, as I understood it, he particularly wished to support and to which his right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) sought elegantly to guide him back. May I recommend that he follows that guidance?
      Mr. Willis: As always, Sir Alan, I am grateful for your guidance. As a new hon. Member, I was modelling myself on Conservative Members.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Maude: On a point of order, Sir Alan. It is reasonable for the Chairman and Conservative Members to take strong exception to that remark. We have been at pains to address ourselves properly to the amendments under debate. If we had not done so, you and your colleagues in the Chair would have brought us up short.
      The Chairman: I do not think that we are out of order. The point has registered that we should make progress on the specific matter of the amendment. Then the whole Committee would be more satisfied.
      Mr. Willis: I am grateful for your guidance, Sir Alan. I am trying to balance the amendment with the overall structure that the Government are trying to address through the Bill.

      965
      When he paid me his compliment on 2 May, the hon. Member for Hertsmere might not have known that I had just finished a 34-year teaching career, all spent in state schools in some of the most deprived areas of Leeds and Middlesbrough. For the last 20 years of that career, I was a head teacher and for the last 13, I was head teacher of John Smeaton community high school—a comprehensive school in the constituency of Leeds, East.
      That school served one of the most disadvantaged areas of Leeds, where unemployment was twice the average for the city, with a particular problem among 16 to 25-year-olds. Approximately one child in three came from a lone-parent family and housing stock was relatively poor, but the school was oversubscribed, with excellent reports, no failing teachers and a dedicated, committed staff. Many of the parents of children at that school could not spell assisted places scheme, let alone use it. Very few students from one of the most deprived areas of east Leeds attended private schools on assisted places.
      Those students are failing not because they lack dedicated teachers or caring homes, but because they live in a spiral of deprivation—a legacy of 18 years of Tory education policy. They need high-quality early years education. They need a real commitment to reducing primary school class sizes, because teachers working with children already damaged by their social environment at the age of five need to be able to give high levels of personal contact—the contact that preparatory schools give to many children.
      The Liberal Democrats would like more than the money from the assisted places scheme spent on redressing the balance. I know that Ministers would dearly love to have the £2 million a year that the Liberal Democrats would have put at the disposal of the Department, but the measure is a start.
      Mr. Luff: Two billion.
      Mr. Willis: Two billion. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his alacrity.
      Despite my party's desire for the assisted places scheme to go quickly, we must not take advantage of a group of children, sacrificing them on the altar of expediency. The Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1996 extended the assisted places scheme to junior departments of independent schools. Of the 850 places, 790 were taken up in 1996–97. Many such schools teach to the age of 13. It would be morally unjustifiable to remove those children in the middle of their education and return them to the state sector.
      Mr. David Heath: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a further complication in local education authorities that operate a middle school system? In those areas, children will be put back into the system halfway through what would have been their middle school career. Does my hon. Friend agree that that should be addressed in the Bill?
      Mr. Willis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is difficult for the Library to obtain up-to-date figures. In 1995, 33 local education authorities—virtually one in
      966
      three—had middle school systems. In the Minister's constituency, there are at least two different ages of transfer. Children in preparatory schools would find it difficult because their education would be halted at the age of 11 and they would have to rejoin the state system, not at the beginning, but in the middle of a different tier and a different style of education. That is unacceptable.
      Section 2 of the Education Act 1997 allowed independent primary schools that were not attached to independent secondary schools to offer some 600 assisted places. Those places have been largely allocated for 1997–98. It would not be fair or just to allow those children in preparatory schools to be taken out of their education in midstream.
      The point made by the shadow Minister about the oral and written commitments made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) to the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools was well made, and I do not wish to repeat it. However, it adds considerable weight to the arguments for the amendments. It must be wrong for a shadow Minister to promise one thing in opposition and then for his colleagues to renege when in power. We saw enough of that under the previous Administration, and we do not want to see it again.
      The Secretary of State for Education and Employment, in his opening remarks to the House on 2 June, tried to address that point when he made his famous statement:
      "Discretion is the better part of valour, and we will use it wisely."—[Official Report, 2 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 27]
      Unlike many Opposition Members, I believe that the Secretary of State will use his judgment wisely. The amendments seek to remove the shadow of concern from parents by making the appropriate changes to the Bill. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendments and demonstrate that, unlike with the previous Administration, all children come first with the Government.
      Mr. Luff: I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) on his latter remarks. He is right to express the hope that the discretion available to the Government under the Bill will be used wisely. We know that it will not be the Secretary of State for Education and Employment who exercises the discretion; in practice, it is likely to be the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris). She can be relied upon to use her discretion wisely, and I hope that she will prove that when she responds to the debate on the amendments.
      It is a shame that we are considering the amendments and moving to the Report stage later today. Issues are raised by the amendments that do not conflict with the principles that guide the Government in their consideration of the Bill. They could usefully reflect on those issues and come back to the House with sensibly worded amendments. I understand that the Government cannot accept the amendments, because of drafting errors. That is often the case with Opposition amendments. I have sat on the other side of the Chamber and witnessed sensible amendments tabled by the Labour party in opposition that we could not accept because they were badly drafted. I accept that the amendments may have technical problems, but I cannot see any reason why the spirit that lies behind many of the amendments cannot be accepted by the Government.

      967
      The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough made a powerful and unanswerable case on the specific issue of transfers at age 13. The hon. Gentleman chastised us for speaking at length earlier in proceedings on the Bill. I cannot speak for my hon. Friends—although I hope that they have the same experience as myself—but I spoke on the amendments because I genuinely care about them. The Bill is being passed very speedily and I hope that the Minister will consider our arguments later, when she reads the Official Report. I understand that she will not be able to respond positively today, but I hope that detailed consideration will be given to our amendments in another place. They raise the most important issues of trust without interfering with the principle that guides the Government.
      I spoke twice last week on the Bill and I made no secret of the fact that I think it is a bad Bill. It is misguided and I do not believe that it will save money. It will not achieve what the Government want it to achieve; rather, it will damage the education system and bring no benefit. However, I am faced with the challenge of mitigating its worst effects, and I believe that the amendments would achieve that.
      The speeches that we have heard so far have mostly concentrated on the issue of transfer at age 13. I am not aware of any individuals in my constituency who are affected by that matter, although I suspect that there are some. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough teased me about the "hundreds" of parents who approached me on the general matter raised by the Bill. There were not hundreds, but it may have run into double figures—[HON. MEMBERS: "Twelve?"] I would not like to give an exact number, but it was well into double figures. That is quite a lot of people to raise a matter on the doorstep during an election campaign.
      There are specific individuals in my constituency who are touched by the issues raised by the amendments; so I speak from a hard realistic point of view, not a hypothetical one, about individuals who will be badly affected if that aspect of the Bill is passed unamended.
      I shall address in particular the transfer at the age of 11 from primary education into the so-called secondary sector, because that is the issue that touches individuals in my constituency. As I have said before, although the schools affected lie not in my constituency but in Worcester, many of the parents of children who attend them come from my Mid-Worcestershire constituency.
      A characteristic of those schools is the strong link between their primary and secondary provision. For example, one of them has a shared Department for Education and Employment number and sees itself as one school, which children join at seven and leave at 18. It is organised in two separate units, with two head teachers, but it sees itself as a continuum, and seeks to encourage its pupils to see their position within the school in the same spirit.
      That fact has important implications for the amendments. The encouragement of such a spirit makes a valuable contribution to the life of a school. Another Worcester school that the children of my constituents attend transfers pupils a year early from the primary school—that is, from the physical primary facility—to the secondary school. The children regard themselves as part of the secondary school at the age of 10 rather than 11.
      968
      I know about that, because my daughter attends the school and has made that transfer. When the children move across, they feel part of the secondary school a year early. I strongly suspect, although I do not know for sure, that the same considerations exist elsewhere—DFEE numbers, and so on, and certainly the encouragement of one spirit across the school, and the strong bonds of loyalty between the two separate units.
      The issues involved are more complex than the Government realised when they drafted that part of the Bill. That is why I hope that they will respond positively, at least in tone, to the amendments. Integration of primary and secondary facilities in the schools is important, and deserves to be taken seriously by the Government.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) spoke about the "Walton promise", and quoted from a letter. I have not seen the letter, but I heard what he said, and he made a powerful case. Moreover, head teachers from the schools that I have mentioned tell me that, at the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools national conference in September 1996, they heard similar comments by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), who is now the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, but was then a shadow education spokesman.
      4.45 pm
      The head teachers cannot provide me with an exact copy of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but they are quite clear about the implication that he encouraged them to draw from what he said—that assisted places would be honoured for their lifetime. That means that, when a child goes to a preparatory school, the assisted place lasts the whole time the child is at that school. That relates to the question about 13-year-olds raised by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough.
      The head teachers were also clear about the fact that, in schools that regarded themselves as single entities—one school in effect and, indeed, legally—assisted places would be honoured for their lifetime, from seven to 18. That is what they believed the hon. Member for Walton was saying last September.
      I do not believe that accepting the principle behind the amendments would be a huge problem for the Government. The numbers involved are modest and time-limited. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said that he passionately believed that the amendments would strike at the primary school in his constituency that was suffering so badly, in its efforts to improve. I am sorry to hear about that suffering, but I sought to intervene to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he knew exactly what the cost implications would be if the Government accepted the principle behind the amendments.
      I suspect that the sums are very small, and that by the time they are shared out throughout the whole state primary sector, they will be nugatory—almost non-existent. I believe that the savings that could be made by the whole Bill will be much smaller than the Government claim, and I have tabled a question seeking clarification on the matter.
      Mr. Forth: You'll be lucky.
      Mr. Luff: My right hon. Friend on the Front Bench thinks that I will be lucky to get an answer. Certainly that

      969
      has been a characteristic of questions asked about the Bill—and that is one of the factors that makes scrutiny of it, in the dreadful rush that the Government have inflicted on us, so difficult.
      I believe that the overall savings will be small, but the savings made by not accepting the amendments must be tiny. I asked one of the schools in my constituency how many assisted places it had, and the answer was that five had been awarded for seven and eight-year-olds in September 1996, and another five had been awarded for this September. In the case of that school, those places will be honoured through to the age of 11 and then scrapped.
      I cannot believe that those numbers will be replicated across the country at anything like that level, because the schools concerned happen to have a long tradition of state provision. One was a direct grant school and another a grammar school. In effect, they were almost in the state sector; one literally was a state school.
      Those schools tend to attract rather more assisted place applicants, because in the community they serve they are seen as state schools—glorified state schools, possibly, but none the less state schools—and many parents aspire to send their children there. The numbers involved are therefore likely to be at the top end of the spectrum, yet they are still extremely modest.
      I have given the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Yardley, the text of a letter to me from a constituent whose child will be affected by this part of the Bill. I asked the mother concerned whether I could name her and her child, but she was reluctant to be named, and asked me to quote her letter anonymously. I shall therefore change the text slightly as I read, to take account of her wish to remain anonymous. However, I have given the Minister a copy of the letter, so she will be able to see exactly what my constituent wrote.
      The letter, which was sent to me last week, says:
      "I am writing to you in desperation to ask for your help in preventing the Government from cancelling the existing Junior School assisted places. My child … won a full place to the … school.… last September.
      Before the election the Labour party Education spokesman went on public record as saying that all existing Assisted places would be honoured. Now they appear to be breaking this promise.
      We are distraught at the prospect of my child losing her education when the older Assisted places are being left in peace. I have no money to pay fees and I am desperate to do the best for my child.
      Please advise me what to do, there must be many other parents in the constituency in a similar position … I enclose a letter I have sent to the Prime Minister".
      The letter that my constituent wrote to the Prime Minister reads as follows:
      "I am writing to beg you to reconsider your policy on removing existing Assisted places from Junior School children. My child won a place to the … school … in September 1996 and we were impressed when your Education spokesman, before the election, promised that all existing Assisted places would be honoured."
      That is the nub of the debate—that promise made in terms, both explicitly and implicitly, by the hon. Member for Walton. The message was clearly received loud and clear by my constituent, whose letter continues:
      "This now seems not to be the case and we are completely shattered that my child is to be punished for my child's wonderful achievement in gaining this place which was a passport to a better life.
      970
      I exist as a single parent on my small self-employed earnings and Family Credit, since my husband left. The stability and security of my child's promised education … meant everything to us.
      My child is now distraught at the prospect of being torn away from a lovely school and friends, whilst the older Assisted Place children are left in peace, and I cannot justify it to my child.
      I understand that there is a principle at stake here but I beg you as a parent of young children yourself, not to break a promise made to my child and to reconsider this policy and be magnanimous here."
      That is the nub of the group of amendments. It is an appeal to the Government's generosity of spirit, an appeal to them to be magnanimous and live up to the trust that they said the electorate should repose in them—to govern for all the nation rather than respecting the tyranny of the majority.
      I urge the Minister to reflect seriously on what my constituent says. I have no idea what the lady's political views are; I did not meet her on the doorstep during the election campaign, and she wrote to me only last week. She provides a powerful example of the kind of person who will be badly affected unless the Government accept the spirit of the amendments.
      A range of solutions presents itself. The most obvious solution would be to accept the amendments—but the Government may be intent on rejecting them and the spirit that lies behind them. If so, I ask the Minister to give me a clear figure on the costs that would be involved in accepting them. If the sums are as small as I expect them to be—in a few years' time, they will be very small indeed—I can see no rationale for the Government digging in their toes and acting like a dog in the manger. There is no reason why they should resist such a straightforward case of humanitarian concern. The easiest course for the Government, therefore, would be to accept the amendments. Alternatively—a poor second best—the Government could state more clearly how generously they intend to use the discretion that the Bill will give them. I urge them to exercise that discretion wisely.
      If nothing else, I urge the Minister to guarantee that the Prime Minister replies in person to my constituent, so that he is forced to give an account of why he believes the Government should break their pledge. If the Government accept the amendments, they will have a chance to prove that they do indeed put children before dogma.
      Mr. Boswell: I welcome the chance to participate briefly in the debate, which I join only today—but already I have been appalled by what I have heard. I have been impressed by the force of the arguments deployed by my right hon. and hon. Friends and by the Liberal Democrat party. I need not detail the Committee by dilating on the general importance of Governments honouring their pledges unless and until there is a clear and specific reason for breaching them.
      The principle in international law of pacta sunt servanda is that people who make undertakings should keep them. I find it disturbing that the Government, with the first education Bill of this Parliament—they have said that education is their priority—should slip up in this way.
      I should like to reinforce the eloquent remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) about the human consequences of this measure. It is all very well saying that the numbers involved are small. There may be only 2,000 who fall into the category of the 13-year-old problem, although more

      971
      are included if we consider the primary and secondary sectors together. I thought that this House stood for the principle that one injustice to one person is an injustice too many. That is why I am troubled about the proposals.
      I am, for instance, worried about the implications for parents, some of them single parents, and for children, many of whom entertained the reasonable and legitimate expectation of being able to stay at their current schools until such time as they would usually change schools. Now they find that that settled understanding is to be frustrated by an apparently capricious Act of Parliament.
      As an only child, I attached great importance to the security of knowing where my schooling would continue at the next stage, if all went well. Family problems can exacerbate the insecurities. I well understand the technical issues described by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), because the same LEA, in my constituency and the adjoining one, administers a middle school system as well as the usual transfer at the age of 11. If a family with a child of 11 were breaking up, it would certainly benefit that child's education if he were allowed to stay on for another couple of years instead of being forced to move schools in the middle of the family breakdown. Unless there is good reason for doing so, it seems to me wrong to disturb the pattern of a child's education.
      What could the reasons behind this proposed change be? Although I agreed with a great deal of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) said, I beg to differ with him over his interpretation of the amount that is supposed to be saved. On a rough calculation, I reckon that the 2,000 children associated with the 13-years-old problem might produce a saving equivalent to a couple of hours of primary school education throughout the country. That is so little as to be indistinguishable from background noise. Ministers cannot plausibly maintain that the Bill will transform the prospects of primary school children generally, so I cannot believe that a wish to save money was the real motivation behind the legislation.
      A second, more likely, possibility was a concern to avoid artificial arrangements. When I was the Minister responsible for higher education, I discussed with officials the theoretical possibility in a fully integrated education system—perhaps within a single foundation—that a child entering primary school at the age of five might claim, on the basis that he was embarking on an integrated course of study leading in due course to the award of a first degree, that he was entitled to a mandatory award from the local education authority for the whole of that period. I suspect that the adept lawyers in the DFEE would have overturned that idea; but if the Government say that they want to implement an anti-avoidance measure, as the tax lawyers would call it, I can understand what they are about.
      The Government may be worried about preparatory schools—I do not believe they are usually run in this spirit—so reordering their affairs to give certain children one or two more years of assisted places. If so, I have some sympathy for their point. If children usually leave a particular preparatory school at the age of 11, but that school then decides to keep them on for another couple of years in assisted places until the age of 13—after the decision to abolish the assisted places scheme—the Government would be on to a point. I do not, however, believe that such cases are typical at all.
      972
      We are talking about schools whose normal age of transfer is 13, even though that does not mirror the pattern of transfer in the maintained sector. The amendments try to reconcile the problem humanely.
      Earlier, I invited my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham to agree with me, and I think he did, that, although the usual age of transfer is 11, in the state sector—12 in middle schools—in the private sector and in schools offering assisted places it is usually 13. That is not universal, but it is fairly common. There is a simple discrepancy; consequently, under the Bill a small but significant number of children—any number of children is significant—will be forced to move at 11 when they would usually expect to transfer at 13. That would be unfortunate. Perhaps 2,000 children, on the most restrictive calculations, have been expecting to make their transfers at that age.
      I concede that, if the Government are seeking to avoid monkey business—people trying to distort or frustrate the intentions for which the Government have a mandate—they may need to deal with that in some way, but they should not stumble on consequences for a significant number of individuals that will force them to change schools before they would normally expect to do so. In other words, we need to reverse the burden of proof. If there is a normal pattern of transfer from an assisted places school to another or to the maintained sector, that should be honoured. That is consistent with the pledge given by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle).
      I can see that there are difficulties in effecting that. Some of my hon. Friends have referred to the importance of having a flexible interpretation of the regulations, which we have not yet seen. I agree in principle, but I must warn the Committee that, although it is important that regulations be interpreted flexibly, they cannot simply have a coach and horses driven through them, to allow for every single situation.
      5 pm
      What worries me about the way in which the legislation is framed is that it would be difficult in law—I am no lawyer, but I have some experience in these matters—to provide for everything to be at the Secretary of State's discretion. That might appear to be a tidy way of dealing with everything, but I have a horrible feeling that it is not reliable for the families involved, because discretion cannot be unlimited, however good the draftsman.
      There is a human problem for a small but significant number of pupils and their families. In my view, it is because of the dissonance between the normal age of transfer in the maintained sector and that in the private sector and assisted places. The legislation must be considered in terms of that specific problem.
      It would be possible to come up with a solution, along the lines of amendment No. 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), that preserves people's normal expectation for transfer and, as a safeguard or fallback, prevents people from distorting or frustrating the Government's intentions. The Government should therefore either accept the amendments or undertake to cover the point in another way.
      Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend makes a helpful analysis. I invite him to consider the important point that

      973
      in every case it is the parents who have decided that it is in the best interests of their child's education for it to continue until 13.
      Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend is a lawyer, and I am not. I may have appeared to be arguing the legal side—that is important—but I must emphasise the importance of the human side as well. We simply cannot afford—however much we want to do for the maintained sector or for anyone else—to ride roughshod over a small number of individuals, in pursuit of a principle that is in itself questionable, and on the back of pledges that ought to be undertaken and maintained.
      Mr. Hawkins: I want to reinforce some of the points made in powerful speeches by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) and my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison).
      Many parents have contacted me about this matter. Last weekend, I was approached by a mother who said that she had grave reservations about the likely effect of the Bill on her daughter if the new Government do not accept the amendments. She said that the Prime Minister's "education, education, education" should be replaced by "broken promise, broken promise, broken promise". I hope that Labour Members will bear that in mind.
      If the Government do not accept the amendments or a modified version of them, that will be a gross breach of trust. There can be no getting away from the unequivocal words of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) in a speech to the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools conference and his subsequent letters.
      Ministers know that those words were unequivocal, and they cannot weasel out of them. If they do not accept the amendments, they will be guilty, within a few weeks of taking office, of breaking their first promise, on an issue that the Prime Minister has said is the most important to him as a parent and as a Prime Minister.
      I have some experience of the preparatory school world. Some years ago, I taught in a preparatory school for a relatively short time. That school, let me tell the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), had children with special needs and made an excellent job of teaching them. I was fortunate enough to play a part in giving extra remedial teaching to some of those pupils. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support and his acceptance of the need to keep the promises made by Labour Front Benchers; he clearly has enormous personal experience of education.
      My father was a university don at both the beginning and the end of his career, and my mother was a teacher at an independent girls' school—she was head of the mathematics department for many years and eventually became the headmistress—that also benefited from assisted places at the preparatory level and dealt with special needs children, so I know the importance of the matter to parents who are often on low incomes. If the
      974
      Labour party, with its huge majority, is not prepared to start keeping promises made to parents only a few weeks ago, it will stand condemned in the years ahead.
      It is important to consider the detail of the amendments. None of my hon. Friends has yet spoken in detail about amendment No. 28, which emphasises the importance of
      "religious content … the curriculum provided … opportunities for sport … size of classes; and … single-sex provision".
      Such factors explain why parents on low incomes often choose the special facilities that the independent sector at preparatory level can provide.
      The Government are going back to the bad old ways of the 1960s and 1970s, when they were hellbent on destroying good direct-grant schools, such as the one that I attended having won a free place on the 11-plus. They are acting on the same old doctrinaire belief that if not all can have, none shall have. That old Labour ideology permeates the new Government's rejection of the amendments.
      The matter is of enormous importance to the parents involved. I hope that the Government will reflect further. If they do not, I promise them that, over the next five years, in the eyes—and the words—of many parents, they will live to regret it.
      Mrs. Theresa May: In the debate so far, my right hon. and hon. Friends have adopted a generous approach towards the Government, as did the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). I shall try to follow that example, because I hope that we all agree that the key issue is the children and families who will be affected if the amendments are not accepted. Parents accepted assisted places for their children in good faith, in the expectation that they would be permitted to carry on to the age of 13 and not have their education disrupted, as it will be if the Bill is not amended.
      I echo the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), and urge the Government to listen carefully to the genuine concerns that have been expressed this afternoon. If they cannot accept the amendments, they should at least accept that they need to resolve the problem and table new amendments in another place.
      Parents accepted places for their children in good faith because the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) promised that places would be honoured through to the age of 13. The promise was made on 1 April; I cannot imagine that he made it in the belief that there was no chance of his party forming a Government after the general election. Had he done so, one might question his bona fides and integrity in one sense, but we would have understood it more than we do in the circumstances that now apply. I think that he made the promise believing that his party would honour it in government and that people who acted on it could have faith in what the Government would do.
      I ask the Government to consider seriously our concerns and to think more widely about how their approach to the Bill will set the tone of this Government. I think that this is the first legislation to go through this Parliament that will have an immediate impact on people. There is no doubt that if the Government do not accept our amendments, they will be guilty of a breach of trust. After all, during the general election campaign, the

      975
      Labour party claimed that it was fighting on the issue of trust. It said that it was the party that could be trusted and that it would honour its pledges and manifesto commitments. Both the Bill in general and the specific provisions about the continuation of education for 11-year-olds up to 13 show that Labour is breaking its promises to the electorate.
      Labour's manifesto pledge was to abolish the assisted places scheme and to use the money to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. The Bill abolishes the assisted places scheme but does nothing about the other side of the equation to ensure that class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds are reduced. I have already heard teachers in my constituency say that they know what will happen: the money will not appear; it will not be enough if it does appear; the chances of its coming are fairly slim; and that class sizes will not be reduced as a result of the Bill. Given that the Government are setting the tone for their whole period of office, I urge them to think carefully about the pledge that was given and to honour it.
      I make no apologies to hon. Members who have heard me speak about the matter before, although I am sorry that it always seems to be the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), who is here when I raise the point, given that it concerns one of her ministerial colleagues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry said, the Bill's impact is most significant on families with 11 to 13-year-olds for whom the scheme is used because of social need. It is in such cases that the difficulties of adjusting when the child no longer has a place will be most significant, especially when the scheme has been used to provide boarding school education.
      Charitable foundations contacted the hon. Member for Walton before the general election. He discussed the issue with them and gave them every expectation that even if the assisted places scheme was abolished, as Labour proposed, a way could be found to deal with children who required boarding school education because of social need, family background or other difficulties. Again, there was an expectation of Government action because of statements made—in good faith, I am sure—by the hon. Member for Walton. Charities and parents, in good faith, expected action.
      I urge the Government to reconsider and to accept either our amendments or those proposed by others. They should ensure that the Bill does not go through with the breach of trust that exists as it stands, but accept that the hon. Member for Walton acted in good faith, and accept the genuine concerns expressed by Conservative and Liberal Members. The Government must accept that if they do not agree to the amendments, some children will be seriously affected. I urge them to find amendments that they can accept, so that the children involved can continue their education as they were promised.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: Much has been said on the amendments, so I shall keep to a few brief remarks.
      I should like to take the House back to the atmosphere that prevailed in March and April. Time after time, Conservative Members asked the Labour party, in the unlikely event, as we thought then, of it being elected, to give an expenditure pledge on this or that subject. It is therefore inconceivable that the hon. Member for
      976
      Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) would have given a pledge on 11 to 13-year-olds if it had not been cleared by the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). He must have had it cleared, and the money must have been allocated.
      If my maths is correct and it is right that about 2,000 places are involved in extending the assisted places scheme from 11 to 13-year-olds, and we generously assume that the marginal difference between the cost of educating a pupil under the scheme and education in the state system is about £2,000—I think that it is only £1,000 at the most—I calculate the additional cost to be in the region of £4 million. Given that people have based their decisions on their children's educational future on the basis that they would continue to be educated in the private maintained sector until 13, that is not an unreasonable cost.
      Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend's mathematics is excellent, but the difference between the cost of a secondary place on the assisted places scheme and a state school place is only about £700 or £800. The sum involved is therefore considerably less.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I said that £2,000 was generous and that I thought that it was probably £1,000 or less. She has probably given a more accurate estimate. I ask the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), as she has already been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), to give the Government's accurately calculated figure. That would be helpful.
      I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). I tried to get her as my next-door neighbour, but it did not quite work out. She has made an excellent start in the House, and I hope that we will hear many more of her contributions, because her grasp of this subject is obviously great. She and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) made some telling remarks about the human aspect of the matter.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry mentioned cases where parents divorce. I have never had to grapple with that subject, and I hope that I never will. However, from friends who have had to grapple with it, I know that it is traumatic for the children. I hope that, even if the hon. Member for Yardley cannot incorporate it into the Bill, she will use the discretion available to her under the various Education Acts sensitively, so that, even if we cannot get a blanket extension for children aged 11 to 13 to continue on the scheme, sensitive human cases will be sympathetically considered.
      I can conceive of other difficult cases. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry said, if a local education authority operates a middle school system for children to the age of 12 and the assisted places scheme stops at the age of 11, children will have to change to one school and then to another at 13. Changing school always sets back a child's academic education, as we all know from our own children. Again, I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to exercise her discretion in that circumstance.
      A third category of human difficulty is that of a really bright child on the assisted places scheme who might get a scholarship to a privately maintained secondary school. He or she would have to leave the primary maintained

      977
      school to go to a secondary school before getting a scholarship to continue further in the private system. That would mean further disruption for a child who, under normal circumstances, would not have expected it.
      Amendment No. 28 deals with the type of state schools that might be available. Many of the best state schools have a waiting list—that is certainly the case in my constituency. Often, it is not possible for a child to get into the preferred school. Again, it may be a case of a child leaving an assisted place at 11 to go to a state school that may not have been his or her first choice. Great difficulties could be involved. The child might have to travel further from home and might not be with his or her friends or with relations who had attended the school nearest the home. Those are all individual circumstances that need to be taken into account.
      Amendment No. 28 incorporates a number of features that must be taken into consideration. For example, the state school available might not be suitable on religious grounds for a child coming out of the private system. What would happen if a child had attended a private school with assisted places money, but the religious ethos of the state school nearest to his or her home was different? A child might be particularly gifted in music or sport, but the local state school might not have those facilities.
      I am keen to ensure that all state schools have a wide curriculum. That is why the previous Government, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) was involved, produced the White Paper "Sport: Raising the Game". I am keen for all our state schools to have good sports facilities.
      Parental choice is what matters most in the extension of the assisted places scheme from the age of 11 to 13. After all, parents expected when they put their children into the private system with assisted places money that their child would stay there until the age of 13. If a parent has an expectation and the Government give a pledge—even when they are in opposition—under all the rules of basic justice, that pledge should be honoured. I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Front Bench to honour that pledge. A small amount of money is involved and the parents affected have a right to expect that it will be honoured.
      Mr. Andrew Lansley: I will be brief, as others want to speak on this group of amendments.
      I rise to support amendments Nos. 11, 3 and 28. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) made a number of telling points very eloquently. First, he referred to the human aspect of the Bill and how it will impact on children. It is important for us to recognise that we are talking about individual children within a peer group in a school who will be removed from that peer group as a consequence of this Bill. It is not simply a matter of those children transferring to another school inside the maintained sector, which may or may not be able to meet the child's needs as well as the school that he or she was attending. Clearly, in the parents' view, the school that the child was attending under the assisted places scheme offered them facilities and choice that were not available in the maintained sector.
      978
      There is a human aspect above and beyond that. Having made a choice on behalf of their children, parents had the reasonable expectation that their child would be able to proceed along that path. In addition, the children had become familiar with and very much a part of the school and its ethos. All of us with children know that, if they become attached to a school of any kind, leaving is a wrench and can have a deleterious impact on their education if they think that the way they are removed is unfair.
      Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire referred to schools that appear to have a different character, but are in reality the same school, with a continuing ethos that runs from the primary to the secondary school. There is an example of just such in south Cambridgeshire. St. Faith's school enjoys the same charity number and the same Department for Education and Employment number as the Leys school. Parents of children attending St. Faith's have the expectation that their children will continue to the Leys when they are 13.
      That brings me to the point of the amendment that deals with the impact on children who would normally be in a school until the age of 13 but who will be required, under the circumstances foreseen by the Government, to leave at 11. I shall not continue at length, as my hon. Friends have explained the case more eloquently than I could.
      Parents clearly had reasonable expectations when they chose a school. Those expectations were reinforced as recently as April this year, when the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) said that, if children had commenced at a school, they would be able to continue until the age of 13. I fear that we may have discovered during this debate and from the Government's actions in moving the hon. Gentleman into the recesses of the Cabinet Office that, whereas we believed that there was a doctrine of collective responsibility on the part of the Government, there seems to be a doctrine of collective irresponsibility where pledges made in advance of the election are concerned.
      In those circumstances, it was reasonable for parents to expect that their children would be able to proceed until the age of 13. For that reason, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) was right to draw our attention to the fact that the Government made a pledge and that it is one that should be honoured, not broken.
      As I said on Second Reading and when speaking on an earlier amendment—I think that the Minister said this from a sedentary position earlier—the Government argue that, if children are required to leave schools that they attended under the assisted places scheme, it is acceptable for them to revert to the maintained sector—which indeed it may be for some, but it is important for the Government to recognise that parents have made their choices for diverse reasons.
      St. Mary's in south Cambridgeshire, for example, is a single-sex school with a Roman Catholic orientation. That brings me back to amendment No. 28. It is incumbent on Ministers to answer this point. If there is no school of the character that I have described, it is not sufficient for them to say that children must revert to the maintained sector and that that is good enough and they are in exactly the same position as all other children. If no choice of school is available to parents, where do Ministers expect their

      979
      children to go? On what basis are Ministers removing that choice? I want the Minister to clarify the situation in her reply.
      Representations made to me by schools in my constituency seem to show that they foresee a time when children over the age of 11—when they would normally transfer to the maintained sector—in schools that take pupils up to the age of 13 may continue for one or two academic years and then, aged 13, be asked to transfer to the maintained sector. That may not be convenient; it may be difficult for those children to transfer into a new peer group and a new class of pupils who have been at that school for a couple of years.
      By contrast, children at a neighbouring school who may have taken up their assisted places at 11 could continue with them through to 18. According to the letter from the Department for Education and Employment, one child of 12 may be required to leave school and enter the maintained sector a year later and another child of 12 on an assisted place may be assured of that place through to the age of 18. I should be grateful if the Minister would reflect on that point and, if time allows, answer that matter, which has been raised with me in my constituency. I should be grateful if she would say how that problem can be resolved.
      It is right for Conservative Members to press an amendment that seeks to remove a provision that would mean the Government reneging on the pledge that they made before the election to allow children to continue from their primary places up to the age of 13.
      5.30 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): I am replying to a debate which has taken, I think, five days—we started in the early hours of Friday morning. The amendments deal with just one issue and I shall attempt to address the comments made. Although it has been a wide-ranging debate, the amendments are quite clear.
      There have been a number of thoughtful and considered speeches. I am thinking particularly of the speeches of the hon. Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), to which I listened carefully. I apologise to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May): I realised some time after I sat down on Friday morning that I had not addressed her specific query, although I had intended to. I shall take the opportunity to do so now.
      I share the hon. Lady's concern about children, of whatever background, whose education is made more difficult. I also share her concern about children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds, who have enough to contend with without having to cope with extra burdens. I have not yet received representations from the organisation to which she referred on Thursday evening, but when I receive its letters I shall reply to them.
      Mrs. May: I should be happy to pass the correspondence to the Minister directly in order to speed up the process. I am grateful for her generous comments, and I look forward to her addressing the issue as sympathetically as she suggested she would.
      Ms Morris: The letters, which I shall look at, are probably wending their way from the officials to my office.
      980
      The hon. Lady referred to the assisted places scheme. I see from the note given to me by my officials that boarding fees are expressly precluded from the assisted places scheme. In the cases to which I suspect the hon. Lady is referring, an assisted places day scheme has been supplemented by boarding fees from elsewhere.
      Mrs. May: I am talking about those cases where the boarding fees are paid by charitable foundations and the assisted places scheme is used to top up the educational element of the package.
      Ms Morris: I do not wish to sound too sympathetic, for fear that I may mislead the hon. Lady, but our pledge not to extend the assisted places scheme remains firm. Decisions about whether to fund boarding education are for the local authority—sometimes they are mandatory and sometimes discretionary. That is a more complicated issue than that considered by the legislation. I shall ensure that a full reply is given, as I am aware of the hon. Lady's great interest in the subject.
      I confirm that, as a Government, we have made it clear that we do not wish to extend the assisted places scheme and that 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. Opinions differ over the age at which primary school is deemed to finish—whether it is 11 or 13. For all the long debates that we have had, it is that point which the amendments address.
      I should like to clarify something that I think the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire was saying. The law has never allowed someone who takes a place under the primary assisted places scheme to transfer it and continue to 18. Even under the legislation passed by the Conservative Government, a child could not win a primary place aged five, seven, eight or 10 and automatically transfer it and use it up to the age of 18. My understanding is that someone on a primary assisted place would have to reapply for more funding for another place at 11 and someone on an assisted place at a prep school—where pupils stay until they are 13—would have to apply for a further place on a competitive basis at the age of 13.
      Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Lady is using a sympathetic tone, but her comments basically amount to, "No, no, no." Will she answer a specific question? Some children have been offered an assisted place at the age of 10, alongside others who have been offered places at the age of 11. It is my understanding that the director from the Department has visited the schools to say that those children cannot have their assisted places. Those pupils have already prepared themselves to spend the next seven or eight years in those schools.
      The information that I have received show that those children number no more than 70 or 80. Will the Minister give me an answer now, at the Dispatch Box, on whether she will consider the cases and come to individual decisions using the discretionary powers granted to the Secretary of State in the Bill? Will she consider the cases, because they are causing a great deal of heartache and hardship to a small number of families?
      Ms Morris: I have outlined the Government's thinking on the issue: the primary age should finish at 11 and the

      981
      secondary age at 18. I can confirm that the Bill contains a discretionary clause that the Secretary of State will use. I cannot give the hon. Lady her answer now, but, if she wishes, I shall reply later.
      The Bill's principle is clear. We had to decide whether we deemed that the primary level finished at 11—
      Mr. Boswell: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Ms Morris: No, I must make some progress. I have been generous in giving way.
      We had to decide whether the primary level finished at 11 or 13—that is the crux of the matter.
      I shall give way now, but then I must make progress—this is likely to be the last time that I give way.
      Mr. Boswell: I thank the hon. Lady, who has been most generous with her time.
      I wonder whether, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), I can invite the Minister to try to give her response before the Bill is further considered in another place.
      Ms Morris: I shall certainly consider that invitation and try to respond to it—if not this evening, then later.
      The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) talked about the age of transfer—11 or 13. He mentioned the difficulty of pupils entering schools where friendship groups have already been made, the curriculum has already been set and children have already settled down socially and academically.
      Those aspects governed our decision on the transfer of pupils at 11 or 13. Half a million children every year already change schools at the age of 11. It is, therefore, sensible to provide for pupils to move into the maintained sector at the same age as other 11-year-olds transfer from primary to secondary schooling. Our approach is fair and puts the interests of the child ahead of the interests of the school—a point which was adequately summed up by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire.
      It is also fair—using the guidance mentioned by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire—that, if the age of transfer to secondary school in an area is other than 11, the Secretary of State should hold discretionary powers. That provision is contained in the Bill—it is one way in which the discretionary powers can be exercised.
      I reiterate that the Secretary of State will have discretionary powers that he may exercise when he sees fit. The golden rule is to make sure that we do not expand the assisted places scheme. We must move as swiftly and as fairly as possible so that we may use the resources that are freed from the scheme to make sure that five, six and seven-year-olds will not be in classes of more than 30. That is dear to our hearts, and there is a genuine difference of opinion on the issue between the Government and the Opposition.
      We believe that class size matters. We, too, want to give opportunities to children and we care about lost opportunities and broken dreams. We have made the
      982
      commitment that we shall do all in our power to make sure that the education system delivers the best to the many and not the few. I shall use that phrase again.
      It is wholly appropriate that public funding which, in the past, has been used to give opportunities to the few and deny them to the many, should more properly be used to ensure adequate class sizes. We have been generous and fair and have tried to ensure that no child's education is broken or damaged. We differ from the Opposition in that we think that to transfer 11-year-olds to the maintained sector is not dreadful. They will be transferred to good-quality schools where they will have opportunities and will succeed. Their education will not be damaged. We have more faith in the maintained system than Conservative Members who ran it for the past 18 years seem to have. That is why I invite the House to reject the amendments.
      Mrs. Gillan: We intend to press the amendments to a vote, and I understand that Liberal Democrat Members will press for a vote on amendment No. 3.
      This part of the Bill will go down as the broken pledge clause because the Walton pledge was broken by the Government within a few minutes of their coming to power. The amendments relate particularly to children of about 11, but the Minister does not fully appreciate that for many children that is a vulnerable age. There is no doubt that such children will be badly affected by the Bill.
      The Minister repeated the saying, "We are for the many, not the few." Therefore, the voice of protest and the voices of the parents of those children is obviously too small to be heard by the Government, although they are the few and not the many. If they were a mob, they would be listened to by the Government, but, because they are small in number and the children are from low-income families, the Government ride roughshod over them.
      I do not want to add much to the excellent speeches by my hon. Friends. If the Minister is so firmly committed to abolishing assisted places, why did the Secretary of State agree to allow me when I was the Minister responsible for this area to expand the primary school places for at least a year? Was it not the most callous act to allow the scheme to expand for just 12 months? The Secretary of State was keen to get more money so that he could try to keep a pledge which he knows it will be impossible to fulfil.
      The reason for the Bill is to produce extra money to enable the Government to try to reduce class sizes, but the money that will be gleaned will be nowhere near enough to do that. When he appeared with me on a television programme earlier today the Minister of State gave the impression that he was scrabbling around for money to fulfil his pledge on class sizes. In answer to a question about funding for primary schools he said:
      "What we are doing is. we are releasing money from the nursery voucher scheme and the phasing out of the assisted places scheme. In the short term, that will bring in more resources."
      He has not said how much will be released by the abolition of the nursery voucher scheme, but it is beginning to dawn on the Government that even the abolition of the assisted places scheme will not give them enough to fulfil their pledge. The first broken promise is the Walton pledge, and the next is the pledge on class sizes.

      983
      The Minister would not give me an answer about 10-year-olds. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) yesterday received a fax from a parent who is extremely concerned about this issue. I hope that the Minister will be decent enough to write to me on the matter because the author of the fax is the constituent of a Labour Member who, I understand, will take the matter up with the Department. The constituent writes:
      "The assisted places scheme is affecting children who have been offered a place for 10-plus entry to secondary school this September. Very few schools in the assisted places scheme offer a 10-plus entry and so this ruling only affects a small number of children. But these few seem to me to be being overlooked and unfairly treated."
      5.45 pm
      The Minister is not paying attention. Those children are certainly being overlooked. The fax continues:
      "For these children starting their secondary education at 10 they are to all intents and purposes in exactly the same position as those children who will be starting their secondary education at 11 this September. Both groups were notified of their assisted places at the same time, both will by now have begun to make the necessary arrangements for changing schools. Some will even have bought uniforms and both will be looking forward to spending the next seven or eight years at their chosen schools. Yet the dividing line has been drawn between them, and for this small group of 10-plus, maybe as few as 70, their future has been made worryingly uncertain. They achieved an assisted place and now, even before they have started the school, they have been told it will be taken away from them. It will only run for one year."
      By not considering those children, how much would the Minister save? How much would it cost her to honour those places and not destroy the lives of some 70 children? It is obvious that the Government are interested only in the many and not the few. I am not hopeful of any understanding from them.
      Amendment No. 28 was spoken to by some of my hon. Friends. I challenge the Minister's statement that there is only one point in the amendments. Has she read them or did she just read the notes that were provided by her officials? The amendments certainly contain another point, and it is a key one because it deals with the provision of comparable education for children who are going on to secondary schools. Amendment No. 28 shows that the areas that we picked out were religious content, curriculum provided, opportunities for sport, class sizes, which are so dear to the Minister's heart, and, of course, single-sex provision.
      Ms Estelle Morris: I read the amendment, but it seemed so out of tune with the hon. Lady's acts when she was in government that I thought it could not possibly be serious. Does comparability of class size mean that the hon. Lady and her party have changed their minds? Do they now believe that class size matters, and does the hon. Lady think that going from a class of 15 to a class of 35 would cause problems?
      Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Lady seems to forget that I do not have to answer the questions now. [Interruption.] She has to answer them, but she was in opposition for a long time and a leopard cannot change its spots. She has to answer the questions and her response to these amendments has made it obvious that she is incapable of doing that.
      984
      As to religious content, will the Minister assure me that these children will have a Catholic school available to them, or perhaps a school that has worship every day or mass? Will the school deal with moral education in the same way as the school that the child has come from? She obviously does not care.
      On the curriculum, these children sometimes study Latin, Greek and the classics. Will the Minister ensure that children will have the choice and the chance in the state sector to study those subjects? Will they be able to study politics and economics at A-level? State schools should offer at least the spread of subjects that is often offered by schools that these children would have expected to go to.
      On sport at school, will those children be able to play lacrosse, hockey, cricket, rugby fives, real tennis, golf or rowing? Has the Minister any idea of the range of sports? Before she laughs, I have been told that Mike Atherton, who has just captained the England side to a brilliant success, which, I assure hon. Members, had nothing to do with a Labour Government—the side trained under a Tory Government—held an assisted place. Will the children be taught in the same size of class and will there be single-sex provision? The differences are obvious.
      I have no hope that the Government will listen to anything that Conservative Members say. When I was a Minister and we considered legislation in Committee, we did listen and make adjustments. This Government have shown that they are not going to make adjustments or to listen. This group of amendments will be remembered as the broken Walton pledge amendments.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 147, Noes 400.

      Division No. 23]

      [5.51 pm

      AYES

      Amess, David

      (Grantham & Stamford)

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Day, Stephen

      Arbuthnot, James

      Duncan, Alan

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Baldly, Tony

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Evans, Nigel

      Bercow, John

      Faber, David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Fabricant, Michael

      Blunt, Crispin

      Fallon, Michael

      Body, Sir Richard

      Flight, Howard

      Boswell, Tim

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Brady, Graham

      Forth, Eric

      Brazier, Julian

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Fraser, Christopher

      Burns, Simon

      Gale, Roger

      Butterfill, John

      Garnier, Edward

      Cash, William

      Gibb, Nick

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Gill, Christopher

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Chope, Christopher

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Clappison, James

      Gray, James

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Green, Damian

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Greenway, John

      Grieve, Dominic

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Collins, Tim

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Colvin, Michael

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Hammond, Philip

      Cran, James

      Hawkins, Nick

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Hayes, John

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Heald, Oliver

      Davies, Quentin

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      985

      (Old Bexley & Sidcup)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Horam, John

      Ruffley, David

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hunter, Andrew

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Soames, Nicholas

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Key, Robert

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Spring, Richard

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Steen, Anthony

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Streeter, Gary

      Lansley, Andrew

      Swayne, Desmond

      Letwin, Oliver

      Syms, Robert

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lidington, David

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Loughton, Tim

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Luff, Peter

      Thompson, William

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Townend, John

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Tredinnick, David

      Mclntosh, Miss Anne

      Trend, Michael

      MacKay, Andrew

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Viggers, Peter

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Walter, Robert

      Madel, Sir David

      Wardle, Charles

      Malins, Humfrey

      Waterson, Nigel

      Maples, John

      Wells, Bowen

      Mates, Michael

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Whittingdale, John

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Willetts, David

      Merchant, Piers

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Woodward, Shaun

      Norman, Archie

      Yeo, Tim

      Page, Richard

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Paice, James

      Paterson, Owen

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Pickles, Eric

      Mr. Richard Ottaway and

      Prior, David

      Mr. Peter Ainsworth.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Betts, Clive

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Blackman, Mrs Liz

      Ainger, Nick

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Blizzard, Robert

      Allan, Richard (Shef'd Hallam)

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

      Boateng, Paul

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Borrow, David

      Anderson, Janet (Ros'ale)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Ashton, Joe

      Brake, Thomas

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Atkins, Ms Charlotte

      Breed, Colin

      Baker, Norman

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Barnes, Harry

      Barron, Kevin

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Battle, John

      Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Burden, Richard

      Beard, Nigel

      Burgon, Colin

      Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

      Burstow, Paul

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Butler, Christine

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Byers, Stephen

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Benton, Joe

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Berry, Roger

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Best, Harold

      Canavan, Dennis

      986

      Cann, Jamie

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Caplin, Ivor

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Casale, Roger

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Caton, Martin

      Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Foulkes, George

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Chaytor, David

      Galbraith, Sam

      Chidgey, David

      Galloway, George

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Gapes, Mike

      Clapham, Michael

      Gardiner, Barry

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Clelland, David

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Graham, Thomas

      Coaker, Vernon

      Grant, Bernie

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)

      Cohen, Harry

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Connarty, Michael

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Cooper, Ms Yvette

      Grogan, John

      Corbett, Robin

      Gunnell, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hain, Peter

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Cotter, Brian

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Cousins, Jim

      Hancock, Mike

      Cox, Tom

      Hanson, David

      Cranston, Ross

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Crausby, David

      Harvey, Nick

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Heath, David (Somerton)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Heppell, John

      Curtis-Thomas, Ms Clare

      Hesford, Stephen

      Dafis, Cynog

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hill, Keith

      Darvill, Keith

      Hinchliffe, David

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Home Robertson, John

      Davidson, Ian

      Hood, Jimmy

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Hope, Philip

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Dean, Ms Janet

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Denham, John

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Dobbin, Jim

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Hurst, Alan

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Hutton, John

      Doran, Frank

      Iddon, Brian

      Dowd, Jim

      Illsley, Eric

      Drew, David

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst')

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Jamieson, David

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

      Edwards, Huw

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Ellman, Ms Louise

      Johnson, Ms Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Etherington, Bill

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Fisher, Mark

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Flint, Ms Caroline

      Flynn, Paul

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Follett, Ms Barbara

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      987

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Oaten, Mark

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

      Olner, Bill

      Kemp, Fraser

      Opik, Lembit

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Osborne, Mrs Sandra

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Khabra, Piara S

      Pearson, Ian

      Kidney, David

      Pendry, Tom

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kingham, Tessa

      Pike, Peter L

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Plaskitt, James

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Pollard, Kerry

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Pond, Chris

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Pope, Greg

      Laxton, Bob

      Pound, Stephen

      Lepper, David

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Leslie, Christopher

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Levitt, Tom

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Purchase, Ken

      Linton, Martin

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Livingstone, Ken

      Radice, Giles

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Rammell, Bill

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Rapson, Syd

      Love, Andy

      Raynsford, Nick

      McAllion, John

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Rendel, David

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      McDonagh, Ms Siobhain

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Ccv'try NW)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Rogers, Allan

      McDonnell, John

      Rooker, Jeff

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McIsaac, Ms Shona

      Rowlands, Ted

      McMaster, Gordon

      Roy, Frank

      McNulty, Tony

      Ruane, Chris

      MacShane, Denis

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      McWalter, Tony

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McWilliam, John

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Salter, Martin

      Mallaber, Ms Judy

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Marek, Dr John

      Sawford, Phil

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Sheerman, Barry

      Martlew, Eric

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Maxton, John

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Meale, Alan

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Michael, Alun

      Singh, Marsha

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Milburn, Alan

      Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S,

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Moore, Michael

      Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Smith, Liew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Soley, Clive

      Morley, Elliot

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Spellar, John

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Mountford, Ms Kali

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Mudie, George

      Stevenson, George

      Mullin, Chris

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Murphy, Dennis (Wansbeck)

      Stewart, Ian (Ecdes)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      988

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Tyler, Paul

      Stott, Roger

      Vaz, Keith

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Wallace, James

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Stringer, Graham

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Stunell, Andrew

      Watts, David

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Webb, Steven

      White, Brian

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Whitehead, Alan

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro & St Austell)

      Williams, Dr Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Wlliams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Willis, Phil

      Timms, Stephen

      Winnick, David

      Tipping, Paddy

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Todd, Mark

      Wise, Audrey

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Wood, Mike

      Touhig, Don

      Woolas, Phil

      Trickett, Jon

      Worthington, Tony

      Truswell, Paul

      Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Mr. John McFall and

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Ms Bridget Prentice.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 3, in page 2, line 5, after `or,' insert—
      `(b) 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 ` —[Mr. Don Foster.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided. Ayes 181, Noes 354.

      Division No. 24]

      [6.8 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

      Amess, David

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Arbuthnot, James

      Collins, Tim

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Colvin, Michael

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Baker, Norman

      Cotter, Brian

      Baldry, Tony

      Cran, James

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Berth, Rt Hon A J

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Bercow, John

      Day, Stephen

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Blunt, Crispin

      Duncan, Alan

      Boswell, Tim

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Brady, Graham

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Brake, Thomas

      Evans, Nigel

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Faber, David

      Breed, Colin

      Fabricant, Michael

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Fallon, Michael

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Feam, Ronnie

      Burnett, John

      Flight, Howard

      Burns, Simon

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Burstow, Paul

      Forth, Eric

      Butterfill, John

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Cash, William

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Fraser, Christopher

      Chidgey, David

      Gale, Roger

      Chope, Christopher

      Gamier, Edward

      Clappison, James

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      989

      Gibb, Nick

      Norman, Archie

      Gill, Christopher

      Oaten, Mark

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Opik, Lembit

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Ottaway, Richard

      Gray, James

      Page, Richard

      Green, Damian

      Paice, James

      Greenway, John

      Paterson, Owen

      Grieve, Dominic

      Pickles, Eric

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Prior, David

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Rendel, David

      Hammond, Philip

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hancock, Mike

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Harvey, Nick

      Ruffley, David

      Hawkins, Nick

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Hayes, John

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Heald, Oliver

      Sanders, Adrian

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward(Old Bexley & Sidcup)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Horam, John

      Soames, Nicholas

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Spring, Richard

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Steen, Anthony

      Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

      Streeter, Gary

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Swayne, Desmond

      Syms, Robert

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Keetch, Paul

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro & St Austell)

      Key, Robert

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Thompson, William

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Tredinnick, David

      Lansley, Andrew

      Trend, Michael

      Letwin, Oliver

      Tyler, Paul

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Lidington, David

      Viggers, Peter

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Wallace, James

      Uoyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Walter, Robert

      Luff, Peter

      Wardle, Charles

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Waterson, Nigel

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Webb, Steven

      Mcintosh, Miss Anne

      Wells, Bowen

      MacKay, Andrew

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Whittingdale, John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Madel, Sir David

      Willetts, David

      Malins, Humfrey

      Willis, Phil

      Maples, John

      Wilshire, David

      Mates, Michael

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Woodward, Shaun

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Yeo, Tim

      Merchant, Piers

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Moore, Michael

      Mr. Andrew Stunell and

      Moss, Malcolm

      Mr. David Heath.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Atkins, Ms Charlotte

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Barnes, Harry

      Ainger, Nick

      Barron, Kevin

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Battle, John

      Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Beard, Nigel

      Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)

      Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Ashton, Joe

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Bennett, Andrew F

      990

      Benton, Joe

      Dismore, Andrew

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dobbin, Jim

      Berry, Roger

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Best, Harold

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Betts, Clive

      Doran, Frank

      Blackman, Mrs Liz

      Dowd, Jim

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Drew, David

      Blizzard, Robert

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Boateng, Paul

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Borrow, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Ellman, Ms Louise

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Etherington, Bill

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick(Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Fisher, Mark

      Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Flint, Ms Caroline

      Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

      Flynn, Paul

      Burden, Richard

      Follett, Ms Barbara

      Burgon, Colin

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Butler, Christine

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Byers, Stephen

      Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Foulkes, George

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Galloway, George

      Canavan, Dennis

      Gapes, Mike

      Cann, Jamie

      Gardiner, Barry

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gerrard, Neil

      Casale, Roger

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Caton, Martin

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Cawsey, Ian

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Chaytor, David

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Clapham, Michael

      Graham, Thomas

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Grant, Bernie

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Grogan, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Gunnell, John

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hain, Peter

      Clelland, David

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hanson, David

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Cohen, Harry

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Connarty, Michael

      Healey, John

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Cooper, Ms Yvette

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Heppell, John

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cousins, Jim

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Cox, Tom

      Hill, Keith

      Cranston, Ross

      Hinchliffe, David

      Crausby, David

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Home Robertson, John

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hope, Philip

      Curtis-Thomas, Ms Clare

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Dalyell, Tam

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Darvill, Keith

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (StretfordA Urmston)

      Davidson, Ian

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Hurst, Alan

      Dawson, Hilton

      Hutton, John

      Dean, Ms Janet

      Iddon, Brian

      Denham, John

      Illsley, Eric

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampsf'd)

      991

      Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Jamieson, David

      Mountford, Ms Kali

      Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

      Mudie, George

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Murphy, Dennis (Wansbeck)

      Johnson, Ms Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Osborne, Mrs Sandra

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Pearson, Ian

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Pendry, Tom

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

      Pike, Peter L

      Kemp, Fraser

      Plaskitt, James

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Khabra, Piara S

      Pond, Chris

      Kidney, David

      Pope, Greg

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Pound, Stephen

      King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Kingham, Tessa

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Presoott, Rt Hon John

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Laxton, Bob

      Purchase, Ken

      Lepper, David

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Leslie, Christopher

      Radice, Giles

      Levitt, Tom

      Rammell, Bill

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Rapson, Syd

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Linton, Martin

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Love, Andy

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      McAllion, John

      Rogers, Allan

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rooker, Jeff

      McCabe, Stephen

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Rowlands, Ted

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Roy, Frank

      McDonagh, Ms Siobhain

      Ruane, Chris

      Macdonald, Calum

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      McDonnell, John

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Salter, Martin

      McIsaac, Ms Shona

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McMaster, Gordon

      Sawford, Phil

      McNulty, Tony

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McWalter, Tony

      Sheerman, Barry

      McWilliam, John

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mallaber, Ms Judy

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Mandelson, Peter

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Marek, Dr John

      Singh, Marsha

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Maxton, John

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)

      Meale, Alan

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Michael, Alun

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Milburn, Alan

      Soley, Clive

      Miller, Andrew

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Moffatt, Laura

      Spellar, John

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Stevenson, George

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Morley, Elliot

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardiey)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      992

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Vaz, Keith

      Stott, Roger

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Stringer, Graham

      Wareing, Robert N

      Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)

      Watts, David

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)`

      White, Brian

      Whitehead, Alan

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Williams, Dr Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Winnick, David

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Timms, Stephen

      Wise, Audrey

      Tipping, Paddy

      Wood, Mike

      Todd, Mark

      Woolas, Phil

      Touhig, Don

      Worthington, Tony

      Trickett, Jon

      Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)

      Truswell, Paul

      Wyatt, Derek

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Mr. John McFall and

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Ms Bridget Prentice.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 3

      REGULATIONS FOR PURPOSES OF TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
      Mr. David Lidington: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 3, line 2, leave out from `to' to 'fees' in line 3 and insert
      `direct a school to refrain from making or postpone or reduce an increase in'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 12, page 3, line 10, leave out paragraph (d).
      No. 13, page 3, line 44, leave out 'two years' and insert 'one year'.
      No. 14, page 3, line 46, leave out 'two years' and insert `one year'.
      No. 26, in clause 5, clause 5, page 5, line 35. leave out paragraph (a).
      Mr. Lidington: Amendment No. 35 would replace the power provided under clause 3 for the Secretary of State to determine the maximum fee level that schools may charge assisted places pupils with a power for him to direct schools to
      "refrain from making the increase or … postpone or restrict the amount of the increase".
      As the Minister will be aware, the words in my amendment have been taken from the Education (Assisted Places) Regulations 1995. I should like to probe the reasons why the Government have decided to provide a new power for Ministers to intervene in setting maximum fee levels, rather than relying on the regulations' sufficient safeguards against abuse of the system.
      I can understand why any Government would like to establish measures to deal with abuse, and I appreciate that there are fears that perhaps one school in 1,000 might attempt to exploit the assisted places scheme or the Bill's transitional arrangements by imposing extortionate fees that are designed to milk the taxpayer rather than to

      993
      provide a decent education for assisted places pupil. The need for safeguards against such abuse or fraud has been demonstrated, but the 1995 regulations already provide substantial safeguards.
      Parents must apply to schools for a fee remission and supply schools with detailed information about their circumstances. The regulations give the Secretary of State power to direct that, in specific cases, parents shall not be entitled to a fee remission if he is satisfied that the parents have knowingly or recklessly furnished information for determining remission or have supplied false information.
      Under the regulations, in such circumstances the Secretary of State must give parents the right to make representations before finalisation of any decision to block a fees remission. Nowhere in the Bill is a similar right to make representations offered to schools before the Secretary of State may intervene to exercise the power provided by the Bill to set a maximum fee level. I hope that the Minister will flesh out the Government's thinking on such matters.
      The 1995 regulations allow the Secretary of State to specify the manner and form in which parents should make applications and declare their actual or expected income. Moreover, the Secretary of State may specify the nature of any documentary material that parties must produce in support of their case. Under section 21 of the regulations, a school is not permitted to increase fees for any pupil in the assisted places scheme without one month's written notice to the Secretary of State. The same section gives the Secretary of State powers to block or postpone such a fee increase or to restrict its amount.
      Those powers seem to be sufficient to guard against any suspected abuse of the system. I therefore question why the Government believe that it is necessary to introduce a new power for the Secretary of State to go beyond blocking a fee increase which a school proposes for its reasons and to intervene in setting a maximum fee level. I do not want the House to give Ministers more powers than are absolutely necessary to intervene in the affairs of independent institutions.
      I hope that the Minister will be able to offer the reassurance that I seek. If not, I hope that he will suggest ways in which the Government might attempt to amend clause 3 or clarify the matter in the regulations.
      Mr. James Paice: I will address my remarks to amendment No. 12, which refers to the provision that allows the Secretary of State to discharge his obligations through the payment of a lump sum.
      The purpose of the amendment is to obtain from the Government an assurance that the provision is not designed to short-change the schools that will receive such payments. Clearly, schools expect to receive their payments over time and in stages. I am somewhat puzzled that the Treasury has allowed the Government to suggest payment of a lump sum which gives no cash flow advantage. I am concerned that the lump sum may have been proposed because the Government want substantially to reduce the money that would otherwise have been paid through the staged process. The amendment's purpose is to obtain an assurance from the Government that they will not offer a substantially lesser sum than would have been paid through the staged process.
      994
      6.30 pm
      We know that the ultimate purpose of the Bill is to reduce class sizes, and that the Government want to realise the money to achieve that. My hon. Friends have spoken about our belief that the figures do not add up. They do not add up to an even greater extent when one takes into account the proposition that the Government can discharge their obligation through the payment of a lump sum.
      Clearly, schools will need to know the proper costs of the abolition of the assisted places programme. They will need to look at the numbers and the opportunity that they will have to fill the vacated places from other sources. They also need to take into account the costs of restructuring, possible staff redundancies, physical alterations to buildings and all the other costs that will come from the abolition of the scheme.
      I hope, therefore, that the Committee will understand the Opposition's concerns. The schools' needs do not seem to fit with the proposal that the Secretary of State should be able to discharge his obligation through the payment of a lump sum. I ask the Minister to give a categorical assurance that the obligations to the schools that will be hard hit by the abolition of the assisted places scheme will be met properly. I also ask for an assurance that the Minister's desire to discharge those obligations through a lump sum does not and will not involve any lesser payment than would have been made through the staged process.
      Mr. Byers: I begin by addressing the issues raised by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), which he raised in a most appropriate and reasonable manner. I understand his concerns. It is not the Government's intention through the Bill in any way adversely to affect the independent schools that take part in the assisted places scheme at the moment by introducing the possibility of a lump sum arrangement.
      I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we want to proceed on the basis of an agreement with the individual school when considering the introduction of a lump sum payment. We do not wish to impose such a proposal on an individual school, but we believe that there may be circumstances when it is in the interests of both the taxpayer and the individual school to introduce a lump sum payment.
      For example, as the scheme is being wound down, the numbers attending a particular school may be reduced to such a level that the administrative costs for an individual school may outweigh the benefits of the income that it receives from the Government. In those circumstances, it may be in the interests of both the taxpayer and the individual school to seek a lump sum payment.
      I give the shadow Minister an assurance that it is not the Government's intention to impose such a solution on an individual school. We would wish to proceed on the basis of an agreement. Only when such an understanding was arrived at would we want to use the lump sum payment provisions.
      On amendment No. 35, I can genuinely understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). We do not want to introduce a new system that fundamentally alters the present arrangements. Our difficulty is that, as a result of

      995
      provisions elsewhere in the Bill, the participation arrangements and the participation contracts which would cover the issues dealt with by the hon. Gentleman will no longer be with us. As the participation agreements are no longer there, we have to find a new procedure to deal with the issues that would normally have been covered by such agreements.
      The provisions merely reflect the arrangements that operated under the previous Government. We do not wish to change in any dramatic way the provisions that apply under existing regulations. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, the existing provisions, specifically section 480(1)(b) of the Education Act 1996, give a degree of flexibility to the arrangements. We wish to see that flexibility in the Bill.
      Flexibility is necessary. It was interesting that, in moving amendment No. 35, the hon. Gentleman specifically addressed the need for provisions to deal with fees escalating. In some cases, fees in the independent sector go down, so we need flexibility in the funding arrangements to reflect changes that may take place. The provisions in clause 3 continue the existing arrangements and give the flexibility to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is not the Government's intention to intervene directly in these matters as long as we can secure value for taxpayers' money. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees on the necessity of achieving that.
      The hon. Gentleman raised an important point about representations being made. We have sympathy with that approach and we do not want to disturb the existing arrangements whereby representations can be made in the way that the hon. Gentleman outlined. I hope that I have been able to assure Conservative Members about our intentions in clause 3, and I hope that they will reconsider the necessity of pressing the amendment.
      Mr. Lidington: I am grateful to the Minister for his response, which was not only courteous and informative, but dealt helpfully with my concerns. In view of his assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 25, at end insert—
      '(g) require local education authorities to provide information to the Secretary of State about the financial and other effects of the abolition of the assisted places scheme.'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in clause 3, page 3, line 42, leave out 'or (b)' and insert `(b) or (g)'.
      No. 4, page 3, line 46, at end insert—
      '(7) Before making regulations under this Section, the Secretary of State shall, in respect of any area in which there is a former participating school, consult the local education authority for that area concerning the availability of alternative school places in that area and the cost that will fall to the local education authority of providing such places.'.
      New clause 1—Annual report to Parliament—
      '.-Within one year of this Act coming into force, and annually thereafter for a period of no less than seven years, the Secretary of State shall make a report to Parliament on the effect of the abolition of the assisted places schemes.'.
      Mr. Foster: The amendments would mean that local education authorities would be required to provide
      996
      reports to the Secretary of State on the effects of the abolition of the assisted places scheme, including the financial implications. They would also require the Secretary of State to make an annual report to Parliament during the seven years of the phasing out of the assisted places scheme in order to detail the impact of the Bill.
      The whole Committee will agree that since the new Government came to power, they have introduced a large number of proposals. Indeed, in doing so, they have left a number of people fairly breathless and somewhat uncertain about whether some of the proposals are likely to deliver the goods.
      Indeed, on several occasions, the House and the British people have been asked to take a rather large number of issues on trust. Yesterday, for example, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was debating with our European partners his proposals for resolving the significant unemployment problems throughout Europe. He announced various proposals that a number of people, including the Irish Foreign Minister, subsequently described as rather thin.
      Today, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced her proposals to require primary schools to introduce one hour of literacy teaching every day. Again, much has had to be taken on trust. As the Under-Secretary of State knows, the national curriculum is massively overloaded, and it will be difficult to put that proposal into practice.
      Many of us are concerned that unless the Government get the whole package right, they may not be able to deliver some of their worthwhile proposals. The same applies to the Bill. The Government are introducing legislation to abolish the assisted places scheme, through which they intend to save money in order to reduce class sizes for primary school children aged five, six and seven.
      As I have said on previous occasions, the Liberal Democrats entirely support the proposed abolition of the assisted places scheme. We also support the proposal to reduce class sizes. Indeed, we urge the Government to go further and reduce class sizes not just for five, six and seven-year-olds, but for all primary school children, as we believe that class sizes are crucial. However, as has been pointed out several times during the debate, many people have grave reservations as to whether the savings from the abolition of the assisted places scheme will be sufficient to deliver the Government's promise.
      On Thursday, the Minister for School Standards said:
      "We believe that we are moving in a way that will deliver on a clear pledge that we made to the British people during the general election."— [Official Report, 5 June 1997; Vol.295, c. 592.]
      Clearly, the Minister is anxious to keep that pledge and we fully understand that. However, the big question is whether the money that will be released from the assisted places scheme will enable the Government to deliver on it.
      In previous speeches, I have referred to the uncertainty of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales and the considerable doubt expressed by the Institute of Public Finance. I have also referred to the figures that were produced on this very issue by the previous Administration in answer to parliamentary questions. Does the Minister really believe that he can deliver that

      997
      pledge just by using the money from the assisted places scheme? I always believed that he did until I listened carefully to him on Thursday when he said:
      "We have always made it clear that the pledge will be honoured at the end of the lifetime of this Parliament. By the year 2000, £100 million will be freed up from the assisted places scheme, and that will make an important contribution towards achieving our class sizes pledge."—[Official Report, 5 June 1997; Vol.295, c. 595.]
      It is therefore quite clear from that that even the Minister is beginning to doubt whether the money that will be released will be sufficient to achieve what he wants.
      Mr. Byers: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that a Parliament normally lasts five years. I do not know whether he needs one of our numeracy hours, but five years will take us to 2002. We shall save £1 million by the turn of the century and the following two years will provide even more money to ensure that we can deliver on our class sizes pledge.
      Mr. Foster: If I need a numeracy hour, the Minister certainly does, too. He has just told the House that his proposals will save only £1 million. I am sure that he meant to say £100 million. Never mind, I shall get it right for him.
      The Minister cannot deny that many people are concerned about the figures. When the Under-Secretary of State replies to the debate, perhaps she will answer a question that she was asked on Thursday: whether she and the Government are prepared to place in the Library their own estimates of the savings that will be achieved by the abolition of the assisted places scheme and the cost of meeting their pledge. After all, the details of how they plan to deliver have not yet been worked out, and are not likely to be available until the White Paper is published at the end of the month.
      The Minister might also like to consider other ways of saving additional money to meet another pledge that we have not heard so much about that may also contribute to reducing class sizes. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us whether we are shortly to hear about the abolition of the Funding Agency for Schools as that would save some £12.5 million. I do not know whether she has had a chance to look at the report in The Guardian today. If she has not, I thoroughly recommend it.
      6.45 pm
      The abolition of the Funding Agency for Schools will be supported by Members on both sides of the House when they discover that it is now spending taxpayers money on producing a booklet called "Media Advice Notes for Schools". As The Guardian points out, the advice brings
      "to mind spoof hints to foreign visitors, such as: don't wait to be served in a British pub—you're expected to help yourself;".
      Some of it is quite amazing. It begins:
      "Contact with your local media is invaluable … Journalists do not generally appreciate large drinks or heavy lunches—but they may well accept an invitation to lunch in the school canteen."
      If that is the advice of the Funding Agency for Schools, I suspect that the Government would do well to abolish it quickly and save a bit of extra money to help provide the funding that they will need to deliver on their pledge on class sizes.
      998
      On Second Reading, I made it clear that we are not all convinced that the sums add up, but we are prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt. We hope that they will be able to produce the document to which I referred and place it in the Library as quickly as possible. We also believe that, in order to keep track of what the Government are doing and whether they are living up to their pledge, it is vital that local education authorities report annually to the Secretary of State, and that the Secretary of State reports to Parliament. That is the import of the amendments and I hope that they will be supported by the Government and by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
      Ms Estelle Morris: The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has raised some interesting points. I share his concern about accountability and the House having every opportunity to monitor what the Government are doing and to make sure that we are working towards achieving our clear targets.
      It is indeed our intention to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds to 30 by the end of this Parliament—2002. I know that the hon. Gentleman agrees. I look forward to his encouragement and support in our progress towards achieving that aim.
      We accept that reports should be made to the House on an annual basis, on policies and financial plans. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that that is already included in the Department's annual report. In that sense the amendments and the new clauses are unnecessary.
      I can also give him further assurances—
      Mr. Byers: Not too many.
      Ms Morris: —but not too many, as my hon. Friend says—that we are not seeking to avoid our responsibility to answer to the House for our actions and to make sure that we keep the pledges that we made to the electorate. I therefore assure him that we shall make arrangements to include in the annual report a section that specifically deals with the progress being made in the phasing out of assisted places and our work toward reducing class sizes.
      Turning to amendments Nos. 1 and 2, local authorities already provide annual returns to the Government and much of that information will take into account any changes arising from the phasing out of the assisted places scheme. I hope that the hon. Member for Bath will accept the assurances in the spirit in which they were given. We want to move towards our goal. We have no wish to avoid being answerable to the House for either our policies or our financial needs.
      Mr. Don Foster: The Under-Secretary is clearly about to finish her speech, but I think that the House would be interested in answers to the two other questions. Will she place a report in the Library as soon as possible detailing the Government's estimate of the cost of reducing class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds; and what plans does she have for the abolition of the Funding Agency for Schools for England?
      Ms Morris: The Funding Agency for Schools for England is not a proper matter for debate either under this group of amendments or the Bill. We shall be addressing

      999
      those matters in due course. I know that the hon. Gentleman will look forward to a debate on whatever is announced.
      We have made available all the financial information that we are obliged to make available under consideration of the Bill. Our financial plans and policies will be made available in the annual report. Having given those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Bath will accept them and withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Foster: Unfortunately, although I am very tempted by the Under-Secretary's assurances, I cannot accept her suggestion to withdraw the amendment. I shall explain clearly why I am not prepared to do so. I asked very simply whether she was prepared to place a detailed analysis of the Government's figures on the likely cost of the reduction of class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds, but her answer was that they have provided all the information that they are required to provide.
      We know that the amount of financial information that has been made available in respect of the Bill is very limited and does not answer many of the questions raised. The fear must therefore be that the section of the annual report to which the Under-Secretary referred—I am grateful to her for at least making that commitment—may provide only the bare minimum of information that the Government are required to provide. The House and the country deserve a far more detailed analysis—financial and otherwise—of a very important Government pledge. If we cannot get them to provide such analysis, it is important that the House should decide whether the commitment should be imposed on them. For that reason, I shall press the amendment to a Division.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 38, Noes 340.

      Division No. 25]

      [6.52 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Keetch, Paul

      Baker, Norman

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Brake, Thomas

      Moore, Michael

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Oaten, Mark

      Breed, Colin

      Opik, Lembit

      Burnett, John

      Rendel, David

      Burstow, Paul

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Chidgey, David

      Sanders, Adrian

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Cotter, Brian

      Thompson, William

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Wallace, James

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Webb, Steven

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Willis, Phil

      Gorrie, Donald

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Harvey, Nick

      Mr. Paul Tyler and

      Heath, David (Somerton)

      Mr. Andrew Standell.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Ashton, Joe

      Ainger, Nick

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Atkins, Ms Charlotte

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Barnes, Harry

      Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)

      Barron, Kevin

      1000

      Battle, John

      Denham, John

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Beard, Nigel

      Dismore, Andrew

      Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Benton, Joe

      Doran, Frank

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dowd, Jim

      Berry, Roger

      Drew, David

      Best, Harold

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Blackman, Mrs Liz

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Blizzard, Robert

      Edwards, Huw

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Efford, Clive

      Borrow, David

      Ellman, Ms Louise

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Etherington, Bill

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Fisher, Mark

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna

      Flint, Ms Caroline

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Flynn, Paul

      Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

      Follett, Ms Barbara

      Burden, Richard

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Burgon, Colin

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Butler, Christine

      Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

      Byers, Stephen

      Foulkes, George

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Galloway, George

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Gapes, Mike

      Canavan, Dennis

      Gardiner, Barry

      Cann, Jamie

      Gerrard, Neil

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Casale, Roger

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Caton, Martin

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Cawsey, Ian

      Godsrff, Roger

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Chaytor, David

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Graham, Thomas

      Clapham, Michael

      Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Grogan, John

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Gunnell, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hain, Peter

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clelland, David

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hanson, David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Healey, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Colman, Anthony (Putney)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Connarty, Michael

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Heppell, John

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cooper, Ms Yvette

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Corbett, Robin

      Hill, Keith

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Cranston, Ross

      Hoey, Kate

      Crausby, David

      Home Robertson, John

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hope, Philip

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Curtis-Thomas, Ms Clare

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Darvill, Keith

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (StretfordA Urmston)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Davidson, Ian

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Hurst, Alan

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Hutton, John

      Dawson, Hilton

      Iddon, Brian

      Dean, Ms Janet

      Illsley, Eric

      1001

      Ingram, Adam

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

      Mounttord, Ms Kali

      Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

      Mudie, George

      Jamieson, David

      Mullin, Chris

      Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

      Murphy, Dennis (Wansbeck)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Johnson, Ms Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

      Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Osborne, Mrs Sandra

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pearson, Ian

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Pike, Peter L

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Plaskitt, James

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

      Pond, Chris

      Kemp, Fraser

      Pope, Greg

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Pound, Stephen

      Khabra, Piara S

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Kidney, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Purchase, Ken

      Kingham, Tessa

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Rammell, Bill

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Rapson, Syd

      Laxton, Bob

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Lepper, David

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Robertson, Rt Hon George

      Levitt, Tom(Hamilton S)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Rogers, Allan

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Rooker, Jeff

      Linton, Martin

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Rowlands, Ted

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Roy, Frank

      McAllion, John

      Ruane, Chris

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      McCabe, Stephen

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Salter, Martin

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McDonagh, Ms Siobhain

      Sawford, Phil

      Maodonald, Calum

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McDonnell, John

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McFall, John

      Sheerman, Barry

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McIsaac, Ms Shona

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McMaster, Gordon

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McNulty, Tony

      Singh, Marsha

      MacShane, Denis

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      McWilliam, John

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Mallaber, Ms Judy

      Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mandelson, Peter

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Marek, Dr John

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Soley, Clive

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Martlew, Eric

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Maxton, John

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Michael, Alun

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Milburn, Alan

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Miller, Andrew

      Stott, Roger

      Mitchell, Austin

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Moffatt, Laura

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Stringer, Graham

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      (Dewsbury)

      1002

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Whitehead, Alan

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Williams, Dr Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Timms, Stephen

      Tipping, Paddy

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Todd, Mark

      Wills, Michael

      Touhig, Don

      Wilson, Brian

      Trickett, Jon

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Truswell, Paul

      Wise, Audrey

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Wood, Mike

      Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

      Woolas, Phil

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Worthington, Tony

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Wyatt, Derek

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Wareing, Robert N

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Watts, David

      Mr. Clive Betts and

      White, Brian

      Mr. Graham Allen.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Clauses 3 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New clause 2

      POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE TO ASSIST PUPILS
      `Nothing in this Act shall prevent a local authority from reimbursing a former participating school in respect of the fees of any pupil resident in the area of that local authority whom the authority determines may benefit from education at that school.'.—[Mr. St. Aubyn.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 3—Power of charity to continue to assist pupils—
      '—(1) Nothing in this Act shall prevent a charity from reimbursing either—

      (a) a former participating school, or

      (b) a local authority,

      in respect of the fees of any pupil resident in the area of that local authority whom the authority determines may benefit from education at that school.
      (2) Expenditure by a charity in making a reimbursement under subsection (1) above shall be charitable expenditure within the meaning of section 44 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993.'
      Mr. St. Aubyn: I have found out about powers that the House has that, as a new Member, I had not dreamed I would be learning about so soon. I am very grateful to the Public Bills Office for its assistance in drafting the new clauses. I apologise if they are deficient, but they come from a new Back Bencher. I should like to explain their purpose.
      In the debate in Committee, Conservatives have felt that we were dealing with closed minds in the Government. I hope that the Ministers will take the opportunity of the new clauses to show that they do not have closed minds and that they are prepared to listen to points that are made consistently and in a heartfelt way by Opposition Members. When a point with which Ministers feel that they can agree is made, I hope that they are prepared to listen. I hope that that will prove to be the case with the new clauses.

      1003
      I also hope that the Liberal Democrats, bearing in mind what they said about their support for local partnership schemes in their manifesto, will give their support to the new clause.
      Mr. Don Foster: If it enables the hon. Gentleman to move on, I can assure him that, if the new clauses are pressed to a vote, he will get the support of the Liberal Democrats.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that assurance. It is welcome and, no doubt, it will add weight to the arguments that I shall put to the Government.
      While it may go against the grain for a new Labour Government to use funds from the Department for Education and Employment to meet the costs of the assisted places scheme, we have already established in debate that the additional cost, over the standard cost of education in the state sector, is no more than around £1,000 per child per year. I may be being optimistic, but in certain areas—including my area in Surrey—it might be possible to find charities or companies to put up the money, or to use funds and bursaries from the schools involved in the scheme, to bridge the gap of £1,000 per year. Such charities, companies or bursaries would not be able to meet the much greater cost of nearly £4,000 a year that would arise if all the funding for the scheme were withdrawn. We should not forget, however, that in that case the state sector would still have to pick the tab for educating the children in state schools
      It should also be clear to Ministers that, however comforting the calculations made in their offices by civil servants, the impact of the scheme in certain areas is much greater than in others. While the scheme has not taken root in a big way in the areas that Labour Members represent, it has filled a need in areas about which they do not have the same knowledge but which we represent. That is why we have argued against the Bill hour after hour, and sought an extra day of debate.
      I will give some examples. In the county of Surrey, there are 1,264 children on the assisted places scheme in 22 schools. In contrast, in Buckinghamshire there are just nine children at one school involved in the scheme. If we consider our cities, they tell the same story. In the city of Bristol, there are nearly 1,500 children involved in nine schools; yet in the much larger city of Birmingham there are barely 600 children involved in just six schools.
      Just as the take-up of assisted places is concentrated in certain areas, the problems and difficulties created by winding down the scheme would also be concentrated. The problem is made worse because of the decision already made today that the education of those on the scheme in the primary sector will end at the age of 11. That will mean that, as the scheme is phased out, all the burden on the local state sector will be borne by one year group—year seven. While we heard some comforting numbers from the Minister the other day about the tiny percentage of children involved who will be shifted from the independent sector to state schools, in Guildford the year group numbers will be inflated by nearly 10 per cent. That is why the pressures of the scheme need a valve to relieve them.
      In Surrey, we have other pressures. We already have rising school rolls. This afternoon I spoke to the chairman of Surrey county council education committee, who said
      1004
      that we will have to find an extra £3 million to cope with the rising school numbers in the state system, even before the effect of the abolition of the scheme. While the marginal cost of educating a child in the state sector at secondary school and in sixth form may be only £2,700, that does not take account of capital expenditure. The rise in numbers will not be absorbed by schools in my area without incurring further capital expenditure. It is clear that there are many reasons why certain local authorities would be keen to see the scheme continued.
      I am conscious that we have heard from some Labour Members that they are against the assisted places scheme in principle, and not just because of the savings that they claim will be achieved to help primary schools. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) has said:
      "My main reason for wanting to get rid of the assisted places scheme is that it perpetuates the class system."— [Official Report, 2 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 46.]
      The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has told us that this is a socialist Bill. We know that, but the Government are new Labour and we hope that they will listen to our points.
      7.15 pm
      Labour Members may believe that the scheme is divisive in their areas, but the assisted places scheme, far from being divisive, gives children in my constituency a wider choice and opportunity. They are lucky to have good state schools and they are also lucky to have the choice of assisted places. Independent education is extremely popular in my area. Nearly one in five families choose to send their children to independent schools. In such an area, the scheme is not divisive. I recognise, of course, that the area that I represent is fortunate.
      If the Government wish to make savings on assisted places to give more money to primary schools to achieve the class sizes that have already been achieved in Surrey, they are entitled to do so. However, the purpose of the new clauses is to ask the Government not to be dogmatic and to leave some flexibility for local education authorities, such as Surrey, to try to bridge the gap of £1,000 a year that an assisted place costs on average through independent funding.
      If we can find that funding from somewhere, why should the Government stand in the way? The Government will still make the savings that they have budgeted for on behalf of primary schools. In fact, given the doubts that we have cast on the savings, the real risk is that by pressing ahead with the scheme now you will not make those savings because of the knock-on effects of winding down the scheme. It is in your interests as much as in ours and our constituents' to allow the flexibility that the new clauses will provide.
      New clause 2 would make it clear that local authorities could take the initiative and continue with a form of the assisted places scheme. The purpose of new clause 3 is to provide for a wide range of sources of funding to bridge the gap between the standard cost of a secondary school education and that of an assisted place. It would ensure that the widest possible range of sources of funding would be achieved.
      I believe that it was a Government press release that, only a couple of weeks ago, talked of allowing lottery funds to be used to promote education, health and other

      1005
      initiatives that fell outside the services provided by taxation. There could be no clearer example of an initiative that, on your own definition, falls outside—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is a new Member, but he keeps using the words "you" and "your". The matters under discussion are not my responsibility.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Lord. I will try to remember it.
      I was trying to explain that the Government issued a press release clearly setting out the case for lottery funding, among other sources, to be used for initiatives that they do not consider should fall within the ambit of their departmental spending—a decision that, as a Government, they are entitled to make. Surely, if there is any initiative which deserves such funding, it must be the initiative that I am suggesting.
      The new clause does not demand or instruct that lottery funds be used to provide money for the assisted places; it merely leaves open avenues that should be left open, in a free and open society in which the Government do not seek to dictate the minutiae of how individual local authorities and areas seek to answer educational needs as best they can, by meeting the challenge of providing a good education in their areas.
      I would welcome a contribution by the Minister for School Standards, if he would like to make one, before I press the new clause to a vote.
      Mr. Byers: First, I welcome the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), to the Committee. We missed her last week, and I am delighted to see that she is now in robust good health.
      On new clause 3, the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) talked about the potential for using the proceeds from the national lottery to replace the funding now available through the assisted places scheme. That shows the fundamental difference concerning the way in which the Government wish to use the proceeds from the national lottery.
      We have been greatly concerned that in the past the proceeds were often used to fund the pet projects of individuals, which did not reflect the interests or needs of the nation at large. The lottery was used to buy the Churchill papers, for example, and for other types of spending that we feel do not suit what should be the people's lottery. We want to see the resources gained from people playing the people's lottery devoted to causes that have broad popular support. I have to tell the hon. Member for Guildford that I do not believe that using the proceeds of the lottery to replace the assisted places scheme would be applauded throughout the country.
      People play the lottery, obviously, in the hope of winning, but also in the belief that some of the profits will be used for good causes. In my view—the hon. Gentleman may disagree with it—a new form of assisted places scheme funded by the national lottery would not be regarded as a good use of the proceeds of the national lottery. The Labour party believes that the lottery should
      1006
      be used to improve aspects that go beyond statutory provision, but which can in real terms add genuine quality to our provision for young people.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: Surely the idea of children from low-income families getting an extra opportunity is entirely in keeping with the thinking behind the lottery.
      Mr. Byers: The Government are determined that all children will be offered a high-quality education. That is the real challenge that we face in government. There should be no question of a small group of individual children, whether from low-income families or not, receiving a quality of education denied to other young people.
      That is why we have had the debate today and last Thursday. which has demonstrated clearly the fundamental divisions between the present Government and the Members who now sit on the Opposition Benches. They had responsibility for the education service for 18 years, and although I concede that they offered a good quality of education to a handful of young people, for the vast majority they offered a quality of education that my hon. Friends and I find unacceptable.
      Mr. John Hayes: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Byers: In a second.
      We must turn that round, and in the process we shall use the funds from the assisted places scheme to make a positive contribution.
      In addition, as we have said, we shall use money from the national lottery for other purposes. For example, it can fund homework clubs where young people can have support in doing their homework in a quiet environment after school hours. We believe that, in providing for that, we shall add real quality to the education that young children receive.
      Mr. Hayes: The Minister described as "poor quality" the education offered to many children over the past 18 years. Does he concede that that was, at least in part, the responsibility of local education authorities most of which were controlled by the Labour party for much of the past 18 years?
      Secondly, will he define for us the difference between what he regards as core provision—in which I would include homework—and what he regards as somehow outside core provision, so that homework clubs can legitimately be funded as he describes?
      Mr. Byers: Well—
      Mr. Hayes: That was two interventions for the price of one.
      Mr. Byers: Yes, but it should be a question of quality rather than quantity. Both his interventions show that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who is a new Member, has forgotten the policies of the Conservative Government, who refused to take action on homework. When we were in opposition, we argued that there should at least be guidance on homework. The then Government rejected that idea.

      1007
      We recognised the importance of homework in terms of developing education opportunities for young people, but that was not the view taken by the Conservative Government. We were disappointed by their negative response. As things stand, homework is not part of statutory provision, but there should be an expensive network of homework clubs, and we shall use the proceeds of the national lottery to support such initiatives.
      We do not believe that new clause 3 shows a proper way forward, or that lottery funds should be used to buy places in the private sector. On new clause 2, I hope that I can offer some comfort to the hon. Member for Guildford—certainly in line with the spirit in which he introduced it.
      However, before I do so, I shall pick up two of the points that the hon. Gentleman made. He mentioned a meeting that he had with the chairman of Surrey education committee, who expressed concern about the increase in pupil numbers in the county and the impact that that would have on its education budget. We too are worried about the effects of rising pupil numbers—we have been for some years. That is why we argued long and hard against the policies of the Conservative Government, who failed to take any account of rising pupil numbers.
      The hon. Gentleman may like to know that, in the past 10 years, the pupil population has increased by 450,000; at the same time, the number of teachers has fallen by 6,000. That is because the Conservative Government failed, as I say, to take into consideration the impact of higher pupil numbers. Hence many of us regard it as richly ironic that the hon. Member for Guildford should argue his case as he does.
      The hon. Member for Guildford mentioned the number of students in his constituency with assisted places. He is right to say that there are more of them in Guildford than almost anywhere else in the country. Indeed, my officials calculate that there are about 259—
      Mr. St. Aubyn: The true figure is 374.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Byers: My officials had great difficulty coming up with a precise figure. The figure that I have quoted relates to the number of young people actually attending schools in Guildford on assisted places. There appears to be a discrepancy in the figures, and I am prepared to accept the hon. Gentleman's version. Either way, it is considerably higher than the national average.
      The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that there are nearly 7,000 infants in classes of more than 30 in Surrey. In this Government's view, we should be tackling class sizes for those children, using money that currently goes to the fewer than 400 on assisted places.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: The average primary school class size in Surrey is only 26, and four out of five classes contain 30 or fewer children. The problem is that, to meet the Government's target of a maximum 30 per class, more of the 7,000 children that the Minister mentioned will be required to accept their parents' second or third choice of school. That may involve travelling further so as to bring some classes up to 30 and keep others down to 30. Some bright children may be pushed into higher years, while other children may be asked to move down to a lower
      1008
      year. All of this will be necessary to meet the Government's target, because there will be no extra money for teachers in Surrey.
      Mr. Byers: We shall deal with some of those issues in the White Paper that we intend to publish towards the end of this month or at the beginning of next month. We shall consult extensively, talking to authorities such as Surrey's to ensure that we put in place a scheme that will deliver smaller classes without causing difficulties for parental preference.
      The main point made by the hon. Member for Guildford concerned giving local authorities the power to use their resources to pay for places in the independent sector. I intend to ask the Committee to reject new clause 2, because it is unnecessary to include its provisions in the Bill, given that the Scholarship and Other Benefit Regulations 1977, made under section 518 of the Education Act 1996, already give LEAs the discretion to pay the whole or part of tuition fees, boarding or lodging fees, and other expenses relating to the attendance of a pupil at a fee-paying school. Those regulations cover most of what the hon. Member for Guildford sought.
      If the local authority wants to use the money that it raises locally for this purpose, that is for it to decide. It will be held accountable by Surrey people, if that is how it wants to spend money from the education budget. The authority has the freedom to exercise that power—
      Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Minister make it absolutely clear that, if the local authority decides to provide a place for a child at a fee-paying school and can bridge the gap between the cost of a place at the state school and the cost of a place at the independent school by raising the money from charity, sponsorship and so on to do so, the Department will still refund the local authority to the tune of at least the standard cost of such a child's education, had he or she remained in the state sector?
      Mr. Byers: That is a quite different point, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows. A child attending an independent school will not trigger a payment for standard spending assessment purposes, and we have no plans to change that arrangement. I therefore cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. What I can say is that existing regulations allow local authorities to bear the full costs of a place in the independent sector—and rightly so. The hon. Gentleman is trying to move us on to a different debate which may not be entirely in order this evening.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: As I pointed out earlier, the standard spending assessment cost is critical. If the local authority is paid that cost, it is entirely realistic in areas such as ours to hope that the additional cost of sending the child to a fee-paying school can be met—
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Interventions must be brief. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a speech during an intervention.
      Mr. Byers: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. The local authority must carry the full cost of exercising its discretion.

      1009
      I hope that I have been able to reassure the hon. Member for Guildford, at least in part. I know that I have not been able to give him complete satisfaction, but I can at least say that the power he wants to give to local authorities already exists. We can see no merit in including such a provision in the Bill, because it merely duplicates a power already in existence.
      I ask the Committee to reject the new clause if it is pressed to a Division.
      Mr. Lembit Öpik: The Liberal Democrats support the new clauses, on the grounds that they are simply common sense. The Government have said that they want a smooth and sensitive transition from where we are to where we want to be. The new clauses would facilitate such a responsible transition.
      We would be completely opposed, however, to the provisions being used as an opportunity to reintroduce the assisted places scheme by the back door. Nevertheless, there must be sufficient flexibility in the system to ensure that children who in some exceptional circumstance can benefit from a special opportunity for study are allowed to do so.
      There must be an element of trusting local authorities: we must believe that they would not necessarily abuse the additional provisions. If we cannot trust authorities to make responsible decisions, there is a great problem in our education structure.
      Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman says that the Liberal Democrats support the new clauses. Do they support new clause 3 and the use of lottery funds to buy places in the private sector?
      Mr. Öpik: If that led to the simple replacement of the assisted places scheme with a similar scheme paid for by the lottery, absolutely not. We are saying that the provisions could provide a way for the Government to honour their commitment to a strict spending package and yet provide local authorities with some flexibility, ensuring that the people who benefit from the special educational opportunity can survive. I emphasise again that we are with the Government on abolition of the assisted places scheme: we do not support its reintroduction.
      We are concerned about being seen to be fair. We want local authorities to have some limited flexibility to make such decisions. The Minister has reassured us about the provision that already exists. If that provides the flexibility that we seek to achieve through the new clause, perhaps that is a satisfactory solution, but if there is a failure to honour that flexibility in the long term, we shall be uncomfortable about it.
      We support the new clause on the assumption that the provisions represent a sensible way in which to proceed, but we do not want assisted places to be supported wholesale by the national lottery.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), and I welcome the Minister's comments, as far as they go, but I am afraid that we have witnessed a loss of nerve tonight. The imaginative course would be to leave open a variety of
      1010
      opportunity in the Bill, when it is being offered on terms which do not jeopardise the plans to increase spending on primary school teachers.
      It is a great pity because, in the Minister's narrow interpretation of a local authority's existing powers we heard a sharp closing down of the scheme and of the opportunities that it would give to children over and above those that we all want to give them in the state sector. I am, however, grateful to him for making it clear that all the local authorities' powers may be used to create what we might still loosely term assisted places and the Government will not stand in the way.
      Having secured some clarification and assistance, with as much grace as I can, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      Schedule agreed to.
      Bill reported, without amendment.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      7.45 pm
      Ms Estelle Morris: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      The Bill is one of the first of the new Government. It shows our commitment to education and our determination to have an education service that raises standards for the many, not the few. It makes it absolutely clear that we have turned our back on policies based on the belief that only a few can succeed or that to reach the top one has to escape from the maintained sector.
      The Bill will release funds that we will use to cut to 30 or fewer class sizes for all five, six and seven-year-olds. That pledge was one of the reasons why the people elected us to govern. Today, less than six weeks after the general election, we are passing legislation that will provide the resources to enable us to keep our promise.
      Throughout our consideration of the Bill, we have been reminded that the maintained sector was run for the past 18 years by a Government who did not believe in its potential. We share the understandable concern that children should attend schools where they can achieve at the highest levels. We differ, in that Conservative Members such as the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) believe that that cannot be done in the state sector.
      Bright children pass examinations, go to universities and other institutions of further learning and take posts in all walks of life, at all levels, with all sorts of responsibilities, having been educated and given their life chances in the state system. The challenge for our country is not to devise ways of helping some to escape to the private sector but to ensure that all our pupils get the standard of education that can currently be found in the best of our state schools.
      The resources that will be released through the Bill will be used to give a better start to the 440,000 five, six and seven-year-olds who are currently in classes of more than 30. Class sizes matter. They matter most in the early years, because children can get more attention, more teacher time and more space, and they can be taught in more manageable groups. It is not the only thing that matters and will not by itself solve all the problems that

      1011
      we face in our education service, but we believe that it is a crucial part of our overall plans to raise standards for our children.
      No one can be surprised by the contents of the Bill. As was drawn to our attention on Second Reading, we have opposed the assisted places scheme every single year since it was introduced. Private schools have had every opportunity to prepare for the removal of the subsidy. In any case, the Bill fulfils our promise to protect the interests of those children who are currently in the scheme or who have already been offered places to start in the next academic year.
      The previous Government presided over steadily rising class sizes. Much has been said by Conservative Members about the number of assisted places in their constituencies. They have not spoken about the five, six and seven-year-olds in their constituencies who will benefit from a reduction in class size: 7,000 in the area that includes the constituency of Chesham and Amersham; 4,000 children in the area that includes the constituency of the shadow Secretary of State; and almost 50 per cent. of the children in Bromley, which includes the constituency of the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
      Mrs. Gillan: Will the hon. Lady confirm that there are no assisted places in her constituency, that of the Minister for School Standards or that of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment? Is she not happy to introduce the measure because she knows that it does not affect any of her constituents?
      Ms Morris: That comment does not deserve an answer, but I shall answer it.
      We were elected to speak for the people of this country, for parents who wanted opportunities for their children and who were fed up with finding that their children were not getting the best chance at infant school because they were in large classes. I have every confidence that what we have said during the Bill's passage will be welcomed by parents and teachers who, like us, want to give a good start to all our children. Our belief in the inherent value of every child, and in the potential of every child to achieve, is different from the values of Conservative Members, which are vested in the potential of only a few children.
      If I thought for one minute that the brightest children could not achieve in the state sector, I would not support the Bill. The brightest children can achieve. The children of the Lady's constituents and of those of other hon. Members have gone on to achieve great things. If she had shown the same passion for the state system that she has shown for the independent sector during the Bill's passage, I confidently believe that we would not have inherited a system in chaos.
      We speak for parents, for children and for all people who want high standards for everyone. When the Conservatives had the chance to do something about class size, for their constituents or for ours, they did nothing. We will take action. The Bill honours a pledge to the electorate on assisted places. It confirms our determination to make education our highest priority. The resources that it will release will help in our drive to raise standards. It is a good Bill; the House has had the opportunity to consider it; and it will be welcomed by the public. I commend it to the House.
      1012
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Nine hon. Members wish to make their maiden speeches. May I ask more experienced Members to assist me, because I wish to call as many maiden speakers as possible who have been in the Chamber all day?
      7.52 pm
      Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I thank the Minister for School Standards for his kind words. I apologise for my absence, which was enforced by antibiotics, from Committee last Thursday. To judge from the Official Report, there was a thorough discussion, at least by Opposition Members, of some aspects of the Bill's intentions, although there was little clarification of its practical effects from the Government.
      It is a matter of regret that the passage of the Bill so far reinforces the somewhat unattractive reputation that the Government have earned in the few short weeks since the general election. They have earned a reputation for seeking to disregard the parliamentary process; for an over-mighty attitude towards the conventions of the House; for a determination to drive through dogma-led policies, regardless of the consequences for individuals, institutions or local education authorities; for an inability on the part of Ministers to answer the simplest of questions about the means by which their ends are to be achieved; and for a reliance instead on the use of soundbites as solutions.
      On disregarding the parliamentary process, the Bill was published on the first day of the spring bank holiday recess, when the House was not sitting. The compliance cost assessment was not made available in time for Second Reading. The Government attempted to compress all debate on the Bill into just one and a half days. Information requested through written parliamentary questions was not made available for Committee, truncated as it was, until points of order were raised. To judge from the Official Report of Friday's proceedings, a rather irritable business statement had to be wrung out of the Leader of the House so that the Bill could proceed this week.
      Mr. Byers: It is important to clarify the point about parliamentary questions. Answers to parliamentary questions can be provided by 3.30 pm at the earliest, and very often, as Government Members who have been in opposition well know, they are often not received until nearer 10 pm. The parliamentary questions to which replies were made last Thursday were handed to Opposition Front Benchers by 4.30 pm at the latest so that they had the information to take part in the debate. It is misleading to say that answers to parliamentary questions should be received at 3.30 pm; it is 3.30 pm at the earliest.
      Mrs. Shephard: I was not aware that I had made that point. I merely said that answers to parliamentary questions were not delivered until asked for. The Minister will agree that that is the case.
      The Government say that this is only a seven-clause Bill, the implication being that time need not have been devoted to debating it. They also say, and Ministers have reiterated today, that the Bill is very important. We agree, because it is about the principles of freedom and choice

      1013
      in education. Those words have been curiously absent from the enormous thesaurus of statements of reviews and announcements which have poured out of Ministers' mouths since 2 May. It is significant that, although the Government claim that they attach importance to the Bill, they do not attach so much importance to it that they wanted to have more than a one and a half day debate on it. Nor did they wish that its provisions should be subjected to the proper scrutiny of a full Committee stage upstairs.
      To judge from the Official Report and from today's proceedings, Government Members are entirely uncritical of the Bill's effects on their constituents, their local education authorities and their maintained schools. They apparently have no questions about when class sizes may be reduced, by how much or by what means. That is fortunate for Ministers, because they have no answers.
      Let us turn to the substance and purpose of the Bill. It is designed to reduce choice and opportunity for children from poorer backgrounds who could benefit from a different route through education in a different sort of school. On that we are agreed. The difference between the Opposition and the Government is that we know that choice and variety in education help to drive up standards, while the Government choose to deny it, except in some cases where their own children are concerned. As I said on Second Reading, the Government are motivated by that old Labour principle: if all cannot have, none should. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said on Second Reading that it is a socialist Bill. We agree.
      The Government have been unable to explain why they have gone back on the commitment made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle). I do not propose to rehearse the arguments about that, because they were thoroughly debated earlier. I heard what the Secretary of State said. I certainly do not regard him as dishonourable, but it is absolutely clear from the letter of the hon. Member for Walton, who was then one his shadow team, and from the letter sent to a constituent by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett), that it used to be Labour party policy to allow children to continue with their education until 13. It was a pledge in the clearest terms. It is now equally clear that the pledge will not be honoured. The great question is, given the Secretary of State's emphasis on his discretion, for whom will the promise be kept? That question cannot be answered—like so much else today.
      In even more lamentable responses to questioning by Conservative Members, Ministers have been totally unable to explain the following: exactly how much money would be saved from the abolition of the assisted places scheme; when, year by year, the savings would become available; and the discrepancy between their hope for savings of £100 million by the end of the century and the calculations of the Institute of Public Finance of savings of just £34 million, and that is without taking into account the implications for capital spending. They seem, by their silence on the subject, to have declined to place in the House Library a detailed explanation of that discrepancy. Perhaps we can hope for some answers when the Minister for School Standards winds up.
      1014
      The same airy vagueness surrounds the Government's unsatisfactory responses to the problems of individual local education authorities, which will result from the scheme's abolition. It is clear from the Library research paper that the effect on different LEAs will vary enormously. Perhaps the Minister for School Standards will explain how the Government propose to cope with that.
      My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) asked the Minister for School Standards how many additional primary teachers would be provided from the abolition of the assisted places scheme. His answer was masterly in its character of non-sequitur. No doubt, it was provided by the Department, but it was signed by the Minister, who is smiling—I think that he remembers, therefore. When asked how many additional teachers would be provided from the abolition of the assisted places scheme, he replied:
      "It will be for individual LEAs to judge what adjustments will be needed to primary teacher numbers to ensure smaller classes."
      I am sure that he will explain how it is that, somehow or another, one of them signed the wrong answer to the right question.
      I suggest to the Minister that LEAs will be interested to know how much money is coming to them from the abolition of the assisted places scheme, when and in what form. I suggest to LEAs that they should not hold their collective breath—they are not likely to get an answer.
      With her customary passion, which I respect, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), has expressed on a number of occasions her firm belief that the Bill will help all children. If that is her belief and that of her colleagues, is it not time that we had some answers on how? Labour Members have on many occasions employed the soundbite—or something like it—that the Bill is intended to benefit the many at the expense of the few. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who is not in his place, seemed to have swallowed that argument.
      If that is the view of Ministers, surely they should by now have at least some hazy idea of how they intend the many to benefit. Can they say when the savings will be made—in which academic year—and how many additional primary teachers can be appointed and when? Can they announce a target for the reduction in the size of primary classes? Can they say if, and how, they would ring-fence the money for LEAs? Can they say if they would impose from the centre standard admission arrangements? Can they say how parental choice would be maintained, although I see that that would hardly be their priority? Can they describe how an appeals procedure would have to be changed?
      The truth of the matter is that the House is being asked to agree to the destruction of the assisted places scheme, the destruction of choice and opportunity for children whose parents want them to take that route and the destruction of excellence in order, to use the Minister's words, to benefit the many when they do not have the least idea how to bring that benefit about.
      The Government have cynically sought to limit debate and to disregard the conventions of the House in order not to reveal the fact that they cannot deliver the

      1015
      improvements that they have promised. The Bill is dictated by class envy and dogma. It is destructive of choice and excellence. It will not work, and we oppose it.
      8.3 pm
      Mr. Bob Blizzard: As the newly elected Member for Waveney, I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech on a subject that is dear to my heart and to follow the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), in whose county I have taught for the past 11 years.
      Waveney is distinguished by being the most easterly constituency in the United Kingdom and I have the honour of being the second Labour Member to be elected in the history of the constituency, which was formerly known as Lowestoft. Edward Evans was the first Labour Member, and he served from 1945 to 1959. He is still fondly remembered as a kind, caring and dedicated Member of Parliament.
      Following my success on 1 May, I was delighted to receive a letter of congratulation and support from the chairman of Adnams, the fine Suffolk brewers and wine merchants, especially as he reminded me that his grandfather, Pierce Loftus, was the Member of Parliament for Lowestoft between 1934 and 1945, although he was a Conservative.
      Probably the most famous Member to represent Waveney is the present Lord Prior, who is held in the highest regard even among many Labour voters. I pay tribute also to my predecessor, David Porter, who was a diligent constituency Member. He was proud to represent the area in which he was born and grew up and, as hon. Members will know, he spoke out regularly for the fishing industry. We have lived near each other for 10 years—I as his councillor and he as my Member of Parliament. It is a tribute to him that, despite being adversaries for so long, it was easy to maintain a courteous and dignified relationship, which extended to a reasonably civilised election campaign.
      Waveney—when one finds out where it is—contains the main town of Lowestoft, which is immediately associated with fishing, but there is so much more to our area. Indeed, we want to correct the image of a declining fishing industry. Lowestoft is Britain's most easterly point. That is not as widely known as it should be, and the local district council, which I have had the privilege of leading for the past six years, has been making efforts to try to emulate Land's End in both visitor numbers and the economic benefits that such visitors will bring.
      Lowestoft has the best beach in England. That is official, because it won the competition organised by the English tourist board in 1991—the fact that the competition has not been held since is fortuitous for our town. We also have the beautiful Oulton broad, which is part of the Broads national park.
      Industry is important too. Our geographical position marks Lowestoft as Britain's most easterly port, pointing straight at Europe, with the opportunities that that could bring us. It is also home to the southern fields headquarters of Shell. Bird's Eye and Sanyo are also located in the town.
      Beccles is in the constituency. It is a Suffolk market town of real character, with historic buildings and a riverside quay on the Waveney, which gives the
      1016
      constituency its name. Recently, Beccles had new fame, being the home town of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell). The people of Beccles were full of congratulations for his victory.
      Bungay is another historic market town with a castle. Two or three weeks ago, it celebrated the election of its first mayor. It is also home to the printing press that printed the Prime Minister's book, last year.
      Overall, Waveney has a most pleasant environment, hence the recent marketing slogan for industry, "Room to breathe". The people of Waveney are as loyal and hard-working as one will find anywhere, yet, unfortunately, they suffer the blight of high and sustained unemployment. Waveney is often called the black spot of East Anglia. Unemployment has been double the regional average for 15 years. The people there are fed up. They ask, "Why us?"
      Once Waveney was a thriving area, with shipbuilding, fishing, engineering and canning. Many hon. Members will remember that Waveney was the trademark on the Co-op cans that they bought some years ago. Those industries have gone, but they have not been replaced because of the absence of modern transport links to a remote and peripheral location. The roads to Lowestoft are poor and the railways are worse. Lowestoft is cursed by a lift-up bridge on the trunk road in the middle of the town, which is raised more than 13 times each day, bringing commercial activity to a standstill—I believe, a unique situation in the country.
      The people in Waveney feel neglected and left behind by the failure of Government to modernise transport in our corner of the country. They will be looking to the new Government to rectify that. I intend to pursue the cause vigorously in the House.
      The youngsters in Waveney are not badly educated. Despite enforced cuts, Suffolk county council has done its best to maintain funding above the standard spending assessment level. Parents and pupils generally respect schools and teachers, who in turn are proud of their achievements. But there is also a feeling that education in my constituency could be much better, and my constituents welcome the Government's crusade to raise standards. They are enormously relieved that a stable comprehensive system, brought in by a Conservative county council many years ago, will not be disrupted by the introduction of grammar schools and the extension of education vouchers beyond the nursery phase.
      I have just entered Parliament after 25 years as a teacher in secondary and high schools. I know from my experience that when pupils enter secondary education at 11 or 12 with unsolved literacy or numeracy problems—when they have fallen behind—it is usually too late to remedy the situation. Sadly, experience shows that the likelihood of them catching up is not good. It is all too often a tragic story of continued weakness, low achievement and, sometimes, a failure to gain any qualifications—in short, it is a waste of human potential.
      The Government are therefore right to concentrate on the early years. The Bill's targeting of resources on the early years in order to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds puts the money where it will be of most benefit. It will also complement the provision of more nursery places, using the money that was wasted on voucher bureaucracy.

      1017
      Class size does count—my experience tells me that, all teachers know it and more and more parents know it. As parents spend more time helping in schools, they see for themselves that class size is important. Pupils also know that class size matters. When a youngster remarks on a day when many children are off school with 'flu, "It's nice in here today, sir," he is making a statement on class size. Large numbers in class mean that space can run out and discipline and safety standards can deteriorate.
      Some people try to deny that class size makes a difference, but those same people defend small classes in the schools to which pupils are sent under the assisted places scheme. As we have heard, some hon. Members mourn the demise of the assisted places scheme, but even they know that resources are finite and we have to make the best use of them. It is sensible and fair to spend resources on the many, not the few. That policy also meets the needs of the nation at the end of the century. Our nation no longer needs simply an educated elite, with many less well-educated manual workers, as happened in the 1950s. Times have changed.
      When I consider my education, I realise that I had an assisted place, although it was not called that. I attended a direct grant school and was referred to as someone from a less advantaged background. My father's only connection with the school was that he did some of the signwriting on the honours boards. I know that I had a good education at that school, and I have analysed what made it good. Was it the teachers? I have seen many teachers over 25 years, and when I consider my teachers I realise that some were good, some were ordinary and some were not very good at all. Was it the facilities? There were excellent sports facilities, but facilities in the classroom were not special. Was it the books? No. There were plenty of dog-eared books with broken spines. What made my—assisted place—education good was the fact that the class sizes were small.
      It is fitting that the Government will use state money from the assisted places scheme to reduce class sizes for so many children. There is something wrong if a Government, charged with the responsibility for state education, simply say that they cannot provide for the brightest pupils in that sector and instead rely on the private sector. That sort of Government do not believe in the state system. People expect better of a Government and this Government will do better. That is why I support the Bill.
      8.13 pm
      Mr. Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to be called to make my maiden speech. I shall begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard)—he has the great advantage over me of having overcome the hurdle of the maiden speech. I hope that at the end of my speech I shall have done as well as he did, although I do not have the advantage of his many years as a teacher.
      I was, however, for some years involved in the former Department of Education and Science as a special adviser; I played a part in the creation of the assisted places scheme, which the present Government are undoing. Despite that, I had not intended to make my maiden speech, or to intervene, in the current demolition job on
      1018
      the assisted places scheme. As someone who has been involved in and concerned with education for many years, I thought that it was an open question. I did not know whether the good done by reducing class sizes, which I believe is a matter of importance, would outweigh the advantages of the assisted places scheme. For reasons that I hope to explain, having listened to the debates during the Bill's Committee stage, I have become persuaded that it is imperative for the country to realise what is happening.
      I shall begin with some uncontroversial remarks, as I believe that that is traditional with maiden speeches. The part of the country that I am lucky enough to represent—West Dorset—is, without question and notwithstanding many comments to the contrary in other maiden speeches that I have heard in the past few weeks, the loveliest part of the loveliest county in England. The grandeur of the coast from Abbotsbury to Lyme Regis is unsurpassed, as is the beauty of the hills that stretch from Dorchester in the south to Sherborne in the north.
      West Dorset is a part of England that is old England—where tradition is appropriately mingled with enterprise and where children attend fine schools, both maintained and independent. The vast majority of those children grow into responsible citizens who make a contribution to the community. It is a part of England where the voluntary sector flourishes. I speak not only of charities and other activities often referred to under that heading, but of the vast multitude of cultural, sporting and other activities in which people participate on a voluntary basis. They participate in those activities because they know each other, care about each other and like to act together. It is a part of England where there is, in the proper sense, a community—something which, I fear and regret, is missing from many other parts of the country.
      I shall make another uncontroversial remark: West Dorset, beautiful, prosperous and pleasant as it is, has had the luck to be represented for the past 23 years by an outstanding constituency Member of Parliament, Sir James Spicer. Jim Spicer was held in high esteem on both sides of the House, not least because of his robust defence of democracy in the Westminster Foundation and elsewhere and for the contribution that he made to the physical well-being of Members of Parliament through his immense contribution to the gymnastics performed in the House of Commons gym.
      It was not in the House that Jim was, above all, prized—it has been an extraordinary undertaking for me to replace him as Member of Parliament for West Dorset, where he was held not just in esteem, but in tremendous affection. It was extraordinary to find, throughout the length and breadth of the constituency, that many people who voted for parties other than the Conservative party believed that Jim was an unparalleled constituency Member of Parliament. I repeatedly came across people to whom he had given help, tirelessly and effectively. It is therefore with some humility that I inherit his seat.
      As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I had not intended to participate in the debate. I understood the motive behind the abolition of the assisted places scheme to be the recouping of money to be used to reduce class sizes. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) tabled two new clauses that were rejected by the ministerial team. We were told that where additional money was available—for example, from a charity—Ministers did not intend to allow a local

      1019
      authority that wished to send a child to an independent school to benefit from a unit of standard spending assessment. When the Minister of State said that, I wondered whether the House or indeed the Minister and his officials realised how devastating a hole it blew in the argument about recouping money.
      A child who is currently benefiting from an assisted place and who moves into the maintained sector on the abolition of that place will cost roughly the standard spending assessment. If the local authority is not allowed to spend that money because the child still attends an independent school, albeit supported by an outside source with an amount equal to the difference between the maintained sector cost and the independent school cost, it cannot be the Bill's intention to recoup money. There must be another motive.
      As a Conservative Member, I am perhaps unusual in hoping that the new Labour party has genuinely learned the lesson of the past 18 years and converted to the proposition that is of immense value to our democracy: that there is no longer any merit in fighting ideological battles or in making education the ground for such battles. I was sorely disappointed by the Minister of State's response, because it showed that the Bill has an ideological aim. It is designed not to recoup moneys to reduce class sizes but to end a scheme which, for ideological reasons, is regarded by the Government and their supporters as objectionable.
      That in itself is a retrograde step, and it augurs ill for an issue of even greater moment which, I trust, will shortly come to the House—if in their august majesty the Government deign to bring such matters before the House. I refer to grant-maintained schools, about which the Government have vouchsafed the House and the country little information. If on that matter the Government are driven by the same ideological concerns and dogmatic intentions that have driven them on this issue, it will be sad for the country, for the Labour party, which I thought had grown out of such ways of conducting business, and for our children. I am grateful for being called to speak in the debate.
      8.22 pm
      Mr. Alan Whitehead: I am grateful for this opportunity to make my maiden speech. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on an excellent maiden speech, some of which I agreed with. I especially agreed with his comments about the beauty of his constituency. I have spent many weekends in the Lyme Regis area and I can vouch for the accuracy of his remarks. I hope that the next time the hon. Gentleman sees me sitting on the Cobb at Lyme Regis he will, in a spirit of inter-party friendliness, buy me a cup of tea.
      Some 130 years ago, John Ruskin spoke about the duty of the state. He said:
      "the first duty of a State is to see that every child born therein shall be well housed, clothed, fed and educated till it attain years of discretion."
      That is a good yardstick by which to judge the government of the United Kingdom. How are we to do that, and how well are we doing 130 years on from Ruskin in terms of my constituency and my city of Southampton? I cannot say hand on heart that, if John Ruskin visited us now, he would say that we had succeeded. What would
      1020
      he make of our homelessness and of the gross inequality in educational opportunity that we tolerate, although we have the technical and organisational capacity to realise Ruskin's vision?
      Hampshire and Southampton are by no means the worst areas of the country in terms of educational opportunity, but 25 per cent. of Hampshire's infant schools and 30 per cent. of its infant and junior schools have classes of more than 30. In Southampton, 1,221 infant school pupils and 2,123 junior school pupils are being educated in classes of more than 30. Whatever we think about the arguments on the quality of teaching, common sense tells us that the larger the class the less the individual attention, particularly in the early years. That means that pupils are more likely to under achieve.
      As a child of the state system and the father of two children who attend the comprehensive school nearest to my home, I am passionately concerned to ensure that the state system works in the best interests of everybody. Class sizes are important, and their reduction will make a difference even if in the beginning the classes are only a little smaller. I was astonished by some of the speeches of Conservative Members on Second Reading, particularly that of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who suggested that we should reduce class sizes only if the reductions are huge. He said that we could keep assisted places because the difference that their abolition would make to class sizes would not be very great.
      The true import of that statement is revealed by changing some of the characters. It is like saying that a small increase in the number of policemen on the beat would not make an enormous difference to crime; only a huge increase would have that effect. Therefore, it is said, we should keep many police on one or two estates so that at least a few people can have a good quality of life and be free from crime. That example may help us to understand what Conservative Members are talking about.
      Much about the Opposition's case is suspect. They quote the case advanced by the Institute of Public Finance in its 1996 paper on reducing class sizes. I am not sure how many Opposition Members have read that paper. The assumption is that the only saving that is available to the Government is the difference between the aggregate cost of an assisted place and the aggregate cost of a secondary school place. Using that calculation, the savings will amount to only £ 13 million in 1998–99. It is interesting to note that, by the end of the Government's first term, even the IPF suggests that they will be only £ 16 million short of their target if they use the aggregate amount that is saved by abolishing the assisted places scheme to reduce class sizes of five, six and seven-year-olds.
      The Government say that those figures are incorrect. In a written reply on 22 May, it was stated that there are 800,000 empty places in existing LEA provision. Therefore, there is ample scope to accommodate pupils without assisted places. Who is right? The Minister's case seems to be strong, and we can carry out a test by examining the number of assisted places per local education authority. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) spoke about that. A more accurate picture can be obtained by using places in counties as the yardstick, because many people in London boroughs and metropolitan boroughs who take up assisted places come from outside those areas.

      1021
      As we have heard, the discrepancies are huge. People in some parts of the country are more likely to gain access to assisted places than people in areas where there are few such places. That in itself is a scandal, and anyone who attempts to defend assisted places must explain the enormous disparity in the availability of assisted places in different parts of the country. A written answer of 27 January reveals the interesting fact that, even if we take, county by county, the number of places presently provided by the assisted places scheme and set that against the number of vacancies county by county, not in one case is the number of places potentially lost by the scheme anywhere near the number of vacancies. Therefore, even on a local level, the numbers can be accommodated within the state system at very little additional cost. The IPF figures are simply wrong; the savings are not as it suggests, and they are far more likely to be close to what my hon. Friend the Minister suggests.
      I like to think that Southampton is a city of educational opportunity. It is certainly a centre for business. It has enormous European connections, a fine university and a thriving institute of higher education. One in seven citizens of Southampton is a student. Its port has links with the whole world. Its football team generously lets in goals to visitors the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, although it sometimes scores itself.
      Oddly enough, the city was represented by my namesake, Colonel Whitehead, between 1642 and 1644. In between his parliamentary duties, he besieged and captured Bishops Waltham palace, which was, I suppose, an early example of business interests outside one's parliamentary duties. The city was also represented, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by your illustrious predecessor, Dr. Horace King, later Lord Maybray King. In his maiden speech in the House in March 1950, he spent much time describing the devastation wrought on Southampton by the blitz. I have not, of course, had to endure such trials. Instead I have lived for almost 30 years in a rapidly changing and prospering city that has been kind and generous to me. I hope that I can repay some of that by my endeavours here on its behalf.
      You will also recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my predecessor Sir James Hill for his particular hard work in chairing many Commons Committees as a member of the Chairmen's Panel. I understand that he was an habitué of the many fine restaurants in the House, only some of which I have discovered so far. I wish him a long and healthy retirement from politics and thank him for his work on behalf of my city.
      In a recent debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) said that Oscar Wilde lived in Reading under enforced conditions for some time, but I discovered recently that, for some years, he lived freely of his own accord in a house on the edge of Southampton common. He is not just a pretty epigrammatist. In an essay in 1895 entitled "Socialism and the Soul of Man", he made a profound description of the many and the few:
      "Socialism will be of value simply because it will lead to individualism. Under the new conditions individualism will be far freer, far finer and far more intensified than it is now. I am not talking of the great actual individualism of such poets as I have mentioned, but of the great actual individualism latent and potential in mankind generally."
      1022
      As I have illustrated, the socialism that Oscar Wilde proclaimed considered all human potential: not just the dazzling achievements of the few, but the unleashing of the potential of the many.
      I cannot find a better vision of the socialism of the Government I believe in than the observations of Ruskin and Wilde. However, the figures that I have quoted on the children denied the opportunity to make the best of their individuality bear witness against that vision. We have a choice and I am proud to make my maiden speech in this debate to advocate that choice—to keep the faith, albeit in a small way, with the vision of potential in everyone, which we in society can unlock, instead of giving privileges to some children while allowing others to fall by the wayside. I know what I want for the children of Southampton. That is why I have been proud to support the Bill.
      8.34 pm
      Mr. Boswell: It is my pleasant duty, on behalf of colleagues, to thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Whitehead). His maiden speech contained some light touches about the city that he is clearly proud to represent and, in its substance, reflected a degree of preparation and passion that we shall remember and note. May I also be the first from the Conservative Benches to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on his speech. He showed a remarkable blend of both fluency and cogency in advancing his argument.
      Clearly the Government may claim a mandate for the passage of the Bill, but just because they claim a mandate does not mean that it is of itself sensible. I advise the House to reject its Third Reading tonight. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and others have spoken both this evening and earlier of the Bill's flaws. I sum them up simply by saying that it displays misplaced opportunism and suggests that the problems that our schools have undoubtedly faced and continue to face will, in some way, be solved by the Bill's passage. It is dangling a false and shining prospectus before us.
      The Bill contains neither the adequate financial means nor the mechanism to secure the class size reductions and the improvements of standards that Labour and indeed Conservative Members want. The substance of the Bill is very much less about class size and, sadly, reverts to the class war, but rather than go on about the overall sweep of the Bill, I should like to leave the House with one or two points for it to consider.
      In my speeches in Committee, I have emphasised both the Bill's impact on individuals—on parents and pupils—and, to some extent, the institutional impact. I am concerned—I say this after receiving a sensitive and, in certain respects, helpful response from the Under-Secretar—that the way the Bill is structured will still create problems for individuals at age 11, who will find themselves caught in the transition from private education through the assisted places scheme to the maintained sector when they would typically have expected to remain in their prep school until the age of 13.
      That is a human problem. The Minister sought to justify it by saying that she felt and had received advice that the settling in for those children would be less traumatic at age 11 than at 13. Clearly, that was not the view of her

      1023
      colleague, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), a former shadow education spokesman, who made his views clear in his pledge to the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools and later in April. However, whether it is her view or not, the House needs to consider the views of parents and the interests of the children.
      I hope that, either in subsequent consideration of the Bill in another place, in regulations or at least in advice to local education authorities, the Government will bring forward the principles that, first, the interests of the child, the individual pupil, should he paramount and, secondly, that parents' views should be taken into account by the Secretary of State in exercising his discretion on when the transfer should take place or assisted places funding should be withdrawn.
      That is the personal and human side of this, but I should like to close on the Bill's overall impact. Last week, I told the House that I was concerned that, just as the move to comprehensive schools in the 1960s and 1970s, however well intentioned, had driven apart the state and private sectors of education, the Bill too ran that risk.
      The hon. Member for Walton has featured extensively in our debates. I have already referred to his pledge. He has been the Banquo's ghost of the Committee stage, Report and Third Reading. One thing that he was quoted as saying, however, struck me as interesting; I hope that it is an earnest of the Government's intentions. He was quoted as saying that he wanted to build bridges to the private sector. I agree with that, but I fear that the Bill may build wedges dividing the state and private sectors rather than bridges linking them.
      I do not claim that the private sector has a monopoly of wisdom, although it has many fine schools. It has a strong commitment to education; it often has the involvement of paying parents, as well as those benefiting from assisted places schemes. Those are great strengths, along with the other strengths that the Government will no doubt wish to advance. The sector also has the ability to innovate, and to be a little more flexible in its approach not only to the most able children but, on occasion, to the less able. On the other hand, it must surely benefit both sectors if they talk to each other and associate with each other, especially in view of the number of children who move from one sector to another in the normal course of their schooling. I consider that both socially right and educationally appropriate.
      My major worry about the Bill is that it is overselling its achievement—its ability to resource other changes designed to improve the quality of state education—and driving a wedge between the state and private sectors. I feel that the Government owe it to the House to listen to the points that were raised on Committee, and to reflect on them before the Bill is passed. Even if we believe that the Bill will go through untrammelled, and that it will damage the private sector, it will be an earnest of the Government's good intentions if they reflect on the damage that they have done and seek to repair it by trying wherever possible to bring together the private and public education sectors.
      8.41 pm
      Ms Margaret Moran: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this important debate. As the first woman
      1024
      Member of Parliament for Luton, South, I must first thank all the voters in that constituency for the trust that they have placed in me and in our new Labour Government.
      I speak as one who trained as a teacher, and also as a governor of two Luton schools, Cardinal Newman and Denbigh infants and junior school. In the latter capacity, I can certainly attest to the enthusiasm of teachers, governors and parents for our proposals to phase out the assisted places scheme to honour our pledge to reduce class sizes—but I shall say more about that shortly.
      When researching my predecessor, Sir Graham Bright, I was fascinated to learn that it was one of his teachers who introduced him to politics. Although I cannot agree with his political direction, I believe that all our children should be given the same opportunity. Sir Graham Bright was perhaps best known as the parliamentary private secretary of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). I know that they are firm friends, and I am sure that they will both spend their new-found leisure time enjoying cricket—all the more so, no doubt, since our national team's new-found success under a new Labour Government.
      The name of Ivor Clemitson is still well known because of his love of Luton, which I share. I am sure that he would share my anger about the fact that a men's magazine called For Him this week dubbed Luton the worst town in the country. I intend to start an "I love Luton" campaign to correct that unfair and untrue slur on our town.
      I would say to the magazine's contributors, "Get a life!" They should try visiting Luton's carnival. Second only to the Notting Hill carnival, it is the work of Luton's council, its schools, play groups and clubs and its many voluntary organisations, which make it a spectacle not to be missed. Alternatively, they should try visiting Luton's newly extended airport. Made infamous by Lorraine Chase—with whom I share only a gorblimey accent—it is now the United Kingdom's fastest-growing airport.
      I know from listening to many of my hon. Friends' excellent maiden speeches that it is traditional at this point to conduct a comprehensive political Cook's tour of one's constituency, but I intend to break that tradition. Instead, I want to pay tribute to Luton's greatest treasure, her residents.
      We celebrate a diverse community, which includes many generations of Lutonians, some of whom are still in the traditional hat industry. It also includes two large communities—to one of which I am proud to belong—who share a history of coming from beautiful but sad and divided lands. I refer to Ireland and Kashmir. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for their energy and commitment to achieving peace in those troubled lands.
      Luton's many peoples went there looking for work—for instance, the Welshmen who walked there in the 1930s, and my dad—to whom I owe a debt of honour—who found his first job after arriving from Ireland at Vauxhall Luton. Sadly, Luton's once-expanding manufacturing and car industries are now much smaller, but I am delighted that the IBC-Renault deal is likely to bring another 900 much-needed jobs to the area. Many of those will be skilled jobs, and Luton's prosperity depends on a well-skilled work force. That is why the Bill is so important to us: the skilled work force of the future requires a well-educated community today.

      1025
      I listened carefully to the arguments of Opposition Members as they opposed the Bill and described the iniquities of the phasing out of assisted places schemes. I dispute some of the amounts that they cited when they spoke of the cost of those schemes. I understand that assisted places fees can range from £4,000 to £9,000 per pupil.
      If Opposition Members want to know the impact that such figures would have in schools, I simply ask them to visit one of the schools in my constituency, such as Dallow infants and junior school, which I visited recently. They should come and meet Nazia, who might be a typical pupil. As with 90 per cent. of her classmates, English is her second language; her elder brothers are unemployed, like one in five of all young men in the area. She, or one in four of her friends, will return to a home that is unfit, in disrepair or overcrowded. If she is lucky, she will have a yard to play in but no garden. Nazia is in a class of 37 pupils and, try as her dedicated teachers might, they struggle to give her and her classmates the attention that they need to have a real head start.
      Dallow is a good school. It has dedicated staff, governors and parents, and they deserve better. Reducing class sizes for Dallow, and for other Luton schools, will allow teachers to raise educational standards and to give Nazia and her friends real opportunities.
      Let me make a final, impassioned plea—that we use the opportunities afforded by the Bill to raise standards not just in the three Rs, but in the use of information technology. Nazia will face a world of work and training in which information technology will be further advanced than we can possibly imagine, but she has no computer at home. Many schools rely on the sheer enthusiasm of staff, and on supermarket vouchers and other such schemes, for the IT equipment that they need. Yet access to technology in the 21st century will be as important as access to books in the 20th century.
      I hope that we shall use the wonderful opportunities that the Bill provides, perhaps working with business, to champion the wider use of technology, so as to open up all the new world of work, of communications, of citizenship and of training for Nazia and her friends into the 21st century.
      8.49 pm
      Mrs. May: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the generality of the Bill. In Committee, the hon. Member for Wallsend told us about some lessons that he had learned—
      Ms Estelle Morris indicated dissent.
      Mrs. May: I do apologise, as a new Member, if I have got the name of the hon. Gentleman's constituency wrong. The hon. Member for whatever the constituency was—
      Ms Morris: Tyneside, North.
      Mrs. May: The hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) gave us the benefit of advice that he had received at an early stage from his father about
      1026
      Conservatives. That set me thinking about the lessons that I had learnt at an early stage about the difference between socialism and Conservatism.
      Socialism is about levelling down. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Conservatism is about levelling up. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Socialists believe that, if everyone cannot have something, no one shall. Conservatives reject that. Socialism destroys opportunity, whereas Conservatism builds up opportunity.
      We have been told that the present Labour Government will be different, because the Government are new Labour and new Labour is different. Sadly, the Bill shows how wrong that claim is, because it is a socialist Bill—not my words, but those of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I suggest that he is better able to judge than I am.
      This is a socialist Bill, because it destroys opportunity instead of providing it. Ministers have defended the Bill on the ground that the Government will govern for the many, not for the few. The Bill, abolishing the assisted places scheme, does nothing to improve the education of the many, but it does much to destroy educational opportunities for a few.
      In her opening remarks, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris)—I hope that I have at least managed to get that one correct—
      Ms Estelle Morris indicated assent.
      Mrs. May: The hon. Lady said that the Government spoke for parents who want opportunities for their children. I can only assume that she and her colleagues have not met Geraldine Ewan—a teacher in my Maidenhead constituency, who was interviewed for an article in the Maidenhead Advertiser last week. The article said:
      "Geraldine's passion for the Assisted Places Scheme is born out of hard experience.
      Ten years ago she was living on social security with children officially classified as 'gifted' and in need of special education.
      `If it wasn't for assisted places my children would not have got the education they needed,' she says …
      The Labour Government's actions to repeal the scheme puzzle Mrs. Ewan.
      `What's so strange about abolishing it is that I would have thought the Labour Party was interested in breaking down class barriers and that's exactly what assisted places do'."
      I have spoken to Mrs. Ewan. She told me about her children. Six children have benefited from the assisted places scheme. She told me about the children who have been to university, the subjects that they have read and those who are currently doing A-levels. She described the assisted places scheme as "a lifeline to us" and said that she could not understand why the Government were "kicking the vulnerable", because abolition of the scheme is hurting the children.
      Mr. George Stevenson: You must be joking.
      Mrs. May: That is what a lady with several children who have benefited from the assisted places scheme has told me, and the remarks that hon. Members are making from a sedentary position are extremely unfortunate.

      1027
      As Mrs. Ewan is a primary school teacher in my constituency, I spoke to her about class sizes. She is worried about primary school class sizes, especially because she is concerned with the needs of gifted children and believes that they can be given the challenge that they need only in small classes. [HON. MEMBERS: ": "Oh."] She, and the head teacher of the primary school at which she teaches, do not believe that the Bill will reduce classes at that school, because they do not believe that the money is sufficient to improve class sizes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] They also doubt whether the money will be forthcoming.
      The reactions that I am receiving are interesting, because the point about Mrs. Ewan's case is that her children were classified as gifted and they were able to get the education that they deserved because of the opportunity that was given to her, a parent on social security, to have her children provided with the best education that they could get, through the assisted places scheme. It is unfortunate that Labour Members are not interested in providing opportunities for children and ensuring that they get the education that is right for them.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) eloquently pointed out, the Bill's great failure is the fact that it does nothing to put into place the other side of the equation that the Government claim is in their mandate.
      Of the few Labour Members who have spoken during the Bill's passage, some have spoken passionately about what they believe to be the genuine need to reduce class sizes. The speech in Committee by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) was an especially passionate call for money to reduce class sizes.
      However, I say to those hon. Members and to the House that the Bill does nothing to reduce class sizes in our primary schools. It does not provide the mechanism that will ensure that money goes to primary schools to reduce class sizes. It does not even show us the mechanism whereby money will be given to local education authorities, and we all know the problems of getting money from local education authorities into schools—except in the case of Conservative-controlled authorities, such as Wokingham, which, I am pleased to say, having moved from Liberal Democrat control to the Conservatives, as a unitary authority will now pass on a higher percentage of its education budget to schools.
      I welcome such decisions, but the Bill provides no extra money to schools to pay for the extra teachers or buildings that may be necessary if some schools are to reduce class sizes. It is pulling the wool over the eyes of the electorate, but it is not pulling the wool over the eyes of teachers.
      I refer Labour Members to comments made by the National Association of Head Teachers, which has said that the Bill will not provide sufficient money to provide the number of teachers and buildings that are necessary to produce reductions in class sizes of the order that is being talked about.
      All the Bill will do is to destroy opportunity. It will do nothing to improve the education of the many, and it will do much to reduce the quality of education of children who benefit from assisted places. If the Government had had their way, Mrs. Ewan's children would not have been able to benefit from schemes such as assisted places. If the Government had had their way, Mrs. Ewan's children would not have had the education that they deserved. The Government are not governing for the many or for the
      1028
      few, they are governing as a socialist Government. It is about time that Conservative Members ensured that people understand exactly what the Bill is about.
      8.58 pm
      Fiona Mactaggart: I should like to praise the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran), who represents a town that has much in common with my constituency of Slough—apart from the fact that Slough's airport is rather larger than Luton's. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) spoke passionately in claiming that the Bill is kicking away opportunity from people, but that is rich coming from a supporter of a Government who, for 19 years, stamped on children's opportunities to get the best of their education in towns such as Slough.
      It is traditional in a maiden speech to say nice things about one's predecessors, but, for me, doing so will be not a duty but a pleasure. I sought the Labour nomination for the Slough constituency because I knew that, if there were a queue of parliamentarians that included Joan Lester and Fenner Brockway, I jolly well wanted to be in it. I knew Fenner when he was frail and elderly, and occasionally I made the mistake of telling him, "Take care, Fenner." He would reply, "Don't take care—LIVE!" I only hope that, in representing the town of Slough, I have the same boldness, courage and principle that distinguished both of those former hon. Members. I am very proud that Joan has followed Fenner into the other place, where I know that she will distinguish its debates, particularly on the issue of children, which we are debating today.
      My most immediate predecessor, John Watts, belonged to the Conservative party, but I know from my constituents how hard he worked on their behalf, especially when they were embroiled in the travails of Britain's immigration law. I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has already started to unravel some of the most unfair aspects of those rules.
      John Watts had close relationships with many of the diverse communities in Slough, and I know that some of them were very disappointed when he went off on—as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions calls it—"the chicken run." Unfortunately in John Watts's case, he ran into a fox's lair. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Ms Griffiths) on occupying what John Watts had hoped would be his place.
      Slough is one of the few towns in the south-east which, despite 18 years of decline in manufacturing industry, still makes things, such as Mars bars, Badedas bath products and Dulux paints. Everyone has used something made in my town. Although jobs in many of our traditional industries are gone, we pioneer new technologies and are proud to be the gateway to Britain's silicon valley.
      The work available in Slough has made it a town of immigrants—from south Wales, the north-east, Poland, Ireland, Punjab and Kashmir—who have travelled to Slough in search of work and a better life. For their children, education is the key to that better life. The assisted places scheme, however, does not give most of those children the key.
      We have heard about how assisted places are regionally unequally distributed, but we have not heard about the degree to which most children who benefit from the

      1029
      scheme already have educational advantage within their families. More than two thirds of those pupils' mothers have themselves received a private or selective education, and their mothers are four times as likely as members of the general population to have an A-level. It is also not true that the assisted places scheme is the only way in which to achieve quality in education. In my county of Berkshire, more than 25 of the comprehensives have better A-level results than Pangbourne college, for example, as do my grammar schools in Slough.
      The wonderful thing about the Bill is that the money that will be saved will benefit pupils in their youngest years in education, and investing in something that will take such a long time to repay shows the Government's courage. Who will benefit from such long-term investment? Every infant in a class of over 30 will benefit. I cannot list all the schools in Slough which have such classes, but they include Wexham Court combined, Cippenham Infants', Priory, Ryvers, Holy Family, Marish, St. Mary's, St. Anthony's and many others.
      Teachers also will benefit from the Bill's provisions. I have been a primary teacher in an inner-city school, and I remember how much more exhausted I was in the year in which my class numbers increased by five pupils over the previous year. I also know how much better I did my job when I was teaching 24 children. Earlier this year, I was visiting the Lea school, in Slough, and a journalist asked a teacher at the school how she would vote. She simply said, "I am a teacher." For her, the choice was obvious, because no self-respecting teacher could vote for the Conservative party, which has shown such contempt for teachers' talents and efforts.
      Our new Labour Government are already working with teachers. The letter that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sent to schools and colleges emphasising that every school was good at something and that, in order to deliver high standards in education, we depended on working in partnership with teachers, was very welcome, and it has done much to provide the foundation for our initiatives.
      I will tell the House about the reception class in one infant school in Chalvey which I know well. It has 28 five-year-olds in it, many of whom live in overcrowded homes with parents who are on low incomes. Twenty-five of those 28 five-year-olds can already do something that I, with many years of expensive education, cannot; they can communicate in two languages.
      Children with English as a second language, however, are less likely to have access to reading materials and English at home, and they tend to perform below their ability in reading tests. I hope that the initiatives that we are taking to invest in the early years of education will provide those children, at the time when they can most benefit from it, with the key to open the educational doors which have been closed to them until now.
      It is not just teachers and children but all of us who will benefit from our initiatives. Research such as the Perri/High Scope work in the United States shows that, for every £ 1 spent on the early years of education, we save £6 later in preventing crime and in remedial education.
      Schools in my constituency are showing other ways in which the infant school can contribute to a harmonious community. Our Lady of Peace infants school uses its
      1030
      close links with parents to run an excellent parenting education class. As the consultation document "Preventing Children Offending" issued by the previous Government showed, such initiatives contribute not only to a happy home but to keeping children out of trouble. I commend them to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
      Crime and youth disorder have brought Slough to the headlines. I dispute the Daily Mail claim that a "culture of violence" pervades our Britwell estate, but it is certainly true that many living there have been victims of violent crime, which has more than doubled since 1979. We need action that works on that issue. Young people themselves, including those who have been involved in violence in the streets of Slough, know what kind of action is needed. When asked by their peers, something like one in five of them said that the priority for action was improving their educational opportunities.
      Many of our Government's plans focus on human rights. I commend to my Front-Bench colleagues one human right that will never be written into law, but which we have a responsibility to deliver. I refer to the right to read. The Bill is a crucial step on the road to delivering that right. Smaller infant classes and early intervention for children who do not do well with reading are the first steps to delivering the right to read.
      If those children do learn to read, they may use their skills to read the poem by John Betjeman which seems to encapsulate the public view of Slough. I wonder, however, how many hon. Members have read beyond the invitation to the friendly bombs to destroy my town. The poem goes on to condemn the lecherous business men and to lament the ignorance of the clerk who makes his profits and drinks in the bars—mock-Tudor bars, as I recall—of the constituency of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), but who dares not look up and see the stars.
      Slough's great astronomer, Herschel, used a telescope to see the stars, but the stars of hope and ambition are revealed to most of us through the power of the written word. The Bill will mean that more children can raise their sights, achieve more for themselves and achieve more for our society. I commend it to the House.
      Mrs. May: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the hon. Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) who made her maiden speech before I spoke. I completely failed to congratulate her on it, which was bad manners on my part. I congratulate her on it now and say that, if the quality of her speech is anything to go by, she will be an excellent advocate for Luton.
      9.8 pm
      Mr. Thomas Brake: I congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on her excellent maiden speech. She could have mentioned ICI Paints of Slough, a company for which I worked in the past.
      I thank the electors of Carshalton and Wallington for electing me and for putting their trust in me, as other hon. Members have thanked their electors.
      Let me mention my predecessor, Nigel Forman, who represented the constituency for 21 years. He was a good constituency Member and took an interest in education. Indeed, he was a Minister responsible for higher education for some months in 1992.

      1031
      Carshalton and Wallington is in the London borough of Sutton which has been Liberal Democrat-controlled since 1986. It is in that belt of seats in south-west London that fell to the Liberal Democrats. The London borough of Sutton is unique in at least one respect, in that it has not only a Liberal Democrat council, but two Liberal Democrat Members and a Liberal Democrat peer.
      My constituency stretches from Clock House in the south to St. Helier in the north, a large estate built in the 1930s, and from Beddington in the east to Carshalton in the west of the constituency.
      The history of the area is well documented in a book by Douglas Cluett. The first sign of life dates from 1000 BC and there are still traces near St. Philomena's school in the constituency. In 1871, excavations on the site of the Beddington sewage farm revealed that the Romans had been there for a very different purpose: there had been a Roman bath house on the site. A number of the parishes were mentioned in the Domesday Book, including Beddintone, or "Beader's farm", Waleton, which was probably a Welsh settlement, and Aultone, or "farm by the spring". Those parishes became Beddington, Wallington and Carshalton.
      Newer additions include the St. Helier estate, which comprises 40,000 houses and was built as a garden city in the 1930s. Many of its original features survive to this day. The Roundshaw estate is a much more recent addition and was built on the site of the old Croydon airport. Many of the streets and blocks in the area are named after famous aviators or aircraft manufacturers. Amy Johnson primary school is one example. The Roundshaw estate is currently the subject of a major regeneration project. The council, in partnership with various other organisations, is spending £105 million on the estate, taking away the walkways and the underground garages and making it a place where people will be proud to live.
      I return to the subject of tonight's debate by mentioning Bandon Hill primary school, which is attended by many of the children who live on the Roundshaw estate. It was the first constituency visit that I made after my election and many exciting developments are taking place. Seven new classrooms are being built, and for the first time the school will have an assembly hall that is big enough to accommodate all its pupils. That is excellent news.
      I do not understand, however, how the abolition of the assisted places scheme will help other schools in the borough that are in similar need of major renovation works. Temporary buildings—a euphemism for huts—have been in place for 30 or 40 years, and there is no possibility of their being replaced in the short or medium term.
      The abolition of the assisted places scheme will not do anything about the Greenwich judgment, which affects all the constituencies in south-west London, particularly my own. In some schools, more than 50 per cent. of the pupils in any given year come from outside the borough. Perhaps we are victims of our own success. Since we cannot predict how many out-of-borough pupils will take places from local pupils who need them, we have the problem every year of a mad scramble to try to find enough school places in the borough.
      The Liberal Democrats pledged an extra £2 billion each year for education. That is what we think is necessary to provide an education system that is second to none. In
      1032
      contrast, all that the Bill proposes is an extra £100 million. That may sound a lot—there is some dispute about whether the figure is £100 million or £40 million—but is it really enough to provide high-quality education for absolutely everyone? The Liberal Democrats want to provide the best for all our pupils, as I am sure do Government Members. I am afraid that Conservative Members are talking about a select group of people to whom they want to give priority.
      The £100 million on offer through the abolition of the assisted places scheme is the only new money being found by the Government for education. Although we will be supporting the Bill, I urge the Government to be more ambitious. We must tackle head-on the legacy of 18 years of neglect. If we do so, we shall command the respect of the British people, who are crying out for change.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Vernon Coaker: I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech. In line with all the other maiden speeches that have been made in this debate, the speech by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) was very well thought out and shows that, when one is involved in debate and discussion, one can learn from the opinions and thoughts of others, as I am sure we all will in future.
      It is a great honour and privilege for me to be able to address the House as the first Labour Member for Gedling—or Carlton as it was called from 1951. It is also an honour for my family, although the first concern of my children was that I should not be seen on television. Many hon. Members have told me that I should get out of that habit fairly quickly if I want to make any progress. I thank the people of Gedling for their support and assure them that I will represent them to the best of my ability.
      My immediate predecessor was Andrew Mitchell, who was extremely well regarded in the constituency. He was respected as a hard-working Member of Parliament, who took up the cases of many constituents and fought hard for local issues. Whatever the reasons for his defeat, they were nothing to do with lack of work in the constituency.
      Andrew Mitchell and I have been political opponents for a number of years. He was first elected as the hon. Member for Gedling in 1987, which was also the year that I first stood for the constituency. In all that time, he has always been polite and courteous to me, and never more so than on 1 May when, despite his personal disappointment, he congratulated me and wished me, as well as the Labour Government, well for the future. I am sure that he will return to public life—although I hope that it is not in Gedling in 2002.
      The name Gedling often provokes the questions, "Where?" or "Sorry, did you say gelding?" Gedling is not a type of horse: it is an area of rich diversity that adjoins the city of Nottingham. It borders Sherwood in the north, the River Trent to the south-east and the city of Nottingham to the south-west. The main urban centres are Arnold and Carlton. Arnold has much rich history and is mentioned in the Domesday survey. Until the 1800s, it was a quiet forest village, although now it is a predominantly residential area. Carlton includes the conurbation of Carlton, the more industrialised areas of Colwick and Netherfield to the south and, to the east, the rural area of Gedling, from which the constituency takes its name. Gedling retain much of its village atmosphere, with many old shops and cottages.

      1033
      There are also two beautiful rural villages. Burton Joyce is the larger. It is popular with commuters to Nottingham and has a most beautiful 13th-century church. Stoke Bardolph is in the valley of the Trent, with lovely views across the river to Shelford and Radcliffe.
      The constituency is primarily residential, but has an important industrial and commercial base, which has been badly hit in recent years by the closure of Gedling colliery in 1991 and the more recent closure of the Home Ales brewery in Daybrook, following the Scottish Courage merger, which resulted in the loss of hundreds of jobs and the sad demise of another local brewery.
      Gedling borough council is well thought of, particularly for its policies on housing, crime prevention, environmental protection and recycling. I am acutely aware of the number of local issues that I shall want to highlight in the House, including the need for additional funding from one of the many special schemes to help continue the efforts to regenerate Netherfield, the future development possibilities of the Home Ales breweries site in Daybrook, the restoration of the Gedling pit site to form a country park, which seems slow in coming to fruition, and the associated campaign for a Gedling bypass.
      Today's debate is about education, focusing in particular on reducing class sizes. Just 11 weeks ago, I was a deputy head teacher in Big Wood school, a Nottingham city comprehensive. I applaud the measures that the Government have already taken. There can be nobody who does not regard raising standards of achievement for all children as a major priority for any Government. Phasing out the assisted places scheme and reducing class sizes for all five, six and seven-year-olds will mean a better deal for all our children.
      A survey that I conducted of all the primary schools in my constituency showed considerable problems with class sizes. There are many classes of well over 30 for the youngest pupils in Gedling. Indeed, several are approaching 40 and one class has 45. Parents will welcome action on class size because it will help to start the process of meeting the targets set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of 80 per cent. of 11-year-olds reaching national curriculum level 4 in English and 75 per cent. reaching that level in maths. As many hon. Members have said, basic numeracy and literacy are essential for all pupils. Without them, nobody can achieve.
      I should like to highlight two other areas of concern that are not helped by ever larger classes. The first is the relatively poor standing of the teaching profession. That is clearly demonstrated by the great difficulty that many schools have in recruiting suitably qualified staff. There are difficulties in head teacher recruitment. The Times Educational Supplement pointed out last week that there were 40 per cent. more advertisements for headship vacancies in the primary sector during the first four months of this year than in the same period last year, and nearly 60 per cent. more in the secondary sector. Coupled with the teacher recruitment shortage, that means that real difficulties could lie ahead. Those problems are affecting schools all over the country, including those in my constituency. I look forward to working with the Government to tackle those and other problems.
      1034
      The second problem is the increasing disaffection among a significant proportion of school children. If we are to raise levels of achievement, all pupils must be able to learn in a calm, reasonable environment and teachers must be able to teach. Class size matters—as does good teaching—because it allows teachers to deal with individual problems.
      Statistics from the House of Commons Library show that there were 11,084 permanent exclusions from schools in 1994–95, compared with 2,910 in 1990. We need to deal with that worrying upward trend across the country. The Bill gives us an opportunity to do something for the majority of children in our schools. By abolishing the assisted places scheme, we will provide extra resources to tackle the problem that faces our youngest children.
      We have a modernising Government who are determined to raise achievement for all. There is a mood of great optimism about education, but there is also a realistic acceptance that there are no quick fixes and that tough and difficult decisions will have to be made if we are to improve our schools. We have great confidence about the possibilities before us. I look forward to the challenge and I will work hard to do my best to play a small part in achieving the goals of the new Labour Government—a fairer, more just society in which opportunities are available to all, whatever their background. If we are to realise those goals, the success of our education policies will be crucial, and the Bill will be a start along that road.
      9.24 pm
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: I congratulate the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) on his maiden speech, which was fluent and interesting. He paid a generous tribute to his predecessor, Andrew Mitchell, who was a great friend of many Conservative Members, and we noted the hon. Gentleman's courtesy. Andrew Mitchell was a fine constituency Member and I worked closely with him on the coal industry.
      I also congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on her interesting contribution to the debate. I had an especial interest in her speech because her late father, Sir Ian Mactaggart Bt, was a close friend of mine. He was a sound Conservative for whom I campaigned with great diligence and enthusiasm in Fulham in 1970 when he failed to take the seat from Michael Stewart, the Labour Foreign Secretary. I am sure that the hon. Lady's father would be pleased to see her in the House, although, as he was a fine supporter of the Common Market safeguards campaign, he will look down on her for some sound views on the European single currency.
      When I was a Member of Parliament in the 1980s, I took great pride in the Conservatives' efforts to extend opportunity through the assisted places scheme. We gave the opportunity of a first-class education to many pupils who would not otherwise have enjoyed it. The scheme was a ladder of opportunity that we extended to some 80,000 children, but the Bill will kick that ladder of opportunity away.
      The Bill is squalid and it represents old Labour, not new Labour. The Bill is spiteful and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said, it will not level up, but level down. The attitude is, "Because not everybody can have it, nobody shall have it." I have not heard one Labour Member suggest that the quality of

      1035
      education received by those with assisted places was anything to complain about. Labour Members know that they will take away from children a quality of education that is second to none, and they should be ashamed of what they are doing tonight. They speak not for the parents, but for the old school of Labour envy. The message must go out to the people that Labour has not changed its spots, and that one of the first measures that it has introduced is this spiteful, squalid little measure. It shows where Labour's true allegiance lies.
      The Government have introduced the Bill in the name of providing funds to reduce class sizes. Everybody is in favour of reducing class sizes, but I can tell Labour Members that people do not send their children to independent schools simply because of the class sizes. That is a myth. People send their children to independent schools—many of them make huge sacrifices to do so—for other reasons. They do so because of the ethos and the discipline.
      Mr. Stevenson: Come on!
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman does not understand those matters because he is an old-fashioned socialist. I know him from my time in Staffordshire and he has not changed, as we shall find out.
      Independent schools provide a first-class education, and children are benefiting from that today. Their parents are grateful for the scheme—my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead mentioned a specific case—and it is a tragedy that it is being withdrawn. The Bill demonstrates the Labour Party's innate hostility to excellence and to independent education. I hope that we shall not see further moves in that direction.
      Finally, I am disappointed that the Government did not seek to amend the assisted places scheme in any way. As a former Education Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) will know that in my previous constituency of Cannock and Burntwood is Maple Hayes, an independent school for dyslexic children that provides a fantastic service and is extremely popular with parents. That school has done an immense amount of good work, and from discussions that I have had with my hon. Friend I know that it was her desire, if funds had become available, to extend the assisted places scheme to cover special educational needs.
      I accept the fact that I have been fairly hostile to the Bill. None the less, may I, in a spirit of compromise, suggest that the Minister could pick up the assisted places scheme? Instead of portraying himself, as he and his colleagues do, as pursuing a policy out of a sense of dogma and envy, he could say, "We shall keep some element of the scheme, and provide assisted places for special educational needs."
      We all know that in the maintained sector there is little or no boarding or specialist provision. A great deal more could be done in that regard. I hope that, even at this late hour, the Labour party might consider the opportunity that assisted places could provide for extending the benefits of special education in the independent sector to a wider range of children.
      I hope that the Minister will respond to that point, and perhaps give Conservative Members some hope—and also some justification for the belief that the Bill is not motivated simply by dogma.
      9.31 pm
      Mr. Derek Twigg: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) and I have sat on the Government Benches for many hours of debate on the Bill over the last couple of weeks, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on his own excellent maiden speech.
      It is a privilege to have the opportunity to make my maiden speech. Like my predecessor, Gordon Oakes, who had a long and distinguished career in the House for more than 30 years, I was born and brought up in my constituency. Gordon Oakes became the Member for Halton when the seat was created in 1983, but was first elected to Parliament in 1964 as the Member for Bolton, West. He lost his seat in 1970, but won another at a by-election at Widnes in 1971.
      Gordon was an able Member of the House, and served as Parliamentary Secretary at both the Department of the Environment and the Department of Energy. He was promoted to Minister of State, Department of Education and Scienct in the previous Labour Government, and was made a Privy Councillor in 1979. He was also an excellent constituency Member of Parliament, and helped many thousands of people during his career. I wish him a long and happy retirement.
      It is right for me to mention, too, that the constituency produced another excellent Member of Parliament—Jack Ashley, now Lord Ashley, whose work on behalf of the disabled is well known.
      Halton is not a town in itself, but an area based on local government boundaries drawn up in 1974. It comprises the proud towns of Widnes and Runcorn and the beautiful village of Hale. Most of the original town of Runcorn is in my constituency, although most of its new town area is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall).
      Mine is a constituency of many waterways—the river Mersey, the Manchester ship canal, the Bridgewater canal and the St. Helen's canal.
      The early pioneering chemical industry had its roots in my constituency, and that industry is still the largest local employer today. There are few household goods which do not contain components produced by the chemical industry in Halton.
      One of the legacies left by the chemical industry was massive land contamination, especially in Widnes. However, through the fantastic efforts of the borough council and the local community, that situation has been transformed by a large land reclamation programme over the past 20 years. Where once were the most polluted tracts of land in the country, we now have a superb shopping centre, a golf course, open spaces and parkland.
      With a much improved environment and excellent transport links, Halton is now a popular place to live. It is also the home of one of the most imaginative and interesting museums in the country—the national chemical industry museum, Catalyst.
      Our most famous landmark is the Runcorn-Widnes bridge, similar in design to the Sydney harbour bridge and dwarfing the Tyne bridge. It is a stunning sight when lit up at night. Unfortunately, the bridge has now reached capacity, and we face regular congestion and queuing to get over it. I feel sure that this Government will adopt

      1037
      a much more positive approach to working with Halton borough council and the Merseyside and Cheshire local authorities to come up with a solution for a second crossing, which is crucial to the economic and social development of the area.
      My constituency has a great sporting tradition, as the home of Runcorn football club and Widnes rugby league club, now known as Widnes Vikings. Widnes rugby league club is the second most successful club in the history of rugby league. Indeed, given the size of the town, it has done even better than Wigan.
      I mentioned earlier that the chemical industry is our largest employer. Over the past 20 or 30 years, it has shrunk significantly, and there is a need to continue to bring more diverse industries into the constituency. Our biggest challenge is high unemployment: real unemployment is running at 24 per cent. and youth unemployment is more than 40 per cent. A recent survey of local employers showed a 40 per cent. skills shortage—which explains why I wanted to speak in today's debate.
      Education and training are crucial to my constituency. The Prime Minister was right to make education our No. 1 priority, and I know that the new Halton unitary authority, due to take over next April, will make education its top priority so as to help to regenerate the towns of Widnes and Runcorn by producing a skilled and flexible work force and improving the cultural and social lives of its citizens.
      We must get things right at the very beginning. Lifelong learning starts in the early years, and I am pleased by the commitment to extending early years provision. I welcome the Bill and the move to end the assisted places scheme and to use the money to cut class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. That is very important to primary schools in Halton, where there are 141 classes of 30 or more. That means 4,464 children, or 40 per cent. of the total. Our children deserve better individual attention from their teachers, and small classes can help to achieve that.
      Although this is only one component in the strategy to raise standards in education, it is a crucial one. In Halton, 54.6 per cent. of 11-year-olds fail to reach the required standard in maths, and 50.6 per cent. fail to reach it in English—hence the importance of this measure to my constituency.
      I also believe that the breadth of the curriculum that primary teachers have to deliver is onerous. It does not leave enough time to spend on teaching the basics: reading, writing and arithmetic. I welcome today's announcement by the Minister in that regard.
      It is clear that the early years are a crucial part of a child's education. An 11-year-old who is not properly equipped for secondary school will quickly fall behind, making the job doubly difficult for teachers in secondary schools. Many secondary school teachers have told me that they despair at the poor numeracy and literacy skills of some of their pupils. Those pupils then struggle throughout the rest of their time at school.
      I also welcome the Labour Government's commitment to improved teaching standards. Most teachers do an excellent job and deserve the highest praise. Many have their jobs made much more difficult by the immense
      1038
      problems of social deprivation and poor parenting in some areas; but there are also teachers who are not up to the job, and they should not be anywhere near a classroom. Some schools are clearly failing their children. Although there may be poverty and poor discipline in some homes, that should not be used as an excuse for poor teaching and poor schools. There are plenty of examples of good teaching and good schools in similar circumstances. I therefore welcome the commitment to deal effectively with incompetent teachers, and the publication of the names of failing schools, as clear signs of our determination to raise standards.
      As a further element in improving standards, I hope that the Secretary of State will publish much more information about the performance of schools. The current league tables are flawed and do not accurately reflect the true achievements of many schools. Nor do they give parents enough information.
      Finally, I thank the people of Halton for electing me. It is a great privilege to sit in this House as their Member of Parliament. They are hard-working and generous people who have waited a long time for a Labour Government.
      9.39 pm
      Mrs. Gillan: We have had a long and wide-ranging debate on the Bill, and one of the great pleasures has been the number of maiden speeches made on Second and Third Reading. I congratulate unreservedly all those hon. Members who have chosen Third Reading to make their maiden speeches. In particular, I congratulate the hon. Members for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), for Southampton, Test (Mr. Whitehead), for Luton, South (Ms Moran), for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) and for Halton (Mr. Twigg).
      I want to single out two of the maiden speeches made this evening. I extend a personal and warm welcome to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) because, although she cut this point out of her speech, she went to the same school as I did—so now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have two Cheltenham ladies college girls to deal with. The way in which the hon. Lady acquitted herself suggests that they are a force to be reckoned with.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who made an excellent maiden speech. It is a humbling experience to see how hon. Members make their maiden speeches and remain entirely note-free zones—an art which I cannot claim to have mastered myself.
      The number of teachers, or ex-teachers, who have participated in the debate, especially from the Government Benches, leads me to remark that, while they can rightly be proud of being teachers, their presence has probably contributed to an increased pupil-teacher ratio. Perhaps they could give some thought to that.
      I hope that many of the good teachers will remain in the profession. Those who have come here will bring their expertise on education. I hope that the Government will realise that not everything that they do in the future will be supported by those hon. Members who used to be teachers, but more of that later.
      The Bill, with its seven clauses, is small and looks innocuous, but like a bullet it is small and lethal. It is lethal to families on low incomes. I remind the House of the reasons why the assisted places scheme was introduced. In 1979, the then Secretary of State, Mark Carlisle, said:

      1039
      "The direct grant grammar schools gave a high-quality academic education to children of ability, irrespective of the means of their parents. We on the Conservative Benches regretted greatly the decision to put and end to that scheme … They are, therefore, available only to those who can pay."
      Many of the schools had gone independent; therefore, he said:
      "The schools exist. That means of opportunity exists. That means of opportunity should be restored to able children whose parents are unable to meet the cost."—[Official Report, 5 November 1979; Vol. 973. c. 41.]
      The reason why the scheme was introduced is apparent to all Conservative Members but ignored by Labour Members. By introducing the Bill so rapidly, the Government have shown that they still practise the politics of envy of the worst possible sort. The Labour party remains true to the old principle: if my neighbour has a Rolls-Royce, do I work hard and try to buy one myself? Do I feel happy that he has worked hard enough to buy the car? No—I work to ensure that that Rolls-Royce is removed from him.
      That is what the Bill does: it takes a type of education which suits certain children away from those of limited means. We have learnt that the Government will not even listen to reasoned argument. They believe that they are absolutely right. [Interruption.] I can see that Ministers believe that they are absolutely right. Laurens van der Post once wrote that there is no more dangerous animal than a man who believes that he is absolutely right.
      The Government are dangerous men and women, because they will not listen to anything which could possibly make better that which they have laid before the House. In Committee, they brushed aside all the constructive arguments put forward by Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members to try to improve the legislation.
      Behind the legislation lies a false promise. It is false because it aims to reduce class sizes in primary schools, yet the Institute of Public Finance report shows that eliminating all classes exceeding 30 for five, six and seven-year-olds would cost about £65 million annually, with an estimated additional cost of £100 million and that that would happen only if action was taken simultaneously to restrict admissions to primary schools.
      The Minister for School Standards estimated that, by the turn of the century—not next year or the year after, but the year 2000—he might have saved £100 million. He is not sure; he cannot give us the figures. He cannot give us the figures for reducing class sizes. In fact, I wonder whether he can answer any of our questions. In the debate, the Minister exhibited a lack of understanding of what we were saying. His completely inadequate responses make us ask us a lot of questions about him and the brief that he holds. He did not answer any Opposition questions in any of his speeches on any of the amendments. In particular, he did not explain how the money that he hopes to save from the assisted places scheme will be ring-fenced to ensure that it reaches the primary classes whose sizes he hopes to reduce.
      The Minister believes that his is the party of unity and that all Labour Members agree with what the Government are doing. Not according to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), however. Writing in the Manchester Metro News as recently as 13 May—the article was written by him, not a journalist, and says that small classes may not get top marks—he says:
      1040
      "Labour's election promise to reduce infant school classes to 30 seems an obvious first step towards better education all round.
      But I am afraid it is not going to be plain sailing. Here's a hypothetical example. Seventy-one children apply to a school; it accepts 66 children which it plans to put into two classes of 33; five have had to be turned down. The result—five sets of upset and indignant parents.
      If the school is forced to limit class size to 30, a further six children will have to be turned away. A nearby less popular school could take the original five rejected children and the additional six. But now there are 11 sets of angry parents.
      Alternatively, the intake could be reorganised into three classes. That would allow the five children who had been refused a place to come to the school after all, making two classes of 24 and one of 23. But there is no third classroom, so where could they go?
      Now there are 23 angry parents complaining about their children having to have lessons in the school hall or a portacahin in the playground.
      Of course, small classes are ideal—but, as this example shows, the way ahead is going to be littered with pitfalls. It isn't necessarily going to be as popular with parents as you might think."
      I hope that Ministers will talk to the hon. Gentleman and explain how they are going to solve those problems.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Mrs. Gillan: No, I have very little time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."]. I am sorry, I did not realise that it was the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) who wanted to intervene. I will give way by all means.
      Mr. Bennett: If the hon. Lady was so keen to quote me, she could have given me notice that I should be in the Chamber—fortunately, I was here. If she is so keen on quoting the article, will she explain my experience as a young teacher, facing large classes and the problems that that posed? It would have been fairer to quote the whole article, since she went so far.
      Mrs. Gillan: I apologise. I did not realise that it was the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish intervening. I think that the article is good and I congratulate the hon. Member on it. Of course, he would know, because he was a teacher.
      The Government have put education at the top of their list of priorities, but have we seen anything constructive in the Bill? No—it is busy taking something off children, rather than adding something to education. We have learnt a lot from the Bill. We have learnt that the Government can break pledges just weeks after they are elected: the Walton pledge has been broken. We have learnt that the Government will ram-raid policy through. We have learnt that they will make pledges when they do not know where the money is to come from. We have learnt that they intend to answer no questions from the Opposition.
      This legislation attacks the few, not the many, and it attacks the weakest. It has been introduced to fulfil a bankrupt pledge. The Government are busy stifling the small voices of the minority because it is easy to stifle the weakest in our society. The Government are levelling down, not levelling up. I give them this warning. We have said that, if the Government are going to improve the education sector, we will support them, but I warn the Minister for School Standards now that the Opposition

      1041
      will resist any attempts such as this to destroy the range of choice and diversity that we have created in the education sector—the state education sector.
      This is an appalling Bill, and the Labour Government should be ashamed of bringing it in.
      9.51 pm
      Mr. Byers: Tonight, we have had an informative and useful debate, with a number of excellent maiden speeches, in particular from my hon. Friends the Members for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), for Southampton, Test (Mr. Whitehead), for Luton, South (Ms Moran), for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) and for Halton (Mr. Twigg), who all spoke with great compassion because they know that our key pledge to reduce class sizes for every five, six and seven-year-old was one of the main reasons why Labour had such an overwhelming success on 1 May. That was the pledge on which we stood in the election and that is the pledge that we are beginning to honour this evening.
      We also heard maiden speeches from the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and—from the Liberal Democrat Benches—the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), both of whom spoke about the need to improve the education service.
      In the time available, I want to deal with the issues raised in the debate, particularly those raised by Opposition Members. There has been concern about the cut-off in clause 2 at age 11 for young people receiving an assisted place. I assure the House that the discretion to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment referred on Second Reading will be honoured. That means that the discretion will be flexible and it will be exercised in a way that is generous and sympathetic towards the needs of the pupils concerned.
      Particular concern has been expressed about the position of 10-year-olds. Some have received accelerated places—they have been given a secondary education at the age of 10. As the law stands, only those young people aged ten and a half or older are deemed to be in secondary education and therefore receiving an assisted place through to the age of 18 in that school. As a demonstration of our commitment, in a generous way, to exercise the discretion contained in the Bill, it is our intention to extend that provision to all 10-year-olds so that they will receive an assisted place at the same school until the age of 18.
      In opening the Third Reading debate, the shadow Secretary of State spoke about the mechanism that we would need to fund our commitment to reduce class sizes. The funding made available to local authorities will be ring-fenced and will be used only for the express purpose of reducing class size. I understand that some local education authorities will not respond positively to that and will argue that they need flexibility to meet local needs. However, we believe that there is one pressing need in the education service at present: to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. It is a pledge that we intend to honour, which is why the funding will be ring-fenced.
      Mrs. Gillan: I welcome the Minister's announcement on 10-year-olds. I hope that it was, in part, a response to some of the Opposition's reasoned arguments.
      1042
      On class sizes, has the Minister had a chance to look at the written answer that I received earlier today on the number of children—14,000—who belong to travellers' families and who his Department estimates are not in education? Has he estimated the cost of adding 14,000 more children to the education system? Will he make efforts to get those children back into the education system? How will that affect class sizes?
      Mr. Byers: That comment comes ill from someone who was a Minister in a Government who cut section 210 funds, which expressly made money available to travellers for their education.
      We share the shadow Secretary of State's concern about the impact on the school population of those pupils who would have received assisted places and may well have to go into the maintained sector. We shall start phasing out the assisted places scheme in September 1998; 10,000 young people would have entered the scheme at that time. If all those young people return to the maintained sector, the number will represent one eighth of 1 per cent. of the total school population of 8 million young people—that is the scale of the problem that the shadow Secretary of State identified. When in government, she presided over a regime that saw more than 450,000 additional pupils in the school sector at the same time as budget cuts meant that there were 6,000 fewer teachers.
      Mr. Hayes: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Byers: No, I shall not.
      Those were rich comments from a shadow Secretary of State who, when in office, failed to meet the needs of the majority of our young people.
      The Government agree with the comments of a former Conservative Member of Parliament for Buckingham, George Walden, who said that there were just two things wrong with the assisted places scheme: the principle and the practice. He was absolutely right and we agree with his analysis. That is why tonight we begin the process of dismantling the assisted places scheme, the costs of which cannot be justified—£160 million this year, rising to £200 million by the turn of the century. The phasing out of the scheme will free resources to meet our class size pledge. That is in stark contrast to the Conservative party, which presided over increase after increase in class sizes.
      The Bill marks the end of the assisted places scheme which benefited the few at the expense of so many. It is the beginning of the end of overcrowded infant classes and represents another milestone in our crusade to raise standards. Some 440,000 young people in overcrowded classes are the innocent victims of the previous Government's neglect of the state system of education. That must come to an end.
      Forty days ago, the British people elected a new Labour Government. In just 40 days, the House with its Labour majority will honour one of our key election pledges. I commend the Bill to the House.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 399, Noes 147.

      Division No. 26]

      [9.59 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cohen, Harry

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Coleman, Iain

      Ainger, Nick

      (Hammersmith & Fulham)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Colman, Anthony (Putney)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Connarty, Michael

      Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Cooper, Ms Yvette

      Ashton, Joe

      Corbett, Robin

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Atkins, Ms Charlotte

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Barnes, Harry

      Cousins, Jim

      Barron, Kevin

      Cox, Tom

      Battle, John

      Cranston, Ross

      Bayley, Hugh

      Crausby, David

      Beard, Nigel

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Berth, Rt Hon A J

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Curtis-Thomas, Ms Clare

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Dafis, Cynog

      Benton, Joe

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Darvill, Keith

      Berry, Roger

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Best, Harold

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Blackman, Mrs Liz

      Davidson, Ian

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Blizzard, Robert

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Boateng, Paul

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Borrow, David

      Dawson, Hilton

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Dean, Ms Janet

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Denham, John

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Brake, Thomas

      Dismore, Andrew

      Breed, Colin

      Dobbin, Jim

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick

      Doran, Frank

      (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Dowd, Jim

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Drew, David

      Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Burden, Richard

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Burgon, Colin

      Edwards, Huw

      Burstow, Paul

      Efford, Clive

      Butler, Christine

      Ellman, Ms Louise

      Byers, Stephen

      Ennis, Jeff

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Etherington, Bill

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Canavan, Dennis

      Fisher, Mark

      Caplin, Ivor

      Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna

      Casale, Roger

      Flint, Ms Caroline

      Caton, Martin

      Flynn, Paul

      Cawsey, Ian

      Follett, Ms Barbara

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Chaytor, David

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Chidgey, David

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

      Clapham, Michael

      Foulkes, George

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Galbraith, Sam

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Galloway, George

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Gapes, Mike

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Clelland, David

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Coaker, Vernon

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Godsiff, Roger

      1044

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Kingham, Tessa

      Gorrie, Donald

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Graham, Thomas

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Grant, Bernie

      Laxton, Bob

      Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)

      Lepper, David

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Levitt, Tom

      Grocott, Bruce

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Grogan, John

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Gunnell, John

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Hain, Peter

      Linton, Martin

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Livsey, Richard

      Hanson, David

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Love, Andy

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      McAllion, John

      Healey, John

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Heath, David (Somerton)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      McDonagh, Ms Siobhain

      Heppell, John

      Macdonald, Calum

      Hesford, Stephen

      McDonnell, John

      Hill, Keith

      McFall, John

      Hinchliffe, David

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      McIsaac, Ms Shona

      Hoey, Kate

      McLeish, Henry

      Home Robertson, John

      McMaster, Gordon

      Hood, Jimmy

      McNulty, Tony

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      MacShane, Denis

      Hope, Philip

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      McWalter, Tony

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      McWilliam, John

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Mallaber, Ms Judy

      Hughes, Ms Beverley

      Mandelson, Peter

      (Stretford & Urmston)

      Marek, Dr John

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Hurst, Alan

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hutton, John

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Iddon, Brian

      Martlew, Eric

      Illsley, Eric

      Maxton, John

      Ingram, Adam

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

      Meale, Alan

      Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

      Michael, Alun

      Jamieson, David

      Milburn, Alan

      Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

      Miller, Andrew

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Johnson, Ms Melanie

      Moffatt, Laura

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Morley, Elliot

      Jones, Ms Jenny

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Mountford, Ms Kali

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Mudie, George

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Mullin, Chris

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Murphy, Dennis (Wansbeck)

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Norris, Dan

      Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Keetch, Paul

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Kemp, Fraser

      O'Hara, Edward

      Kennedy, Charles

      Olner, Bill

      (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Opik, Lembit

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Khabra, Piara S

      Osborne, Mrs Sandra

      Kidney, David

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Pearson, Ian

      1045

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Stevenson, George

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Pike, Peter L

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Plaskitt, James

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Pollard, Kerry

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Pond, Chris

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Pope, Greg

      Stringer, Graham

      Pound, Stephen

      Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Stunell, Andrew

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Swinney, John

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Prosser, Gwyn

      (Dewsbury)

      Purchase, Ken

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Radice, Giles

      Taylor, Matthew

      Rammell, Bill

      (Truro & St Austell)

      Rapson, Syd

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Timms, Stephen

      Rendel, David

      Tipping, Paddy

      Robertson, Rt Hon George

      Todd, Mark

      (Hamilton S)

      Touhig, Don

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Trickett, Jon

      Rogers, Allan

      Truswell, Paul

      Rooker, Jeff

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Roy, Frank

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Ruane, Chris

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Tyler, Paul

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Vaz, Keith

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Wallace, James

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Salter, Martin

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Sanders, Adrian

      Wareing, Robert N

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Watts, David

      Sawford, Phil

      Webb, Steven

      Sedgemore, Brian

      White, Brian

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Whitehead, Alan

      Sheerman, Barry

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      (Swansea W)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Williams, Dr Alan W

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      (E Carmarthen)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Singh, Marsha

      Willis, Phil

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wills, Michael

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wilson, Brian

      Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)

      Winnick, David

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Wise, Audrey

      Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)

      Wood, Mike

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Woolas, Phil

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Worthington, Tony

      Snape, Peter

      Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)

      Soley, Clive

      Wyatt, Derek

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Spellar, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Mr. Clive Betts and

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Mr. Graham Allen.

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Burns, Simon

      Arbuthnot, James

      Butterfill, John

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Cash, William

      Baldry, Tony

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Bercow, John

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Chope, Christopher

      Blunt, Crispin

      Clappison, James

      Boswell, Tim

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Brady, Graham

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

      Brazier, Julian

      (Rushcliffe)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Collins, Tim

      1046

      Colvin, Michael

      Madel, Sir David

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Malins, Humfrey

      Cran, James

      Maples, John

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Mates, Michael

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Davies, Quentin

      May, Mrs Theresa

      (Grantham & Stamford)

      Merchant, Piers

      Day, Stephen

      Moss, Malcolm

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Duncan, Alan

      Norman, Archie

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Ottaway, Richard

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Page, Richard

      Evans, Nigel

      Paice, James

      Faber, David

      Paterson, Owen

      Fabricant, Michael

      Pickles, Eric

      Fallon, Michael

      Prior, David

      Flight, Howard

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Forth, Eric

      Robathan, Andrew

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Fraser, Christopher

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Gale, Roger

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Garnier, Edward

      Ruffley, David

      Gibb, Nick

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Gill, Christopher

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Gray, James

      Soames, Nicholas

      Green, Damian

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Greenway, John

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Grieve, Dominic

      Spring, Richard

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Steen, Anthony

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Streeter, Gary

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hammond, Philip

      Syms, Robert

      Hawkins, Nick

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Hayes, John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Heald, Oliver

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Hesettine, Rt Hon Michael

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Horam, John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Townend, John

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Tredinnick, David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Trend, Michael

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Viggers, Peter

      Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

      Walter, Robert

      Johnson Smith,

      Wardle, Charles

      Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Waterson, Nigel

      Key, Robert

      Wells, Bowen

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Whittingdale, John

      Lansley, Andrew

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Leigh, Edward

      Wilkinson, John

      Letwin, Oliver

      Willetts, David

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Wilshire, David

      Lidington, David

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Loughton, Tim

      Yeo, Tim

      Luff, Peter

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Mr. Patrick McLoughlin

      MacKay, Andrew

      and

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Mr. Peter Aiansworth

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

      A494 (Improvements)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
      10.16 pm
      Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: May I, first, use this opportunity to congratulate the Minister sincerely on his appointment? I do so in the confidence that he will wish to do his utmost to carry out his duties to the best of his considerable ability. I believe that, by unblocking the conundrum that I shall shortly unfold to the House, he will have a golden opportunity to do that. I hope that he will grasp that opportunity and really make a name for himself.
      This morning, I had an opportunity to consult "The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary." The word "temporary" is defined as
      "Lasting or meant to last for a limited time only; not permanent; made or arranged to supply a passing need."
      The dictionary continues:
      "Things belonging to this life, temporal goods."
      That is probably a better definition in the context of the appalling story of the A494.
      I am pleased to have an opportunity to discuss this matter. It is not trivial; it means a lot to many thousands of people in Wales and certainly a large proportion of my constituency. The traffic lights concerned, on the A494 at Drws y Nant—yes, Hansard, I will send up a copy of my speech—are temporary traffic lights, according to the Welsh Office. In fact, they have been in place for more than 18 years and may yet become the subject of a comic opera. That may sound a little far-fetched; indeed, if it were not such a serious matter, it would be quite funny. In reality, it is anything but funny for thousands of people day in, day out.
      It might help the Minister if I am permitted to give a brief chronology of the matter. The lights were installed in 1979, on boxing day, because the road was considered unsafe and prone to subsidence, posing a possible danger to road users. The road was therefore closed 20 years ago for "urgent" repairs.
      To be absolutely fair, however, the stretch of road is not the easiest to repair because, on one side, there is a steep drop and, on the other, there is steep and rocky terrain. None the less, over the past few years far more difficult engineering feats have been accomplished in north and mid-Wales, and there is no question but that, given the necessary will, the situation could readily be remedied.
      From 1979 to 1986, many individuals, councils and societies regularly wrote to the Welsh Office pointing out the inherent dangers in allowing the road to be used as it was being used, albeit temporary traffic lights and a one-way system had been installed. Over the years, there have been numerous very serious accidents at the spot, which is so narrow that a collision will almost inevitably result if a bus or lorry meets another vehicle on a bend. Many very experienced drivers have been involved in very serious collisions on that road.
      I travelled the road from my home to my office almost every day from 1979 until I was elected as Member of Parliament, and I can vouch for the inherent danger of the current system. Moreover, on countless occasions I have
      1048
      had to wait in traffic jams, some lasting as long as one hour, as two vehicles attempted to manoeuvre past one another without colliding with each other, the rock face or the wall. If one of the vehicles is in a hurry, nothing short of a calamity will occur.
      When I was in legal practice, I often arrived late for court appearances because of the state of the road. I am making, however, not a personal plea but a plea on behalf of many thousands of people in my constituency. The current situation is dangerous because, as people are released from the traffic jam, their normal tendency is to exceed the speed limit to make up time, thereby causing a knock-on effect and danger to all road users.
      My predecessor in the House, Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas, who is now in the other place, assiduously pursued the problem in attempting to persuade the Welsh Office to attach due priority to a solution. The former Gwynedd county council regularly made representations to the Welsh Office, as did—to give but a few examples—Bala town council, Brithdir and Llanfrchrath community council, Dolgellau town council, Llanuwchllwn community council, Meirionnydd district council, the Farmers Union of Wales and the National Farmers Union of England and Wales. The correspondence file is huge, and it confirms the priority that at least the people of Meirionnydd attach to the matter even if, hitherto, the Welsh Office has not.
      In October 1987, the then Minister of State at the Welsh Office responded to an inquiry from my predecessor, stating that a solution would be a matter of prioritising schemes within the Welsh Office budget. He also stated that it would be unrealistic to expect improvements until sometime in "the early 1990s".
      In January 1988, in a letter to Mr. John Dyer James, the county secretary of the Farmers Union of Wales, the director of highways wrote:
      "The design work highlighted problems and an assessment of alternative routes has been carried out. The results of that exercise are being studied and we would hope to undertake some improvement as soon as we can, although it would be unwise to anticipate that work could commence before the early 1990s."
      That is the line that was adopted. Correspondence continued with individuals, councillors, my predecessor and many other people.
      In January 1990, the director of highways at the Welsh Office responded to a letter from a local county councillor, Miss Gwenfon Hughes, who has assiduously pursued the matter. The reply to her letter took from 12 October to 30 January, which, one might think, was not a very good start. The letter stated:
      "We are, however, hoping to complete our evaluation of the option at Drws-y-Nant, for example whether there should be on-line improvement or a new alignment in the near future, and then to get on with the detailed design work."
      The letter goes on to state that the officer concerned is
      "afraid the scheme is unlikely to start before the early 1990s and even if the statutory procedures can be satisfactorily completed and funds are available work could not start before late 1992 at the earliest."
      On 7 February that year, another Welsh Office employee wrote, in response to the very same letter from the very same county councillor, that it would not be sooner than the mid-1990s before the work could commence. In the space of seven days, from 30 January to 7 February 1990, the commencement time slipped three

      1049
      years. People think that "Yes Minister" was far-fetched. Was that response reasonable? It was not, in my view, a reasonable way in which to deal with an inquiry.
      In March 1990, interim measures to improve the situation were ruled out on the ground of cost. In the meantime, the Welsh Office attempted to justify its non-activity by saying that traffic numbers were low. Nothing could be further from the truth. The A494 is one of the arterial roads carrying holidaymakers from Manchester, Liverpool and the midlands to various seaside resorts in the constituency, such as Barmouth and Tywyn. It is a very busy road all year round. It serves two cattle marts, one each end of the route, and those cattle marts are convened at least once a week and sometimes twice.
      In 1991, the line adopted by the Welsh Office was that
      "allowing for the completion of statutory procedures, the possibility of a public inquiry and the time that will be required to complete the detailed design of the scheme, a start of works is unlikely for several years."
      It was implied that the statutory procedures and the detailed design would take some time. The Welsh Office had already had 16 years to carry that work out and one wonders how much longer it really required.
      In May 1991, the then Secretary of State for Wales, David Hunt, in a markedly helpful response to a Conservative opponent of mine said:
      "On present estimates the work will cost some £1.6 million".
      I wonder how much the work would have cost 17 years ago. The letter continued:
      "and statutory procedures will be started in 1993 to enable the work itself to begin in March 1994."
      The letter was heralded by my Conservative opponent as a real breakthrough, although he did not make a breakthrough at the election.
      Regular correspondence continued and the start date slipped again from 1994 to the mid-1990s. According to parliamentary answers, work would commence in 1994, subject to the satisfactory completion of our old friend the statutory procedures. As a lawyer, I can tell the House that those procedures take very little time if one applies a little common sense and gets on with the job in hand. I have been able to do the job in a matter of months or weeks, so I cannot see why the Welsh Office could not do it.
      Another excuse was introduced, this time the availability of finance. A parliamentary answer was given on 1 February 1993 bringing in the new excuse. In an answer in January 1994, it was said that draft orders for the scheme were due to be published in the spring and that commencement of the work was dependent on satisfactory completion of the statutory procedures. Again, the answer referred to finance. That was cold comfort for those having to use this dangerous route every day.
      In March 1994, for example, a lorry driver was badly injured. His legs were trapped and he was stuck in his cab for many hours. That was one of several serious accidents over the years. The man was a local lorry driver and he knew the risks, but the on-coming lorry driver did not, hence the collision. I sent details to the Welsh Office and received, in April 1994, a response from the then Minister of State, who said:
      1050
      "Subject to statutory procedures and draft orders, we hope to start the works in 1995–6."
      That was a further two years' slippage.
      In January 1996, the new Minister of State said that the work was programmed to start in 1997, subject to our old friend the statutory procedures and, again, the availability of finance. Since then, the Drws y Nant pressure group has been set up. It has been most effective due to the good offices of Mr. Trebor Roberts JP, the chair, and Mrs. Bailey, the honorary secretary.
      I understand that the scheme is now in the reserve programme for the financial year 1997–98. Therefore, it will not be started until 1998 at the earliest. The temporary traffic lights are already in the "The Guinness Book of Records". I am always pleased when my constituency is mentioned, but I am not so happy about that reference.
      The last letter that I received from the former Minister of State at the Welsh Office, Mr. Gwilym Jones, stated:
      "The improvement is included in the medium schemes programme and albeit it awaits the availability of funds it continues to remain a high priority. Statutory procedures are complete, orders have been made and tender documents have been prepared and are ready for issue.
      In the house on 12 December 1996, the Secretary of State announced the Welsh Office budget of £6.9 billion and explained his spending plans".
      I suppose there is some hope, but I found that letter quite ominous and I wonder whether I read it correctly. If so, after all the years of patience and dozens of serious accidents, is the Welsh Office seriously suggesting in the second paragraph of that letter that
      "maintenance of the existing network"
      will preclude the commencement of work on the scheme? That is absolutely unacceptable after such a long delay.
      Not to put too fine a point on it, the whole story is a farce from beginning to end. It is appalling, not least because of the facts that I have set out. Incidentally, the annual cost of hiring the lights is more than £1,800.
      The danger is increasing due to heavier traffic and the deterioration of the road. This summer, Bala—which is my home area and the cradle of Welsh culture—will host the national eisteddfod, which I am sure the Minister will attend. Between 120,000 and 150,000 people visit that festival, and no doubt a number of them will have to tackle this obstacle.
      The eisteddfod is held in August, when holiday traffic is at its heaviest. In the name of reason I call on the Minister to give me an unqualified assurance that the work will be carried out because it is simply a matter of time before there is a fatal accident. There have already been many serious accidents in which people have been maimed for life. It will be no comfort to me to say, "I told you so" if and when someone is killed.
      Furthermore, the obstacle is undoubtedly hampering the area in terms of inward investment and must surely be offputting to tourists. Wholesalers to retail premises in Dolgellau and the south of the constituency are generally not prepared to send large lorries to Dolgellau and Bala and frequently opt for two smaller ones, thereby increasing the cost of delivery. The knock-on effect is clear: retailers have to pay more for the goods with obvious results.
      It is high time that real action is taken. Although the present Government have been in office for only a few weeks, they tell us that it is now time to act. Let us have

      1051
      action without any further prevarication or delay. I know the Minister to be an honourable man, so I trust that he will respond accordingly, because fairness and common sense demand it.
      I realise that, for most of the time the lights have been in place, we have had a Conservative Administration. I now invite the Minister to bring this iniquitous and dangerous folly to an end and show that the Labour Government are prepared to take action where it is necessary and are not simply paying lip service to slogans such as "action, not words."
      I shall listen carefully to the Minister's reply. I hope that he will be able to give me some assurances which, after some 18 years, are not being hurried out of him. I am sure that he has considered his response and will realise that the problem is a danger to the public. I ask him to give it due priority.
      10.34 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): I should like to express my gratitude for the congratulations of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on my appointment. I congratulate him on securing this debate. He is a widely respected hon. Member, especially for the diligent way in which he represents his constituency. I am aware that he has shown a keen interest in the improvement of the A494 trunk road, particularly the part in his beautiful constituency.
      At the outset, I should say that the new Government propose a radically different transport policy in Wales—not that that will be difficult. The Tory Government had no coherent transport policy at all. Thatcherism just left it all to market forces and the result has been shambolic. Our roads are becoming mobile car parks, our railways have been chopped and privatised, and deregulation has brought savage cuts in bus services, resulting in many outlying areas being virtually cut off. Those on low incomes or pensions are consequently trapped and forced to buy from expensive local shops as the age of car driver shopping overshadows us all.
      All that is undermining the quality of life and the environment. We will ensure that a new transport policy has a strong green dimension.
      As part of our strategic review of roads in Wales, I have made it clear that the completion of two east-west super-highways will be priorities. The completion of the dualling of the A55 across Angelsey will provide a rapid road link from Chester to Holyhead, and the upgrading of the A40 in Pembrokeshire will link the Severn crossings to Fishguard. Both will be major arterial routes for inward investment and increased trade.
      The A494, which is known as the Dolgellau-to-south-of-Birkenhead trunk road, carries traffic between mid-Wales and the north-west of England, and to the motorway network beyond. I agree with the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy that it is an arterial road and should be given significance, as he has argued.
      In the 1994 review of roads in Wales, the section of the A494 between the Wales and England boundary and its junction with the A55 at Ewloe was designated as a major strategic route, with average daily traffic flows in excess of 54,000 vehicles. In the same document, the section
      1052
      between Ewloe and Dolgellau, with much reduced traffic flows of 16,000—to fewer than 2,000 vehicles a day in some places—was designated as a route where no major strategic improvements to increase overall route capacity for long-distance traffic were considered necessary. That designation recognised its environmental setting. Any improvements on the section that were to be taken forward would be selected and targeted at specific problems such as the one described by the hon. Member.
      A number of improvements have been carried out on the A494 over the last 10 years or so. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, the Pont Rhyd Sarn scheme, which is located between Dolgellau and Llanuwchlyn, involved the construction of a new bridge to replace a substandard one—which had been the site of a number of accidents—and was opened to traffic in the early 1990s.
      The schemes already undertaken have been part of the Welsh Office's major and medium scheme programmes. In addition, many minor improvements have been undertaken over the years. There are several proposed improvement schemes in the Department's programme, which is split into major schemes, medium schemes and minor improvements. In the major scheme programme, which includes all schemes costing more than £3 million, two categories apply to the A494 trunk road. The following two schemes are in preparation: the A494 Deeside park to Ewloe improvement and the proposed Ewloe interchange improvement.
      In the longer term, there are two further A494 schemes: first, the Mold to Ewloe improvement, which will involve the construction of a dual carriageway between the northern end of the Mold bypass and the proposed Ewloe interchange improvement; and, secondly, the proposed Llanbedr bypass improvement scheme, which is the final major scheme for the A494 currently in the Department's programme.
      The Department's current medium scheme programme includes two A494 schemes in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The first is the proposed Merllwyn Gwyn to Glan yr Afon scheme, which involves the on-line improvement of the existing substandard trunk road. The area is particularly sensitive and my Department is carrying out an extensive environmental assessment.
      The second is the Drws y Nant scheme, which is the hon. Gentleman's main concern this evening. I pay tribute to him for the way in which he has pressed for the scheme to go ahead since he came to the House.
      The need for the scheme arose when part of the wall and rock support retaining the road became unstable. Traffic had to be kept away from the wall and the river, and one-way working was put in place while consideration was given to alternative remedial measures. After a review of the options available, it was concluded that the best long-term solution would be to construct a new section of road away from the line of the existing route. The necessary planning and investigation were carried out.
      A shorter improvement scheme was considered, but discarded because, with the significant cost of around £1 million, it would still leave substandard approaches with poor visibility at Drws y Nant station and would be visually intrusive because of the extensive rock cuttings and long retaining walls needed.

      1053
      It was therefore concluded that, in view of the low traffic levels on that part of the A494–3,000 to 3,500 vehicles per day, although the volume is much greater during the holiday months—it would be appropriate to retain the one-way working until the replacement scheme was developed.
      I readily concede that the problem has lasted for an intolerably long time. After 17 years, it must rank as the longest lasting set of temporary traffic light in the world. I have not been able to find it in "The Guinness Book of Records", but there was a debate in the pages of the "Reader's Digest" on whether it was the longest. We agree about the need to tackle the problem. As the hon. Gentleman said, the scheme has reached an advanced stage of preparation, with the draft orders having been first published in May 1994.
      The proposed Drws y Nant scheme involves the construction of a new 1.3 km length of single carriageway road, with a 7.3m wide carriageway and verges of variable widths. Construction would not have a major effect on the surrounding landscape, as most of the land required is part of the existing road or the dismantled railway. Most of the scheme will be screened from view by the local landform and surrounding woodlands and by the proposed screen planting. There is no objection to the scheme on environmental grounds, and there is strong local support for the improvement, which would take about 18 months to construct.
      The design and contract documents for the scheme have been completed on behalf of the Department by Gwynedd council, acting as our agents. This scheme start is dependent on the availability of the necessary finance. Had the finance been available, tenders could have already been invited, but the reduction in central Government funding by the previous Tory Administration prevented such action.
      Our review will assess whether schemes such as Drws y Nant can be supported. We will build it if we can. It has the highest priority in the medium schemes road programme. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as a result of this debate, I shall give even more serious consideration to that priority. Work would have started on it this year
      1054
      had it not been for the massive cut in the roads budget, which was nearly halved from £187 million to £115 million over the past two years. The Conservative Government failed the hon. Gentleman's constituency, just as it failed the rest of Wales.
      I promise to do my best to get the scheme in the roads programme as soon as possible. It is ready and waiting to go. However, we have been left a dreadful legacy of budget cuts by the Conservatives, and it will be difficult.
      I hope that the hon. Gentleman takes some encouragement from my commitments this evening. The future is much brighter, not just for this problem, but for the many other problems involving roads and public transport in Wales. The new Welsh Assembly will help us to implement a coherent transport policy for Wales because it will reflect all parts of the country and ensure that the interests of rural areas—especially those such as the hon. Gentleman's constituency—in mid and north Wales, are protected.
      We are aware of the priority that is attached by the hon. Gentleman and local people to the scheme. By all objective criteria, it should be given the go-ahead as soon as we can find the necessary finance. We need to have a general review of transport policy and I hope that the hon. Gentleman, his colleagues, his constituents and other Welsh Members will participate. Transport in Wales needs serious attention. We need to strengthen public transport, develop the strategic routes that I mentioned, and deal with the major routes that pass through the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
      Part of the answer to the problems will be securing a yes vote in the referendum for a Welsh Assembly, so that we can have policies that are designed for the needs of Wales instead of policies from a distance by the previous Administration who did not understand Wales and, in 18 years, did not deal with its problems.
      I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will participate in the debate on transport policy and I hope that we will be able to resolve the long-standing problem that is so frustrating to his constituents and which he so eloquently described this evening.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research has been commissioned and what estimates have been made by his Department and what information presented to him, regarding the costs per annum to the DfEE budget of the introduction of a minimum wage at(a) £3.50 an hour, (b) £4 an hour and (c) £4.40 an hour; and if he will make a statement. [2113]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply dated Friday 6 June,Official Report, column 310, by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what is his Department's range of estimates of the costs of educating the extra children in the state sector who would otherwise have had an assisted place in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–00 and (c) 2000–01; and if he will make the relevant background papers available; [2216]

  (2) what estimates his Department has made of the gross savings that will accrue in (a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–00 and (c) 2000–01 from the proposed phasing out of the assisted places scheme. [2221]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 5 June to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice),Official Report, column 245.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children in each age group in(a) Portsmouth and (b) Havant benefit from the assisted places scheme; and which schools they attend. [2675]

  Mr. Byers
  The information requested is given in the following table and relates to the current academic year 1996–97. There are no schools participating in the assisted places scheme in Havant.

  Assisted places scheme: Portsmouth

  Number of assisted place holders

  Age 5–10

  Age 11–15

  Sixth form

  Total

  Portsmouth Grammar School

  8

  142

  38

  188

  Portsmouth High School for Girls

  3

  107

  25

  135

  St. John's College, Southsea

  none

  156

  43

  199

  Total

  11

  405

  106

  522

  364
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many children from Devon are funded through the assisted places scheme; and if he will make a statement; [2497]

  (2) how many of the children in Devon schools on the assisted places scheme are from the county of Devon. [2498]

  Mr. Byers
  Information about the local education authority area from which assisted pupils originate is not collected centrally. In the current academic year 1996–97, there are 942 assisted pupils in eight schools participating in the assisted places scheme in Devon.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish a list by local education authority of average class sizes for the primary school sector at the latest available date. [2699]

  Mr. Byers
  The information is shown in the following table.

  Average size1 of classes taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in each local education authority area in England

  January 1996

  Number

  City of London

  26.8

  Camden

  27.3

  Greenwich

  25.5

  Hackney

  26.1

  Hammersmith

  26.1

  Islington

  26.2

  Kensington and Chelsea

  24.4

  Lambeth

  24.6

  Lewisham

  25.7

  Southwark

  26.2

  Tower Hamlets

  25.8

  Wandsworth

  25.4

  Westminster

  24.9

  Barking

  26.7

  Barnet

  26.3

  Bexley

  28.6

  Brent

  26.7

  Bromley

  28.7

  Croydon

  28.3

  Ealing

  27.2

  Enfield

  28.5

  Haringey

  27.0

  Harrow

  27.8

  Havering

  27.9

  Hillingdon

  26.6

  Hounslow

  27.3

  Kingston upon Thames

  30.0

  Merton

  28.1

  Newham

  27.9

  Redbridge

  29.0

  Richmond upon Thames

  26.7

  Sutton

  27.3

  Waltham Forest

  26.4

  Birmingham

  27.8

  Coventry

  27.2

  Dudley

  26.9

  Sandwell

  28.6

  Solihull

  28.2

  Walshall

  26.0

  Wolverhampton

  26.5

  Knowsley

  27.6

  Liverpool

  26.8

  St. Helens

  27.5

  365

  Average size1 of classes taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in each local education authority area in England

  January 1996

  Number

  Sefton

  27.5

  Wirral

  26.4

  Bolton

  28.5

  Bury

  28.3

  Manchester

  27.0

  Oldham

  28.6

  Rochdale

  29.2

  Salford

  27.4

  Stockport

  27.7

  Tameside

  29.3

  Trafford

  28.7

  Wigan

  28.2

  Barnsley

  28.2

  Doncaster

  28.2

  Rothertham

  26.9

  Sheffield

  26.8

  Bradford

  27.9

  Calderdale

  27.7

  Kirklees

  28.7

  Leeds

  28.1

  Wakefield

  28.0

  Gateshead

  25.9

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  27.7

  North Tyneside

  27.0

  South Tyneside

  26.8

  Sunderland

  25.6

  Isles of Scilly

  13.7

  Avon

  27.7

  Bedfordshire

  27.1

  Berkshire

  27.3

  Buckinghamshire

  27.8

  Cambridgeshire

  27.8

  Cheshire

  27.4

  Cleveland

  26.9

  Cornwall

  27.3

  Cumbria

  26.0

  Derbyshire

  28.9

  Devon

  27.2

  Dorset

  27.7

  Durham

  28.4

  East Sussex

  27.7

  Essex

  26.9

  Gloucestershire

  27.2

  Hampshire

  27.8

  Hereford and Worcester

  25.9

  Hertfordshire

  26.7

  Humberside

  27.9

  Isle of Wight

  26.9

  Kent

  27.7

  Lancashire

  28.4

  Leicestershire

  26.7

  Lincolnshire

  26.7

  Norfolk

  26.0

  North Yorkshire

  26.3

  Northamptonshire

  26.5

  Northumberland

  27.1

  Nottinghamshire

  28.3

  Oxfordshire

  26.8

  Shropshire

  27.3

  Somerset

  27.3

  Staffordshire

  27.7

  Suffolk

  25.1

  Surrey

  25.8

  Warwickshire

  27.9

  West Sussex

  26.8

  Wiltshire

  27.1

  England

  27.3

  1 Average size of one teacher classes as taught during a single selected period on the census day.

  366
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the average class size in each primary and secondary school, grant-maintained and local authority controlled, in the Spelthorne constituency on 31 March or the latest available date before that. [2566]

  Mr. Byers
  Information on class sizes for individual schools is not published centrally.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects the Form 7 figures to have been processed to provide class size information as at January 1997; and if he will make a statement. [3033]

  Mr. Byers
  Provisional figures on class sizes in maintained primary and secondary schools as at January 1997 are expected to be published in a Statistical Press Notice at the end of this month.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the evidence he has received which suggests that small class sizes deliver better educational standards; and if he will make a statement. [2698]

  Mr. Byers
  The electorate have already signalled their support for our policy to bring the educational benefits of smaller classes to all infant pupils, rather than just the few whose parents have paid for smaller classes in the independent sector. Common sense and research evidence here and notably in the United States indicate that class size is a key factor in the early years of education when pupils master the basics. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector has said in the Ofsted report on class size (1995)"small class sizes are of benefit in the early years of primary education."

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the undertaking given by the Minister for School Standards on 22 May,Official Report, column 824, that the new Education (Schools) Bill will lead to a reduction in class size for every five, six and seven-year-old in the country applies irrespective of the current size of class of which a child is a member. [2704]

  Mr. Byers
  Our pledge is to reduce class sizes for all five, six and seven-year-olds to 30 or below by the end of this Parliament.

  Single Parents
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many extra staff will be needed in jobcentres to conduct the interviews with single parents announced by the Prime Minister on 2 June; what the gross costs of the exercise will be; and how many single parents are expected to find jobs as a result of it. [2673]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Employment Service help is already available to those lone parents who choose to use it. We will consider what additional support should in time be made available to improve the help to lone parents seeking jobs.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to reduce
  367
  the compulsory elements of the national curriculum in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools; and if he will make a statement. [3029]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend does not plan to make any statutory changes to key stages 1, 2 and 3 of the national curriculum before the year 2000 and is keeping the situation at key stage 4 under review.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to restore reductions in hours of operation of job clubs imposed during the current year, with particular reference the reduction applied to Frome job club. [2241]

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

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. David Heath, dated 10 June 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the reduction in hours of Jobclubs, with particular reference to Frome Jobclub. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  It may help if I explain that we have needed to reduce our overall provision of Jobclubs as a result of the fall in unemployment over the past year and a consequent reduction in funding. In the South West we reduced our Jobclub network at the end of the 1996/97 operational year by 14 from 121 to 107, and a further 4 reduced their hours of operation.
  A number of factors led to the decision to reduce the hours at Frome Jobclub. During the 1996/7 operational year, because of falling unemployment registers, it became clear that there were no longer sufficient numbers of unemployed people to support a Jobclub presence in Frome for four mornings a week. Between April 1996 and April 1997 registered unemployment at Frome Jobcentre fell by 30% from 1,081 to 757 with a consequential impact on our ability to fill all the places at the Jobclub.
  I hope this helps to explain the background to our decision. While we have no plans at present to restore Frome JobClub's previous hours of operation, we will review the position very carefully if circumstances were to change.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Travellers (Education)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his time scale for producing the planned video on education for travellers. [2760]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This is one of a number of matters that are currently under consideration and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as a decision is reached.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of travellers' children currently of school age but not attending any school. [2761]

  Ms Morris
  Accurate data on Traveller children are difficult to collect. Through the work of the Traveller Education Services funded under section 488 of the Education Act 1996, significant progress has been made in improving school registration of traveller children. At primary level, in particular, about 80 per cent. of the total number are now registered at school, although an estimated 3–4,000 children are not. The picture at 368
  secondary level, while also improving, remains a matter of particular concern: an estimated 10,000 children are not registered at school.

  School-age Children
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children who are currently of school age are not attending any school. [2762]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  As of January 1996, local education authorities in England were arranging education otherwise than at school for 19,133 children of compulsory school age. Included in this total were 1,011 non-statemented children in hospital and 11,055 children attending Pupil Referral Units. Data for January 1997 are not yet available. The Department does not collect information on the number of children whose parents arrange education outside of the school system, as is permitted in law: but it has been estimated that some 10,000 children are educated in this manner.

  I am replying separately on the question of Traveller children not attending school.

  Non-teaching Head Teachers
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if non-teaching head teachers are included when calculating(a) class sizes and (b) pupil-teacher ratios. [2764]

  Mr. Byers
  Non-teaching head teachers are included when calculating pupil-teacher ratios but not class sizes.

  Ethnic Minorities (Education)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to take forward the 10 point plan on education for the ethnic minorities. [2759]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We are currently considering ways of raising the achievement of ethnic minority pupils, and among these the future of the previous Government's 10 point action plan. We hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Pupil-teacher Ratio
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for changes to the way in which pupil-teacher ratio and class sizes are calculated. [2763]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) on 5 June,Official Report, column 244.

  Disabled People (Civil Rights)
  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he plans to take to implement full, enforceable civil rights for disabled people. [2502]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Our manifesto commits us to establishing "comprehensive, enforceable civil rights" for disabled people. We are consulting interested parties on the best way to achieve this and we shall develop proposals in the light of our discussions.
  369

  Further Education
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the revised figures for the number of students in the further education sector as a result of the recent agreement between his Department and the Further Education Funding Council will be the baseline for the next PES round. [2871]

  Dr. Howells
  The student numbers implied by the Further Education Funding Council for England's allocations to colleges for the academic year 1997–98 will be taken into account in future decisions about public expenditure.

  Political and Special Advisers
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list(a) the name, (b) the salary, (c) the previous occupation and salary and (d) the terms and conditions of each political and special adviser in his Department; and what was the selection process used to appoint these persons. [2420]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 6 June 1997]: I have, with the approval of the Prime Minister, appointed two Special Advisers; Conor Ryan and Sophie Linden, who works part-time.

  I have, in addition, appointed Professor Michael Barber as an expert adviser on Standards and Effectiveness.

  The terms and conditions of these appointments are set out in the draft model contract, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Special Advisers are paid within a range of £24,349 to £73,484. Their salaries are negotiated individually and are confidential within this range. Details of this and of previous salary are not provided in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned. I have already announced that I will provide information on the total costs to the Department of a number of appointments as soon as agreement has been reached.

  These are personal appointments by myself, following consultation with the Permanent Head of the Department and the Prime Minister.

DEFENCE

  Chemical and Biological Weapons
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what share of the costs of the CBDE Porton Down are devoted to research and programmes related to the detection of contraventions of chemical and biological weapons treaties and conventions, and the creation of verification systems; which agencies and departments have commissioned such research and programmes; and what plans he has to review this matter. [1338]

  Mr. Spellar
  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) operates as a Trading Fund and all work carried out by the CBD Sector at Porton Down is commissioned and paid for by customers. Income for the 1996–97 financial year relating to the detection of contraventions 370
  of chemical and biological weapons treaties and conventions, and the creation of a verification system was:

  Customer

  Amount £000

  Percentage of total income 1996–97

  MOD

  1,982

  4.5

  FCO

  100

  0.3

  DTI

  150

  0.3

  OPCW1 Inspector Training

  FCO

  17

  0.04

  Other Governments

  43.5

  0.1

  2,292.5

  5.24

  1 Organisation for the Production of Chemical Weapons.

  MOD provides advice and research and development work on a range of Chemical and Biological arms control and export control matters. Other Government departments provide support to UN Special Commission, tutors for an OPCW inspectors training course and technical support to the DTI which is the UK National Authority for Implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

  Plans for expenditure in this area are regularly reviewed by Departments during their annual costing cycles. The MOD's expenditure will also be reviewed as part of the Strategic Defence Review announced by the Secretary of State for Defence on 28 May.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps have been taken to decontaminate each of the sites(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) abroad where the British Armed Forces have (i) tested and (ii) stored chemical weapons or chemical agents used in chemical weapons; when he expects this work to be completed; and what estimate he has made of the cost to date of those measures. [2438]

  Mr. Spellar
  Within the United Kingdom, former chemical warfare (CW) sites were decontaminated in accordance with the guidance prevalent at the time my Department vacated the site. Those sites which continue to form part of the Defence Estate are being assessed as part of the Department's Land Quality Assessment programme. This programme is designed to establish the condition of individual sites on the Defence Estate and, where appropriate, make recommendations for remediation. Given the extent of the Defence Estate I am not able to estimate when this work will be completed. As to the costs involved, no central records are maintained. Indeed, as remediation work on former CW sites has been spread over some 50 years it is not possible to quantify the costs involved.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the sites abroad where the United Kingdom has conducted trials or tests of chemical weapons or their components in the last 30 years, indicating the types and quantities of chemical agents used in each case. [2437]

  Dr. John Reid
  The United Kingdom relinquished its offensive chemical weapons programme in the late 1950s. Since then, no trials of chemical weapons or their components have been carried out, either in the UK or overseas.
  371

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research has been commissioned, what estimates have been made by his Department and what information presented to him, regarding the costs per annum to the total defence budget of the introduction of a minimum wage at(a) £3.50 an hour, (b) £4 an hour and (c) £4.40 an hour; and if he will make a statement. [2105]

  Dr. John Reid
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Mrs. Beckett) on 9 June (Official Report, Col. 310).

  British Army of the Rhine
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the defence budget was spent on updating the equipment of the British Army of the Rhine over the last three years. [2392]

  Mr. Spellar
  Information about expenditure on defence equipment is collated on the basis of generic categories rather than the user Service or formation. Expenditure on the development and production of Land systems has represented 6 per cent. of the Defence budget in each of the last three years.

  Note:
  1. This figure includes expenditure on Land systems for the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, and excludes expenditure on Sea and Air systems for the Army.
  2. The figure is based on cash outturn costs; for 1995–96 and 1996–97 these are estimates.
  3. The British Army of the Rhine ceased to exist as a formation from 1 April 1994 when 1 (UK) Armoured Division and the United Kingdom Support Command (Germany) became fully operational under Headquarters Land Command.

  Defence Expenditure
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) percentage of public expenditure and (b) proportion of Gross National Product each member country of NATO spent on defence in the last five years. [2391]

  Dr. John Reid
  My Department does not routinely collect information on defence expenditure by our NATO allies as a proportion of total public expenditure.

  The percentage of Gross Domestic Product spent on defence by each NATO member in each of the last five years is given below.

  Per cent.

  Country

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Greece

  5.5

  5.4

  5.6

  4.6

  4.6

  Turkey

  3.9

  4.1

  4.1

  3.9

  4.4

  United States

  5.2

  4.7

  4.2

  3.9

  3.7

  United Kingdom

  3.9

  3.6

  3.4

  3.1

  3.0

  France

  3.4

  3.4

  3.4

  3.1

  3.0

  Portugal

  2.9

  2.9

  3.0

  2.7

  2.7

  Norway

  3.4

  3.2

  3.2

  2.9

  2.5

  Netherlands

  2.5

  2.3

  2.2

  2.1

  2.0

  Italy

  2.0

  2.1

  2.1

  1.9

  2.0

  Denmark

  1.9

  2.0

  1.9

  1.8

  1.8

  Germany

  2.2

  2.0

  1.8

  1.7

  1.7

  Belgium

  1.9

  1.8

  1.8

  1.7

  1.6

  372

  Per cent.

  Country

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Canada

  2.0

  1.9

  1.8

  1.6

  1.5

  Spain

  1.7

  1.5

  1.6

  1.5

  1.5

  Luxembourg

  1.2

  1.2

  1.1

  0.9

  0.8

  Iceland, although a member of NATO, has no armed forces.

  RAF Wroughton
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidelines have been laid down for the present and future usage of the RAF Wroughton site, including the former Princess Alexandra Hospital; and what is the total income that has been generated by leasing out the site and its facilities since the closure of the hospital; and from whom. [2306]

  Mr. Spellar
  Fifty-six airmen's quarters at RAF Wroughton have been leased for a period of three years to three housing associations, pending their re-use by the armed forces. I am withholding information on the level of rent being paid for reasons of commercial confidentiality under exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. No other facilities have been leased out since the site closed. The former Princess Alexander Hospital is in disposal, and guidelines for its future use are therefore a matter for the local planning authority. In the meantime, all relevant health and safety guidelines are being followed.

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about plastic baton rounds. [3191]

  Mr. Spellar
  I understand that tests have shown that a significant proportion of a batch of plastic baton rounds, approved for use in public order situations by the Armed Forces, by police forces in England and Wales and by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, have muzzle velocities slightly in excess of the upper limit in the equipment specification. These rounds, which were on issue from early 1994, were withdrawn from all operational use in April this year. Replacement stocks, which do not exceed the specified velocity, have been issued.

  Plastic baton rounds and the procedures governing their use will be kept under continuous review. In addition, procedures are being put in place to ensure that stocks in operational use are tested regularly to ensure that they continue to conform to specification. A programme has been put in hand to take advantage of emerging technologies, with the aim of developing improved baton round equipment to meet operational needs but with reduced injury potential. We will continue to look at other effective means for controlling public disorder and riot situations.

  Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the United Kingdom's contribution to the costs of the preparatory commission for the international organization established under the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty, expressing the figures(a) for each relevant

  373
  Government financial year and (b) for each financial year of the commission; and from which subheads of which votes these funds are taken. [2551]

  Dr. John Reid
  The Government is fully committed to the strong verification regime of monitoring and on-site inspection which is so essential to the successful implementation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The Budget of the Preparatory Commission of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organisation is determined annually. That for 1997 was finalised last March and amounted to some $US28, of which the United Kingdom contribution, based upon the United Nations scale of charges, is 6 per cent. So far the United kingdom has paid some $US213,00, and the balance will be paid later this year.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Developing Countries (Debts)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what criteria will be used to determine which developing countries are given priority in respect of reducing their debts to the United Kingdom. [2669]

  Clare Short
  We will give priority to those countries which are eligible for concessional Paris Club relief. These are low income countries whose debt burden is unsustainable, and which are undertaking economic reform programmes agreed with the IMF. Our aim is that debt relief should be part of a wider commitment by debtors to economic reform, to ensure that the relief encourages economic development and leads to lasting poverty reduction.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how she intends to reduce the debt owed to Britain from developing countries in the next year. [2666]

  Clare Short
  The United Kingdom will play a full part in rescheduling negotiations at the Paris Club of Official Creditors, and will push for swift and comprehensive implementation of the recently agreed Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the estimated debt to Britain from developing countries. [2665]

  Clare Short
  In November 1996 (the latest date for which figures are currently available) the total outstanding rescheduled debt owed to the Export Credits Guarantee Department by countries defined by the World Bank as developing countries (lower and middle income countries) and which have had a Paris Club debt rescheduling was £7,434.58 million.

  At the end of March 1997 the total value of development loans owed to the Overseas Development Administration was £239 million.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has and over what time scale to cancel the debt owed to Britain by developing countries. [2667]

  Clare Short
  The United Kingdom has already forgiven aid loans worth £1.2 billion. We are willing to consider similar relief on aid debts for the remaining low 374
  income debtors which cannot service their debt and have demonstrated their ability to use debt relief to promote economic development and reduce poverty.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what research her Department has evaluated on measures taken or evaluated by other countries to reduce the debts owed by developing countries. [2668]

  Clare Short
  We have studied with interest assessments from a number of sources, including non-governmental organisations, the OECD' s Development Assistance Committee, the international financial institutions and the Commonwealth Secretariat.

  Costa Rica
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the total sum now owed by the Government of Costa Rica to Her Majesty's Government under the terms of the loan agreement dated 15 February 1973, as amended; how much of this is(a) principal and (b) interest; and what future interest charges are expected. [2548]

  Clare Short
  Under the present schedule of repayments the total sum due to be repaid by the Government of Costa Rica to Her Majesty's Government under the terms of the loan agreement dated 15 February 1973, as amended is £1,237,845.85; of this £1,121,191.31 is principal and £116,654.54 is interest. Future interest charges are at the rate of 3 per cent. per annum.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what was the total sum lent to the Government of Costa Rica by Her Majesty's Government under the terms of the loan agreement dated 15 February 1973, as amended. [2546]

  Clare Short
  The sum lent to the Government of Costa Rica by Her Majesty's Government under the terms of the loan agreement dated 15 February 1973, as amended is £3,880,441.25. Since that date repayments under this loan have been rescheduled on nine occasions and arrears of interest have been consolidated into the original loan.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what further discussions there have been between the Government of Costa Rica and Her Majesty's Government with regard to the loan agreement dated 15 February 1973, as amended, since the debt rescheduling agreement of 18 November 1993. [2542]

  Clare Short
  There have been no discussions of the agreement since the 18 November 1993 rescheduling. We have drawn the attention of the Costa Rican authorities to arrears whenever they have arisen, which has resulted in their being cleared.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the total sum paid by the Government of Costa Rica to Her Majesty's Government under the terms of the loan agreement dated 15 February 1973, as amended; and how much of this is(a) principal and (b) interest. [2547]

  Clare Short
  The total sum paid to date by the Government of Costa Rica to Her Majesty's Government under the terms of the loan agreement dated 15 February 1973, as amended £7,105,106.87; of this £4,828,039.28 is principal and £2,277,067.59 is interest.
  375

  Jammu and Kashmir
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the current provision of aid to Jammu and Kashmir. [2730]

  Clare Short
  DFID contributed £17 million from Aid and Trade Provision funds to a 480MW hydroelectric power station at Uri, which has just been completed. Since 1995 DFID has also contributed £450,000 in support of the International Committee of the Red Cross programme in Jammu and Kashmir, including a new contribution of £150,000 in March 1997.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the current provision of aid to Sierra Leone. [2729]

  Clare Short
  Following the military coup on 25 May, we have suspended our bilateral aid programme pending developments.

  DFID had been working closely with the democratically elected government to rebuild the country and reduce poverty.

  UN Poverty Conference
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made in implementing the conclusions of the UN Copenhagen Conference on International Poverty; and if she will make a statement. [1193]

  Clare Short
  This Government is committed to working for a safer, more decent and environmentally stable world. The elimination of poverty is at the centre of our agenda. I am currently reviewing all our programmes to ensure that resources are targeted accordingly. A White Paper will be issued in the Autumn setting out how, through more coherent policies, the Government will tackle global poverty and promote sustainable development. This strategy will embrace the commitments agreed at the Copenhagen Summit.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proportion of national lottery proceeds have been directed to the Northern region. [2147]

  Mr. Banks
  Regions in the North of England have received £754,542,879 from the Lottery representing a share of 21 per cent. of all Lottery money distributed to date. The details are set out in the following table.

  Region

  Total £

  Total per cent.1

  North West

  326,412,694

  9

  North East

  143,883,667

  4

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  210,442,746

  6

  Merseyside

  73,803,772

  2

  Total

  754,542,879

  21

  1 Rounded to the nearest per cent.

  376

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Defendants (Prosecution Costs)
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the total sum ordered to be paid by defendants in criminal cases in relation to the prosecution cost; and what was the total sum recovered in each of the last three years. [2955]

  The Attorney-General
  Information on the amounts ordered to be paid by defendants in relation to prosecution costs is not available centrally within the Crown Prosecution Service and could be collected only at disproportionate cost. The sums recovered from defendants in the last three years in relation to the CPS are as follows:

  Amount recovered £ million

  1994–95

  19.3

  1995–96

  20.5

  1996–97

  21.4

  The number of cases handled by the Serious Fraud Office is sufficiently small for such awards to be centrally available. Orders for the payment of prosecution costs are passed to the appropriate magistrates court which is responsible for enforcing the order and collecting payments. The amounts awarded and recovered in the last three financial years in relation to awards in favour of the SFO are:

  Awarded £

  Recovered £

  1994–95

  60,000

  154,621.50

  1995–96

  191,667

  24,756.00

  1996–97

  6,000

  1172,554.66

  1Unaudited figure. Please note that recovery of amounts of costs awarded do not always fall in the same financial year.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates and Justices of the Peace
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what studies he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated to indicate the relative case disposal rate of stipendiary magistrates and justices of the peace. [2947]

  Mr. Hoon
  In 1994, the Lord Chancellor established a working party to identify more clearly the respective roles of the stipendiary magistracy and the lay bench in the administration of justice in the magistrates' courts. The working party commissioned research from the University of Leeds on the role and appointment of stipendiary magistrates. A copy of the working party's report (published in February 1996) is available in both libraries.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many appeals against (i) conviction and (ii) sentence were successfully made from decisions of justices of the peace; and how many appeals against (1) convictions and (2) sentence were successfully made from decisions of stipendiary
  377
  and metropolitan stipendiary magistrates in each of the last three years. [2938]

  Mr. Hoon
  The question concerns a matter which has been assigned to the Court Service under the terms of its framework document. I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Humfrey Malins, dated 9 June 1997:

  Appeals

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Varied1

  Remitted to mag crt2

  Abandoned in court3

  Abandoned before court4

  Other result

  Total

  1996–97

  4,312

  6,198

  3,259

  39

  1,057

  3,002

  166

  18,033

  1995–96

  7,839

  8,181

  4,283

  44

  1,182

  3,901

  312

  25,742

  1994–95

  8,116

  7,957

  4,003

  42

  1,132

  3,901

  369

  25,520

  1 Appeals where sentence has been reduced.

  2 Appeals sent back to magistrates' court for consideration.

  3 Appeals which have been abandoned at a hearing.

  4 Appeals which have been abandoned before a hearing.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to increase(a) the number of metropolitan stipendiary magistrates and (b) the number of stipendiary magistrates. [2949]

  Mr. Hoon
  Stipendiary magistrates are appointed by the Lord Chancellor at the request of the relevant Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee in order to assist the efficient disposal of cases in magistrates' courts. Under the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 the statutory ceilings on the number of stipendiary appointments are: 60 metropolitan stipendiary magistrates; and 50 provincial stipendiary magistrates. There are no current plans to raise either ceiling. Appointments to two recently established provincial stipendiary magistrate posts in Derbyshire will be announced shortly.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many justices of the peace there are in England and Wales. [2951]

  Mr. Hoon
  As at 1 January 1997 there were 30,374 active justices of the peace in England and Wales, 15,858 men and 14,516 women.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases were disposed of by justices of the peace in 1996. [2953]

  Mr. Hoon
  Magistrates throughout England and Wales dealt with 2,321,475 defendants in completed criminal cases and 531,181 applications in completed family and civil cases during 1996. The Lord Chancellor's Department does not collect a breakdown of which cases were heard by justices of the peace or by stipendiary magistrates.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to change the(a) title and (b) working conditions of stipendiary magistrates. [2954]

  Mr. Hoon
  A consultation paper on the titles of stipendiary magistrates was issued in 1992. The responses revealed there to be insufficient consensus on which alternative title might be adopted for stipendiary magistrates. There are no plans to change working conditions of stipendiary magistrates.
  378
  The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about how many appeals against convictions and sentence were successfully made from decisions of justices of the peace, stipendiary and metropolitan stipendiary magistrates in each of the last three years.

  The information requested is not held centrally and can only be provided at disproportionate cost. However, I set out below information on the total number of appeals made from magistrates' courts which may be of interest to you.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to give(a) stipendiary and (b) metropolitan stipendiary magistrates sentencing or other powers greater than those exercised by justices of the peace. [2940]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are currently no plans to alter sentencing or other powers of stipendiary or metropolitan stipendiary magistrates. However, this Government's commitment to a review of Youth Justice might identify the need to consider this issue further.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what has been the average cost to the Exchequer of(a) a stipendiary magistrate and (b) a justice of the peace, in each of the last three years. [2948]

  Mr. Hoon
  The average cost to the Consolidated Fund of a stipendiary magistrate for the last three years was:

  1994–95:£60,939

  1995–96: £67,340

  1996–97: £70,072

  The average cost of financial loss, travelling and subsistence allowances and training of a justice of the peace for the three most recent financial years for which such information is available was:

  1993–94: £418

  1994–95: £471

  1995–96: £452

  Expenditure figures for 1996–97 are not yet available.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many metropolitan stipendiary magistrates and stipendiary magistrates there are in England and Wales. [2950]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are 50 metropolitan stipendiary magistrates and 40 provincial stipendiary magistrates in post.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases were disposed of by metropolitan stipendiary magistrates and stipendiary magistrates in 1996. [2952]

  Mr. Hoon
  Magistrates throughout England and Wales dealt with 2,321,475 defendants in completed criminal cases and 531,181 applications in completed family and
  379
  civil cases during 1996. The Lord Chancellor's Department does not collect a breakdown of which cases were heard by justices of the peace or by stipendiary magistrates.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the total sum ordered to be paid by legally aided defendants in all criminal proceedings by way of contribution to legal aid; and what was the total sum so paid in each of the last three years. [2956]

  Mr. Hoon
  Information on the amount of contribution ordered to be paid by legally aided defendants in criminal proceedings is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The total amount of contributions received, net of any repayments to defendants, in each of the last three years for which information is available, was as follows:

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Criminal magistrates' court

  2.3

  2.7

  2.7

  Higher criminal courts

  1.6

  1.6

  1.6

  Total contributions received

  3.9

  4.3

  4.3

  Following an acquittal an assisted person may be reimbursed the full cost of contributions that have been paid. However, information on the amount of contributions repaid is not available.

SCOTLAND

  Maternity Unit (Glasgow)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans there are for financing the proposed new maternity unit at Glasgow Royal Infirmary which will serve the Shettleston constituency; and if he will make a statement. [2215]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The proposed new maternity unit at Glasgow Royal Infirmary is part of a package of private finance initiative projects which I am reviewing at present.

  Scottish Screen
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which body will be charged with responsibility for the cultural and educational aspects of film and video. [2285]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Scottish Screen took over the responsibilities of the Scottish Film Council on 1 April 1997.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what local authority representation there is on the current Scottish Screen Board. [2196]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 6 June 1997]: At present there is no local authority representation on the board of Scottish Screen. This is an omission which I look forward to rectifying at the earliest opportunity.
  380
  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current staffing of Scottish Screen; and if he will list the job titles of those staff. [2198]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 6 June 1997]: Thirty six people are employed. Under the Chief Executive there are eight departments: Production; Development; Archive; Locations; Marketing, Information & Business Development; Europe (Media Antenna): Training; and Central Services.

  The job titles are:
  Chief Executive's Office: Chief Executive, Personal Assistant;
  Production: Production Business Executive, Projects Producer, Production Assistant, Information Officer;
  Development: Development Producer, Development Assistant;
  Archive: Development Producer, Development Assistant;
  Archive; Archive Curator, Production Library Administrator, Librarian, Assistant Librarian (Cataloguing), Gaelic Television Officer, Preservation and Technical Executive Officer, Access Technician;
  Locations: Locations Director, Locations Co-ordinator, Locations Assistant;
  Marketing, Information, Business & Development: Exhibition Officer, Marketing Officer, Marketing Assistant, Information Officer;
  MEDIA Antenna (Europe): MEDIA Antenna Officer, MEDIA Antenna Assistant;
  Training: Training Director, Projects Producer, Training Co-ordinator, Projects Producer, Clerical Assistant;
  Central Services: Accountant, Accounting Assistant, Accounting Clerk, Office Manager, Office Assistant, Senior Development Officer, Administration Officer.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his plans for compulsory competitive tendering. [2286]

  Mr. Chisholm
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on 2 June,Official Report, columns 67–68.

  HIV/AIDS
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what plans he has to provide additional resources for HIV/AIDS therapy in Scotland in light of the increased availability of more effective HIV/AIDS drug treatments; and if he will make a statement; [2433]

  (2) what steps he will take to ensure that there is sufficient funding for HIV/AIDS clinics in Scotland to meet the anticipated increased demand for their services; and if he will make a statement; [2434]

  (3) what steps he will take to ensure full availability of combination therapies, counselling services, dietetic treatments, in-patient services, psychiatric support in the community and district nurse services and other necessary services for HIV/AIDS patients; and if he will make a statement. [2435]

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide additional funds for the provision of the new combination therapies for HIV/AIDS patients. [2289]
  381
  Mr. Galbraith
  It is for health boards to consider the treatment and care to be provided to HIV/AIDS patients in their areas in the light of local needs and of the total resources available to them. The implications of the new combination therapies will be among the factors they consider.

  In the current year, health boards in Scotland have been given, within their general allocations, funds totalling £9.6 million to respond to the treatment and care needs of persons with HIV/AIDS. In addition, boards are receiving some £6.4 million to engage in prevention activities.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will remove the capital restrictions imposed on the current year's Scottish Homes budget. [2473]

  Mr. Chisholm
  The Government is committed to working within current expenditure plans. Under these, Scottish Homes is required to use its capital receipts to repay debt. To remove this requirement would mean having to find offsetting savings from other Scottish Office programmes. We are, of course, continuing to review spending priorities generally across the Scottish Office.

  Manning Appeals
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to synchronise the rights of objectors to appeal with the existing rights available to developers. [1970]

  Mr. Chisholm
  [holding answer 9 June 1997]: The Scottish Office has no plans to extend to objectors the existing rights of applicants to appeal against the refusal of planning permission. Objectors already have a voice and can make representations to the planning authority before a planning application is decided. In particular, they have the opportunity to submit views to their community councils (which are now statutory consultees for all planning applications) and the Council. Councils are required to take these views fully into account when deciding applications.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Special Advisers
  Ms McDonagh
  To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to her oral answer to the right hon. Members for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) and for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) of 5 June,Official Report, columns 549–50, if she will make a further statement on the arrangements for the positive vetting of special advisers. [3053]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  Special advisers are vetted as appropriate to the sensitivity of material they see. In the Prime Minister's Office, Mr. Jonathan Powell may from time to time need to have access to sensitive intelligence material. He has previously been positively vetted and his vetting is now being renewed. Some other special advisers in No. 10 are, as a matter of routine, being positively vetted though it is unlikely that they will have access to sensitive intelligence material.
  382

  European Affairs Committees
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the President of the Council when she expects to move to re-establish the Select Committee on European Legislation and European Standing Committees A and B; and if she will make a statement on her proposals for their responsibilities in the forthcoming parliamentary session. [2567]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  I hope that the Committees will be re-established soon. They will continue to operate under their current Standing Orders pending the House's approval of any recommendations for change following the review of the process for scrutinising European legislation, which the Government is committed to undertaking.

  Constitutional Bills
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the President of the Council on which previous occasion or occasions a Bill of constitutional significance has been made subject to a timetable motion before the commencement of the Committee stage. [2153]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  [pursuant to her answer, 9 June 1997, c. 318]: The Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill were the subject of Allocation of Time Orders made on 16 November 1977, having been given a Second Reading on 14 and 15 November respectively.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research has been commissioned and what estimates have been made by his Department and what information presented to him, regarding the costs per annum to the total Home Department budget of the introduction of a minimum wage at(a) £3.50 an hour, (b) 4 an hour and (c) £4.40 an hour; and if he will make a statement. [2110]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 9 June,Official Report, column 310.

  London Fire and Civil Defence Authority
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to assist the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority with the growth in its pension liabilities; and if he will make a statement. [2366]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Fire authorities generally are faced with the cost of meeting increasing pensions commitments from their revenue budgets. The Government will take this into account in reaching its decisions on future local government settlements. My right hon. Friend will also be giving early consideration to taking forward the review that has been undertaken of the fireman's pension scheme.
  383

  Animal Experimentation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what research he has commissioned into the overbreeding of small animals in London medical schools; and if he will make a statement; [2386]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the findings of the report, "Access Denied", by the national Anti-Vivisection Society, a copy of which has been sent to him. [2388]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The allegations made by the National Anti-Vivisection Society in their report "Access Denied", including those of overbreeding of laboratory animals, were investigated by a senior member of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate. A letter outlining the findings of this investigation was sent to the Director of the National Anti-Vivisection Society in July 1996.

  The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 anticipates the overbreeding of animals and specifically provides for their humane killing. Overbreeding is inevitable and arises from difficulty in predicting when and how many animals will be needed in the face of varying demands specifying age, sex, weight and strain, for example.

  Mr. Hanclock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to allow public scrutiny of project licence applications for animal experimentation. [2387]

  Mr. Howarth
  Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 prohibits the disclosure of such information.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the members of the Animal Procedures Committee; when the terms of office of the members come to an end; and what plans he has to increase public openness of the appointments procedure. [2385]

  Mr. Howarth
  The members of the Committee are as follows:

  Appointed

  Professor Margaret Brazier (Appointed as Chairman in October 1993)

  July 1990

  Professor Ronald Anderson

  December 1994

  Professor Margaret Boden

  December 1994

  Professor Barry Bridges

  January 1990

  Professor Fiona Broughton Pipkin

  January 1990

  Dr. David Christopher

  December 1994

  Dr. Yvonne Cripps

  December 1994

  Professor Robin Dunbar

  January 1997

  Professor Paul Flecknell

  December 1994

  Mr. John Gregory

  January 1997

  Professor Susan Iversen

  January 1990

  Mrs. Judy MacArthur Clark

  December 1994

  Miss Cindy Milburn

  April 1995

  Dr. Ian Purchase

  December 1994

  Dr. Jacqueline Southee

  April 1995

  Professor Michael Spyer

  January 1990

  Dr. Anthony Suckling

  January 1992

  Professor John Turner

  January 1997

  Mr. Les Ward

  April 1995

  384
  A list of members is published each year in the Committee's annual report.

  Members of the Committee are appointed for a term not exceeding four years. No member may be appointed for more than two terms. Appointments are always announced.

  Consideration is currently being given to changes in the appointment process in the light of the recommendations made by the Nolan Committee.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what measures will be taken to promote and enforce the principles of reduction, refinement and replacement in respect of animal experiments; [3004]

  (2) how the Government intends to promote and facilitate the investigation of viable alternatives to the use of animals in experiments. [3006]

  Mr. Howarth
  Under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, no programme of work can be authorised unless consideration has been given to alternatives; these include reduction, refinement and replacement. In assessing project licence applications, the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate ensures that such consideration has been given.

  The Government makes funds available to the Animals Procedures Committee to sponsor research into and other work concerned with alternatives.

  The Government fully supports the work of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Government will be pressing for immediate implementation of the ban on cosmetics testing on animals agreed by the EU Commission in 1993. [2879]

  Mr. Howarth
  The 6th Council amendment to the European Cosmetics Directive sought in 1993 to ban the marketing of cosmetic products containing ingredients, or combinations of ingredients, tested on animals after January 1998, but only if validated alternative tests, which offer an equivalent level of protection for the consumer, are in place.

  Despite intense and continuing research efforts, mainly by the cosmetics industry itself, validated alternatives are not available for all tests and the European Union has had to postpone the deadline until June 2000.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make the technical details of applications for licences under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and information regarding breaches of the regulations of this Act more easily available and accessible to the public. [2881]
  385
  Mr. Howarth
  Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 prohibits the disclosure of such information.

  General information on infringements of the Act is published each year in the annual report of the Animal Procedures Committee.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have to establish a Royal Commission inquiry into animal experiments; and what is the proposed time scale. [3003]

  Mr. Howarth
  We have no such plans at this time.

  CS Gas Spray
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the use of CS gas spray by the police. [2267]

  Mr. Michael
  The Decision to issue CS spray equipment is for chief constables while the decision to use CS spray, once issued, rests with individual officers, who must comply with the law in relation to the use of any force.

  In April 1995, the Association of Chief Police Officers agreed that selected forces should conduct street trials of CS spray. This followed a long period of consideration of possible police use of incapacitant sprays. Expert assessment of all available scientific data concluded that not enough was know about the health effects of pepper spray but that CS, which had been tested to a level similar to that required for a new pharmaceutical drug, did not present any significant threat to health. Trials took place in 16 forces between 1 March and 31 August 1996. Officers felt that the new equipment had brought about a marked reduction in assaults, although assaults data gave a mixed picture on this. The trials confirmed the safety of CS. Seventeen forces, including the Metropolitan Police, currently have CS sprays. Guidance on the use of CS is an operational matter for chief officers. The Association of Chief Police Officers have produced guidelines, copies of which have been in the Library since April 1996.

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of introducing into British law the European convention on human rights. [1197]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The speech of my right hon. Friend on the Debate on the Address on 19 May,Official Report, column 395, set out the case, in the Government's view, for incorporating the Convention. It will be for others to point out what they see as the disadvantages.

  I will send the hon. Gentleman a document, "Bringing Rights Home", published by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent South (Mr. Boateng) in December, setting out the case in more detail.
  386

  Deportation
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many children were served with notices of intention to deport in 1995, 1996 and 1997 to date; [2467]

  (2) how many children were deported in 1995, 1996 and 1997 to date. [2466]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  the answer to the question is given in the table.

  Children subject to deportation action under section 3(5)(c) of the Immigration Act

  1995

  1996

  January to May 19971

  Served with a notice of intention to deport

  146

  533

  202

  Removed under the deportation process2

  3

  10

  2

  1 Provisional data.

  2 Including voluntary departures after deportation action had been initiated.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were detained in Birmingham prison under Immigration Act powers during 1996; how many of those detained were deported; and what were their nationalities. [2469]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Provisional information for 1996 is contained in the tables.

  Persons detained in Birmingham prison under Immigration Act powers, numbers in custody at the end of each month, 1996, by nationality:

  Total number in custody at the end of the month

  Nationalities

  January

  51

  Algerian (2), Bangladeshi (2), Chinese (5), Indian (27), Nigerian (4), Pakistani (6), Others (5)

  February

  55

  Algerian (6), Chinese (3), Indian (25), Nigerian (5), Pakistani (9), Others (7)

  March

  63

  Algerian (8), Chinese (2), Indian (30), Nigerian (4), Pakistani (6), South African (2), Others (11)

  April

  48

  Algerian (8), Bangladeshi (2), Indian (27), Nigerian (2), Pakistani (2), South African (2), Others (5)

  May

  51

  Algerian (9), Bangladeshi (3), Indian (23), Nigerian (5), Pakistani (3), Others (8)

  June

  50

  Algerian (7), Chinese (2), Indian (29), Nigerian (4), Others (8)

  July

  39

  Algerian (3), Chinese (2), Indian (20), Jamaican (3), Nigerian (3), Pakistani (2), Others (6)

  August

  28

  Algerian (4), Indian (12), Nigerian (2), Pakistani (3), Others (7)

  September

  26

  Algerian (3), Indian (11), Nigerian (4), Pakistani (3), Others (5)

  October

  19

  Algerian (2), Indian (11), Nigerian (2), Others (4)

  November

  20

  Algerian (5), Indian (7), Jamaican (3), Pakistani (2), Others (3)

  December

  18

  Algerian (7), Indian (4), Jamaican (2), Nigerian (2), Turkish (2), Others (1)

  387

  Persons recorded as discharged from Birmingham prison for removal by the Immigration Service in 1996, by nationality:

  Total number deported during the month

  Nationalities

  January

  23

  Bangladeshi (3), Indian (16), Others (4)

  February

  22

  China (2), Indian (11), Jamaica (2), Pakistani (2), Others (5)

  March

  20

  Indian (8), Nigerian (2), Pakistani (5), Others (5)

  April

  17

  Indian (8), Pakistani (3), Others (6)

  May

  10

  Algerian (2), Indian (6), Pakistani (2)

  June

  11

  Indian (4), Pakistani (2), Others (5)

  July

  21

  Algerian (2), Indian (16), Jamaican (2), Others (1)

  August

  15

  Hong Kong (2), Indian (8), Jamaican (2), Others (3)

  September

  12

  Indian (4), Morocco (2), Others (6)

  October

  5

  Indian (3), Others (2)

  November

  12

  Indian (6), Others (6)

  December

  4

  Indian (2), Jamaican (2)

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those people detained in Birmingham prison under Immigration Act powers were deported during the months of January, February, March and April; and what were the nationalities of those deported. [2468]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Provisional information for January to April 1997 is contained in the table.

  Persons recorded as being discharged for removal by the immigration service in January to April 1997, who had been detained in Birmingham prison

  Total number discharged during the month

  Nationality

  January

  5

  Indian (2), Others (3)

  February

  5

  Indian (3), Others (2)

  March

  3

  Others (3)

  April

  1

  Others (1)

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people who had applied at some stage for asylum, were deported from Birmingham prison during January, February, March and April; and what were the nationalities of those deported; [2464]

  (2) how many people who had applied at some stage for asylum were detained in Birmingham prison during January, February, March and April; and what were the nationalities of those detained. [2465]

  Mr. O'Brien
  The available information on asylum seekers detained in Her Majesty's Prison Birmingham is given in the table.

  There were no failed asylum seekers recorded as being deported from Her Majesty's Prison Birmingham during each of the months January to April 1997. This does no include asylum seekers removed as illegal entrants or under port refusal procedures.
  388

  Table 1: Number of people recorded1,2 as being detained3 at Her Majesty's prison Birmingham who had sought asylum at some stage, by nationality of detainee, as at selected dates in 1997.

  Nationality

  As at 31 January4 1997

  As at 27 March 1997

  As at 30 April 1997

  Algeria

  6

  6

  3

  India

  5

  4

  2

  Others5

  5

  5

  5

  Total

  16

  15

  10

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 Source: ISED and ISPD computer systems.

  3 Persons detained solely under the powers contained in Schedules 2 or 3 of the Immigration Act 1971. In some cases the asylum application will have been lodged subsequent to the applicant being detained. The figures include both detained asylum applicants who applied at ports, and those detained in after-entry enforcement work and include those awaiting removal following refusal of asylum, as well as those whose applications were under consideration or subject to appeal.

  4 Illegal entrants and those subject to deportation action are as at 31 January and Port cases are as at 3 February.

  5 The "Other" category may include nationalities already listed.

  Immigration Detainees
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were detained in Birmingham prison under Immigration Act powers in January, February, March and April; and what were the nationalities of those detained. [2470]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  Persons detained in Birmingham prison under Immigration Act powers, in custody at the end of each month, January to April 1997, by nationality

  Total number in custody at the end of the month

  Nationality

  January

  16

  Algerian (5), Indian (5), Nigerian (2), Turkish (2), Other (2)

  February

  12

  Algerian (7), Nigerian (2), Turkish (2), Other (1)

  March

  11

  Algerian (6), Turkish (2), Other (3)

  April

  11

  Algerian (4), Jamaican (3), Other (4)

  WPC Yvonne Fletcher
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will investigate the allegations contained in a television programme in respect of the late Police Constable, Yvonne Fletcher, a copy of which has been sent to him. [2958]

  Mr. Straw
  Despite extensive police investigation, nobody has been prosecuted for the brutal murder of WPC Fletcher. The case remains open and the Metropolitan Police will consider any new evidence put to them. They are reviewing the contents of the programme.

  Shooting Incident (St. James's Square)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information British intelligence
  389
  services received prior to the shooting in St James's Square on 17 April about the prospect of a shooting in the square. [2957]

  Mr. Straw
  It is not Government practice to comment on speculation about the activities of the intelligence services.

  First-time Offenders
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate how many of those persons convicted of a serious criminal offence in 1996 were first-time offenders. [2941]

  Mr. Michael
  There is no universal or simple definition of the term "serious offence, but information routinely available centrally for England and Wales relates to convictions for a "standard list" of fence. These offences are listed in appendices 4 and 5 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1995" (Cm. 3421). They include all indictable and some of the more serious summary offences."

  The latest figures available on this basis relate to 1994, when it is estimated that, of the 357,000 persons sentenced for standard list offences, 199,000 had no previous convictions for such offences.

  Figures for 1995 should be available later this year.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people sought asylum in the United Kingdom; how many were refused; and of those refused, how many were removed from the United Kingdom in each of the last four years. [2943]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information regarding asylum applications submitted in the United Kingdom, and on initial decisions on applications, for each of the years 1993 to 1996, is given in table 1.1 of the Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom, 1996", issue 15/97. Information on removals and voluntary departures of asylum applicants during this period is given in table 10.1 of the same publication, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many persons who sought asylum in the United Kingdom in the last three years but were refused, are still in the United Kingdom; and of such persons how many are at addresses known to his Department; [2942]

  (2) what proportion of those persons who sought asylum in the United Kingdom in (a) 1994, (b) 1995 and (c) 1996 and who are still in the United Kingdom are at addresses known to his Department. [2944]

  Mr. O'Brien
  The requested information is not available.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to announce an amnesty for those in the United Kingdom illegally. [2946]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government have no plans to introduce such an amnesty.
  390

  Immigration Advisers
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce a registration scheme for immigration advisers; and if he will make a statement. [2945]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our manifesto commits us to the control of unscrupulous immigration advisers. We are examining how we will deliver on that commitment.

  Pucklechurch Prison
  Professor Steven Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to involve the private sector in the running of the proposed prison at Pucklechurch, South Gloucestershire. [2408]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 June 1997]: We will be making an announcement about our approach to the private sector management of prisons and its implications for the prison building programme shortly.

  Metropolitan Police (Civil Staff)
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for implementing the recommendations of the recent review of the role of the civilian staff function of the Metropolitan police; and if he will make a statement. [2402]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 6 June 1997]: I am currently discussing with the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District and others arrangements for implementing those recommendations from their recent review of support services in which my right hon. Friend, as police authority, has a particular interest. I will write to the hon. Member when those discussions have been concluded.

PRIME MINISTER

  Official Residences
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has for the more effective use of(a) Dorneywood, (b) Admiralty House, (c) Chevening, (d) Chequers and (e) 1 Carlton Terrace. [1931]

  The Prime Minister
  I expect these houses to be effectively used for the purposes for which they were designated, including for official entertainment and for conferences.

  Political and Special Advisers
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list(a) the name, (b) the salary, (c) the previous occupation and salary and (d) the terms and conditions of each political and special adviser in his office; and what was the selection process used to appoint these persons. [2427]

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Prime Minister how many of the political appointments to his Office do not have salaries on the special advisers pay spine. [2533]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 6 June 1997]: The terms and conditions of the appointment of special advisers are set out in the draft model contract, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. For a list of the

  391
  appointments in Number 10 Downing Street I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) on 2 June, Official Report, columns 98–99.

  Special advisers are paid within a range of £24,349 to £73,484. Their salaries are negotiated individually, and are confidential within this range. As under the previous Government, details of current and previous salary are not provided in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned.

  The only exceptions who are paid outside this range are the two special advisers who have been given additional executive responsibilities under the amended Order in Council, my Chief of Staff Jonathan Powell and my Press Secretary Alastair Campbell. The Remuneration Committee established to advise me on special adviser salaries has decided that they should be paid £87,936. This figure is based on 80 per cent. of payband 7 of the Senior Civil Service range, together with an allowance of £5,000. My current Principal Private Secretary is also in payband 7 and receives an allowance of just over £5,000.

  Under the previous Government, the highest paid special adviser was the Head of the Number 10 Policy Unit, who was paid at the lower end of the Permanent Secretary range, which from 1 April 1997 is £91,800 to £157,590.

  The appointments in Number 10 Downing Street are my personal appointments following consultation with the Head of the Civil Service.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the result of his recent discussions with Herr Kohl on Germany's obligations to the Eurofighter Project. [2441]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 9 June 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend, the arliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, on 9 June.

  Mr. Jonathan Powell
  Dr. Mawhinney
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the names of those normally at present employed to work in(a) 10 Downing Street and (b) the Cabinet Office who have seen, or had access to classified documents, prior to receiving security clearance, since 1 May. [2559]

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Prime Minister if Mr. Jonathan Powell will have access to all levels of advice and papers relating to intelligence and security. [2813]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 9 June 1997]: My Chief of Staff, Jonathan Powell, may from time to time need to have access to sensitive intelligence material. He has previously been positively vetted, and his vetting is now being renewed. Pending the completion of that process, the security and intelligence agencies have been consulted about what material he should see and their recommendations are being followed.

  Special advisers in my office are, as a matter of routine, being positively vetted, though I do not expect them to have access, for example, to sensitive intelligence material.
  392

  Minister without Portfolio
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister Pursuant to his answer of 3 June,Official Report, column 134, what steps he is taking to ensure public accountability for the work undertaken by the Minister without Portfolio. [2561]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 9 June 1997]: My hon. Friend will, like the Minister without Portfolio in the previous administration, answer written questions from hon. Members about his ministerial role.

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the ministers, officials and other nominated individuals he intends to accompany him in the United Kingdom delegation to the United Nations General Assembly special session, Earth summit II, in New York on 23 to 27 June. [2876]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friends, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for International Development and the Minister of State for the Environment, will be attending at various times during the week of the special session.

  The following officials will also attend:

  No. 10

  Mr. A. Allan

  Mr. J. Powell

  Mr. J. Holmes

  Mr. A Campbell

  FCO

  Mr. P. Lever

  Mr. W. Ehrman

  Mr. N. Sheinwald

  Mr. J. de Fonblanque

  Mr. I. Donaldson

  DTI

  Mr. M. Massey

  DOE

  Miss D. Nichols

  Dr. D. J. Fisk

  Ms S. McCabe

  Mr. S. Dugdale

  Mr. P. F. Unwin

  Ms S. Jenkins

  Mr. B. P. Oliver

  Mr. C. Tompkins

  Mr. J. Jacobs

  Ms T. Vokes

  Mr. J. Irvin

  UK Mission to the UN

  Sir J. Weston

  Mr. S. Gomersall

  Mr. P. Gooderham

  Ms V. Harris

  Mr. A. Lloyd

  Ms J. Barrett

  Mr. J. Tucknott

  393

  Forestry Commission

  Mr. M. Dudley

  There are expected to be 15 additional support staff.

  The following additional individuals are also being invited to join the United Kingdom Delegation:

  Mr. Cynog Dafis MP

  Ms Joan Walley MP

  Minister K. Azopardi (Government of Gibraltar)

  Mr. J. Delgado (Government of Gibraltar)

  Dr. M. Romeril (Government of Jersey)

  Deputy Alistair Layzell (Government of Jersey)

  Mr. F. A. Osborn (UNED-UK)

  Mr. T. Bigg (UNED-UK)

  Councillor John Harman (Local Government International Bureau)

  Mr. A. Hams (Local Government International Bureau)

  Dr. Richard Robson (ICI)

  Professor G. Ashworth (Chairman, Going for Green)

  Dr. Elizabeth Nelson (Chairman UK Ecolabelling Board)

  Mr. C. Newton (Environment Agency)

  Council of Europe and Western European Union
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the latest Information Bulletin on the activities of the United Kingdom Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of Western European Union covering the period October 1996 to April 1997. [3128]

  The Prime Minister
  I have done so today.

TREASURY

  Beer
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to carry out a review of the impact of duty on beer and its relationship to the amount of beer consumed in the United Kingdom from elsewhere in the EU; and if he will make a statement. [2937]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I am aware of industry concerns regarding cross border shopping and smuggling of alcoholic drinks, including beer, and the duty rates on these products. A lot of work has already been done, with the help of the industry, in assessing the size and nature of the problem and in introducing measures to counter illegal activity. I shall be studying all these issues in depth before coming to conclusions.

  Public Utilities
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his definition of the term public utility. [2696]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer will announce details of the windfall levy in his Budget statement on 2 July.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he considers Railtrack plc to be a public utility. [2695]
  394
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer will announce details of the windfall levy in his Budget statement on 2 July.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to change the present formula used in the calculation of the unemployed so as better to reflect the numbers of people out of work. [2148]

  Mrs. Helen Liddell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 22 May 1997,Official Report, Written Answers, column 117.

  EU Budget Contribution
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's contribution to the EU budget. [2264]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The latest estimate of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the European Community Budget for the financial year 1997–98 is £2,750 million.

  The Government will publish before the recess the annual White Paper on the EC Budget. This will include an estimate of the UK's contribution for the calendar year 1997.

  EU Convergence Criteria
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which EU countries currently fulfil the requirements for convergence set out in the Maastricht treaty protocols; and to what extent each country fails to meet each of the criteria. [2367]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The question of which countries fulfil the necessary conditions for adoption of the single currency will be decided by the Council meeting in the form of Heads of State or Government, in accordance with Article 109j of the EC Treaty. The latest Commission Spring forecasts, which are available in the Library, provide comparable estimates of 1996 outturns for inflation, interest rates, debt and deficits for each member state.

  Earnings
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of people in(a) Great Britain, (b) the City of Manchester, (c) the Borough of Trafford and (d) the constituency of Wythenshawe and Sale, East who currently earn less than (a) £2.50, (b) £3.00, (c) £3.50 and (d) £4 per hour. [2552]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Paul Goggins, dated 10 June 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on earnings in Great Britain, the City of Manchester, the Borough of Trafford and the constituency of Wythenshawe and Sale East.

  395
  The latest information, from the New Earnings Survey (NES) April 1996 which preceded the creation of the Wythenshawe and Sale East parliamentary constituency, is given in the table below. Data for the area prior to the last General Election are given instead.

  Employees on adult rates whose pay for the survey pay-period was not affected by absence, NES April 1996

  Percentage of employees with hourly earnings (excluding overtime) less than:

  £2.50

  £3.00

  £3.50

  £4.00

  Great Britain

  1.5

  2.8

  7.6

  14.4

  City of Manchester

  1.0

  1.5

  5.0

  10.4

  Borough of Trafford

  1.3

  1.9

  7.2

  13.3

  Manchester Wythenshawe constituency

  0.9

  0.9

  2.3

  5.5

  Altrincham and Sale constituency

  0.7

  1.5

  8.0

  14.6

  Private Housing Stock
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the market value and the replacement value of the private housing stock as a percentage of money gross domestic product, for each year since 1967. [2292]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 10 June 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on the market value and the replacement value of the private housing stock as a percentage of money gross domestic product, for each year since 1967.
  Figures of the current market value of residential buildings by sector, including land, are in the tangible asset balance sheets in chapter 12 of the ONS publication United Kingdom National Accounts. Figures of money gross domestic product are in the table 1.1 of the same publication. A copy of this publication is available in the House of Commons Library.
  A longer run of data than is available in the publication can be found on the ONS databank which is accessed by the House of Commons Library. Data on the replacement value are not available although information on the net capital stock of dwellings excluding land at current replacement costs are in table 14.7.

  Base Rates
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what authority base rates are currently set. [2490]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 9 June 1997]: Operational responsibility for setting official interest rates has been transferred to the Bank of England.

  Building Societies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to meet representatives from building societies that have already converted to the status of banks and are unaffected by the Building Societies (Distributions) Act 1997, to discuss the policies they intend to adopt towards distributing windfall payments to disabled savers. [2304]
  396
  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 9 June 1997]: None.

  Political and Special Advisers
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) the name, (b) the salary, (c) the previous occupation and salary and (d) the terms and conditions of each political and special adviser in his Department; and what was the selection process used to appoint these persons. [2417]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 6 June 1997]: The paid Special Advisers appointed to the Treasury are Ed Balls, Charlie Whelan, Edward Miliband and Andrew Maugham.

  The terms and conditions of each appointment are set out in the draft model contract, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Special Advisers are paid within a range of £24,349 to £73,484. Their salaries are negotiated individually and are confidential within this range. Details of this and of previous salary and occupation are not provided in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned.

  These are personal appointments by the Chief Secretary and me, following consultation with the Permanent Head of the Department and the Prime Minister.

  Non-domestic Rating System
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to make changes to the national non-domestic rating system, and specifically to reduce the multiplier for small shops in local shopping centres. [2549]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are sound democratic reasons why business rates should be set locally. I am aware that many small businesses are concerned about their rates bills. We will consult widely and take these concerns into account as we develop our policies.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Union
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will resist the proposals in the draft treaty of Amsterdam for the Court of Justice to be given jurisdiction in relation to justice and home affairs in the European Union. [1162]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Government would only agree to any increase in the role of the European Court of Justice where that is compatible with the UK interest.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited St. Helena to discuss economic affairs. [1179]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not visited St. Helena and has no immediate plans to do so.
  397

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what preparations he has set in train for the UK presidency of the European Council of Ministers and its summit meetings. [1180]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Planning for the Presidency is already underway. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary chairs a Ministerial Task Force on the UK Presidency which has looked at a number of issues including policy priorities and presentational strategy. In addition to the European Council being held in Cardiff in June 1998, other Summit level meetings might include: a Council of Heads of State or Government to decide the participants in stage III of EMU; an event to mark the formal start of the EU Enlargement process; a number of meetings with third countries. Copies of the preliminary Calendar of Councils for our Presidency have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Kashmir
  Ms Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards Kashmir. [1181]

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on Kashmir. [1191]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are deeply concerned by the continuing conflict in Kashmir and support the search for a just and lasting solution. We condemn the acts of terrorism and the abuses of human rights which bring suffering to the population. We call for an end to all external support for violence in Kashmir. We welcome the dialogue between India and Pakistan and urge them to pursue meaningful talks on Kashmir and the other issues that divide them.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to meet representatives of India and Pakistan to discuss Kashmir. [1192]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer the hon. Member to the response that I gave earlier in the House today to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike).

  Export Trade
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the measures taken in his Department in co-operation with the Department of Trade and Industry to promote Britain's export trade. [1182]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given earlier in the House today by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley).

  UN Security Council
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met his counterparts from other member states of the European Union to discuss matters relating to the membership and structure of the Security Council of the United Nations. [1183]
  398
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not yet had the opportunity for a discussion of these issues with his European Union counterparts.

  Social Chapter
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards the United Kingdom signing the social chapter. [1188]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We have made clear our commitment to signing up to the Social Chapter. Incorporation of the Chapter into the main EC Treaty and its extension to the UK are being considered within the Inter-Governmental Conference. The target for conclusion of the IGC is the Amsterdam European Council on 16–17 June.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government have for signing up to the European social chapter provisions allowing for qualified majority voting. [1184]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We have made clear our intention to sign up to all the existing provisions of the Social Chapter. Qualified majority voting already applies to areas such as working conditions, equal opportunities for men and women, and health and safety. but we will not agree any extension of QMV to areas vital to competitiveness.

  Human Rights
  Mrs. Clwyd:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the role of human rights in the Government's foreign policy. [1185]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave earlier in the House today to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton).

  Cyprus
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Cyprus to discuss an equitable and lasting settlement. [1186]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We are strongly in favour of a settlement as I made clear in the Adjournment Debate on Cyprus on 4 June. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Cyprus in January, and discussed the Cyprus problem with President Clerides, Mr. Denktash, and a broad range of politicians and business leaders from both communities. There are no arrangements at present for a further meeting.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the prospects for a settlement in Cyprus. [1195]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  A solution to the Cyprus problem is more urgent than ever. I urge both sides to work constructively with the UN for face-to-face negotiations leading to a comprehensive political settlement. We will continue to work actively to support that process.
  399

  Defence Exports
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will publish his criteria for determining the granting of British defence equipment export licences. [1187]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The review of criteria used in considering licence applications for the export of conventional arms is being conducted as a matter of urgency. The new criteria will be made available to the House when the Review is complete.

  Congo
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about United Kingdom relations with the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [1189]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on 2 June 1997,Official Report, columns 78–79.

  Gibraltar
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Spanish Foreign Minister to discuss Gibraltar. [1190]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the Spanish Foreign Minister on 2 June in Luxembourg, when they discussed a number of issues of mutual interest, including Gibraltar.

  EU (Applicant Nations)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he made at the European Union Foreign Ministers' Conference at Nordwijk to accelerate the entry of applicant nations into the European Union. [1194]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Informal European Council at Nordwijk discussed the Intergovernmental Conference. Enlargement of the EU was not on the agenda. however the UK remains a firm supporter of enlargement and is determined to see accession negotiations begin on time, six months after the end of the IGC.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his Department's policy towards chemical weapons. [1196]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Government is committed to the elimination of all chemical weapons and will ensure that the UK continues to play a leading role in international efforts to prevent their proliferation. I welcome the recent ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) by the United States and very much hope that Russia, the other declared possessor of chemical weapons, will shortly follow suit. The First Conference of States Parties to the CWC concluded on 23 May in The Hague. It was successful in taking the key decisions necessary to 400
  establish the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and ensure the full and effective implementation of the Convention.

  Quota Hoppers
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made to address the problem of quota hoppers. [1169]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We attach great importance to achieving progress on this issue and we are striving to secure the best possible deal before the conclusion of the IGC. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made our concerns clear in his meetings with European colleagues. We are looking actively at all available options with the European Commission and the Presidency.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what research has been commissioned and what estimates have been made by his Department and what information presented to him, regarding the costs per annum to the FCO budget of the introduction of a minimum wage at(a) £3.50 an hour, (b) £4 an hour and (c) £4.40 an hour; and if he will make a statement. [2115]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 9 June,Official Report, column 310.

  Geneva Conventions
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further preparations are required to enable ratification of the 1977 additional protocols to the Geneva conventions by Her Majesty's Government; and on what time scale these are expected to be completed. [2541]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We will need to consider the question of national statements which may be made by the United Kingdom when ratifying. We are pursuing this as a matter of priority.

  Libya
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on any conclusions he has reached about the consequences of Lockerbie and UN sanctions against Libya, since the Minister of State met the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Dr. Turner) at the Foreign Office on Wednesday 14 May. [1096]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Ministers are still acquainting themselves with the complex details of the Lockerbie tragedy.
  401

WALES

  Unemployment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) men and (b) women aged 24 years or below are unemployed. [1257]

  Mr. Hain
  In April 1997 there were 17,611 men and 6,469 women in Wales on the claimant count aged 24 years and under. These figures are not seasonally adjusted. The Office for National Statistics has announced a public consultation on the unemployment figures.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes he proposes in(a) the operation of and (b) the responsibilities of the Welsh Development Agency. [2004]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  In line with the Government's manifesto commitment, I am considering the options for establishing an economic powerhouse for Wales, including the role of the WDA. I shall announce my conclusions in due course.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what research has been commissioned and what estimates have been made by his Department and what information presented to him, regarding the costs per annum to the total Welsh Office budget of the introduction of a minimum wage at(a) £3.50 an hour, (b) £4 an hour and (c) £4.40 an hour; and if he will make a statement. [2112]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade,Official Report, 9 June 1997, column 310.

  Regional Policy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for changes to regional policy in Wales. [2003]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I intend to publish an economic development strategy document later this summer. This will set out my general approach and priorities.

  Communications Masts
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance is provided to national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty by the Welsh Office on the location of telecommunications mast. [2370]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Planning policy guidance on development in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty and on the location of telecommunications masts is provided in Planning Guidance (Wales) Planning Policy. Further advice, which should be taken into account by local planning authorities in determining planning applications, is given in technical advice Note (Wales) 8 Telecommunications, which issued for consultation in December 1996 and in annexes to Planning Policy Guidance note 8 Telecommunications.
  402

  Health Service Appointments
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about future appointments to health authorities and health trusts in Wales. [2378]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Appointments will be made in line with the guidance published by the Commissioner for Public Appointments which includes provision for public advertisement.

  Euro-freight Terminal
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the proposed Euro-freight terminal for south Wales. [2368]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The Chairman of the Welsh Development Agency (WDA) wrote to me on 29 May outlining his recommendations on the proposed terminal. I am considering the report and will reach a conclusion shortly.

  Ovarian Cancer
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of ovarian cancer have been reported in Wales in each of the last five years. [2190]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The information, which relates to the latest five years for which data are available, is given in the following table:

  Cases of ovarian cancer registered as newly diagnosed

  Number

  1987

  340

  1988

  349

  1989

  342

  1990

  322

  1991

  1327

  1 Estimated figure based on 90 per cent. completeness.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many deaths from ovarian cancer have been reported in Wales in each of the last five years. [2191]

  Mr. Griffiths
  The annual numbers of registered deaths of Welsh residents from ovarian cancer, recorded by the Office for National Statistics, are given in the following table:

  Ovarian cancer deaths1

  Number

  1992

  225

  1993

  221

  1994

  238

  1995

  233

  1996

  215

  1 ICD 183—International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dentists in(a) Abergavenny, (b) Monmouth and (c) Chepstow provide dental treatment under the national health service. [2373]
  403
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The number of General Dental Practitioners with at least one contract to treat NHS patients is as follows:

  Principals

  Abergavenny

  8

  Monmouth

  8

  Chepstow

  10

  Source:

  Dental Practice Board.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
  ENVIRONMENT AND THE REGIONS

    Vehicles on Byways
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport, and the Regions what plans his Department has to publish the results of the consultation process on vehicles on byways; and if he will make a statement. [2117]

    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the time scale for publication of the results of the consultation process on vehicles on byways; and if he will make a statement. [2787]

    Mr. Meacher
    We are considering the issue of the consultation exercise on vehicles on byways, which was undertaken last year. We intend to make an announcement shortly.

    Single Regeneration Budget
    Ms Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to encourage bids from the most deprived areas of the United Kingdom for round 4 of the single regeneration budget; and if he will make a statement. [2152]

    Ms Angela Eagle
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on 22 May 1997,Official Report, column 152, which indicated that there will be greater emphasis in the assessment of proposals for support from Round 4 of the SRB Challenge Fund on tackling the needs of communities in the most deprived areas.

    Minimum Wage
    Mr. Tom King
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what research has been commissioned and what estimates have been made by his Department, and what information presented to him, regarding the costs per annum to local authorities in England of the introduction of a minimum wage at(a) £3.50 an hour, (b) £4 an hour and (c) £4.40 an hour; and if he will make a statement; [2123]

    (2) what research has been commissioned and what estimates have been made by his Department, and what information presented to him, regarding the costs per annum to the Department of the Environment budget of
    404
    the introduction of a minimum wage at (a) £3.50 an hour, (b) £4 an hour and (c) £4.40 an hour; and if he will make a statement. [2124]

    Mr. Raynsford
    I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on Monday 9 June 1997,Official Report, column 310.

    English House Condition Survey
    Ms Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the energy report relating to the 1996 English House Condition Survey; and if he will make a statement. [2212]

    Mr. Raynsford
    We expect to publish detailed energy findings from the 1996 English House Condition Survey by Autumn 1998. However, some information on heating facilities and thermal insulation, will be included in the main report of this survey, scheduled for publication before the end of this year.

    Ms Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he proposes following the report of the findings of the energy survey contained within the 1991 English House Condition Survey. [2211]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The Government is committed to improving the energy efficiency of the housing stock revealed by the 1991 English House Condition Survey. Despite existing provisions to promote energy efficiency and to improve the stock—through the Home Energy Conservation Act, the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, the work of the Energy Saving Trust and the Department's best practice programme and through private sector renovation grants and the housing renewal programmes of local authorities and housing associations, there is still a substantial backlog of housing in poor condition and with unsatisfactory energy efficiency characteristics. The Government is reviewing policies to achieve more effective action to remedy sub-standard and energy inefficient housing. New Supplementary Credit Approvals issued as a result of the Capital Receipts' initiative will allow local authorities to proceed more quickly with action to tackle these problems to the extent that they fit with local priorities.

    VAT on Domestic Fuel
    Mr. Dafis
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure that the proposed reduction in the rate of VAT on domestic fuel does not lead to an increase in carbon dioxide emissions. [2082]

    Ms Angela Eagle
    Protection from the effects of global warming and the development of sustainable environmental policies cannot proceed in isolation from considerations of social equity.

    We estimate that the reduction in VAT on domestic fuel to 5 per cent. will result in an annual increase in carbon dioxide emissions of about 0.24 million tonnes of carbon by 2010, (about 0.15 per cent. of current carbon

    405
    dioxide emissions). We shall take account of this effect in developing the programme to meet our target to reduce total carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010.

    We are developing policy options which will contribute towards our 2010 target and which will include improvements in domestic and industrial energy efficiency, an integrated transport policy to tackle the projected growth in emissions from road transport, and an increase in the amount of electricity generated from renewable sources and combined heat and power schemes.

    Care of the Elderly (Essex)
    Mr. Bob Russell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the funding allocated to Essex county council in the 1997–98 Revenue Support Grant in respect of care of the elderly. [2077]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The distribution of Revenue Support Grant for 1997–98 is now a closed matter, having been approved by Parliament in February as part of the Local Government Finance Settlement. Discussions with local government on the distribution of Revenue Support Grant for 1998–99 are currently in progress. The standard spending assessment for elderly residential social services is among the elements which we expect to examine this year.

    Challenge Funds
    Ms Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how he plans to assess the effectiveness of schemes currently supported by the single regeneration budget challenge funds; and if he will make a statement. [2151]

    Ms Angela Eagle
    The Government has commissioned the Department of Land Economy at the University of Cambridge to carry out a long term evaluation of the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund, which will include an assessment of the effectiveness of schemes supported by the Challenge Fund.

    The Department intends to obtain value for money for its expenditure on the Single Regeneration Budgets.

    Capital Receipts
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the sums currently held by each local housing authority in respect of capital receipts. [2160]

    Mr. Raynsford
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend, the Minister for Local Government and Housing on 4 June 1997,Official Report, column 198.

    Out-of-town Development Schemes
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many out-of town development schemes are awaiting decision by him. [2163]
    406
    Mr. Raynsford
    We have seven cases awaiting decision by my right hon. Friend, following receipt of the Inspector's report.

    Planning Applications
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for how long each called-in planning application in England has been awaiting decision. [2451]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The following table lists by Government Office region those called-in planning applications in England which are currently awaiting determination following receipt of the Inspector's report.

    Region

    Development proposal

    Date Inspector's report received

    North West

    Equestrian centre, Skelmersdale, West Lancashire

    26 July 1996

    Prison development, Agecroft, Salford

    27 January 1997

    Retail development, Cockermouth, Cumbria

    30 January 1997

    Yorkshire and The Humber

    Residential development, Ingbirchworth, South Yorkshire

    18 March 1997

    Public house/restaurant, Holmfirth, West Yorkshire

    19 May 1997

    Retail development, Doncaster, South Yorkshire

    21 May 1997

    Merseyside

    Motorway service area, M6, St. Helens

    25 July 1996

    Airport expansion, Liverpool Airport (3 applications)

    26 July 1996

    Retail development, Netherton

    28 November 1996

    Retail development, St. Helens

    7 March 1997

    West Midlands

    Retail development, Dudley, West Midlands

    7 March 1997

    Industrial development, Minworth, Birmingham

    29 April 1997

    Industrial development, Walmley, Birmingham

    29 April 1997

    East Midlands

    Retail development and football stadium, Mansfield, Nottinghamshire (4 applications)

    4 December 1996

    Retail development, Southwell, Nottinghamshire

    4 February 1997

    Retail development, Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire (3 applications)

    17 April 1997

    Mixed use development, A38/M1, Derbyshire

    22 May 1997

    South West

    Retail development, Cirencester, Gloucestershire (2 applications)

    8 November 1996

    Torbay Ring Road, Torbay, Devon (2 applications)

    22 January 1997

    Residential development, Alveston, Gloucestershire

    14 March 1997

    Retail development, Tidworth, Somerset

    1 April 1997

    Airpark, Henstridge, Somerset

    21 May 1997

    Change of use, Wapley, Gloucestershire

    28 May 1997

    407

    Region

    Development proposal

    Date inspector's report received

    Eastern

    Riding school, Shenley, Hertfordshire

    13 November 1996

    Household waste site, Bishop's Stortford, Hertfordshire

    10 December 1996

    Football stadium, Bishop's Stortford, Hertfordshire

    10 December 1996

    South East

    Golf course, near Amersham Buckinghamshire

    10 August 1994

    Gypsy site development, Dunsfold, Surrey

    22 January 1996

    Waste transfer station, Rye, East Sussex

    September 1996

    Residential development, Hooe, East Sussex

    7 January 1997

    Car park, near Sevenoaks, Kent

    22 May 1997

    London

    Residential development, West Drayton, Middlesex

    1 August 1996

    Football stadium, Morden

    2 May 1997

    Water Companies
    Dr. Tony Wright
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to ensure that water companies take responsibility for leaks from domestic supply pipes. [2534]

    Ms Angela Eagle
    It is our view that leakage rates are still far too high. At the Water Summit on 19 May, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced that the Director General of Water Services would set tough mandatory targets for total leakage, including leakage from consumers pipes. Many water companies already provide a free leakage detection and repair service for supply pipes owned by household customers. My right hon. Friend asked all companies to consider providing this service.

    Herbal Medicines
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to meet representatives from the national Institute of Medical Herbalists to discuss the use of rare plants in herbal medicine and commercial cultivation projects; and if he will make a statement. [2702]

    Ms Angela Eagle
    The United Kingdom is to present a paper on traditional medicines to the Conference of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), currently taking place in Harare. The aim of the paper is not to question the importance of traditional medicine as a legitimate form of medicinal treatment, but to encourage the search for ways in which its use can continue without threatening species in the wild with extinction. At present we have no immediate plans to meet the National Institute of Medicinal Herbalists, but have consulted relevant UK organisations, including representatives of the herbal medicine sector. We have also received the support of Japan and the Republic of Korea.

    Endangered Species
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans his 408
    Department has to encourage the extension of the international controlled trade list of endangered species; and if he will make a statement. [2703]

    Ms Angela Eagle
    A new EC Regulation implementing the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species within the Community took effect on 1 June. It includes all species listed on CITES together with additional species whose import into the Community will be monitored by Member States.

    The next CITIES Conference of the Parties is currently taking place in Harare, and will consider proposals for amending the species lists. The United Kingdom will consider these carefully in co-ordination with other EU Member States.

    Nuclear Waste
    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what compensation was paid to residents of West Cumbria for reasons of blight following upon NIREX' s proposals for the disposal of nuclear waste in the area; [2243]

    (2) what discussions have taken place between departmental officials and organisations representing persons who live in the community recently identified as the potential site for nuclear waste disposal on the subject of compensation for property blight. [2244]

    Mr. Raynsford
    Neither UK Nirex Ltd's proposal for a Rock Characterisation Facility near Sellafield, which was rejected by the local planning authority and on appeal by the Secretary of State, nor their consideration of alternatives sites, which they no longer plan to carry forward, gives rise to any entitlement to compensation for planning blight.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reports on proposals for potential nuclear waste disposal sites have been brought to the attention of Ministers in the last six weeks. [2242]

    Ms Angela Eagle
    DOE Ministers have received no reports on proposals for potential nuclear waste disposal sites other than in respect of Nirex's investigations of Sellafield and Dounreay.

    Red Lion Hotel, Somerton
    Mr. David Heath
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received concerning planning applications APP/R3325/E/96/811767, APP/R3325/E/96 812513, APP/R3325/A/95/254103 and APP/R3325/A/96/265998, referring to the Red Lion Hotel, Somerton; and if he will uphold the recommendations of the planning inspector, Mr. S. L. Dickinson, following the inquiry of 29 to 31 May 1996. [2835]
    409
    Mr. Raynsford
    To date 22 representations have been received. Inspector's recommendations will be taken in to account along with the further representations in reaching a decision on how to proceed with determining the applications.

  TRANSPORT

    M6 (Noise Reduction)
    Mr. Dawson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to re-surface the M6 motorway between Lancaster university and junction 34 with noise-reducing material. [2834]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency to write to my hon. Friend.

    Letter from Laurie Haynes to Mr. Hilton Dawson, dated 10 June 1997:
    The Minister for Transport in London has asked me to reply to your recent question about the plans to resurface the M6 motorway between Lancaster University and Junction 34 and the use of noise reducing material.
    Where a road needs resurfacing we consider using materials which have beneficial noise properties where it is cost effective and affordable. Account also needs to be taken of the effects on safety, the life expectancy of the surfacing to be used and the condition of the existing road base.
    Proposals for resurfacing this section of the M6 are being developed and options for noise reducing surfaces will be given full consideration as part of the preparation for the works. Their timing will depend on the availability of resources.

    Plutonium Waste
    Mr. MacShane
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from European Governments about proposals by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. to enter national airspace with planes carrying plutonium waste. [2156]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    This Department has not received any representations from European governments in connection with any plans by UK airlines to carry plutonium waste on behalf of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. through their airspace. Neither, I understand, has the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the Department of Environment.

    Mr. MacShane
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he plans to approve proposals by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. to fly plutonium waste from the United Kingdom to Europe. [2157]

    Ms Jackson
    There are no plans for plutonium waste to be transported by air to, or from, the United Kingdom.

    Since 1973 Mixed Oxide (MoX) fuel has been transported from BNFL by air. Currently there are about six flights a year to European destinations. MoX comprises oxides of uranium with a small proportion of plutonium and is carried in ceramic form in packages meeting International Atomic Energy Agency standards. In the unlikely event of an aircraft accident MoX poses no significant risk to public health.
    410

    Road Safety
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many road(a) injuries and (b) fatalities occur each year from the loss of wheels from heavy goods and passenger vehicles; and what research his Department intends to undertake into this issue. [2652]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    Data on the specific causes of accidents are not routinely collected, and therefore figures on the number of fatalities and injuries arising from accidents due to wheel loss are not available.

    Following joint discussions with the Vehicle Inspectorate and the Association of Chief Police Officers, a nation-wide survey looking at the extent of the problem of wheel detachment from heavy goods vehicles and passenger vehicles was started in February this year. The survey has recently finished and the results are being analysed. The need for further action will be considered in light of the survey's findings.

    The Department is also about to launch an updated leaflet providing guidance on correct maintenance procedures to help reduce incidents of wheel detachment.

    Car Clocking
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has for measures to reduce the incidence of car clocking. [2648]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    The Government deplores the "clocking" of motor vehicles. In 1992, a voluntary mileage recording system, administered by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, was introduced to assist private sector organisations with the compilation of mileage registers which might eventually be made available to the public. Since then, over 10 million mileage figures have been captured.

    The question of making the provision of mileages a mandatory requirement of the registration system is currently under review.

    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimates his Department has made of(a) the cost to consumers of car clocking and (b) the number of incidents occurring each year. [2649]

    Ms Jackson
    The Institute of Trading Standards Administration (ITSA) has calculated that each year profits of around £100 million are made through the clocking of vehicles. This is calculated on the basis that the value of a care increases by an average of £30 for every 1,000 miles taken off the clock.

    There are no reliable estimates of the number of cars clocked in the UK each year.

    Delegated Driving Examiners
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many checks have been undertaken by his Department on delegated driving examiners; and which organisations have been allocated delegated examiners. [2644]
    411
    Ms Glenda Jackson
    Delegated driving test examiners have been authorised for the Ministry of Defence (MOD), 26 Police Forces and 53 Fire Brigades, the Royal Mail, Birmingham City Council and 50 bus company groups.

    Delegated examiners are normally trained by the Driving Standards Agency, the part of the Department responsible for conducting driving tests generally. The Agency aims to carry out standards supervision visits to the bus companies on a quarterly basis, and has close technical co-operation with the Ministry of Defence on test standards matters. The Agency is currently initiating discussions with the relevant police and fire authorities about test standards issues.

    A40
    Mr. Nigel Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the objections received to the orders for the de-trunking of the A40 through Cheltenham. [2538]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    There are 32 outstanding letters of objection to the draft order to de-trunk the A40 through Cheltenham and to trunk the A436 from the A40 at Shipton Solers to the A417 at Air Ballon roundabout. All object to the trunking of the A436. The objections mainly concern: the unsuitability of the A436 to take extra traffic; the need for improvements to be carried out to the A436; the effects of more traffic using the unimproved A417 at Crickley Hill and congestion at Air Balloon roundabout.

    Mr. Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce whether there will be a public inquiry into the de-trunking of the A40 through Cheltenham. [2539]

    Ms Jackson
    The Department is at present considering objections received following the publication of a draft order to de-trunk the A40 through Cheltenham and to trunk the A436 from the A40 at Shipton Solers to the A417 at Air Balloon roundabout. Until this process is complete I cannot predict whether a public inquiry will be necessary. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

    Tachographs
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many silent checks aimed at detecting drivers interfering with tachograph records there were in each of the last 12 months; [2655]

    (2) what percentage of heavy goods vehicle spot-checks were undertaken (a) between the hours of 1900 and 0600 on weekdays and (b) at weekends in each of the last two years. [2656]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    I have asked the Chief Executive of the Vehicle Inspectorate to write to my hon. Friend.

    Letter from Ron Oliver to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 10 June 1997:
    The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about the number of silent checks aimed at detecting drivers interfering with tachograph records for each of the last 12 months; and the percentage of HGV spot-checks undertaken (a) between the hours of 1900 and 0600 on weekdays and (b) at weekends for each of the last two years.
    412
    Details of the number of vehicles silent checked with the aim of detecting tachograph interference are as follows:

    Month

    HGV

    PSV

    Total

    1996

    May

    447

    149

    596

    June

    632

    698

    1,330

    July

    576

    866

    1,442

    August

    756

    354

    1,110

    September

    305

    122

    427

    October

    606

    50

    656

    November

    317

    96

    413

    December

    469

    307

    776

    1997

    January

    236

    43

    279

    February

    290

    33

    323

    March

    282

    276

    558

    April

    270

    27

    297

    Data on the percentage of HGV spot checks undertaken (a) between 1900 and 0600 on weekdays and (b) at weekends is not available separately. The total percentage of out-of-hours spot checks carried out between 1900 and 0600 and at weekends (against an agreed 5$ minimum target) for each of the last two financial years is:

    1995–96: 7.49

    1996–97: 8.25

    Channel Tunnel
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library copies of the correspondence between Eurotunnel and the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority regarding the decision to re-open the channel tunnel. [2651]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    I am not in a position to do so. This would be a breach of Clause 33 of the Concession Agreement of 1986, covering intellectual property and confidentiality, which includes a requirement on all parties to that Agreement, and also the Intergovernmental Commission and Safety Authority, to hold in confidence all documents supplied to them by, or on behalf of, any other party.

    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if tests will be carried out by Eurotunnel on all rolling stock operated through the channel tunnel to ensure that smoke will not penetrate during a fire or similar incident. [2658]

    Ms Jackson
    The Concession Agreement requires that all safety arrangements will apply to any trains using the tunnel. The authorisation given by the Intergovernmental Commission bringing the tunnel into service states that Eurotunnel are responsible for ensuring that all trains using its infrastructure meet the required safety standards, including the efficacy of smoke dampers.

    The Safety Authority monitors maintenance of all rolling stock through direct examination by its inspectors and working groups and through monitoring audits carried out by Eurotunnel's Health Safety and Quality Directorate.

    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how the channel tunnel safety authority will ensure that the maintenance procedures for the ventilation dampers in Le Shuttle wagons are regularly reviewed. [2659]
    413
    Ms Jackson
    The Channel Tunnel Safety Authority is required under the Treaty of Canterbury to advise and assist the Intergovernmental Commission of all matters concerning safety in the construction and operation of the Fixed Link.

    The Safety Authority monitors all aspects of Eurotunnel's operations to ensure that safety standards are met. This is achieved through examianton of detailed incident reports and regular operational reports from Eurotunnel and by the actions of Safety Authority appointed inspectors and specialist working groups.

    Safety Authority inspectors recently witnessed smoke penetration tests carried out by Eurotunnel to verify the smoke tightness of amenity coaches used in the HGV shuttle service.

    Rail Driver Fatigue
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what procedures his Department has in place to ensure that the research undertaken by British Rail on the effects of driver fatigue will be disseminated to all rail operating companies. [2657]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    British Rail's report into this research was disseminated to the Train Operating Companies (TOCs) within its ownership at the time of the report's production, and to Railtrack Plc, who undertook to disseminate the relevant findings of the report to the other TOCs.

    In carrying out its function of monitoring compliance with safety regulations, the Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate will take account of this report's safety recommendations.

    Rail Journey Statistics
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list, for each franchise holder, the most recent statistics relating to the percentage of rail journeys delayed and cancelled. [2458]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    The Franchising Director has today published the third quarterly OPRAF Performance bulletin which contains the information requested. I have placed a copy in the Library.

    Trunk Roads Programme
    Mr. Blizzard
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to review the trunk roads programme. [2475]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    We intend to announce details of the review shortly.

    Minimum Wage
    Mr. Tom King
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research has been commissioned and what estimates have been made by his Department, and what information presented to him, regarding the costs per annum to the Department of Transport budget of the introduction of a minimum wage at(a) £3.50 an hour, (b) £4 an hour and (c) £4.40 an hour; and if he will make a statement. [2125]
    414
    Ms Glenda Jackson
    I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to him in the Official Report, Monday 9 June, column 310, by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

    Aviation Standards
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for an increase in inspections of Moroccan-registered aircraft following the FAA's announcement that Morocco fails to meet international aviation standards. [2654]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    We have no evidence to suggest that Moroccan-registered aircraft flying to the UK are unsafe and have no current plans to inspect such aircraft. Morocco has applied for an assessment under the International Civil Aviation Organisation's safety oversight programme and we will review the position once that assessment has been carried out.

    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will consider the introduction of a scheme similar to that operated by the Federal Aviation Administration for identifying countries that do not meet international aviation standards. [2650]

    Ms Jackson
    We consider it more effective to balance support for international programmes assessing the safety oversight of countries with firm action with respect to any aircraft flying to the United Kingdom that are found not to be conforming to international safety standards.

    We are continuing to contribute to the safety assessments being carried out by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and are taking a leading role in an initiative by the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) to increase the number of inspections of foreign aircraft using ECAC airports, to share the results and other safety information and to organise joint actions when appropriate.

    Since 1 May we have asked the Civil Aviation Authority to carry out inspections of eight foreign aircraft at UK airports. Two Nigerian-registered freight aircraft, were detained and we will not issue further permits in respect of Nigerian-registered aircraft until we are assured of their safe operation.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Nuclear Waste
    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will identify the location of the site for the disposal of nuclear waste referred to as site 6. [297]

    Mr. Battle
    Following the dismissal of Nirex's appeal against refusal of planning permission for a Rock Characterisation Facility at Sellafield, the company has no plans to commence investigations at sites there or elsewhere. Revealing the location of potential sites in these circumstances could unnecessarily cause anxiety to people living nearby.

    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade over what time scale radioactive wastes arising from the reprocessing of Italian Magnox fuel will be returned to their country of origin. [1796]
    415
    Mr. Battle
    The magnox reprocessing contract with ENEL signed in 1979 included an option for BNFL to return waste to Italy. The contract, and its terms, has been the subject of an exchange of Letters between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Italy.

    Wastes arising from the reprocessing of the fuel will be returned to their country of origin as soon as it practicable. BNFL is currently negotiating with ENEL on the form and timescale for such waste return.

    Plutonium
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what provision has been set aside in the accounts of Magnox Electric for the long term management of the United Kingdom plutonium inventory. [1792]

    Mr. Battle
    Magnox Electric makes provisions in its accounts for the long term (100 years) storage and subsequent retrieval of all plutonium arising from the reprocessing of its spent magnox fuel. The current provision is some £200 million (3 per cent. discounted net present value).

    Mr. Taylor
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade over what time scale it is planned to use plutonium fuel in Magnox reactors. [1793]

    Mr. Battle
    Magnox Electric plc has no plans to use plutonium or MOX fuel in its magnox reactors.

    Mr. Taylor
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what financial responsibility for the plutonium stockpiles arising from the reprocessing of advanced gas reactor fuel is borne by public funds. [1794]

    Mr. Battle
    Financial responsibility for the plutonium expected to arise from the reprocessing of AGR fuel rests with utilities in the private sector with the exception of a small amount, less than 1 per cent. arising from the Windscale AGR at Sellafield.

    BNFL
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the total future financial liabilities that would arise in the United Kingdom, as reported by the OECD in 1996, would fall to BNFL to disburse. [1779]

    Mr. Battle
    The OECD indicative scheduled disbursement of provisions for liabilities in the UK shows cumulative expenses as £45 billion to the year 2100. BNFL's published accounts indicate total costs for liabilities at their sites as £17.3 billion (undiscounted). BNFL's own share of future liabilities at 31 March 1996 are £2.6 billion (undiscounted).

    Details of, and information relating to, provisions for total future liabilities for which BNFL are liable, are contained in the company's annual report and accounts, copies of which are in the Libraries of the House.
    416
    Mr. Taylor
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) over what time scale she plans that Magnox Electric will merge with BNFL; [1795]

    (2) what financial arrangements have been requested by BNFL in connection with the merger with Magnox Electric. [1797]

    Mr. Battle
    The aim is that integration should take place in two key stages. The first stage, transfer of the Government's shares in Magnox Electric to BNFL, should take place in the autumn with the second stage, full integration of the combined businesses of the two companies expected to be completed about 12 months after that, subject to the companies meeting the requirements of the relevant regulators. Constructive discussions on the detailed arrangements for the merger, including the financial arrangements, are continuing between all parties, including BNFL, Magnox Electric and my Department.

    Part-time Employees
    Mr. Dafis
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to extend the legal safeguards against unfair discrimination by employers in respect of part-time employees. [2086]

    Mr. Ian McCartney
    Part-time workers have equal statutory rights with full-time workers and their rights have been clarified in recent court judgments, which we welcome. At present the Government have no plans to introduce further legislation on part-time work.

    The social partners at European reached an agreement on part-time work on 6 June 1997. The Commission may consequently decide to consult member states on a measure to implement this agreement. They have asked the Commission to propose that this agreement be implemented by the Council. The Government will consider any proposal, when it is submitted to Council, against the Government's criteria of promoting employability and competitiveness.

    Funeral Services
    Mr. Green
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action she plans to take to prevent anti-competitive monopolies developing among funeral directors and crematoria. [2022]

    Mr. Nigel Griffiths
    I am aware of concerns which have been aired.

    The Director-General of Fair Trading is responsible for investigating possible anti-competitive and monopolistic practices. He has no plans to take action against funeral directors and crematoria, but has powers to act if the evidence suggests that there is cause for concern. Anyone with evidence of anti-competitive or monopolistic behaviour should forward the information to the Director-General.

    Rail Privatisation
    Mr. Miller
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will refer the sale of British Rail International Ltd to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. [2006]
    417
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths
    The Office of Fair Trading is making inquiries to establish whether the acquisition of British Rail International Limited by Grandes Lignes International SA may constitute a qualifying merger situation under the Fair Trading Act 1973. If so, the Director-General of Fair Trading will advise whether or not it should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board will take her decision in the light of that advice.

    Renewable Energy
    Ms Walley
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how she plans to promote renewable energy sources; [2232]

    (2) if she will make a statement on the impact of the reduction in the Non-Fossil Fuel Levy in April on subsidies for renewable energy projects; [2230]

    (3) if she will make a statement on the current levels of financial support and projected levels of support in each of the next five years, for (a) fossil fuel industries, (b) wind power, (c) solar electricity, (d) wave power and (e) nuclear power. [2233]

    Mr. Battle
    The Government propose to undertake a new and strong drive to develop renewable energy sources in line with our manifesto commitment. To this end I anticipate reviewing policy including considerations of what would be necessary and practicable to achieve 10 per cent. of UK's electricity needs from renewables by the year 2010 and how renewables can make an effective contribution to meeting requirements for future greenhouse gas reduction commitments. I will make a further announcement in due course. In the meantime the Government's new and renewable energy programme, currently underway will continue. I have already announced that I will initiative shortly a consultation exercise with the relevant trade bodies of the renewable energy industry, OFFER, and the Regional Electricity Companies on a fifth Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) Order for renewable energy in England and Wales, leading to an announcement later in the year.

    The reduction in the rate of the Fossil Fuel Levy from 3.7 per cent. to 2.2 per cent. with effect from 1 April 1997 was due to reduced payments to the nuclear industry. The reduction had no effect on the level of support for renewable energy projects.

    Over the coming months the Government will be considering the balance of activities within the spending plans it inherited to ensure that they reflect the Government's priorities. The results of my reviews of NFFO 5 and renewable energy policy will be fed into this wider exercise. The Department's expenditure plans for the Government's renewable energy; nuclear; clean coal; oil and gas; and environment programmes for the three year's 1997–98 to 1999–2000 may be found on page 37 of "Trade and Industry: The Government's Expenditure Plans 1997–98 to 1999–2000". A copy of the Plans is available in the Library of the House. Historical expenditure information on the Government's wind, solar and wave programmes is also available from my Department.
    418

    EU Regional Aid
    Mr. Cummings
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what submissions her Department has made to the European Commission concerning the review of funds available under objective 2 of European regional aid. [2167]

    Mrs. Roche
    The Government and local partners have been negotiating since August 1996 with the Commission on the programmes for grant in 12 European structural funds objective 2 areas in Britain for the period 1997–99. The Commission has now adopted the majority of these programmes and is likely to complete the remainder shortly.

    For the period from 2000 onwards, the money available under objective 2 and the other objectives depends on Commission proposals for future financing of the EU and for reform of the structural funds. It is likely to put proposals forward after the completion of the Inter-Governmental conference. The Government have not put forward detailed submissions at this early stage, but we are looking for a package which is affordable, simpler and more efficient, and fair.

    Mr. Mitchell
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the United Kingdom qualifies for contributions from the EU/EEC cohesion fund on the basis of (i) 1993, (ii) 1994, (iii) 1995 and (iv) 1996 gross domestic product figures. [2381]

    Mrs. Roche
    No. Article 2.1 of the Cohesion Fund Regulation restricts eligibility to member states with a per capita gross national product (GNP), measured in purchasing power parities (PPP), of less than 90 per cent. of the Community average and which have a programme leading to the fulfilment of the conditions of economic convergence referred to in Article 104c of the EC Treaty. The United Kingdom does not qualify: its per capita GNP (PPP) has been and is above this level.

    Atlantic Frontier
    Ms Walley
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the environmental impact of the Atlantic frontier development; and on what evidence this assessment has been made. [2430]

    Mr. Battle
    An assessment of environmental impact and a shoreline sensitivity study were carried out by BP in relation to its applications for consent to develop the Foinaven and Schiehallion discoveries. In addition, the largest offshore environmental study ever undertaken in UK waters was carried out to the west of Shetland on behalf of a group of oil companies by the Southhampton Oceanography Centre. An area the size of Wales was surveyed and much valuable information was acquired. The results of this work provide baseline environmental data as part of the work companies must do to satisfy Government environmental requirements.

    Ms Walley
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has in respect of further development at the Atlantic frontier; and if she will make a statement. [2431]

    Mr. Battle
    Two developments have already been approved in the Atlantic Margin: the Foinaven and Schiehallion fields operated by BP. Other discoveries are identified in the "Energy Report 1997", a copy of which
    419
    is available in the Library. My Department will continue to consider proposals of further development in this oil and gas province which respect the environmental sensitivities of the area and the interests of the other sea users.

    Clean Coal Technology
    Mr Gummer
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what reduction in CO2, emissions is made when so-called clean coal technology is used instead of other existing forms of generation. [2641]

    Mr. Battle
    The tables set out the reductions in CO2, emissions from various clean coal power generation technologies currently available or under development compared with a reference conventional pulverised coal plant. The information was provided by IEA Coal Research—The Clean Coal Centre and will appear in a report to be published later this year by the Centre. The table indicates some 20–30 per cent. reduction may be possible if clean coal plant replaces existing conventional coal plant. however all coal fired generation releases significantly more CO2, per unit of electricity than combined cycle gas turbine stations and there would be an increase in emissions if clean coal plant replaced such plant. There would also be an increase in emissions of CO2, if clean coal plant replaced oil fired plant, nuclear or renewables sources of energy.

    Reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from various clean coal technologies compared to a conventional reference plant

    Technology

    Net plant efficiency, per cent. LHV1

    CO2, reduction per cent.

    Conventional systems

    Pulverised coal

    Reference plant

    36

    0

    Subcritical steam

    39

    8

    Supercritical steam

    42–45

    14–20

    Ultra-supercritical steam

    47–52

    23–31

    AFBC2

    Subcritical steam

    39

    6

    Combined cycles

    IGCC3

    Demonstrated systems

    38–43

    8–18

    Advanced systems

    45–47

    22–25

    PFBC4

    Subcritical steam

    44

    19

    Supercritical steam

    46

    22

    Hybrid5

    Subcritical steam

    47–49

    23–27

    Supercritical steam

    52

    31

    Notes:

    1 LHV—Low Heating Value.

    2 AFBC—Atmospheric Fluidised Bed Combustion.

    3 IGCC—Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle.

    4 PFBC—Pressurised Fluidised Bed Combustion.

    5 Assumes Flue Gas Desulphurisation (FGD) fitted to conventional systems, PFBC and Hybrid Cycles Gasifier + PFBC technology.

    Source:

    IEA Coal Research unpublished report ("Greenhouse gas emission factors for coal"—expected to be published in 1997).

    Coal Subsidies
    Mr. Gummer
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she plans to meet her German counterpart to explain the environmental advantage of reducing and then eliminating subsidies on coal. [2671]

    Mr. Battle
    I have noted with concern a report by the World Bank indicating that subsidies for coal in the OECD area are associated with 1.5 per cent. of the total CO2, emissions. German subsidies account for the bulk of
    420
    this. I mean to press for the elimination of all coal subsidies throughout the European coal and steel community by the time the ECSC is wound up in 2002, and I will support the Commission vigorously in ensuring progressive reduction in state aid paid to the European coal industry over this period.

    It is not our policy to subsidise UK coal producers, nor to tolerate subsidised imports into the UK, whether from Germany or elsewhere. UK coal is by far the lowest cost coal produced within the ECSC, and is generally accepted as the only ECSC production with a long-term prospect of viability. I am therefore concerned that UK coal exports should not be disadvantaged over the period to 2002 by subsidies given to other ECSC producers; and we will press the Commission to deny approval to such state aids, unless arrangements have first been put in place for removing any consequential market distortions against UK coal available for sale within the ECSC.

    Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
    Mr. Gummer
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to extend the non-fossil fuel obligation so that it is available to subsidise fossil fuels. [2672]

    Mr. Battle
    I am currently considering the options for the longer term future of the NFFO, and I will make a further announcement in due course. Extending the scope of NFFO to include other forms of energy would need primary legislation and clearance from the European Commission.

    Commercial Debt
    Mr. Cotter
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to protect small businesses against the late payment of commercial debt. [2637]

    Mrs. Roche
    The Government will introduce a comprehensive range of measures to address the late payment of commercial debt. These will include the introduction of legislation giving businesses a statutory right to claim interest on late payment of commercial debt, a review of the company reporting requirements and a requirement that Government Departments and local authorities pay their bills on time.

    Nuclear Fuel
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what tonnage of spent nuclear fuel elements has been reprocessed each year at(a) Sellafield and (b) Dounreay, listing the (i) initial uranium enrichment and spent fuel burn up rate composition and (ii) reactor and country origin, in each case since these plants became operational. [1844]

    Mr. Battle
    [holding answer 2 June 1997]: Reprocessing operations are carried out at Sellafield by British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL) and at Dounreay by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA). Since reprocessing operations began at Sellafield nearly 40 years ago, a total of around 40,000 tonnes of spent fuel have been reprocessed. Customers for spent fuel reprocessed at Sellafield are from the UK, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, Netherlands, Canada and Italy. Information on the initial uranium enrichment and spent fuel burn up rate composition and reactor origin,

    421
    since these plants became operational, can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I have asked the Chairman of the UKAEA to provide the corresponding information in respect of Dounreay.

  HEALTH

    Minimum Wage
    Mr. Tom King
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been commissioned, what estimates have been made by his department and what information presented to him, regarding the costs per annum to the national health service of the introduction of a minimum wage at(a) £3.50 an hour, (b) £4 an hour and (c) £4.40 an hour; and if he will make a statement. [2104]

    Mr. Milburn
    I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 9 June 1997,Official Report, column 310.

    Eye Tests (Changes)
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received concerning the effect of eye test charges on the incidence of eye disease; [2390]

    (2) if he will abolish charges for eye tests; and if he will make a statement. [2389]

    Mr. Milburn
    The Royal National Institute for the Blind has sent us a report of a survey which suggests that, since 1988. people have been having their eyes tested at less frequent intervals.

    Since 1989 the availability of free National Health Service sight tests has been restricted to children, people on low incomes and people at particular risk of eye disease. We will be reviewing these arrangements.

    Paramedics (Voluntary Work)
    Mrs. Ballard
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue guidance to national health service ambulance trusts in respect of paramedics carrying out voluntary work with the British Red Cross in their spare time. [2359]

    Mr. Milburn
    We have no plans to issue such guidance. Matters of this kind are between the trust concerned and its employees at a local level.

    High Dependency Beds
    Mr. Cummings
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many high dependency unit beds there are in(a) Hartlepool General Hospital, (b) Dryburn Hospital and (c) Sunderland Royal Hospital. [2459]

    Mr. Milburn
    The "Bed availability for England" book, copies of which are available in the Library, contains information by individual National Health Service providers, i.e., trusts, directly managed units and the special health authorities with summary tables for England. Data are collected by broad ward classification rather than by clinical specialty. Although the broad ward classification—"General Patients—Other 422
    ages—intensive" may include high dependency unit beds it is not possible to identify these separately. Returns are made on a financial year basis and the latest year for which data are available is 1995–96.

    Following a review of central requirements, the return was changed for 1996–97 to collect information on the number of beds (a) available and (b) occupied. Figures from this new return will be published for the first time later this year.

    Water Fluoridation
    Mr. Letwin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the reasons for continuing to allow the fluoridation of water in some parts of the United Kingdom. [2365]

    Mr. Milburn
    The overwhelming weight of medical, dental and scientific opinion throughout the world considers water fluoridation, at the optimum level of 1 part per million in temperate climates, to be a safe and effective means of reducing dental decay, particularly among children.

    Mobile Phones and Electric Blankets (Health Risks)
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment his Department has made of the potential health risks posed by mobile phone usage; and if he will make a statement; [2723]

    (2) what assessment he has made of the possible health risks connected to the use of electric blankets; and if he will make a statement. [2710]

    Ms Jowell
    The Department obtains advice from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) on the risks to health of exposure to electromagnetic fields.

    The NRPB's advice is based on its own careful assessment of published scientific studies and those carried out by the World Health Organisation, by the NRPB Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation, under the chairmanship of Professor Sir Richard Doll, and by the International Commission on Non-ionising Radiation.

    The NRPB's advice is that there is no convincing scientific evidence that exposure to microwave radiation associated with mobile phone and electric blanket usage is harmful to human health.

    Medical Drug Donations
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which 10 developing countries received the greatest quantities of medicinal drug donations from United Kingdom companies and charities for(a) emergency relief and (b) general medicinal use in 1996–97; and if he will make a statement; [2728]

    (2) what estimate she has made of the number of tonnes of medicinal drugs donated to developing countries (a) directly by pharmaceutical companies and (b) via charities each year for (i) emergency relief and (ii) general medicinal use; and if he will make a statement; [2727]

    (3) what estimate he has made of the total numbers of charitable organisations and commercial bodies which donate medicinal drugs to (a) the Baltic states, (b) Haiti, (c) Africa and (d) Romania. [2756]
    423
    Ms Jowell
    We do not hold information on the numbers of charities and companies who make drug donations nor on the types or volume of drugs donated.

    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to meet United States representatives to discuss the provision of tax incentives for firms donating medicinal drugs to developing countries; and if he will make a statement. [2691]

    Ms Jowell
    None.

    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the World Health Organisations's guidelines on drug donations; and what proposals he has to improve them; [2757]

    (2) what plans he has to implement the World Health Organisation's guidelines on drug donations to third world and former eastern bloc countries. [2758]

    Ms Jowell
    The Government supports the World Health Organisations's Guidelines for drug donations, which were published in May 1996. These give advice to both donating and recipient member states on safety, quality, and labelling. The United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry is aware of the WHO guidelines. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain also provides similar guidance to its members on redirection of medicines overseas.

    The UK currently holds the chair of the WHO's Drugs Action Programme Management Advisory Committee which regularly reviews progress on implementation of the guidelines and assess the need for improvements.

    Dental Services
    Mr. Barnes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he had made of the numbers of dental patients who have not used their dentist for two years or more and have subsequently(a) been deregistered by their local dental board and (b) been charged a £30 emergency fee before any new treatment and reregistration; and by what method patients are informed of the imposition of that charge. [2307]

    Mr. Milburn
    In 1996–97 4.1 million adult registrations lapsed automatically after a period of two years during which the patient had not attended a dentist. There is no National Health Service charge for registering or re-registering with a dentist.

    Cannabis
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to allow trials of cannabis sativa in the treatment of multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, cerebral palsy and nausea caused by chemotherapy. [2263]

    Ms Jowell
    Misuse of drugs legislation allows for research involving cannabis under Home Office licence. Any proposed clinical trial would have to be submitted to the Medicines Control Agency for approval on exemption in accordance with the Medicines Act 1968. Any application for a licence or a certificate, or both, would be carefully considered.

    HIV/AIDS
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of 424
    State for Health (1) what additional funding for HIV/AIDS therapy has been allocated in light of the increased availability of more effective HIV/AIDS drug treatments; and if he will make a statement; [2432]

    (2) what steps he is taking to ensure full availability of combination therapies, counselling services, dietetic treatments, in-patient services, psychiatric support in the community and district nurse services and other necessary services for HIV/AIDS patients; and if he will make a statement. [2436]

    Ms Jowell
    The Department has allocated a total of £199.6 million for HIV/AIDS treatment and care in 1997–98. This represents a seven per cent. increase over the allocation for 1996–97 as a contribution towards new combination therapies and the Department is keeping in close touch with health authorities, clinicians and others on developments in this area and the costs and benefits associated with them.

    The treatment and care budget, which is allocated to health authorities in line with the number of AIDS cases, is intended to cover services for people with HIV and AIDS as determined through local needs assessment and priorities.

    Health Authority Deficit
    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) health trusts and (b) health authorities in England were in deficit on 1 April 1996; and by what amounts. [2755]

    Mr. Milburn
    The details of all trusts' 1995–96 Income and Expenditure positions drawn from audited accounts is available in the Library. Information on 1995–96 district health authorities' Income and Expenditure positions also drawn from audited accounts have been placed in the Library. Due to a different accounting basis these figures are not directly comparable with those placed in the Library on 2 June which provided information relating to 1996–97.

    Private Finance Initiative
    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is the policy of Ministers to exclude clinical services from the PFI in all circumstances. [2494]

    Mr. Milburn
    Clinical services should not be included as part of a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) scheme.

    NHS Trusts (Appointments)
    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date he intends to reappoint the membership of the boards of(a) West Cumbria Health Care Trust, (b) the north Cumbria Health Care Authority and (c) the Cumbria Ambulance Trust. [2495]

    Mr. Milburn
    The terms of appointment of those appointed to these boards are as follows:

    Appointed from

    Appointed to

    West Cumbria Health Care NHS Trust

    Eric Urquhart (Chairman)

    1 November1996

    31 October 2000

    David Gill

    1 November 1996

    31 October 1998

    425

    Appointed from

    Appointed to

    Ronald Inglis

    1 November 1996

    31 October 2000

    Graham Lamont

    1 November 1996

    31 October 2000

    Claire Madden

    1 November 1994

    31 October 1998

    Effie Graham

    1 November 1996

    31 October 1998

    Cumbria Ambulance Service NHS Trust

    James Howard (Chairman)

    15 April 1996

    31 October 1999

    Fiona Cartmell

    1 November 1996

    31 October 2000

    Brian Clayton

    1 November 1996

    31 October 2000

    Peter Simpson

    1 November 1994

    31 October 1998

    Barbara Stephens

    1 November 1996

    31 October 2000

    North Cumbria Health Authority

    Ian Carr (Chairman)

    1 April 1996

    31 March 1998

    John Chipps

    1 April 1996

    31 March 2000

    Jean Gray

    1 April 1996

    31 March 2000

    Ruth Popple

    1 April 1996

    31 March 2000

    Paul Groom

    1 April 1996

    31 March 1998

    Lynne Quinion

    1 April 1996

    31 March 1998

    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many appointments to boards of NHS trusts are due to be made in the next round of reappointments. [2496]

    Mr. Milburn
    The total number of National Health Service trust board appointments due in the 1997 round is 910, comprising 149 chairman appointments and 761 non-executive directors. In addition, there are 73 current vacancies to be filled.

    Aluminium (Health Risks)
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the possible health risks connected to the use of aluminium containers; and if he will make a statement. [2711]

    Ms Jowell
    Dietary survey data indicate that the intake of aluminium in the United Kingdom, which includes the contribution from aluminium containers, is well within international safety limits.

    Smoking
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of adult(a) men and (b) women in the United Kingdom are cigarette smokers, in each 10 year age band; and if he will make a statement. [2713]

    Ms Jowell
    Estimates of the number and percentage of adult men and women cigarette smokers in England 1994 are shown in the table. Questions relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, respectively.

    Cigarette smoking amongst adults, by age and gender

    England 1994

    Percentage/numbers

    Men

    Women

    Age

    Percentage of smokers

    Estimated number of cigarette smokers

    Percentage of smokers

    Estimated number of cigarette smokers

    16 to 24

    36

    1,056,000

    34

    940,000

    25 to 34

    34

    1,368,000

    30

    1,140,000

    35 to 44

    34

    1,103,000

    28

    908,000

    426

    Cigarette smoking amongst adults, by age and gender

    England 1994

    Percentage/numbers

    Men

    Women

    Age

    Percentage of smokers

    Estimated number of cigarette smokers

    Percentage of smokers

    Estimated number of cigarette smokers

    45 to 54

    26

    792,000

    28

    856,000

    55 to 64

    23

    547,000

    22

    538,000

    65 to 74

    18

    363,000

    19

    459,000

    75 and over

    13

    148,000

    8

    167,000

    All Persons

    28

    5,237,000

    25

    5,019,000

    1. The percentages have been calculated from the ONS General Household Survey 1993–94.

    2. The number of smokers has been estimated using Office for National Statistics mid-year population estimates as at 30 June 1994, and the percentage of smokers.

    3. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole figure. The estimates of the number of smokers have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

    Alzheimer's Disease
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals his Department has to collect centrally the numbers of people suffering from Alzheimer's disease. [2714]

    Mr. Boateng
    We have no plans to collect this information centrally. It is estimated that there are currently around 600,000 sufferers of dementia in England.

    National Health Service (Primary Care) Act
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to amend the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997; and if he will make a statement. [2831]

    Mr. Milburn
    We are currently considering the development of primary care services including implementation of the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997. No final decisions have yet been reached.

    Emergency Readmissions
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for(a) the South East Thames regional health authority, (b) the East Sussex, Brighton and Hove health authority and (c) each of the NHS trusts operating within the East Sussex, Brighton and Hove health authority area (1) the number of emergency readmissions within 28 days for the periods (i) 1 April 1995 to 30 September 1995, (ii) 1 October 1995 to 31 March 1996, (iii) 1 April 1996 to 30 September 1996 and (iv) 1 October 1996 to 31 March 1997 and (2) the figures in (1) above expressed as a percentage of the total number of operations carried out. [2832]

    Mr. Milburn
    Since April 1996 the National Health Service Executive has collected information on patients aged 75 and over who are readmitted as an emergency within 28 days of discharge, for all specialties except
    427
    psychiatry, by health authority. The information for East Sussex, Brighton and Hove Health Authority is as follows:

    East Sussex, Brighton and Hove HA

    1 April 1996 to 30 September 1996

    1 October 1996 to 31 March 1997

    Readmissions within 28 days

    728

    928

    Live discharges

    16,756

    16,190

    Readmissions/discharges

    4.3 per cent.

    5.7 per cent.

    Source:

    NHS quarterly monitoring returns table QMX7, lines 03 and 05.

    At present the NHS Executive only collects data on emergency readmissions within 28 days for patients aged 75 and over.

    (The hon. Member may wish to contact the health authorities and trusts directly to enquire whether the information is collected locally).

    Carers
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he intends to insure that carers are aware of their rights under the Carers Recognition and Services Act 1995. [2872]

    Mr. Boateng
    The Department's Guidance and Practice Guide on implementing the Act require social services departments to ensure that their published information on community care tells carers about their rights under the Act.

    Information should be available to carers when they need it; it should be accessible to all members of the community and easy to understand. It should also be part of routine assessment practice and, specifically, authorities are expected to inform carers who appear to be eligible under the Act of their right to request an assessment.

    As part of our programme of research on community care, we are considering the impact of the Act. An inspection by the Social Services Inspectorate is also in preparation, which will look at how local authorities are implementing the Act.

    Private Finance Initiative
    Fiona Mactaggart
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Private Finance Initiative in the national health service. [2814]

    Mr. Milburn
    I intend to undertake an urgent exercise to prioritise all the major Private Finance Initiative (PFI) schemes in the acute sector. I have today written to all Members, giving full details of the steps I intend to take and setting out the way forward for the PFI in the National Health Service.

    The need to prioritise the schemes currently battling for the limited private and public sector resources is now understood and accepted. Only if resources are concentrated on those schemes with the greatest need will real progress be made and schemes delivered.

    The prioritisation exercise will cover all the major acute schemes on the current project list that have an approved Outline Business Case. They will be given separate
    428
    gradings regarding health service need, how well the scheme fits with the PFI process and hence its likelihood of delivering a successful outcome, and how far and well negotiations have progressed.

    The health service need will consider the service's own assessment of the medical and estates reasons for completing the scheme.

    The fit and deliverability (or PFI-ability) of the scheme will evaluate if the scheme is one that is likely to prove attractive to the private sector. Too many inherently unsuitable schemes were forced to test for PFI and we must not be seen to be unnecessarily prolonging that process.

    The third criteria will be how well and far negotiations have progressed. If we are to concentrate resources on the leading schemes, it is clearly a nonsense to allow the system to become further clogged by new schemes entering the process. Equally, many schemes have become stalled because the system is overloaded and these cannot be left to stagnate.

    Performance of each of the schemes against these criteria will form the basis for the selection of the schemes that will proceed. Final announcements regarding the fate of all the schemes will be made at the end of June. During this time, I am making myself available to receive representations from constituency members. No final decision will be taken on any of the schemes without Members having had the opportunity to personally represent their own and their constituents' wishes. The prioritisation exercise is going to be fair and genuine.

    There will be a separate exercise for London PFI schemes arising from our Review of health services in the capital which will be announced in due course.

    Those schemes that fail to make the list, for whatever reason, will be prioritised nationally alongside schemes that are competing for the limited public capital we have. We will only invite competition for the schemes that have a genuine health need and can be delivered.

    In conjunction with this work on prioritisation, I will be looking over the coming months at improving the PFI product in terms of fostering innovation; resolving affordability and delivering PFI solutions in non-acute fields like primary care and mental health. In addition, I will also be looking, more fundamentally, at developing other possible models of structuring private finance schemes in the longer term.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Minimum Wage
    Mr. Tom King
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research has been commissioned and what estimates have been made by his Department and what information presented to him, regarding the costs per annum to the MAFF budget of the introduction of a minimum wage at(a) £3.50 an hour, (b) £4 an hour and (c) £4.40 an hour; and if he will make a statement. [2107]
    429
    Mr. Morley
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 9 June 1997,Official Report, column 310, by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

    BSE
    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates have been drawn to his attention as to the cost to the meat industry of BSE. [2798]

    Mr. Rooker
    There have been several studies which have addressed certain aspects of the costs of BSE, but I am not aware of any estimates of the total cost to the meat industry. However, the Ministry has commissioned an independent study to provide a comprehensive assessment of the economic impact of BSE across the whole UK economy and within particular regions. The study is expected to be completed during September 1997.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the selective cull is required in order to meet the target date of 2001 in terms of BSE eradication. [2801]

    Mr. Rooker
    The year 2001 is not a target date for BSE eradication, but an estimate of the time when the BSE epidemic will have reached insignificant levels based on research carried out by Professor Anderson of Oxford University and his team, in collaboration with Wilesmith and others at VLA and published in Nature, volume 382. The purpose of the selective cull is to accelerate the rate of decline in the epidemic by removing animals which are likely to become BSE cases and to comply with the pre-conditions of the Florence Agreement made in June 1996.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consult food consumer groups on the case for a judicial inquiry into the handling of the BSE crisis. [2799]

    Mr. Rooker
    I intend to have close contacts with consumer groups, and will be happy to hear their views on all aspects of the BSE crisis, including the case for an inquiry.

    Ruminant Feed
    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence has been drawn to the attention of his Department that ruminant feed is being fed to pigs, poultry, lamb and fish. [2797]

    Mr. Rooker
    We have received no evidence that feed intended for ruminants is being fed to pigs, poultry and fish. As ruminants, lambs receive ruminant feed.

    Lacto-vegetarians and Vegans
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has of the percentage of the UK population currently(a) lacto-vegetarian and (b) vegan; and if he will make a statement. [2712]

    Mr. Rooker
    Data collected as part of a recent MAFF-funded survey of the diets of vegetarians suggested that approximately 2 per cent. of the population of Great Britain aged 15 and over are vegetarian, a further 3 per cent. consider themselves to be vegetarians but also eat fish, and 0.3 per cent. are vegan. We do not have 430
    equivalent figures for the UK, nor any readily available information on the percentage of the population who are lacto-vegetarian.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    State Retirement Pensions (Overseas Residents)
    Mr. Colvin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she plans to introduce proposals on the uprating of state retirement pensions to people resident abroad; and if she will make a statement. [583]

    Mr. Denham
    State Retirement Pensions are uprated within the European Economic Area and in certain countries with which the United Kingdom has a Social Security agreement which provides for uprating.

    The Government has no plans at present to introduce proposals on the uprating of pensions paid to people living in other countries. There are competing demands and constraints on Social Security spending, and it would be wrong to raise expectations that uprating these pensions would be likely to attract priority under current circumstances.

    Jobseeker's Allowance
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to reform the jobseeker's allowance. [1466]

    Mr. Bradley
    Our Welfare to Work objectives are to provide work incentives, to reduce poverty and welfare dependency and to strike a new balance between rights and responsibilities. As the main benefit for the unemployed, Jobseeker's Allowance will have a major role to play in the transition from benefit to work, and an extensive programme of monitoring and evaluation is under way to enable us to ensure that it is achieving these objectives.

    In addition to this major evaluation exercise, we shall also keep the individual benefit rules under consideration as we develop our plans.

    Departmental Computer Systems
    Mr. Nigel Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to ensure that her Department's computer systems are millennium compliant; and if she will make a statement. [1243]

    Mr. Bradley
    The Department's main computer systems have been fully analysed for Year 2000 compliance. Plans to complete the necessary changes are being implemented. All the major benefit and recording computer systems supporting the day-to-day delivery of Social Security will be amended by the end of 1998 to permit a full year's processing before the year 2000.

    Analysis is continuing to assess the year 2000 implications for the Department's administrative, support and non IT systems.

    Departmental Publications
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what means her Department makes available its publications in(a) Braille, (b) audio tape and (c) large print; and how this is publicised. [1667]
    431
    Mr. Frank Field
    The Department and its agencies makes its publications in Braille, audio cassette and large print available by various means.

    "A Catalogue of leaflets, posters, and information" (CAT 1) fully lists the Departmental information that is available in alternative formats and a copy has been sent to the hon. Member. This is mailed out to 90,000 intermediaries and advisers annually. Additionally, a Benefits Agency quarterly newsletter, Touchbase, mailed to these advisers, includes advertising on the availability of these products.

    Information regarding alternative formats can also be obtained through the various Departmental help lines. The lines themselves are publicised widely through intermediaries, telephone directories, CAT 1, local offices and advertising and direct marketing campaigns.

    Benefits Agency information in braille and on audio cassettes is also available from the Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB) which also lists BA products in their magazines such as Spotlight, Welcome to a World of:, New Beacon and The Bibliography Reading List.

    The Benefits Agency is also represented at exhibitions such as Naidex, Nacab and Vision '97 where alternative formats are always made available. Also the Department liaises with employers, intermediaries and advisers, often through mailings, to make them aware of new publications which may be relevant to their employees, clients and customers.

    Information about alternative formats is also available from all local Social Security offices.

    State Pension
    Mr. Ottaway
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to amend the rules with regard to downrating of the state retirement pension for pensioners who are in hospital for six weeks or more. [2499]

    Mr. Denham
    Most Social Security benefits, including Retirement Pension, are reduced after a period in hospital. These rules have been applied, with only minor modifications, since the introduction of the National Insurance scheme on the basis that State funds should not make double provision for the same needs. There are no plans to amend these rules.

    Old Age Pension
    Mr. John Cryer
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will review the 25 pence per week additional payment for the over 80-year-olds. [2500]

    Mr. Denham
    We will examine means of delivering more automatic help to the poorest pensioners, many of whom are over 80. We will also retain the basic state pension as the foundation of pension provision and increase its value at least in line with prices.

    Second-tier Pension
    Mr. John Cryer
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the Government's plans to establish a state second-tier pension. [2501]
    432
    Mr. Denham
    We will be setting up a review of the central areas of insecurity for the elderly which will cover second tier pensions including SERPS. We intend to retain SERPS for those who wish to remain in it and will seek to develop the administrative structure of SERPS so as to create a "citizenship pension" for those who assume responsibility as carers and as a result lose out on the pension entitlements they would otherwise acquire.

    We will also be developing a new framework of stakeholder pensions to provide value for money, flexible and secure second pensions particularly for those on low and modest incomes, with changing patterns of employment, and who cannot join an employee occupational scheme. These will be based on new partnerships between financial service companies, employers and employees.

    Housing Benefit (Single People)
    Mr. Dawson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will withdraw the regulations on housing benefit for single people aged 25 to 60 years which were announced on 26 November 1996. [2833]

    Mr. Bradley
    Measures to restrict Housing Benefit for single people under the age of 60 were inherited from the previous administration and the reduction in expenditure this entails form part of Departmental expenditure plans. We are reviewing those plans and will announce our decision shortly.

    Benefits Agency
    Mr. Hanson
    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), the Blueprint for the Future"; and what assessment she has made of its proposals. [2839]

    Mr. Field
    The "Benefits Agency Wales—Blueprint for the Future" consultation document was published on 15 November 1996 and the period of public consultation was extended to 28 February 1997. Representations received during the consultation period will be considered by Ministers in due course, and announcements will be made in the light of these considerations.

    These representations will be considered by Ministers in due course, and announcements will be made in the light of these considerations.

    We will be assessing our proposals in the light of this document, and also each of the proposed Benefits Agency initiatives which are part of the Department's current programme to ensure that they will provide the improved services, better security and value for money that we want to see in a modernised Social Security system.

    Announcements will be made in due course.

  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Departmental Publications
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland by what means her Department makes available its publications in(a) Braille, (b) audio tape and (c) large print; and how this is publicised. [1663]
    433
    Mr. Worthington
    The Department of Health and Social Services has adopted a policy that all documents addressed to the workforce or the public should be in a reasonably large font and should also be considered for publication in alternative formats such as Braille, large print, audio or video tape.

    All published documents contact information on the availability of the document in alternative formats.

    The Department also works closely with the appropriate voluntary bodies in the drafting and distribution of material published in alternative formats.

    Sewers
    Mr. John D. Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to install main sewers at Derryboye crossroads near Saintfield, Co. Down.[1933]

    Mr. Murphy
    Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Water Service under its Chief Executive, Mr. H. R. F. Plester. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

    Letter from H. R. F. Plester to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 5 June 1997:
    Lord Dubs has asked me to reply to your parliamentary question asking what plans Water Service has to install main sewers at Derryboye crossroads near Saintfield, Co Down.
    Water Service has no plans to install a sewerage system at this location. It does, however, provide a septic tank desludging service which is available to rural householders in such circumstances.

    Secret Societies
    Mr. Walker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she plans to legislate to require(a) police officers, (b) members of the judiciary and magistrates, (c) counsel and solicitors, (d) CPS prosecutors, (e) probation and (f) prison officers to disclose publicly their membership of secret societies. [1919]

    Mr. Ingram
    There are no present plans to so legislate.

    The Home Affairs Committee Report on Freemasonry in the Police and the Judiciary was published in March this year. Mr right hon. Friend, the Minister of State at the Home Office has recently advised the clerk of the Committee that the issues in the report are being addressed in consultation with other Departments, including the Northern Ireland Office, with the aim of making a substantive response by the end of August.

    Mr. Walker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to require secret societies to publish registers of their members; what assessment she has made of the potential threat to members of such societies from the publication of such registers; and if she will make a statement. [1920]

    Mr. Ingram
    There are no plans to require secret societies to publish registers of their members. Consequently there has been no assessment made of the potential threat to members of such societies from the publication of such registers.

    SPARD Scheme
    Mr. John D. Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the last payments on the SPARD scheme will be issued to farmers. [2016]
    434
    Mr. Murphy
    The Department has approved projected expenditure by farmers in the SPARD Scheme up to 31 March 1999 and to the extent that the projects are carried out and translate into actual claims, final payments will be made by that date.

    Abbatoir (Saintfield)
    Mr. John D. Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will order a public inquiry into the application for an abbatoir at Saintfield Livestock Market; and if she will commission an environmental impact statement in accordance with the Environmental Effects Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1989. [2017]

    Mr. Murphy
    Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Planning Service under its Chief Executive, Mr. T. W. Stewart. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

    Letter from T. W. Stewart to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 6 June 1997:
    The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about a Public Inquiry and the commissioning of an environmental impact statement in relation to a planning application for an abbatoir at Saintfield Livestock Mart.
    This planning application, which was received in April 1997, has been the subject of a large number of objections. The Department determined that the proposal fell within the scope of Category 7(f) of Schedule 2 of the Environmental Effects Regulations (NI) 1989 and the applicant was requested to submit an Environmental Statement on 2 May 1997. The applicant had until 30 May 1997 to confirm acceptance or appeal against this determination. There has been no appeal lodged and the applicant must now either submit the Environmental Statement or withdraw the application.
    If an Environmental Statement is submitted it will be publicly advertised and all interested parties will have an opportunity to make representations. A decision on the way forward, including the need for a Public Inquiry, can only be taken once the Environmental Statement has been received and the consultative responses have been fully considered. It is unlikely that any decision on the need for a Public Inquiry will be taken until Autumn 1997, at the earliest.
    I do hope you find this helpful and I will, of course, let you know once a decision on the way forward has been taken.

    Housing Development (Newtownards)
    Mr. John D. Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment her Department has made of the wildlife effects of an application to build three houses at 55 Crawfordsburn Road, Newtownard, upon the area known as the Golden Glen. [2018]

    Mr. Murphy
    Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Environment and Heritage Service under its chief executive, Mr. Robert Martin. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

    Letter from J. S. Faulkner to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 4 June 1997:
    As Chief Executive of Environment and Heritage Service (EHS), Mr. Robert Martin is responsible for all operational aspects of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland's environmental policies. On his behalf I am responding to the Parliamentary Question which you put down in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 4 June 1997, regarding the impact on wildlife of a planning application to build 3 houses at 55 Crawfordsburn Road, Newtownards.
    I wish to confirm that the application submitted for development at the above location was passed for comment by Planning Service to Environment and Heritage Service. After consideration of the content of the application EHS is of the opinion that the proposal

    435
    will have no direct impact on the nature conservation value of the Golden Glen. Development does not extend down to the edge of the pond and the majority of the woodland will be retained undisturbed. As a safeguard however, although no signs of badger activity were noted in the areas to be impacted by development, EHS will recommend to Planning Service that a badger survey be undertaken by a recognised expert.
    I trust you will find this reply helpful.

    Pedestrian Crossing (Newtownards)
    Mr. John D. Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what plans she has to install a pedestrian crossing at the junction of the Bangor and Belvedere Roads in Newtownards; and if she will commission a study of the demand for such a crossing; [2020]

    (2) how many accidents have been reported at or around the Ballymacbrennan crossroads of the Saintfield and Comber Roads in the last five years; and what plans she has (a) to erect warning signs and (b) to use traffic management devices to slow traffic on the Comber Road at this point. [1921]

    Mr. Murphy
    Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Roads Service and its Chief Executive, Mr. W. J. McCowbrey. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

    Letter from W. J. McCoubrey to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 6 June 1997:
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your recently tabled PQ about the need for a pedestrian crossing at the Bangor Road/Belvedere Road junction, Newtownards.
    Roads Service is not aware of any problems at this location. However, a survey to determine whether there is a need for a crossing will be carried out within the next few weeks. The Divisional Roads Manager, Mr McCandless, will write to you as soon as the outcome is known.
    I hope you find this information helpful.

    Letter from W. J. McCoubrey to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 6 June 1997:
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your recently tabled PQ about the Ballymacbrennan crossroads of the Saintfield and Comber Roads.
    I have been informed by the RUC Central Statistics Unit that in the past 5 years (1992–1996 inclusive) there have been 4 personal injury accidents at this location. As existing signs and road layout are considered adequate there are no proposals to erect additional signs or to introduce any traffic management measures.
    I hope you find this information helpful.

    Housing Executive
    Mr. Walker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to introduce provisions analogous to those contained in the Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill to enable the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to expand its activities; and if she will make a statement. [1914]

    Mr. Murphy
    There is no need to introduce similar provisions. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive presently uses its housing capital receipts, including those from house sales, as an alternative to fresh borrowing to fund its capital works programmes.

    Mr. Walker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she plans to proceed with proposals to subject 436
    Northern Ireland Housing Executive functions to compulsory competitive tendering; and if she will make a statement. [1918]

    Mr. Murphy
    The Government is committed to replacing compulsory competitive tendering with a duty on local authorities to achieve best value. I hope to make an announcement soon on the application of the best value approach for Housing Executive functions.

    Royal Ulster Constabulary Anniversary
    Mr. John D. Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which right hon. and hon. Members from Northern Ireland constituencies were invited to the service in St. Anne's Cathedral, Belfast to mark the 75th Anniversary of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. [2144]

    Mr. Ingram
    This is a matter for the Chief Constable. However, I understand that invitations to attend the service in St. Anne's Cathedral were extended to the leaders of the following Northern Ireland political parties: Ulster Unionist Party (Mr. David Trimble), Democratic Unionist Party (Rev. Dr. Ian Paisley), Social Democratic and Labour Party (Mr. John Hume), UK Unionist Party (Mr. Robert McCartney) and the Alliance Party (Lord Alderdice).

    Minimum Wage
    Mr. Tom King
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research has been commissioned and what estimates have been made by her Department and what information presented to her, regarding the costs per annum to the Northern Ireland Department's budget of the introduction of a minimum wage at(a) £3.50 an hour, (b) £4 an hour and (c) £4.40 an hour; and if she will make a statement. [2114]

    Mr. Murphy
    The Secretary of State has not specifically commissioned work on levels of minimum pay. However officials do address a range of pay scenarios during pay negotiations. As part of this year's pay negotiations the Trade Union has lodged a claim for a minimum wage of £4.42 per hour and officials calculate the cost of this for the non-industrial civil service to be in the region of £5 million. Calculations were also undertaken on the basis of £4 per hour and this would result in an additional cost in the region of £2.5 million.

    United States (Discussions)
    Mr. Maclean
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the names of those American politicians with whom she had discussions about the future of Northern Ireland on her recent visit to the United States. [2132]

    Dr. Mowlam
    During my visit to Washington, I had the opportunity to discuss a number of issues relating to Northern Ireland with various members of the House International Relations Committee, including Congressmen Benjamin Gilman (Chairman), Peter King, Richard Neal and Tom Manton; and with Senators Edward Kennedy, Christopher Dodd, Patrick Leahy and Joseph P. Kennedy II.
    437
    In addition I also had productive meetings with various representatives of the US Administration, including officials from the National Security Council, and the US Department of Commerce.

    Occupational Therapy
    Mr. McGrady
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps will be taken to reduce the backlog of occupational therapist referrals; and if she will make a statement. [2166]
    438
    Mr. Worthington
    Demand for occupational therapy assessments is rising as increasing numbers of dependent people opt to live in their own homes. The Department of Health and Social Services has been working closely with the Health and Social Services Boards and Trusts and, in the case of housing adaptation assessments with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, to streamline procedures. Service level agreements are being put in place and a list of minor adaptations not requiring occupational therapy input has been agreed. I have asked the Boards to identify, as a matter of urgency, what further steps they can take to reduce waiting lists.

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

Baroness Lloyd of Highbury
Dame June Kathleen Lloyd DBE, having been created Baroness Lloyd of Highbury, of Highbury in the London Borough of Islington, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Walton of Detchant and the Lord Kilpatrick of Kincraig.

Lord Biffen
The Right Honourable William John Biffen, having been created Baron Biffen, of Tanat in the County of Shropshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Hooper and the Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn.
Several Lords—Took the Oath or Affirmed.

Telephone Switchboards: Blind Operators
3 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will negotiate to obtain exemption from European Union Directive 91/263/EEC for telephone switchboards specially adapted for use by blind operators.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, the Government are not now seeking to change Directive 91/263 on telecommunications terminal equipment since the Commission has now presented a successor directive to the Council of Ministers. We are pleased to note that the Commission proposals give special consideration to the needs of different disability groups including visually handicapped switchboard operators.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, which is very satisfactory so far as it goes for the time being. The European Commission apparently considers that this kind of switchboard is incompatible with the single market. Can that view be explained, since it must be less expensive to produce ordinary switchboards than this special kind? Will there not be a case for subsidiarity if the process which the noble Lord indicated does not succeed?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, we are confident that we are able to use our influence in a productive way in this matter in order to secure what I believe are the
828
noble Lord's concerns. We equally share those concerns. There is a case for introducing this measure within the single market. But there is a great deal that has to be discussed both in relation to the detail and the ambit of the proposal.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that blind people have shown that they can do such switchboard work most efficiently? Is it not shortsighted of other people to make it more difficult for them to do it?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. Blind people have shown that, despite their disability, they can undertake such tasks. Indeed, that applies to other disabled people. We should be able to negotiate a satisfactory solution to the problem which I hope will accommodate the noble Lord's views.

Nuclear Weapons
3.2 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take an early opportunity to publicise their goal, as confirmed by Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (HL Deb., 15th May 1997, col. 131), of the global elimination of nuclear weapons; and whether they will start work immediately on the practical steps and negotiations required for the achievement of this goal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said when introducing the Foreign and Commonwealth Office mission statement, the Labour Government will give a new momentum to arms control and disarmament. We have already made clear in the manifesto our commitment to the goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons and our commitment to press for multilateral negotiations towards mutual, balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons. We will be examining how best to implement that commitment, particularly in the context of the strategic defence review.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness, whom I am glad to see in her usual good form, aware that I find what she said eminently satisfactory so far as it goes. Nevertheless, will she suggest to our right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary that it would be more satisfactory if he were to add an addendum to the mission statement, making clear precisely the actions that he proposes to take in order to give effect to the aim which we all share?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his good wishes and, indeed, all Members of the House who have been kind enough to inquire after my health, which, I am happy to say, has been restored to its usual robust form.

829
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office mission statement confirms our commitment to ensuring the security of the United Kingdom and the dependent territories. We shall work for continued peace for our people by promoting international stability, fostering our alliances and promoting arms control. Our goal of the global elimination of nuclear arms forms an important part of that commitment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there is any need to badger this Government to secure adequate defence in this context?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there is no need to badger this Government to secure adequate defence. This Government are committed to adequate defence of this country, as we have made clear.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that one of the aims of the present Government, as it has been the aim of government in this country for the past 50 years, is general and complete disarmament under universal and international control? Does that not include the abolition of nuclear weapons? Is it not the case, as has been the opinion of experts for as long as I can remember, that the selection of one category of weapons from among all those is not particularly helpful to the cause of arms control and disarmament?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government made clear in the manifesto that they would work toward the elimination of nuclear weapons and believe that they have a mandate to proceed on that basis. But the Government assure the British nation that British nuclear weapons will be included in the multilateral negotiations when we are satisfied with verified progress towards that goal.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, will my noble friend go one step further and agree that there may be better uses for the £1.5 billion that we currently spend on an unusable nuclear capability? I fully accept that the global agreement that she mentioned will entail patient persuasion. But if the Government were to take the lead in those negotiations, would not that establish Britain's claim to be a moral superpower and be an accolade in future history books?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that the Government are taking the lead, as the noble and learned Lord put it, by making clear our determination on the elimination of nuclear weapons. When we have reached the point at which we are satisfied with verified progress and when we are able to bring Trident into the negotiations, I am sure that the Government will be able to find a great deal to do with the money thereby saved.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, as a result of the nuclear arms race, there is a very large number of redundant nuclear reactors which have been stored in unsafe conditions in the north-west part of
830
Russia, near to the Norwegian border, as revealed by the former Soviet naval captain Aleksandr Nikitin, who, for his pains, is now in prison on charges of espionage; and that the British Government have given a small amount of help to the Russians in trying to make those reactors safe? Will she discuss that problem with our friends in the European Union, to see what additional measures are required in order to prevent nuclear contamination of the whole of Europe from that reserve of dangerous materials?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord has drawn to our attention a rather wider issue than that contained in the original Question. I thank him for drawing it to my attention.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether our nuclear deterrent is indeed independent and can be targeted without the use of American technology?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that question is very wide of the original Question. Let me assure the noble Lord that the United Kingdom does not target any country with its nuclear missiles.
Earl Howe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is the risk of nuclear proliferation which should concern us above all in the context of nuclear disarmament and that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty must be the cornerstone of international efforts to combat proliferation? What is the Government's view of the progress being made in the Zangger Committee with the implementation of the treaty's provisions on nuclear exports, which must surely be central to any of us having a greater degree of confidence that proliferation can be successfully contained?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Government agree that the proliferation of nuclear weapons is indeed a threat. That is why the Government urge those countries who have yet to sign the non-proliferation and comprehensive test ban treaties to do so as quickly as possible.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on assisting the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, by her clarification. Will she further make matters clear to him by persisting in the suggestion I made that our right honourable friend should introduce an additional addendum to the mission statement making clear the matters on which she touched this afternoon?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the mission statement was made and circulated in the form in which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State wished it to be circulated. However, I can assure the noble Lord that that in no way detracts from the commitment in the manifesto.

Career Civil Servants and Political Appointees
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy about filling posts normally held by high ranking and experienced professional civil servants with political appointees, particularly in the Prime Minister's Office but also in other government departments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government are committed to a strong and impartial Civil Service. The Civil Service Order in Council was amended on 3rd May to allow up to a maximum of three posts in Downing Street to be filled by special advisers carrying out executive functions in addition to their advisory role. It is the Government's view that the political impartiality of the permanent Civil Service will be reinforced by clearly distinguishing political advice and support in that way.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that interesting Answer. Can he inform the House what special qualities and experiences Mr. Alastair Campbell has to make him better qualified to be the Prime Minister's press secretary than the long-established civil servant who normally holds that position? Can he also tell us what duties the Prime Minister's principal private secretary would normally carry out but which will now be undertaken by Mr. Jonathan Powell in his newly-named role, "Chief of Staff'?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in response to the first part of the noble Baroness's question, the precedent of appointing outside press advisers and heads of the press office started as long ago as 1931. There is nothing new in having an external head of a press office and I do not wish to comment on Mr. Alastair Campbell's specific qualifications.
As to the issue of Mr. Powell, again, the office of Chief of Staff was established many years ago. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Sunningdale, was the Chief of Staff to the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, from 1979 to 1985. There has never been any question of Mr. Powell taking over any of the roles of a permanent civil servant which would be inappropriate. For example, he will not have any responsibility for non-political contacts with the Opposition; he will not be concerned with the career management of civil servants; nor will he work on honours except in relation to political working Peers.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, what are we to make of the piece in today's Financial Times which appears to suggest that there is to be a second set of government press officers working from Millbank and apparently offering rival versions to their counterparts in the Civil Service?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I know of no such suggestion.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, does the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, agree that the advantage of having political advisers is that it removes the temptation offered to Ministers to ask civil servants to carry out overtly political activities? Is it not within the recollection of the noble Lord what Mr. Heseltine did? He asked civil servants to prepare lists of friends who would make statements supporting the policies of the then government. Was that not an entirely improper way in which to use Civil Service resources?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord; his memory is correct. When I am asked about the role of career civil servants in No. 10. I recall the characteristics of career civil servants such as, for example, Sir Bernard Ingham or Sir Charles Powell. They were distinguished civil servants but also known for their loyalty to the Prime Minister of the day.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, does the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, recall the interesting debates we had on this subject in the last Session of Parliament? Perhaps he will find time to re-read them and observe the remarks of his own party then in Opposition. Many of those debates were held at the instigation of our late and much regretted colleague, Lord Bancroft, whose memory I revere and whose example we should all follow. Does the Minister agree also that the principles to be followed remain the same? Those principles are the selection of civil servants by independent persons; their promotion by a similar system of evaluation on merit; and, in the final stages of their career, the choice marked by the absence of any a priori objectives such as, "One of us. Not one of us".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I share the noble Lord's reverence and respect for the late Lord Bancroft. Indeed, as was clear at the time, I share his view that nothing should be put in the way of proper selection processes on merit for the Civil Service. However, we are talking about a maximum of 50 people in a Civil Service of 450,000. We should keep a sense of proportion.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I welcome the initial reply from the noble Lord. But has he noted the reported comment by an eminent Civil Service Commissioner that political patronage might now be replacing the traditional British system for public service appointments? Is the first division of civil servants now missing the strong advocacy they previously had in the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord's question is imprecise. He does not name the Civil Service Commissioner or give the date. But I can reassure him that Sir Michael Betts, the first Civil Service Commissioner, gave a briefing to journalists on

833
28th May to coincide with the commissioner's annual report. He said that he had no cause for concern over the current situation.
Lord McNally: My Lords, will the Minister assure us that the Government will not be bullied by the establishment on these matters? Surely the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, is right that a political appointment is far preferable to a "Is he one of us?" appointment from the career Civil Service? Will the Minister recognise also that fundamental changes took place in our Civil Service under the previous administration? It may be necessary to look at the balance between career civil servants, political appointments and bringing in people from outside as part of the modernisation of our Government. That should not he deflected by the establishment ganging up on Ministers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, noble Lords from the Conservative Benches appear to think it funny when I agree with the Liberal Democrats in this House; but I do. The changes that have been made are small changes in numerical terms, but they are important to establish the separate role of political advice from the proper role of the career Civil Service.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is it not a relevant factor that we now have a Government which have definite and firm political aims and objectives which they want to carry out most effectively?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords.

Disability Benefits: Effect of Judgment
3.18 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take steps to notify severely disabled people of the significance for their benefit claims of the judgment of this House in Secretary of State for Social Security v. Fairey (also known as Halliday).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, since the commissioner's decision of 14th October 1994 the Department of Social Security has requested additional information from customers claiming attendance allowance or the care component of disability living allowance about their social activities. That information has been taken into account when making decisions on entitlement and subsequent payments. The decision of this House in its judicial capacity delivered on 21st May confirmed the need for that action.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. Does my noble friend agree that that
834
landmark judgment entitles disabled people, for the first time, to seek social security to enable them to live their lives as normally as possible? That is in striking contrast to the previous position where they simply received necessities for their existence. However, the judgment will be of little help if people do not know about it. Why cannot my noble friend and the Government inform those disabled people on the lower rate of the disability living allowance so that they are aware of the vital importance to them of the judgment?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we believe that people in the situation of Rebecca Halliday are, broadly speaking, known to us and are now claiming benefit. The House will recall that Rebecca Halliday was on the old attendance allowance which did not have the lower rate that was introduced with DLA. Once DLA was introduced in 1992 future claimants were entitled to the lower rate and therefore would already be within the system, unlike Rebecca Halliday at the start of her claim. Secondly, since the commissioner's decision in October 1994, this information has been collected. As a result of the court decision of December 1996 the 3,000 or so people in the system whose cases were similar to Rebecca Halliday's case have had their claims met in full. However, having said that, my noble friend Lord Ashley is right to remind us that there may well be people already known to the Benefits Agency who would benefit from the outcome of this case but have not already done so. We have a responsibility within what is called the LEAP framework—the legal entitlement and administrative practice framework—to consider the question of entitlement, a responsibility we take very seriously, and we are doing so.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister accept that at first sight to lay people the implications of this judgment financially could be massive in general application? If we have misunderstood, can she say so, and can she give any indication otherwise of what the potential cost could be?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I had hoped that I had to some extent addressed that question in my previous answer. There were 3,000 people in the pipeline, if I may use that rather ugly phrase, who were in a similar situation to Rebecca Halliday. Paying the arrears on their cases has come to some £3 million. We do not expect there to be a huge number of additional people, partly because they are already in the system and partly because Rebecca Halliday's situation arose before DLA was introduced. Now that there is DLA and its lower rate of benefit, which was not available when Rebecca Halliday took up her case—she was on the old attendance allowance—we do not believe there are very many people still in the pipeline for this judgment. At the moment we believe that the numbers are in the order of about 3,000. There may be others. The cost so far is about £3 million and we are not expecting it to rise very much above that. That is our understanding at the moment.
Lord Rix: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the mobility and attendance allowances have been of the

835
greatest possible help to disabled people since their introduction? Have the Government any plans to encourage their take-up in the months and years ahead to enable people with disabilities to take their rightful place in society?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am pleased to confirm from my personal knowledge that that is indeed the case. I am fully aware of the importance disabled people attach to these benefits in meeting the extra costs of their disability. DLA will account for nearly £8 billion of the Department of Social Security's expenditure this year and more than 3 million people will be receiving help under DLA and attendance allowance. The noble Lord raised the question of take-up. Disabled people can get help with claiming these benefits from many sources such as disability organisations and the CABs. Most importantly, they can access, as I hope they will do, the Benefits Agency's free inquiry line—I shall give the number so that it goes into Hansard—on 0800 88 22 00 for information, advice and help with their claim forms.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the generous £8 billion paid in DLA and attendance allowance is as a result of the policies of the previous Government? Do I take it from her reply that she does not believe that the judges have actually gone beyond the original policy intent? If judges do decide to go beyond the original policy intent, is it incumbent on them to think about where the money is to come from? Lastly, what cuts will she make elsewhere in the social security budget in order to accommodate what I have to tell her will be a great deal more than £3 million of extra expenditure?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am happy to pay tribute to the previous Administration for introducing DLA and attendance allowance. It was well judged and they should take the credit for it. However, the result of court cases can sometimes mean that the purpose of any benefit—I do not just mean this one—can be drawn wider than Parliament originally intended. If that is the case, that has to be reviewed and, if necessary, refocused.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as we have time, perhaps I may come back and say that if, as a result of the review, the Government decide they ought to amend the legislation to bring it back into the form Parliament intended, the noble Baroness will have the support of this side of the House.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I did not suggest that we were going to refocus this benefit. However, as the noble Lord will recall from our previous exchange on the matter, we are in the autumn moving into a major strategic review of all benefits, including disability benefits. I am sure that questions such as these and the extent to which benefits meet the
836
needs of disabled people will be taken into consideration. At that point I shall most certainly welcome the support of the noble Lord.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that when disabled people ring 0800 88 22 00 there will be a person at the end of the line and not a disembodied voice telling them to ring somewhere else?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I have to confess to the House that I have not used the inquiry line number. I shall go out and use the line and see for myself.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, while I appreciate the tone and content of her reply, my information is different from hers? I am told that a considerable number of people are not receiving the higher benefit. They should be seeking it but they do not know about it. There are financial implications—the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, was right to refer to this point—as the difference is between £13 a week and £33 a week. If large numbers are involved there will be severe financial implications for the Government. But the law is the law. The House of Lords has now pronounced that this new interpretation of the law should stand. Therefore, these people should be paid.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Under the legal entitlement and administrative practice framework we have an obligation to review cases known to us. We shall certainly be doing that.

Law Officers Bill [H.L.]
3.26 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, I beg to introduce a Bill to enable functions of the Attorney-General and of the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland to be exercised by the Solicitor-General; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Carter.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Liaison Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to advise the House on the resources required for select committee work and to allocate resources between select committees; to review the select committee work of the House; to consider requests for ad hoc committees and report to the House with recommendations; to ensure

837
effective co-ordination between the two Houses; and to consider the availability of Lords to serve on committees;
That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Committee:

L. Allen of Abbeydale,

L. Belstead,

V. Cranborne,

L. Jenkins of Hillhead,

L. Kimball,

L. Morris of Castle Morris,

L. Richard (L. Privy Seal),

L. Weatherill,

L. Wigoder;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consumer Guarantees: ECC Report
3.28 p.m.
Lord Hoffmann Lord Hoffmann rose to move, That this House take note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Consumer Guarantees (10th Report, Session 1996–97, HL Paper 57).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, by your Lordships' leave, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the report of the Select Committee of the European Communities on the proposal for a directive on consumer guarantees.
The object of the proposed directive is to require all member states of the European Union to introduce into their law certain minimum rights for consumers who have bought goods which are defective or are not in accordance with the way in which they were described. This is a matter of considerable importance for the ordinary citizen and the committee therefore took evidence from a large number of people and has produced a detailed report.
The clearest way in which I can describe the effect of the proposed directive is to give your Lordships a brief sketch of the present position in English law and then say how it would be affected by the directive. In English law a consumer who buys something in a shop and then finds that it has a defect may have two kinds of remedy. First, he may have the benefit of a guarantee from the manufacturer. That will usually be a piece of paper in the box headed "Guarantee" in Gothic letters which states what the manufacturer promises to do; whether it is for six months or for a year, whether it covers only the replacement of parts or labour as well, how soon claims must be notified, and so on. That guarantee may be included without extra charge, but nowadays one is quite often offered a longer period of guarantee in return for an extra payment. The directive calls these guarantees commercial guarantees.
In addition to any guarantee which may be given by the manufacturer, a purchaser also has rights against the shop. Buying goods is a contract with the shop and the Sale of Goods Act 1979 automatically writes into that contract certain obligations on the part of the shopkeeper which are called implied terms. The most important of these is that the goods will be free from defects, they will be in accordance with the way in which they were described and they will be reasonably fit for the purpose for which they were sold. Shopkeepers are sometimes surprised to be told that they are legally liable for selling goods which do not comply with these obligations, but that has been the law of England for a very long time.
If the goods do not comply with the seller's obligations, a buyer in England may have one of two remedies. The first is to cancel the contract, return the goods and get back his money. The second is to keep the goods and get compensation in money, which English law calls damages. A person who wants to return goods has to act fairly quickly. If he uses them, even for quite a short time, he loses the right to cancel the sale and he can only obtain financial compensation. That will usually be the difference between what he paid and what the goods were actually worth; for example, it would amount to what it would cost to repair them and to put them into the condition in which they should have been. The claim for damages can be brought at any time within six years after the purchase, but of course the seller will only be liable if the failure of the goods is due to some defect which was present at the time when they were sold. He is not going to be liable for accidents, wear and tear or things that happen afterwards.
That is a brief outline of the present English law on the subject. It is the result of many centuries of development of the common law. It is the result of a famous statutory codification of the common law at the end of the 19th century and a number of amendments over the past 25 years, which were made on the recommendations of the Law Commissions of England and Scotland. It is generally thought to work in a satisfactory way and to preserve a fair balance between the interests of consumers on the one hand and of retailers and manufacturers on the other.
The proposed directive will change this system in a number of ways. First, it will lay down some minimum requirements about what I call commercial guarantees. The main purpose is to ensure that the piece of paper with the Gothic lettering and so forth does actually give the consumer some extra rights and does not merely reproduce or even reduce the rights which he would have had against the shop under the contract. This is not really a problem in England, where the law already covers making misleading statements and does not allow sellers to reduce the consumer's rights.
The most important changes which the directive proposes to make are in the law concerning the rights which consumers have under their contract with the shopkeeper. In the first place, the directive coming from Brussels approaches the scheme of rights in a way which is based on traditional continental ideas derived from Roman law. My noble and learned friend Lord Steyn, who was a member of the sub-committee which

839
prepared the report, and who is learned in the Roman-Dutch law, tells me that you cannot really understand the directive until you realise that it is derived from the remedies which were available in ancient Rome to the buyer of a defective slave. In continental law, following the Roman law, there are two traditional remedies for buyers of defective goods: cancellation of the contract or, alternatively, reduction of the price. And both of these are usually available for a maximum of one year after the purchase. In some member states the rules are even more restrictive.
In respect of standard rights against the shopkeeper, the directive proposes to change the law in four main ways. First, the buyer should have a remedy for any defects which appear during a period of two years. So from a continental point of view, that doubles the existing protection. That will offer consumers on the Continent a very considerable improvement. But in England, as I have mentioned, the consumer already has six years.
Secondly, the buyer should be entitled to choose among four remedies. Two will be available for one year after purchase: to cancel the contract and get your money back or to ask for the goods to be replaced. The other two will be available as long as the defect appears within two years: to obtain a reduction in the price or to require the goods to be repaired. For English consumers, this would be quite a substantial change because at present, as I have said, the right to cancel the contract is usually lost after quite a short period, but under the directive it would last for a year.
Thirdly, there will be a presumption that any defect which emerges within six months was present when the goods were sold. At present, in English law, the burden is on the consumer to prove that the defect was present when he bought the goods and was not the result of misuse or ordinary wear and tear. So that, too, will alter the balance somewhat in favour of the consumer.
Fourthly, the consumer will have no claim unless he notifies the defect to the shop within one month of the date on which he discovered it or should reasonably have discovered it. There is no such provision in English law. Of course, as a matter of common sense, if you go back to the shop and say that your fridge developed a defect over a year ago but you did not bother to tell them, you may have some difficulty in being believed. But there is no rigid rule about a notification period and United Kingdom consumer organisations are alarmed at the prospect of having one. In particular, what does it mean to say that one should reasonably have discovered a defect? What about the lawnmower which you buy in February? When should you have reasonably discovered the defect so that your month starts to run? What about the Christmas present which you buy in October?
But I do not believe that in practice these problems are likely to bother us because the directive makes it clear that member states are entirely free to give their consumers greater rights, and of course that would include not insisting on the one month notification period. In their evidence to us the Department of Trade and Industry made it clear that it was not their intention to reduce the rights of English consumers in any way if they had to adopt this directive.
The evidence which the committee received from manufacturers and retailers was that in giving a one-year period for rejection or replacement and in creating the six-month presumption the directive went too far in favour of consumers. I suppose that one would expect them to say that. They said that it would encourage false claims and it would prove very expensive. Computer manufacturers, for example, said that because their technology was improving month by month and prices were falling, unusually, buyers would be tempted to manufacture complaints in order to upgrade their equipment for free. The motor manufacturers presented an alarming picture of the motorist who never needed to buy a new car because he demanded a replacement every year just before his one-year replacement period expired. The additional costs of all this would, of course, have to be added to the price of the goods for consumers generally and would damage the competitiveness of European manufacturers.
The committee's view was that these fears were probably somewhat exaggerated. There was little hard evidence for the existence of an army of potentially fraudulent consumers. The directive gave member states the right to exclude the remedies of cancellation or replacement in the case of what it called "minor defects". The impression that we gained from representatives of the Commission was that, on the whole, member states would be left to decide for themselves what amounted to "minor defects". As for the six-month presumption, the committee thought that in practice, a judge would be likely to find that a defect in consumer durables which showed up within six months was there at the time of sale unless there was some evidence of misuse; and there seemed some force in the point made by the Consumers' Association that the seller—the shop or the manufacturer—was in a better position to produce evidence on such technical questions than was the consumer. The difficulty was that there was very little hard evidence about the economic effect of the directive and the representatives of the Commission admitted that the research they had done on the likely financial effects on manufacturers and retailers was fairly perfunctory. They said they were commissioning a further study and I understand that they have recently appointed some consultants for the purpose.
If I can therefore sum up the committee's view of what one might call the negative side of the balance sheet, it is as follows. First, both manufacturers and retailers on the one hand and consumer organisations on the other in this country are reasonably satisfied with our present law. They do not think that it needs to be changed. Secondly, while the practical effect of the directive did not seem to the committee to be as drastic as some witnesses thought, it will undoubtedly alter the balance somewhat in favour of consumers and the cost of this change has not been properly assessed. Thirdly, the difference in approach—the continental language and grammar that will be introduced—is bound to unsettle the present English law and create some uncertainty until the new system has bedded down, at the expense of future litigants.
What is to be said on the credit side? What contribution will the directive make to the development of the Community and the single market? I think that it can be accepted that in a number of member states the rights which it gives to consumers will be a distinct improvement on what they now have under their national laws. But this does not in itself mean that a European directive is the appropriate way of bringing about such a change. Unless it has some effect upon the working of the single market, the principle of subsidiarity—if I dare mention that—would seem to require that the member states should be left to decide for themselves what rights their consumers should have.
The main argument put forward by the Commission was that the existence of certain minimum consumer rights everywhere would encourage cross-border shopping. It commissioned some studies in places like Luxembourg and Maastricht, where people often went shopping in neighbouring territories, and found that there were complaints about problems with defective goods, particularly motor cars and furniture. Of course people in Luxembourg, Maastricht or other border areas, are more likely to be cross-border shoppers than people in Birmingham. But I think it was not mere insularity which made the committee regard this argument with some scepticism. First, cross-border shopping is a minuscule part of the trade between member states. If you want to buy a German fridge, you buy it from an English shop. You do not take the car to Frankfurt, load the fridge into the back and bring it here. If you buy your fridge in an English shop, it is, of course, subject to our own consumer laws.
Secondly, the lack of uniformity in consumer remedies did not seem likely to be the main inhibition against cross-border shopping. The reasons you are more likely to buy your television in John Lewis than in Galleries Lafayette are to do with things like negotiating the transaction in French, getting a model which works in this country, bringing the thing back on the Eurostar and so forth; even if you are concerned about the possibility that it might break down, the sheer difficulty of taking it back to Paris is likely to loom larger than the details of your legal remedy. Thirdly, the directive is not intended to produce uniform consumer remedies over Europe. It sets out only a basic minimum, leaving member states free to give their consumers better rights. So, you have absolutely no guarantee that the rights that you enjoy in your home country will be the same as the rights available to you when you shop across the border.
In some respects, as I have already said, UK consumers already have better rights and the department says that it will stay that way. The result is that the committee felt that it could not give the proposed directive its unqualified recommendation or, for the moment at any rate, any recommendation at all. There seems to be virtually nothing to be said on the positive side of the balance sheet against the items which I have put to your Lordships on the negative side.
The Commission accepts that more work on the economic effect of the directive is needed and the committee has also made numerous detailed
842
recommendations for improving the drafting of the directive, if it should be adopted. The Government have recently published a response to the committee's report in which they largely accept the recommendations for improvement and agree with the committee's general views.
I think that I can speak at any rate for the sub-committee which prepared the report when I say that I regret these somewhat negative conclusions. There is, I think, no doubt about the sincerity and enthusiasm of the officials of the Commission who have put in a good deal of work on the draft directive and were extremely helpful in attending the members of the committee and explaining to us what they had in mind. We learned a good deal from them and I hope that they also learned something from us.
I have no doubt that there are member states where the position of consumers is not so well-protected as in this country and I suspect—I say no more than that—that a case could be made for saying that a general upgrade in consumer rights would be to the advantage of trade throughout the single market. But that argument would have to be different from the one which was presented to us, better researched, based upon more solid evidence and in support of a better drafted directive. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House take note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Consumer Guarantees (10th Report, Session 1996–97, HL Paper 57).—(Lord Hoffmann.)
3.48 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, in some ways the subject of this report is fascinating and important. It involves proposals to ensure that consumers who buy goods will receive goods that are as described and are of satisfactory quality. The Commission in Brussels is rightly concerned in the directive, as in a number of other initiatives, to establish its credentials in promoting the interests of the ordinary citizens of the European Union, including, in this instance, the economic interests of the ordinary private purchaser of goods of all kinds. The basic objective of ensuring that consumers across the Community have a minimum floor of rights whenever and wherever goods are bought in the Community is surely sound. It appears that for some member states improvements in consumer rights are needed. However, I suggest that it is not normally appropriate for a Community instrument to be a substitute for inadequate national legislative progress on such matters as these in one or more member states.
I had the honour to serve on Sub-Committee E during its inquiry into the Commission's proposed directive on consumer guarantees. We had the benefit of excellent chairmanship from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann. We also had the benefit of a wide range of views from both interested and disinterested parties. There was a general consensus that in the United Kingdom the work of the English and Scottish Law Commissions during the 1970s and 1980s followed by legislation had remedied most of the perceived difficulties and weaknesses in the law as to the rights of

843
consumers when buying goods and that a fair balance had been achieved between those rights and the interests of retailers and manufacturers.
At one time the use of small print exclusion clauses could deny the consumer of one or more of his basic rights going back to the Sale of Goods Act 1893 and, in common law, beyond that. These rights ensure that the consumer has goods that are fit for their purpose and are of satisfactory quality, bearing in mind the description given to those goods and the price paid for them. It had been very unsatisfactory that in respect of major domestic appliances and goods such as motor cars those basic rights had not clearly included such concepts as a measure of durability and the consumer's entitlement to a remedy when the goods still worked but perhaps the decorative aspect of a brand new item left much to be desired.
Our law over the past two decades has been much improved. These problems have been dealt with by a number of Acts of Parliament, most recently the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994. For UK consumers who buy goods in the United Kingdom fresh legislation on these matters is not really needed. The unfamiliar concepts emanating from Roman-Dutch law and the unfamiliar grammar and vocabulary used in the proposed directive will require a good deal of clarification and interpretation to enable consumers, traders and their advisers to grasp the full import of the new rules.
There was a good deal of scepticism among some members of the committee and some witnesses as to the stated major purpose of the directive, namely, that it would encourage and facilitate cross-border shopping. Our witnesses regarded it as extremely doubtful whether the removal of differences in the substantive law of member states would be a significant factor in influencing people to shop more frequently or extensively across the borders of member states. For example, the Director General of Fair Trading suggested that other factors, most of which were not susceptible to legislation, played a far more significant part in limiting people's willingness personally to shop abroad. One refers to language differences, transportation problems, difficulties in returning purchases in the event of dissatisfaction and—if one thinks this far ahead—the need to seek redress for defects in a foreign judicial system. Even if in theory the differences in law in the various member states have a distorting effect on competition between member states and on the Common Market, the directive requires only a minimum level of consumer protection and leaves individual states to impose higher requirements if they wish. Therefore, if the directive was implemented in every member state differences between member states would still remain.
Once Sub-Committee E had considered the problems of different concepts and vocabulary it found much in the detailed provisions of the directive that was in substance familiar in terms of the basic rights of the consumer to have goods as described and of reasonable quality that conformed to his or her reasonable expectations. Some provisions in the directive would appear to give greater rights to the consumer than existing UK law. Despite my view that UK law is largely satisfactory for the UK consumer, I welcome the provision that if a defect becomes apparent within six months of delivery there
844
should be a rebuttable presumption that the defect existed at the time of delivery unless that presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods or lack of conformity. As one witness said to us, that change in the burden of proof would end the irritating riposte of the shopkeeper when, say, one's shoes fall apart at the first wearing, "You've been using them. What do you expect?"
The directive also gives the consumer a longer period than existing UK law within which to rescind the contract and require replacement of the goods, namely, a full year. I feel that here the proper balance of rights between the consumer and retailer does not justify such a change in current UK law which is based on the considered view of the English and Scottish Law Commissions of a decade or two ago that rejection of the goods and a demand for the full price back, as distinct from compensatory damages, should be available only within a fairly short period of the sale.
One of the apparent improvements in consumer rights in the directive is the provision that makes manufacturers' commercial guarantees legally enforceable. Since manufacturers are not now—nor would they be under the directive—legally required to give any such guarantee, I tend to agree with UNICE (Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe) that if the directive were in force manufacturers might drop the use of guarantees perhaps in favour of some other kind of marketing incentive to avoid the new rule. It would be a pity if the directive when enforced in member states' laws had that counter-productive effect.
There are also provisions in the directive that involve a reduction in the rights of UK consumers as they are at present. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, said, a two-year limitation period is a good deal less than the present six years provided for in UK law. If it becomes law that a consumer must notify any defect in goods bought within one month of such defect being detected or that it ought to have been detected in that time, it will create a great deal of difficulty, especially if goods are bought in one season of the year for use in another or are bought as a gift to be used several months later by another person. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, there is a provision in the directive that a member state may adopt more stringent provisions in favour of the consumer, not the other way around. Therefore, if UK law implements the directive it need not narrow consumer rights to cases where there is notification within the one-month period.
When the Commission gave evidence to us it recognised that the directive was not, as it presently stood, satisfactory. There is to be further research and analysis, including a very important study of costs and implications. I do not know whether in the light of further evidence the case for the directive will be made out. At present it is not.
4 p.m.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I shall start, as I think all speakers will wish to start, by thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, for what, in all humility, I would wish to say was a model introduction of a report such as this, and for his brilliant chairmanship of the inquiry that led to it. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord,

845
Lord Borrie. With his great up-to-date experience of fair trading and so forth, we were lucky to have him on the committee. Those of us who witnessed his contributions pay tribute to the care with which he approached the subject and the help which he gave to those who, like me, are laymen in these matters.
I noticed that during the noble Lord's speech there was one point upon which he thought that UK law might be improved along the lines of the directive. I do not believe that he would disagree with what the noble and learned Lord said—"If that is so, then why not do it here? Why wait for the Commission to do it?" Surely that must be right. I shall return to that point in a moment.
I have just one or two preliminary observations to make as a layman member of the committee which is composed of distinguished practising lawyers, judges and others. It was an enormous privilege to sit for four years with one or two other lay noble Lords on Sub-committee E, and to witness the contribution that such an unrivalled gathering of legal knowledge and wisdom can make to the study of problems that arise as a result of proposals that come from the European Community.
I should like to interpose here merely to say that on occasions we went outside our terms of reference and studied problems that arose on proposals from the EU. I am amazed that in this new Parliament—I have told the Chairman of Committees that I shall say this—this important committee still has its archaic terms of reference. Under its terms of reference it seems to be debarred from examining EU proposals, even though it is now agreed that one of its sub-committees will be concerned solely with the third pillar proposals, which are EU proposals and outwith the committee's terms of reference. I make that point with the intention of helping the House authorities. I am not trying to embarrass the Minister who is to reply. He is an old golfing friend, and I am delighted to see him in his place holding his important office. I do not remember any debate such as this being responded to by a former Commissioner. I look forward to hearing him.
During my service on the committee the chairmen have been brilliant. The chair has been held by distinguished Law Lords and by my noble friend Lady Elles whose chairmanship was every bit as brilliant and who lived up to her great reputation for her study and knowledge of European matters. The House, and in particular the committee, owes an enormous amount to its successive legal advisers who dealt with a mass of paper in the most wonderful way.
A further preliminary point that I wish to make harks back to an occasion when I ventured to divide your Lordships' House on a procedural matter. It is one of the quirks of your Lordships' rules that no sooner has a layman such as myself begun fully to understand the methods and purposes of this learned committee, than he is rotated off it by a rule made by the House and imposed upon the Select Committee, regardless of the circumstances. The principle upon which I divided the House a few years ago was its unwillingness to delegate to its Select Committees the right and power to look after their own procedures. If a Select Committee wishes
846
to get rid of a co-opted member such as myself, it should have every right to do so. But to be forced to do so at the time when one begins to be effective is mad, unless it wishes to get rid of the layman at the time when he becomes capable of being a bit of a nuisance. I commend that point to the House. The result of the Division was 100 votes to 100. We drew, but of course it is useless to draw when one is making a proposal against the usual channels, because according to the rules of the House the usual channels win.
I shall return to the report. I shall be brief because the noble and learned Lord described the area of the sales of goods law which is covered by the directive. It is a narrow but important one. It gives details of what the law should be and what it is in other places, and it also raises the important question of what legislation the Community should enact and what should best be left to national Parliaments.
As the noble and learned Lord said, the report contains a number of important recommendations and conclusions which I leave to the Government and, I hope, also to the Commission to study in case it decides to proceed with the directive after it has received the results of the study on the economic impact of the proposals, which it should have received before it made its proposals.
It is shocking that the Commission had to be pushed into having a thorough survey. That was not done by your Lordships' committee but by Ministers on the Council. It is good to know that the Council has had that effect. The result is that we must wait for a number of months before the conclusions of that second study are available. It is a second study because the Commission made some statistical inquiry earlier.
I have received, I expect like other noble Lords, complaints from the British Retail Consortium, and I received a copy of a letter from the CBI about the fact that the Commission has decided that it will not publish the name of the contracted consultant for fear that undue pressure might be brought upon him, nor will it publish anything about the working methods. That may be right or wrong, but I should like to know from the Minister whether he is satisfied with that.
The British Retail Consortium made a number of cogent observations. We should like to feel that the Government are happy about the procedure upon which the Commission has embarked, because in the balance that has to be drawn between the benefits and disadvantages of the directive, that study will be important. It is a study, not just of statistics, which are known to be a little weak in many places, but of all the information that Her Majesty's Government can give. I hope that it will include the contents of your Lordships' massive document.
In our conclusions at paragraph 116, we expressed the belief that a sufficient case for the directive has not been made. However, we do not rule out the possibility that after completion of the study an adequate case cannot be made. We do not believe that a case has been made out, first, on the ground of subsidiarity. The Government in their reply do not directly refer to that part of our conclusions. I would be grateful if the Minister would

847
give us his views on our argument in the report about subsidiarity. It is important that we are clear about the Government's position.
The report goes on to ram home the subsidiarity point. It states:
"we are not persuaded that these benefits"—
which are held out by the Commission as following from the directive
"whether in the United Kingdom or in other Member States, need to he conferred by a Community instrument rather than national legislation".
That is exactly what the doctrine of subsidiarity is about.
I am not attacking the Commission. I was most impressed by its evidence and the way in which it went about its job and answered our points. I was pleased to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, tell the House about that. I am not taking a hostile position and have never done so in any of the inquiries that I have conducted. I am an admirer of the quality of those who man the Commission, who are small in number.
They see the situation differently. They argue that the single market would gain from a degree of harmonisation of the laws on consumer protection. They set that out in their explanatory memorandum and confirmed it in answer to a question from me; No. 284. As the noble and learned Lord said, the Commission's case is made more difficult because for some reasons, including subsidiarity, it has limited the area of harmonisation and left a great deal of the law to member states. As the noble and learned Lord said, as a result, the ordinary consumer who enters a shop in another member state will not know whether he has the same protection as he has at home. That is the inevitable result of limiting harmonisation, as we have seen in respect of other inquiries. The problem will continue to arise as the principle of subsidiarity continues to bite. Therefore, we return to the fact that harmonisation is not complete and that we must temper and balance the benefits with the disadvantages.
The noble and learned Lord dealt with the case which was at one time put forward as the main reason for the directive on cross-border shopping. I was not impressed with that case and believe that we do not need to dwell on it further.
I have a final observation to make on what happens if the Commission and the Council decide to proceed with the directive on the ground that further evidence justifies it. The noble and learned Lord referred to the balance. It is very important that a balance is kept between the consumer, the manufacturer and the retailer. The evidence that we received showed that there is a danger to the retailer if there are too many firm rights of replacement and repair. If the balance goes too far in favour of the consumer that might be the case. The number of different brands held by a retailer might be limited, thereby limiting choice.
However, a more important matter is the effect upon manufacturers. This is not the time to do anything to reduce the competitiveness of European manufacturers, including British, in the world at large. Over protective legislation for consumers can result in that. I say "can"
848
because I was more impressed by the evidence of the computer manufacturers at Sony, Panasonic and so forth than were some of my noble colleagues. I was impressed by them because when I was connected with that type of industry I felt as they did. I believe that loading the cost on to high-tech manufacturers by 20 or 30 per cent. because of the need to carry more stock, have more repairers and so forth would be sheer madness. Of course that must be examined, but in arriving at the balance that must finally be struck I hope that Her Majesty's Government, the Council and the Commission will bear those important matters in mind.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I have had the pleasure of listening to the introduction of many reports from our European Communities Committee and have taken a general interest in them. I have applauded its reputation in this country and throughout the world, and certainly in other legislatures, for the value of its reports. However, until I decided to speak in today's debate and took the trouble, not to read every word of the report but to dip into it selectively, I had not appreciated the amount of work undertaken by the committees of this House on this and other matters.
I wish to begin by congratulating the committee, through the personage of its chairman the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, on a fine but exhausting job. When I look at the length and thickness of the report, the number of organisations which submitted evidence and those who gave oral evidence, and at the quality of the cross-examination not only by those with legal experience but by non-legal members of the committee, I am most impressed by the value and the quality of the report. I congratulate the committee.
There is not a Member of this House without some experience of guarantees. I refer to their quality and the need for them to be reliable, enforceable and fair. We are looking at an issue which may be arcane in some respects but which, nevertheless, touches everyone in this House and in the country. In preparing my comments for the debate, I read the evidence and submissions of the organisations with which I have some connection and which I respect. I wish to refer to the evidence from the Commission, from the Consumers' Association, from the British Retail Consortium and, interestingly, from the John Lewis Partnership. All that evidence and the chairman's introduction have one thread in common—no enthusiasm for what is proposed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, used the words "sceptic" and "sceptical".
One is forced to ask what is the purpose of a directive of this kind. In this House, we are entitled to rely on the evidence given by a wide number of organisations. I ask the House to bear in mind what was said by the committee in its introduction at pages 7 and 8 of the report where it states:
"This Report is about the rights and remedies of a consumer who buys goods which turn out to be defective or to he not in accordance with the way in which they were described"

849
It goes on:
"The object of the Directive is to guarantee a uniform minimum level of protection for consumers throughout the Community when they buy goods".
The impact statement on page 71 adds flesh to the bones, but, in my view, the committee had it about right.
The committee looked at all the evidence, weighed it and cogitated about it. It then reached some conclusions, which appear at page 52. Paragraph 174 states:
"We share the doubts expressed by witnesses that the benefits which, according to the Commission, the Directive would bring, in particular increasing the volume of cross-border shopping and improving confidence in the Single Market, would in fact accrue".
Paragraph 177 of those conclusions states:
"The Directive might bring about improvements to the position of consumers in other Member States but we are not able to assess how beneficial any changes might be".
Paragraph 179 states:
"The Committee does not believe that a sufficient case for the Directive has been established. In particular, in relation to the principle of subsidiarity, we are not satisfied that the proposal passes the tests stipulated in the Edinburgh guidelines. As regards the position in the United Kingdom, the Directive might give some marginal benefits for consumers but these benefits would be outweighed by the disadvantages … We are not persuaded that these benefits, whether in the United Kingdom or in other Member States, need to be conferred by a Community instrument rather than national legislation".
Therefore, the committee, which we must respect, has examined that which it was charged to examine and has reached those conclusions.
I move on now to examine some more of the evidence and, in particular, the evidence from the Consumers' Association. I go back to Casper Brook, 20 Buckingham Street, and the first issue of Which?. Therefore, I am well aware of the record and history of the Consumers' Association. It has my respect. From time to time, it may get it wrong but in general it is on the side of the consumer.
What did the consumers' voice say to the committee? The Consumers' Association said in evidence:
"We are broadly happy with the high street consumer protection law we have in the UK. In many ways, UK law in this area gives consumers a higher degree of protection than that enjoyed elsewhere in the Union.
Although the proposed Directive is much better than the Green Paper on guarantees for consumer goods and after-sales service and earlier drafts of the Directive, about which we had little enthusiasm, we are not convinced that the proposal will achieve its aims: boosting consumer confidence in the internal market.
The proposed Directive seeks to guarantee a uniform minimum level of protection for consumers throughout the Union. That is a commendable aim. However, we doubt that giving consumers a 'minimum corpus of rights throughout the European Union' will do much, on its own, to encourage consumers to play a more active role in the operation of the internal market.
Also, as far as UK consumers are concerned, the proposal is largely unnecessary at least in a domestic context".
I then turn to what was said to the committee by the British Retail Consortium. I warm to what it said because a prominent member of that consortium is the Co-operative Movement, with which I have a long association. The evidence of that movement was given to the consortium and fed into it.
850
The evidence of that consortium is at page 75 where it states that the,
"BRC believes the proposed Directive will impose significant costs on retailers and manufacturers, reducing their competitiveness without offering commensurate benefits".
It then lists its concerns:
"The BRC believes that the proposals will: … Not assist the development of the single market through increased cross border shopping at the Commission claims … contrary to the Commission's view he costly to businesses and ultimate will increase prices to consumers … Create confusion and tension between consumers and retailers, damaging existing good relations … Encourage dishonest consumers at the expense of other consumers … Reduce choice, particularly to poorer consumers … Create unnecessary waste".
The Minister who is to reply will be well aware of the evidence and will have read the report. But evidence from such powerful voices as those of the Select Committee, the Consumers' Association and the BRC and retail trade needs to be weighed very carefully.
Finally, I look at the evidence given by the John Lewis Partnership, which said:
"The Directive's prime objective, as we understand it, is to improve the functioning of the internal market by facilitating cross border shopping. Its impact in this regard will be minimal. In our Oxford Street shop we serve a substantial number of European visitors. The main limitations on what they buy from us arc practical questions of size, distance and technical specification. If the issue of returning faulty goods comes up, which is rare, the main concern is not the extent of their legal rights in the UK, but how to send the goods back".
Further, it goes on to say that,
"the remedy should be related to the circumstances. For washing machines a repair will usually be the best answer, but a mirror which loses its silvering or a can opener whose handle breaks will need to be replaced".
Finally, it says in its evidence:
"For all the reasons given above we believe that the draft Directive is fundamentally misconceived. It is unlikely that it can be satisfactorily amended. The Commission should be urged to withdraw it and produce another measure which more closely meets the need to overcome harriers to cross border shopping and establishing a sensible minimum level of consumer rights across the Union".
I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, said about the latest position of the Commission which, if not having second thoughts, is asking for further evidence and for research to be undertaken. I share the noble Lord's disquiet in relation to attempts that have been made by, among others, the British Retail Consortium to ascertain who is inquiring and whether or not one can submit further evidence. There seems to be a grey area, a barrier or an impasse so that it is very difficult to obtain information which may be helpful to the final shape of the directive. I hope that the Minister, who will be well briefed on this matter, will be able to tell us whether that is true or whether that situation can be put right.
For all those reasons, I believe that the House has been very well served indeed by the committee. The intentions of the directive are well-founded but the directive has got it wrong. This matter should be reconsidered and brought back suitably amended. The Minister will be able to tell us whether that is within the power of the Government or any other body in this country. I have great faith in the institutions of the Community but occasions must arise when it is

851
necessary to ask it to reflect before putting into effect something which will be costly to the consumer and not very beneficial. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give us some answers to those questions.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, what a pleasure it has been to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who for so long sat on this side of the House in comparative silence. If one good thing has come out of this change of positions in the Chamber, it is that we may now have the pleasure of hearing the noble Lord speak from time to time in our debates. Not only was it a delight to listen to the noble Lord, but he also displayed his considerable knowledge of the subject. Our thanks are also due to the legal adviser of our committee, Dr. Kerse, for his considerable care in the handling and drafting of the report on consumer guarantees, which is now being considered by your Lordships. I should also like to extend our warm thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, for his valued chairmanship and his masterly introduction of the subject today. Indeed, his introduction almost made one wonder why any of us should bother to get up and speak and add more to what he had to say. However, our names have been tabled and we shall make our contributions to this short debate.
The report was published in March of this year so that some time has elapsed between the termination of the inquiry and today's debate. One of the matters which is therefore of concern—and this matter was raised both by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton—is to know what became of the further study which was to be undertaken by the consultant (unnamed, as has already been commented upon) and whether its conclusions, if any, may make any alteration to the draft directive and affect those views which are set out in the report. Although the announcement that there was to be an unnamed consultant was made some time ago, I have not yet met anyone who has seen anything that he has written and we do not know whether he has contributed any further to the state of the draft directive.
When considering the matter, there are one or two major questions which arise. The first is whether there is any need for the directive so far as concerns the United Kingdom. It is believed that the excellent Sale of Goods Act 1893, brought up to date in later Acts of 1979 and 1994, gives considerable protection to consumers in relation to retailers from whom they may purchase products. Although the new directive was introduced in particular to protect the consumer who engages in cross-border shopping throughout the European Union, it does not appear that consumers are impeded from doing so—or, indeed, that they have been impeded from so doing—on account of differences in consumer rights. In fact, on returning by air at different times over recent years through various airports within the EU, as well as by Eurostar, there does not appear to me to be any major impediment to the many thousands of travellers laden with carriers or bags bearing the names of shops in the country that they have visited. Of course, there have been some problems which seem to arise regarding a
852
minimal number of those who purchase cars or furniture. I believe that those are the two main items which have caused difficulties, as was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord.
The second question concerns the benefits which would accrue to consumers following the adoption of the directive. The benefits set out at paragraph 15 on page 12 of the report do not appear to justify yet another piece of legislation, certainly so far as concerns the United Kingdom. The stated benefits include,
"[strengthening] consumer confidence in the Single Market; [facilitating] cross-border shopping … [simplifying] existing national rules"
in any case, no major changes are envisaged to he made to existing rules so far as concerns the UK, and—
"[bringing] Community law closer to European citizens".
I have read such grounds before and they can apply to many directives. They are certainly not specific to the one that we are considering today.
A basic reason for the introduction of the directive must be to protect consumers better than they are already protected. Whether there would be an increase in cross-border shopping throughout the Community can only be assessed over time; for example, the introduction of a common currency in 2002 or 2003 could have an impact on the sale of goods across frontiers, but there does not appear to be any specific article in the directive which would encourage UK citizens to buy on the Continent rather than in this country. As stated in paragraph 22 of the report:
"There are all sorts of other factors … which probably have a much greater impact".
There are also areas of doubt created by the drafting of the text of the directive. I shall give your Lordships just one example which is to be found in Article 3.1, where it says that the seller is liable to the consumer for any lack of conformity which exists when the goods are delivered to the consumer which becomes manifest within a period of two years unless, at the moment of the conclusion of the contract of sale, the consumer knew or could not have been unaware of the lack of certainty. What appears on the surface of the text to be obvious and clear has not apparently been found to be so. It has in fact been shown that this provision creates an expectation by consumers of a de facto two-year guarantee. The interpretation confirmed by the Commission is not, however, identical as it is,
"that the seller in broad terms is liable for defects in the goods which emerge within two years of the date of delivery of the goods".
Another point which is underlined in the report is the question of damages. That is not raised in the directive, though it is one of the primary remedies under English law to which the noble and learned Lord referred. According to a witness from the Commission, this could be left to member states,
"to define, each of them, the weight and the extent of the compensation".
It would seem that a reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this statement is that the minor differences which exist between English law and the laws of other member states in this field could be dealt with in precisely the same way. If the question of damages can be handled at

853
member state level, so also could the other relatively minor issues of infrequent occurrence contained in the directive be dealt with in the same way. It would appear that the option available to the Government in the circumstances would be to consider whether the proposals for minimum harmonisation contained in the draft directive really do produce any advantage for consumers generally over the current position in English law.
It was stated by the representative of AMDEA (the Association of Manufacturers of Domestic and Electrical Appliances) that,
"the certain effect of this proposal will be to change every Member State's law, whilst ensuring that every Member State's laws remain different from everyone else's".
Even if only partly correct, it is certainly no encouragement for member states to go through the lengthy process of supporting a directive which does not appear to guarantee some basic legislation common to all member states.
4.36 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I was very much a lay member of the committee which produced the report. I echo the tributes that have been paid to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, for the skill of his chairmanship and for the expertise of our advisers and our Clerk. It seems to me that the broad issues contained in the report, and those arising from it, have been more than well dealt with by previous speakers. Perhaps I may raise one particular point which was just touched on by my noble friend Lady Elles. I refer to the apparent secrecy with which the Commission is setting up the extremely important independent study which it has promised; that is, a study of the likely economic impact of the proposed directive. I suggest that that secrecy is not only surprising and unnecessary, but that it is also likely to be damaging. Can the Minister say whether he agrees with me in that respect and, if so, will the Government press for openness on this critical point?
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, and previous speakers said, and as the Government in their response to the report have agreed, it is by no means clear that the directive is necessary. Should the proposals in the current draft be implemented as they stand, it is possible that the disadvantages for consumers may outweigh the advantages and businesses across the European Union will carry considerably increased burdens.
The Commission has made it plain, and the United Kingdom Government in their response have agreed, that much will depend on the outcome of the further research on which the Commission is now embarking. In a letter dated 2nd May, the Commission informed the British Business Bureau that it is intended that the study will evaluate in a methodical way the economic impact of the proposal, identify and compare the possible costs and benefits, and examine the effects on the relations between distributors and producers. It is clear therefore
854
that what the research produces is likely to be absolutely critical in determining whether the directive goes ahead and, if so, whether alterations are likely.
It seems to me essential—I should like to know whether the Minister agrees—that member states, consumers and business interests throughout the Union have confidence in the body which carries out the study. They must have confidence in its professionalism and integrity and, above all, its independence and ability to obtain the information that it requires so as to be certain that the research does not simply recycle the facts, figures, arguments and conclusions which have brought the Commission to the somewhat questionable position that it has so far reached.
How can all those most likely to be affected have that confidence when the Commission will not reveal whom it has appointed to do the research? In response to queries by the British Business Bureau, the Commission stated, again in its letter of 2nd May, that it had completed its evaluation of tenders for the study and was about to conclude the contract but that it did not intend revealing the identify of the chosen contractor. The contractor would have only the facts and figures already available upon which to work. The remainder of the three-page letter consisted of lengthy arguments defending the decision to maintain secrecy and to limit the scope of the information available—arguments adding up to anxiety that if the identity of the contractor was revealed it might be nobbled by interested parties or fed partisan facts and figures and so have its assessment compromised in some way.
That seems to me enormously unsatisfactory. A tendering process in the public sector should surely involve making public who is chosen as the contractor. The Commission's practice is normally to do just that. In tune with its commitment to openness and to protecting its own reputation for integrity, it publishes in the Official Journal the identity of the contractors it chooses after competitive tendering. Surely that should apply above all in this case. If the confidence of consumers and businesses across the Union is to be maintained, all those whose interests are at stake, including member states and taxpayers, need to know that the contractors are people of good reputation who, it is recognised, will not be nobbled by anyone and will be able to consider the facts and figures that they need to make a proper, independent report.
The Minister who will reply is an old hand in these matters. Can he give the House an assurance that the Government will press the Commission on this crucial point and request that the chosen contractor will be made public as soon as possible; and that that contractor needs freedom to seek out any facts or figures it requires?
4.44 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I believe that there is no subject on earth to which a Select Committee of your Lordships' House does not bring value. The report is of enormous value to consumer protection. It brings value to a scene which to the user is often clouded with confusion, where might has too

855
often been right and the movement from national to international, although necessary and inevitable, might not always seem to the consumer friendly or indeed efficient. Therefore we should all be grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, and his committee. My noble friends Lord Aldington and Lady Carnegy of Lour claim to be lay members of the committee. In a group of expert lawyers, the lay member is often the consumer's friend.
I praise, too, those organisations and groups which provided the comprehensive evidence which allowed the committee to do its work so thoroughly. I was sorry that the citizens advice bureaux were not among those giving evidence. That body is an important point of access to consumer law; and access for the consumer is extremely important. Noble Lords heard this afternoon of the problem for those claiming disability benefit. The citizens advice bureaux have always offered outstanding service when helping those with a complaint who do not know the first step to take. When considering whether this issue should extend over a European scenario, it is indeed important that we consider access to the law, whatever the scope of the law. Unfortunately most of us have heard Beethoven's symphonies while waiting to register a complaint.
The ideal consumer relationship is between the consumer and producer or provider. When that works there is no need for legislation. The best solution is for the relationship to work. I was delighted to learn that the committee considered that the concerns and exaggerations of manufacturers regarding the effect of effective consumer law on their products and profits were to some degree overstated. There would be a need to incorporate a margin for the delays and uncertainties involved when a directive was not fully determined. But that would not be helpful to the consumer. Competition is one of the best protections available to the consumer along with the desire of the producer-provider to see the customer return. That should be encouraged as a first line.
My noble friend Lord Aldington pointed out that handicaps to business help no one. They do not help the British economy; they do not help any other economy in Europe; and most of all they do not help the consumer. An efficient business will provide the goods that the consumer wants in the state that he wants them.
There was much questioning today regarding the aims of the directive and whether increasing cross-border shopping was defensible or likely to be achieved by changing the laws and harmonising sales of goods Acts. I share those doubts. For three and a half years I lived in that part of the United Kingdom which has a land border. The General Consumer Council of Northern Ireland gave substantial evidence backed by statistics of cross-border traffic. Some 650,000 people in the island of Ireland do cross-border shopping.
I contend that the example of Ireland provides proof that harmonisation of sales rights is not the key to the growth of cross-border shopping. When there was a cease-fire and the physical opening of roads, people flocked across the Border in both directions to shop, to the great benefit of the Northern Ireland economy, a
856
feature that is now much missed. The cease-fire ended and, although the roads stayed open, that traffic stopped. No legal changes were envisaged; it was a result of physical changes in the situation. The number of transatlantic flights that appear to be full of "shopaholics" indicate that the details of sale of goods legislation are not uppermost in the consumer's mind on this occasion. Where there has been growth in cross-border shopping; namely, mail order, which has not yet been mentioned, that legislation appears to offer protection to the consumer. If the directive is not to bring harmonisation, how will customers know whether they have extra benefits? What will be the benefit of the directive?
Many noble Lords raised the question of the further study planned by the Commission. Like my noble friend Lady Elles, I, too, welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, joins us as a speaker after a considerable period in this House. This is the first occasion that I have been involved in a debate in which the noble Lord has taken part—though I was fascinated to hear an ex-Chief Whip point out that he was unaware of the hard work going on in this House as regards committees—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene. If I said that, it was entirely wrong. I meant to say that I was not fully aware of the extent of the hard work done by the committees until I forced myself to read the report—which, I assure the noble Baroness, not every Member of this House does.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I fully accept the noble Lord's remarks. My intention was merely to question whether that would have been the view of my own Chief Whip. I also intended to add that no one has worked harder over the past years than the noble Lord himself.
To return to the issue of the further study, I join with other noble Lords in hoping that the Minister will clarify his views, or even explain why it is acceptable that the position should not be open and transparent. There seems to be no logical reason or justification for a policy of secrecy, of protection of the contractor when chosen. I look forward to the Minister's assurance that he will examine the matter with great seriousness.
I hope, too, that he will be able to assure the House that the study will not be restricted to current statistical information. If the directive is ever to be justified, there appears to be a need for much more information from the field.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, welcomed the assurance of the Department of Trade and Industry that under no circumstances would the rights of the United Kingdom consumer be lessened. A great deal of work has been done in this area. Much of it has been driven by outside organisations with concern for the consumer, but there has been much determination in the department. We shall be happy to hear the Minister confirm that.

857
I do not share the ability of my noble friend Lord Aldington to assess the Minister's qualities at golf. But I have had an opportunity over the past years to assess his commitment to detail. I am sure that will be of great benefit in this area.
I hope, too, that we may receive some indication from the Minister regarding the consumer rights of the self-employed small business owner, who is a consumer in exactly the same way as any retail consumer, with no more knowledge and with a need for protective legislation.
Outside the scope of the report but very close to it in subject is the use of credit cards overseas. The real cross-border shopping tool is the piece of plastic; and it must be relevant to what is coming forward in the way of European or further UK legislation.
After an intensive investigation, the committee rejected the case for the directive. That view must be treated with the greatest of respect. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, rightly asked whether it was the wrong means to improve the much-needed rights of the consumer in some member states. It appears to fall into the "sledge-hammer" category. Were the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, still in his place, he would agree with me that the sledge-hammer category is usually the expensive one.
I hope that other governments will read this report and that the directive will not be brought forward by default. The report is far too valuable a piece of work not to be given the widest possible circulation. I merely add my congratulations to all those involved in its production.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, this has been a most interesting debate. It is a pleasure to see the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, taking what is a new brief for her, although I believe she may have dealt with this subject in relation to Northern Ireland. I was about to say that she is an old friend, but that would be impolite—she is a friend of some long-standing. I know that we shall work co-operatively together on a number of trade and industry issues. The debate deals with a complex but fascinating subject on which all who spoke offered some extremely important views. I assure the House that the Government will take those views strongly into account.
I offer particular thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, who led the committee with such diligence and skill, and to the committee members, who worked in such a thorough way in carrying out their investigations, which culminated in this wide-ranging and expert report.
Before I turn to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, I should like to say what a pleasure it was—a pleasure shared by a number of noble Lords tonight—to hear, in such good voice, my noble friend Lord Graham, whom we greatly respected as Chief Whip in Opposition days. He was not exactly a silent Chief Whip. He was
858
certainly not silent outside the Chamber, but I also heard him on a number of occasions making some very telling interventions in debates from time to time.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Very good speeches they were!
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, that is an opinion. I thank my noble friend for drawing the attention of the House to some salient features at the beginning of the report. I was a commissioner responsible for consumer protection for one year before Spain and Portugal entered the Community. It would be wrong to allow the idea to emerge from this debate that the Commission has not performed a worthwhile service. Whatever conclusions we may reach on consideration of its proposals, the defined objective—to guarantee a uniform minimum level of protection for consumers throughout the Community when they buy goods—is a not ignoble one.
Clearly many noble Lords feel that the Commission arrived at conclusions that are unsatisfactory. I shall attempt to deal with those points in the course of my remarks. The objective that the Commission set itself is a worthy one, and one to which it should perhaps return in other ways in the future.
The point that was raised about transparency in undertaking studies is one that I wholly share. As the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, has heard me say many times in the Chamber of which she is a very distinguished member, transparency in our political affairs, whether conducted here or in Europe, is a matter of the utmost importance. I therefore hope that the Commission will reflect further on the points made on this in the report and in this debate.
A point arose concerning cross-border shopping, to which I shall allude further in a moment. I sense that noble Lords have reached the general conclusion that the case was not made out on this score, a feeling which I share.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, with characteristic lucidity, described the main findings of the committee. The Government have had the benefit of considering the full report and the supporting evidence. The detailed examination of the proposed directive and its recommendations carried out by the committee with a view to improving the present draft will be of great value to the Government in formulating their approach in the months to come. If I may say so in parenthesis, I hope it will, in addition, be of great value not only to the Commission but to other member states. The noble Baroness will agree with me that the experience of those who have served in Europe in one capacity or another is that reports of your Lordships' House are viewed as of great importance in formulating ideas within the Commission, the Parliament and the various bodies which have a voice in these matters. It is not the first time that I have said that but it comes from personal experience and I therefore hope that your Lordships will continue to carry out this valuable work.
As the committee suggests, there are many factors which discourage consumers from taking advantage of the single market, some of which may be more

859
important than simple differences in the guarantee regimes. The restraints imposed by distance and language can be considerable, particularly for island dwellers, though less so for many people who live on the Continent, and this trend will, I am sure, persist with the development of the single market. Overall, the Government sympathise with the Commission's aims of improving the protection which legal and commercial guarantees provide to consumers throughout the Community.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, for what he said about my golf. He was not complimentary about it, he just happened to say that I am a golfer. and he is quite right about that. The noble Lord is a very considerable golfer—or certainly was. He has also made a very valuable contribution to the deliberations of the committee and the debate today. He raised the question of subsidiarity. We take the view that there may be a case for Community action on grounds of promoting a single market, but we shall want to see whether other member states agree. I believe that it is better for us to be constructive than to go in root and branch and say that the idea is hopeless, a course which would not gain us any influence. But that is not in any way to denigrate the views expressed in the report and in this debate.
As the committee indicated, many of the matters dealt with in the proposed directive are already provided for under existing law. I believe it is right to say that in our own domestic legislation we go further in the protection of the consumer than this proposal does. If the directive were to go ahead, we should take full advantage of the minimum requirement article and not dilute present consumer protection in any way. I wish to emphasise that point to the House because I believe that it is extremely important. We wholly agree with the committee's specific recommendations that in a number of cases we should adhere to existing requirements in this country. Among the most important of those are the existing right to damages and our present limitation and prescription periods, which are respectively six years in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and five years in Scotland. Why there is a disparity between various parts of the United Kingdom is something that we should perhaps look at, but that is not a matter for me today. We believe that these rights should be retained rather than follow the thinking of the Commission, whose proposals would restrict the seller's liability to faults appearing within the first two years after delivery.
We also agree with the conclusion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, that the proposal is flawed in a number of important respects and we should want to ensure that the ambiguities and uncertainties which the committee has identified are properly resolved. On that point, my noble friend Lord Graham raised the question of whether the proposed directive could be amended. I assure him that the draft will be subject to close scrutiny and intense negotiation and may well be considerably changed in the process. The work of the committee will help greatly in preparing us for those negotiations.
In some ways the proposal would confer useful additional consumer rights and protection—another matter we ought to think about—for example, the
860
presumption that a fault found in the first six months was present at the time of delivery and the explicit right in the first year to repair, replacement, price reduction or rescission of the contract, according to the wishes of the consumer, where the product significantly fails to conform to the contract. Most traders probably regard it as reasonable to act as if consumers already had these legal rights. But rights inevitably become more important when one deals with a trader who adopts an unreasonable position, and that is when the crunch comes.
Like the committee, the Government believe that the proposals must be based on a sound appreciation of their costs and benefits. Legislation must be proportional to the problem and achieve the necessary consumer protection at the minimum achievable cost to business. We share the committee's doubts about the adequacy of the Commission's current impact statement. I believe that the House knows that a further study has been commissioned. However, as I have already indicated, I support the view expressed by Members of this House today and by the CBI, the British Retail Consortium and others about the lack of transparency in the conduct of the study. I am sure that noble Lords will he pleased to note that the Government have raised this at a high level with the Commission, and we shall continue to press this point.
The Commission has not ruled out the possibility of passing on to the consultants, when it is known who they are, any cost data which interested parties may wish to submit to the Commission. I think that that deals with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington.
Meanwhile, in order to define the Government's own estimates of the likely costs and benefits, my department will be carrying out further consultations with consumer groups, industry and others. As your Lordships will know, the intended meaning of the proposed two-year liability on the seller is now clearer than when my department carried out its initial consultation. Like the committee, we do not share the rather doom-laden views of some critics on the potential burden on business. The two-year liability is similar in some ways to our right to damages, although the duration of the latter is limited only by our statutes of limitation and prescription. I want to be sure that our compliance costings reflect that clearer understanding.
Your Lordships will know that the scope of the directive is narrower than the comparable United Kingdom legislation. The directive applies only to sales of consumer goods to consumers by traders. It will be important to get these definitions right. As the report says, they are not yet satisfactory. The Government are inclined to favour the committee's option to define "consumer goods" as
"goods which are ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption"
and to define "consumer" as
"any natural person acting outside his trade or business".
The guiding principle here will be at least to maintain the present scope of protection, which I believe is the most important point.

861
As the committee's report indicates, the contractual obligations on fitness for purpose and other matters in Article 2 of the directive seem less favourable to the consumer and less helpful to suppliers than is our present law. So, our general approach in negotiation and in implementing any directive will be to stick very closely indeed to the Sale of Goods Act terms, including the ingredients making up the concept of "satisfactory quality".
I turn to the question of breaches resulting from incorrect installation of goods by the seller. In fact, there was no reference to that in the course of the debate but I feel that I should advert to it. The directive gives rise to questions about the boundary between sale of goods and supply of services legislation. For example, does a fitted kitchen count as goods or as a service, or is it perhaps both?
Let me turn to Article 3.3. We agree with the committee that the provision would probably have little effect on the outcome of court cases, but the Government are reserving their position pending the results of their further consultation exercise.
We now come to the core of the directive: the so-called one year right to reject, or rescission or replacement. This is, understandably, the focus for concern, particularly for business. Indeed, in the light of what I have already said about Articles 1 and 2 of the directive, and our assessment of the reversed burden of proof. the one year right to reject may be the only major remaining point of contention in the legal guarantee provisions.
The Government are especially grateful to the committee for looking for a solution to that potential problem. The approach recommended would be very similar to the United Kingdom's present "short term" right to reject, but with a longer term right where there had been a "fundamental breach". I note that this is based on the approach in the Vienna Convention on the sale of goods. We shall certainly want to consider this carefully. The Government will also want to look at the recommendation in the light of the information we have received about the cost implications of the directive and the results of our forthcoming further consultation.
The serial eleventh hour—or eleventh month—rejector of goods has come to cast a familiar shadow, particularly, I gather, over the personal computer field. In general, we do not feel that the fears that have been expressed about abuses by consumers will, in fact, materialise. It will still be necessary to show that the fault in question existed at the time of sale. But it may be that in some cases it would be unreasonable to give a right to a replacement where a repair would be practicable. The provision in the directive on "minor defects" recognises that, and the committee has suggested going a step further in the direction of United Kingdom law. We also recognise the practical problems which might be involved in accounting for the use the consumer had had from the product before it broke. The concept of damages is a more flexible one here. We will consider that matter carefully.
862
The Government agree with the committee that Article 3.5, which gives the final seller a right to pursue previous sellers in the supply chain, is very problematic, particularly because it goes into the area of commercial contracts and relationships. The precise meaning of the provision is unclear, but we consider that these are matters which would be better left to the national laws of individual member states. It is not so much a matter of consumer protection but of the relative strengths of the firms in the supply chain. So, we would prefer the article to be deleted.
I come now to the time limit for consumers' claims. The obligation that the directive would impose on the consumer to notify the seller within one month would represent a significant departure from practice in this country, where the buyer must have a reasonable opportunity to examine the goods. I should prefer the directive to take a very much more flexible approach. But, as the committee observes, Article 7 would allow individual member states to give their consumers greater protection. That should enable the United Kingdom to continue present practice, although it may be necessary to allow the consumer a minimum of a month to notify the seller, given that in some cases a "reasonable time" might at present be deemed to be less than a month.
As to the terms of commercial guarantees, the Government share the committee's reservations about the requirement that a commercial guarantee should place the beneficiary in a more advantageous position than the "statutory guarantee". We believe that this provision could lead to a decline in the availability of commercial guarantees, while also failing to address the risk that the terms of some guarantees could mislead consumers about their statutory rights.
The committee says that if there is a problem of spurious guarantees, it needs to be tackled more directly. I agree. The Government favour the approach of a straightforward notice, as required by the Consumer Transactions (Restrictions on Statements) Order 1976, under which a guarantee must carry a statement that it does not affect the consumer's statutory rights. The present form of words may, however, need to be re-thought, since I am not sure that they currently fulfil their intended function of informing consumers of their rights.
The most difficult aspect of the Commission's proposals on commercial guarantees is the requirement that they should be available for consultation before purchase. I share the committee's doubts about whether the problems posed by that provision could be overcome without disproportionate cost; nor do the Government believe that the benefits would justify the measure. We shall be urging more realism when detailed negotiations start.
Let me briefly allude to some of the other contributions that have been made in the debate. I was very interested to hear my noble friend Lord Borne with his great knowledge about these matters and in particular his comments about grammar, vocabulary and concepts being at variance. He knows a great deal about that. One important comment concerned the imprecision and ambiguities to which I have already referred.

863
I hope that I have dealt with most of the points raised. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, was very concerned about lack of transparency, and I have gone into that matter in considerable detail.
This has been a very interesting and worthwhile debate. I have taken careful note of what has been said. We shall certainly take all those views into account in the negotiations that lie ahead. Again, I extend my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, and the members of the committee for their invaluable work. Naturally, we shall keep the committee in touch with developments as the discussions progress in Brussels.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Hoffmann: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for their thoughtful and careful contributions. I also thank my noble friend the Minister for the general welcome he gave to the report. Perhaps I may endorse what my noble friend Lady Elles said about the thanks that we owe to our legal adviser, Dr. Kerse. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, commented on the enormous amount of work evidenced by the report and Members of the House will well know that the great burden of that work is borne by the legal adviser.
I also endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said about the importance of the lay members of the committee. There is no subject so technical that it does not benefit from the presence of lay members on a committee. Indeed, the more technical the subject is, the more necessary it perhaps is that they should be there, so that the lawyer members of the committee are obliged to explain themselves in terms which other people can understand. In that respect, I hope your Lordships will allow me to express my great personal regret that the iron law of rotation has removed from the committee my noble friend Lord Aldington. It was a pleasure to have him on the committee. Your Lordships may appreciate the particular piquancy of that pleasure by his contribution this afternoon when he drew attention to a point I never noticed; namely that the Select Committee is still called the "Select Committee on the European Communities" notwithstanding that the European Union has been in existence for several years. It requires a layman to draw to the attention of lawyers the extent to which they are sloppy with words and meanings.
My noble friend Lord Aldington also drew attention to a peculiar feature of some of the reactions produced by the committee to proposals emanating from Brussels. Members of the Commission may well feel that they are being subjected to a kind of Morton's Fork. If they produce a draft directive which harmonises the law in great detail, so that it is exactly the same everywhere, they are said to be over-prescriptive and doing things which ought to be left to member states. On the other hand, if they leave a great deal to the discretion of the member states and merely have an outline or a basic minimum proposal, then it is said that the proposal does not serve any purpose because there still remain discrepancies between the laws of the various member states. Either way therefore it may seem to them that
864
they cannot win. The solution to the problem is to be more selective in relation to the specific target that they tackle and the way in which they tackle it.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for accepting what seemed to me to be the overwhelmingly persuasive arguments of my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour for greater transparency in the way the Commission is dealing with the economic impact report. That seemed to me unanswerable. I am grateful too to my noble friend Lady Denton of Wakefield for drawing attention to something that I should perhaps have mentioned in my introduction; that is, the great assistance the committee received from an extremely timely report by the Northern Ireland Consumers' Association in relation to cross-border shopping in Northern Ireland. It is the only part of the United Kingdom where cross-border shopping takes place because there is a land border.
I am grateful to your Lordships for the contributions made to the debate and I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Drug Abuse, Scotland
5.21 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to combat drug abuse in Scotland.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, some months ago I learnt from the chief constable of the Grampian Police that the chemical dependency problem in Scotland as a whole, and Aberdeenshire in particular, was far worse than I had imagined. In March he addressed a meeting of the Scottish Peers' Association on the subject and those present at that meeting were as surprised as I was by the severity of the problem. That is why I am asking the Government this evening to give the matter their urgent attention.
The demand for drugs has increased so rapidly and the culture of tolerance and acceptance among young people become so widespread that parents, grandparents and teachers have simply been caught napping. Drugs are now readily available throughout the United Kingdom. In the Grampian area alone the number of registered heroin addicts multiplied by a factor of 16 in the 10 years 1985 to 1995. Although that increase is particularly spectacular, there is a steady increase throughout Scotland.
Drugs respect no social boundaries; they are used and abused by people in all walks of life from the classroom to the boardroom. They are available at the school gate and in the smart nightclub. They are everywhere. I was particularly horrified to learn that 25 per cent. of babies born in the special maternity unit at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary are already drug dependent at birth.
Of course, drugs cost money. Some are comparatively cheap whereas others are fairly expensive. Addicts have to obtain money somehow to finance their habit, which can cost anything from £50 to £200 a day. It has been estimated that 70 per cent. of current crime, particularly

865
housebreaking, is by addicts to feed their habit. The more serious crimes carried out by dealers and suppliers involve guns, fraud, money laundering and murder.
In addition to crimes carried out by addicts to finance their habit and dealers to protect and conceal an illegal business, there is the problem that a large number of addicts drive vehicles while under the influence particularly of hallucinatory drugs, sometimes mixed with alcohol and often with disastrous results. I wonder how much road rage can be attributed to the influence of drugs. There is as yet no roadside test like the breathalyser to test for drug use.
With drugs so freely available and the number of abusers increasing so rapidly, the impact on the health service is enormous. Apart from the cost of weaning addicts who wish to be cured of their habit and rehabilitating them, there is the huge cost of damage-limitation programmes. The cost of the distribution of syringes in Aberdeen alone is in excess of £120,000. Methadone substitution programmes are costly and the methadone is not always used by those for whom it is prescribed. Often it is sold and the seller carries on with a cocktail of other drugs paid for by the proceeds.
I am not altogether convinced of the wisdom of those so-called damage-limitation programmes. They are extremely costly and I cannot help wondering whether the money spent on them would not be better spent on trying to prevent young people taking drugs in the first place. I wonder whether it would not be better in the end to let a huge increase in drug-related deaths act as a deterrent.
Many doctors are fed up with spending more time on drug addicts than on people who are genuinely ill and suffering from problems not of their own seeking. In some places it is becoming difficult to find doctors willing to join general practices because they are sick of writing out prescriptions for methadone and of the abuse and violence they often suffer at the hands of those patients. The total number of drugs-related deaths in Scotland rose from 12 in 1995 to 30 in 1996.
What is to be done about the problem? Clearly we cannot continue as we are. Some people advocate legalising soft drugs such as cannabis and Ecstasy. They claim that at a stroke it should be possible to take the profit out of drug trafficking. They should consider that if it is sanctioned by law, people will think that it cannot be very harmful and all social sanctions will be removed. But increased availability will lead to more people taking them with consequent damage to health and safety and so forth.
Those people argue that there is no proof that soft drugs damage health, but they are unable to offer any proof that they do not. Indeed, there is more evidence that they do than that they do not. For example, if Ecstasy is so safe, how did Leah Betts come to die? There are other problems with legalisation such as whether there would be an age barrier; whether one would need a prescription and whether the drugs would be freely available perhaps even by mail order. It is worth noting that in 1990 the people of Alaska voted to
866
recriminalise the possession of marijuana because legalising it led to such increased use and associated problems.
In the past central government have done some good work in combating the menace of drugs, but they have tended to take the attitude that resolution is largely a local problem. Though the figures I gave have been drawn from the Grampian police area, it is not a local problem; it is a national problem. The fight needs to be centrally organised to ensure that all those involved in it are properly informed, properly trained and adequately funded. There must be proper co-ordination policies so that we do not have a number of differently motivated groups operating independently of one another, sometimes in ignorance of others and sometimes in competition—often with inadequate resources which are wasted by duplication of effort.
Central government ought to have a Secretary of State responsible for the co-ordination of government policy in all relevant areas which include health, education, employment, housing, social services and criminal justice. We all know how little communication there is traditionally between government departments at all levels. For example, I read in a newspaper that there has been a problem with prisoners, who were on methadone before being convicted, ceasing to receive their methadone while in gaol because of poor communication between their GP and the prison authorities. As a result they went back to heroin which seems to be so readily available in prisons. In another press report I read of addicts who wished to give up having difficulty in finding the treatment that they needed in their specific area not necessarily because it did not exist, but because the information was not available.
It could also be helpful for a university to set up a centre which could provide information exchange, assessment, research and analysis and training in order to support those agencies which are active in the field. The remedy is a long-term one, starting in the home and the school, moving to the workplace and involving the health and social services and the police and criminal justice system on the way.
I shall not go into any more detail just now. As I have no right of reply at the end, I should like in advance to thank the other noble Lords who have put down their names to speak on this Question for taking the trouble to do so and to express the hope that the noble and learned Lord who is to answer will be able to give us hope that the Government will treat this problem with the seriousness which it merits. In answering he is making his maiden speech. It is a great pleasure to welcome him in advance to the Dispatch Box and I am very much looking forward to hearing what he has to say.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for bringing this matter to our attention tonight, although I am sure we are horrified and shocked at some of the information—that the situation can be so bad in Aberdeenshire, for instance—she has made known to us.

867
I first became involved in the matter of drugs as a parliamentarian 15 years ago or more at the Council of Europe. The social health committee, of which I was then chairman, undertook the examination of the problem of drugs as its major issue during one session. A great deal of research was undertaken and much expert advice was made available to the committee. The result was that we made certain recommendations. We felt that less time should be devoted to pursuing the users of drugs, who in the great majority of cases were more in need of help than punishment, although, as the noble Lady pointed out, the pursuit of their habit led many of them into crime in order to get money to pay for it.
The committee recommended that the main target of government should be the dealers in drugs. We recommended that one aspect of dealing with them should be to hit them where it hurt most—in their pockets—and that any assets which they could not prove were legitimately obtained should be the subject of confiscation. Very soon thereafter the Government in this country followed up the recommendation, and that has been practised here, but perhaps less successfully than we might have hoped. One point has become clear. The dealers have become more expert at concealing the proceeds of their crimes.
The people who have the first responsibility for dealing with this matter are the police. They need all the help they can get from every quarter—from health and education authorities in trying to keep youngsters away from drugs and from the Government in providing them with the resources to pursue these people. They have a ready mechanism at their disposal in Scotland in the person of the Lord Advocate. He is primarily responsible for pursuing criminals.
We are always horrified when we read in our press of a murder having taken place, particularly if it is committed by a deranged individual who kills members of his family or total strangers. But the people dealing in drugs are murderers—wicked murderers. They are evil men. They murder thousands of people whom they do not even know. I recognise that if a major dealer is brought before the authorities he cannot be charged with murder. However, if such a person is found guilty, the jury and the judge should take into account the fact that he has, even if not in the legal sense, perpetrated murder on a massive scale. The punishment meted out should fit the crime.
A number of years ago there were two Lords Advocate—not anyone present. At the time they were very much involved in pursuing corruption in public life, a subject which has become fairly topical. One Lord Advocate took the view that he would not prosecute unless he was certain in his mind that he would get a conviction. As a result a number of people were not prosecuted who might well have been. The other Lord Advocate took a different view altogether. He examined very carefully every case that came before him and if he made up his mind that he might get a conviction he went ahead. I am happy to say that he got the lot. If I should presume to give advice to the present
868
Lord Advocate—I look forward to hearing his maiden speech—it would be, let him follow the second course: make it his objective to get the lot.
I mentioned that education and health authorities could be of help to the police. Another part of the realm which could be helpful is the press. Some newspapers have done much to help by drawing attention to the problem. I think particularly of the Sunday Post, which has maintained campaigns in Scotland and has brought to the notice of many people the extent of the problem. I hope that the press generally will make it their objective to help the police by always drawing attention when they can to what is taking place. If we can get at the dealers through police action, prosecution and conviction, and if we can reach young people through the activities of the education and health authorities, we may yet look forward to a situation in Scotland where on the subject of drug abuse we are beginning to win the battle.
5.37 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, for instigating this debate because I attended the very interesting but most disturbing talk by Dr. Oliver, the chief constable of Grampian. To think that in the Aberdeen area 120,000 needles were issued gives an indication of how serious is the problem.
I am hooked on tobacco. When I was a teenager, no one said to me that smoking was bad for me. If you go and see any of the old black and white films the hero and very often the heroine usually smoked. I sometimes wonder whether they had shares in the tobacco industry. Nowadays only the baddies smoke. Alcohol is the only other legal drug that we have in this country. However, to some extent I believe that in this cold climate we need a little anti-freeze.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was so very wise in suggesting that illegal drugs should be put into the same bracket as murder because they can destroy a person. Many people die of an overdose of illegal drugs. Drug trafficking has some of the best criminal brains behind it and is a huge international racket and problem.
Although Europe wishes to see free trade, each country cannot afford to allow the free transportation of illegal drugs across every border from Greece to Ireland. I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will continue to control the crossing of our borders to prevent—perhaps that is the wrong word—to reduce trafficking in illegal drugs. I hope that the Government will increase our coastguard staff, Customs and Excise and have police specialising in drugs control. Customs and Excise have always had special powers of search—much more than the police—but they have always used their discretion in their wide powers.
In the Mail on Sunday newspaper I read a good article on the fight against illegal drugs. It concerned a nightclub owner whose premises were burnt down in February 1996 and which have just reopened. The owner has a cocker spaniel sniffer dog. Any person whom the dog suspects of having drugs is refused admission and now he has no drug problem. Previously,

869
the owner found that any attempt to prosecute somebody he caught with drugs failed because any search methods were classed as illegal.
Most house theft, robbery and shoplifting are drug-related crimes caused by persons hooked on drugs and looking for a fix. These are tragic people. Many of them are very young and are given these harmful drugs almost free by the drug traffickers. We have extradition treaties with most countries for the crime of murder. Would Her Majesty's Government seek to include the serious crime of illegal drug trafficking in the same category as murder?
Finally, will Her Majesty's Government encourage every co-operation between Customs and Excise, the police, coastguards, etc. with every aid such as sniffer dogs, surveillance and any other means of controlling illegal trafficking in drugs?
5.44 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I did not put my name down to speak in this debate because I did not realise that it was going to come on so early, but perhaps I may make a short intervention. I am grateful to your Lordships. We should all be very grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, for raising this matter. She has made a valuable contribution by doing so.
Drugs are now established, I believe, throughout the United Kingdom as perhaps the principal cause of crime among young people. Those crimes have increased enormously in number. The drugs come mainly from abroad; not all of them, but a very high proportion including some of the most dangerous drugs. In days long past Scotland was more vulnerable to smugglers even than England and Wales. It is very strange that, despite its greater distance from the places where drugs are grown, Scotland seems to be very vulnerable to the import of drugs today. I do not think they come from south of the Border, from what I hear, but mostly by direct import on aircraft and through shipyards.
It seems to me that this is largely the crux of the matter. The Government should do all they can to concentrate on preventing the importation of drugs. Prevention is always better than stopping or curing drug use. As the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, pointed out, the police are exerting themselves tremendously to get on top of this problem. But as long as drugs continue to be imported the task of the police is very greatly increased. Therefore, I very much hope that when we have the pleasure and advantage of hearing the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate he will be able to tell us if the Government have a policy concentrated on preventing the importation of drugs. That seems to me to be the crux of the matter.
5.46 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, perhaps I may first congratulate my noble kinswoman, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, on raising this most serious of Scottish topics. In so doing I wonder, mischievously,
870
whether she is setting out a case that this House can on occasion be relevant in Scottish terms. If only one always felt that was so.
I also look forward to hearing the answer of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, whom I especially welcome to the Dispatch Box today. I am sure that we are going to hear an excellent maiden speech from him in these rather unusual circumstances, in which I do not believe that anyone is able to reply or to welcome his maiden speech on behalf of the House.
Drug abuse and concern about it is no party political matter. Along with long-term unemployment, youth unemployment, health matters and lawlessness among children, the misuse and abuse of unprescribed drugs is a national issue and as such the public expect that parliamentarians and those in government and the professions will work together, harnessing their combined talents to develop a viable strategy to deal with it. It is of course obvious that this is not something that governments and parliaments can do alone. Certainly, the caring professions have an enormous role in developing and delivering services in both prevention and recovery. I support the efforts of social workers, youth workers, health workers, teachers, police and prison officers in that respect.
But the real thrust needs to be in the area of popular action. It is the build-up of knowledge and motivation among adults and young people that will be most effective in combating the apparent attractions of drug misuse. We should look at the matter in economic terms, starting with the supply side. Others have already mentioned that there is clearly plenty of money to be made in the illegal and untaxed business of supplying unprescribed drugs. Sophisticated business structures have arisen to exploit this market. Hence, there is a lot of commitment to continue the business, and that most pernicious practice of using addicts as suppliers on the street is a symptom of that commitment. Given the well-known detrimental effects of this trade, it can clearly be identified as evil.
I turn now to the demand side, which is where I believe that we can have the greatest effect. Clearly, a market cannot exist for long without strong demand. We need to understand how that demand is created and what the attractions are. On a personal level, I realise that I am too busy to take unprescribed drugs. I have not used nicotine since I was six—it was a case of once and never again. Yes, I use alcohol on a recreational basis and in that I am typical of my generation. Succeeding generations have often pointed out to me that that approved drug, alcohol, can be more harmful than some drugs which are currently disapproved of—and they are right because the older generation's recreational and legitimate drugs are harmful when abused. However, for me, that is not an argument to extend approval to the use of other drugs. On these Benches—I am glad that they are beginning to fill slightly—we hope that a Royal Commission will examine this matter in the future.
The answer lies in how and why people have the time for drug use, and how that situation has come about. Of course, the answer is probably as wide as the number of

871
people involved. Although some are in control of their activities, others are trying to obliterate some aspect of their lives. That is a somewhat self-defeating strategy. Working to overcome the problem would seem to be more efficient than seeking to obliterate it, but you have to believe that you can win. It is an issue of self-esteem. In the worst-case scenario, after addiction has set in, the solution becomes the problem.
I must make the obvious remark that enabling people to find fulfilling life styles is a fundamental aim of government, society, community and family. Risky activities must be balanced out by equally challenging activities with managed or controlled risk. I do not intend to dwell tonight on the well-established need for recovery programmes, except to call strongly for an adequate supply. Our focus must be on countering the popularity of recreational and introductory drug use. I do not believe that the existing social and health education programmes are yet reaching the parts that they ought to be reaching—and that is not for want of trying.
We need to be equipping all adults, teenagers and, I regret, children with knowledge of drugs. In particular, people need to know about the effects of drugs, both positive and harmful; the effect on their behaviour while under the influence of drugs, the effect on their present and future health and the effect that having a criminal conviction could have on their future. That means that everybody needs to be able to identify whether any drug is a depressant, a stimulant or a hallucinogenic substance. People need to be able to talk coherently about their characteristics. Further, people need to recognise that mixing drugs can create some alarming cocktails, the characteristics of which can be very different from those of the constituent parts. Furthermore, familiarity is needed with the problems of an unregulated supply. I refer to the problems of incorrect production, both deliberate and accidental. Complex drugs such as MDMA, also known as ecstasy, are clearly prone to that.
I recognise that there is a danger of building up a fascination which may lead to curious experimentation. It is a reluctant inevitability that teenagers will experiment with forbidden fruits. While preparing older children for their increasing teenage independence, parents have to ensure that they have taught their children how to recognise the undesirable from the positively harmful and how to resist peer pressure without being made to feel stupid, immature or unsophisticated. Laying such a foundation is a fundamental task of parenting. That can be backed up by other agencies, such as school, church, youth organisations, police, health professionals, relatives and good neighbours, but it will not happen if the parents do not believe in it. It is well known that when home and school are in conflict, home wins. The role modelling of home is too strong.
In earlier debates, I strongly advocated the case that we need to focus on how to make children abuser-proof. That has to concentrate on the way in which the family is run and the way in which a child's vulnerability to abuse can be reduced. Since supplying drugs to children
872
and young people must be a form of child abuse, I believe that abuser-proofing should be the approach that is adopted.
I conclude by returning to my original economic analysis. It is essential that we focus on how to reduce the demand for drugs both by informal education and by promoting opportunities for more fulfilling lifestyles. I sincerely hope that when the noble and learned Lord on the Treasury Bench replies to the debate in his maiden speech, to which we are all looking forward, he will build on this contribution to the debate.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, for tabling the Unstarred Question. This is an extremely important issue in Scotland and I am sure that we all welcome the opportunity to examine it.
I welcome the Lord Advocate to the Government Front Bench on the first occasion on which he will speak from the Dispatch Box. The Lord Advocate holds the oldest continuing political office in Scotland. I am sure that he is as proud to occupy that position as I once was. Curiously, however, if his Government have their way, he will enjoy a unique distinction: he will be the last Lord Advocate to sit in your Lordships' House. I would regard that as a pity. Ever since the noble Lord, Lord Renton, wrote his most important report on the preparation of legislation and included within it a recommendation that there should always be a Scottish Law Officer in this House, that practice has been followed. I hope that it is not undue immodesty on my part if I say that that seems to have been to the benefit of the legislative process not only in relation to Scottish or United Kingdom legislation, but increasingly in relation also to EC law.
While the noble and learned Lord is here, however, we shall welcome the opportunities that his presence affords us to inquire not only about his prosecution policy in those matters that fall directly within his remit, but also to address, as we are this evening, rather wider criminal justice issues in Scotland. I know from my time in that position just how much of the noble and learned Lord's time will be occupied by the issue of drugs and drug abuse in Scotland.
A few years ago—in 1993 or 1994, I believe—I chaired a drug task force. Its report, even if I say it myself, was remarkably well received. It was certainly the only document with which I was ever associated in government about which people still write to me—and do so in complimentary terms. Having spent a number of years at the DTI, I must confess that I have rather lost sight of what progress has been made with regard to the recommendations made by the task force with its very broad and very skilled membership.
One of our key recommendations was that a series of what were described as "drug action teams" should be established across Scotland. I should be interested to hear how they are progressing. Those who write to me about these issues are still most interested in the local approach which we suggested was the right way forward for Scotland. Perhaps I may disagree in a small measure

873
with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and say that what we were trying to do was to focus not simply on issues of supply, but to look at the problem of drugs in every single aspect. That meant considering not only supply, but also what provoked demand and what could be done in terms of health and education.
As the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, pointed out, often the real problem is that young people start their route into drug taking, finishing up on class A drugs, on a recreational basis. I am sure it is his experience and that of others that it is extremely difficult to get young people to understand at the outset that the taking of a few pills at a rave or nightclub is either immediately extremely dangerous to their health or is likely to bring them into contact with all kinds of undesirable people who in time will seek to sell them even more appalling drugs than those that they take first time round. I would be grateful to hear anything that the noble and learned Lord has to say about the drug action teams.
Within the report we also addressed probably the most difficult issue: methadone substitution. We studied that very carefully in Edinburgh and concluded, not without anxious thought, that methadone substitution for heroin addicts was the right way forward, provided that there were proper controls attached to such substitution. It stunned me then, and it still shocks me today, to discover that in parts of Edinburgh, where the control in providing methadone to addicts was not as tight as it might have been, there very quickly grew up a market in methadone-enhanced spittle. That appears to be rather more astonishing than anything that your Lordships' House can contemplate. Clearly, it is necessary that there should be proper controls in place.
There were very real difficulties about expanding the range of GPs prepared to participate in prescribing methadone to those who had a heroin addiction. I understand exactly why such difficulties existed—difficulties not only for them but for their other patients. I would be interested to learn how that is progressing. I have seen a report that in the past year in Glasgow, where a good methadone substitution programme has been introduced, the number of drug deaths has declined from 36 to 11. Certainly, progress is being made there. I would be grateful to hear some comment on progress being made in the methadone substitution programme.
As the noble and learned Lord will be aware, the previous Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Michael Forsyth, was extremely keen to ensure that as far as possible drug policy proceeded on a cross-party basis. To that end he established the organisation Scotland Against Drugs in which I believe all the leaders of the major political parties in Scotland participated. One very much hopes that that approach will continue. If I sense at the moment something of a reaction to, or backlash against, methadone substitution, perhaps I may inform the noble and learned Lord from this side of the House that our support for the Government in pursuing that approach, provided it is tightly controlled, will persist. We wish the Government well in persuading other GPs to participate in schemes.
874
The chief constable of Lothian and Borders estimated that between 30 and 40 per cent. of acquisitive crime within his region was caused by those who sought funds to feed their drug habit. I very much hope that the Government will persist in the programme I have described. I also hope that the noble and learned Lord will continue to support the Scotland Against Drugs campaign. During the election we indicated that we would be prepared to increase spending on that activity by some £2 million. I would be interested to know whether the Government share that objective.
I also hope that, not this evening, but in time, the noble and learned Lord and the Secretary of State for Scotland will reconsider their objections to the introduction of minimum mandatory sentences for dealers convicted for a third time of handling class A drugs. These are just the people that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and others have described as murderers. They can have no excuse that they do not understand the direct consequences of their actions.
Finally, I should like to pose two further questions to the noble and learned Lord. During the course of the election campaign one proposal—about which I have not heard much since—was the appointment of a drugs tsar. It was not entirely clear to me whether this supremo, or whatever his title might me, would be appointed for the whole of the United Kingdom or just for Scotland or England. Certainly, a number of Scottish names were bandied about as possible occupants of this newly-established post. I should like to see what is proposed in detail before I offer it any support or blessing.
That leads me to what I believe to be a crucially important point. As the noble and learned Lord and his noble friends will readily understand, the principal statute governing the misuse of drugs in the United Kingdom is the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 which, with some variations, applies across the United Kingdom, and rightly so. I must inform my noble friend Lord Renton that it is not the case that drugs for Scotland come in only from the north west along the rugged coastline. Drugs come up the motorways from England and do so very quickly indeed. Someone arrested with drugs at Dover may well be bound for Glasgow. I am advised that recently an individual was brought on petition before the sheriff in Glasgow and charged under the 1971 Act and that that was his first ever appearance in Scotland. By the same token the largest ever haul of class A drugs by Customs and Excise was made north of Inverness. The street value of that haul was about £100 million. Those drugs were destined for south of the Border.
As the Government reflect on these matters, as they appear to wish to do on everything, I urge them to appreciate how crucially important it is that the fight against drugs is maintained across the United Kingdom without division. I have a very real concern that if, following the proposed constitutional changes, the United Kingdom statute no longer has the same application in Scotland or is perhaps modified and changed, far from the fight against drugs being improved and the prospects of victory being that much greater, there will be very real dangers. Even if the noble

875
and learned Lord cannot answer me tonight, I hope that as he makes his contribution to the White Paper on the referendum and devolution Bill, given his deep knowledge of the criminal justice and prosecution system in Scotland he will recognise that such issues as drugs cannot be dealt with on a parochial basis but must be tackled on a United Kingdom basis.
6.8 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie): My Lords, this evening is a very momentous occasion for me. I wind up this important debate on a subject that is not only of considerable importance to society throughout the United Kingdom but is one that is dear to my heart. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, for raising this important topic tonight. I am delighted to note that among the contributors to the debate are the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, and other noble Lords. I mention those two speakers in particular not with any disrespect to others who have spoken but to advise those Members of this House who are unaware of it that I was born and brought up in the town of Alloa in the county of Clackmannan where the noble Earl has his seat. It is a particular pleasure for me to reply to his comments, especially in view of his expertise in the field of social work and his involvement with people who have been sadly involved with drugs.
To have to respond to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, one of the previous holders of my office, is an added pleasure, although it is one about which I had some reservations. I note that with his customary skill, he sought to introduce the subject of devolution into the debate. I look forward to hearing his contribution at the appropriate time.
The issue of the misuse of drugs and the consequences for the individuals concerned, their families, and society in general, is a matter of grave concern. It is appropriate that this should have been the subject of debate in the House at an early stage in the life of this Parliament. The measure of the concern felt by the House is accentuated by the distinction of those Members of the House who have contributed to the debate. I know that other Members had expressed an interest in speaking, but for one reason or another were unable to do so. I wish at this stage to thank the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, for initiating the debate and affording me an opportunity to make my maiden speech.
When I was created a Life Peer I had hoped that my maiden speech might enable me to indulge in humour, but the subject of this debate is far too serious for that. I would however note in passing that the noble Lady is the Chief of the name Fraser, and wondered whether there was any significance in the fact that the final contribution was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. Was there, perhaps, some instruction from the Chief to the noble and learned Lord? But having had the privilege of working with the noble and learned Lord. I am well aware of his independence of mind, which is an essential characteristic of a Lord Advocate. I can assure him and
876
the House that I intend to follow custom in that regard. Therefore, I dismissed that issue as a matter of mere coincidence. I note also that the noble Lady has a diploma in Cordon Bleu cookery. I should confess that I share that interest, albeit from a consumer's point of view.
More important, however, is our mutual interest in the subject of today's debate. I share with the noble Lady her anxieties over the misuse of drugs and the effects that has on society. Perhaps I may deal with some statistics. I agree that the situation is serious. It may even be more serious than has been disclosed.
A survey last year of Glasgow school children showed that 35 per cent. of 13 to 16 year-olds had tried cannabis within a two-month period; 13 per cent. of them had tried LSD; 7 per cent. ecstasy; and 2 per cent. cocaine or heroin. That problem is not confined to the West of Scotland. A similar survey in Dundee showed that 31 per cent. of 11 to 16 year-olds reported having used illegal drugs. A recent survey by the Scotland Against Drugs Campaign showed that 14 per cent. of fourth year pupils used illegal drugs once or more a week. A survey last week by Glasgow University's Centre for Drug Misuse Research showed that of selected young people at rave events 95 per cent. had taken cannabis; 87 per cent. ecstasy; and 11 per cent. heroin. All of that must be seen against a background of 251 drug deaths in Scotland in 1995. The hard core of drug misuse is rising significantly, as measured by new attendances by problem misusers at agencies. Recorded new attendances increased by about 135 per cent. between 1991 and 1995.
I agree entirely with noble Lords that there is a strong relationship between drugs and crime. Drug addicts resort to crime to feed their habit; drug dealers resort to crime to conceal their activity. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, quoted a statistic relating to the relationship between acquisitive crime and drug misuse. I am advised that many police forces operate on the basis that between 50 per cent. and 70 per cent. of acquisitive crime is drug-related. Apart from those statistics, society's concern naturally focuses on the damage to young people's health and their prospects; the strain on family and friends; pressures on communities, and the health hazards associated with drug misuse, in particular HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C.
It is understandable that the House should be concerned about the matter. I agree that as a civilized society it is imperative that we do something about the problem as a matter of urgency.
The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, referred to the need for the police to specialise and to Customs and Excise. I can assure him that each police force within Scotland has a specialist drugs unit. In addition, there are various relationships with other agencies, to which I shall return, and the Customs and Excise have had results which have been more successful in recent years, despite the apparent restriction on the location of their operations.
Customs and Excise are concentrating anti-smuggling resources in three main centres. The placing of resources in fewer locations has been shown to be more efficient and effective. It provides a fast, flexible and

877
intelligence-driven response to identified risks, but it maintains a flexible, high profile deterrent. The resources of the UK Customs and Excise employed on investigation and intelligence are increasing. There is greater co-ordination of intelligence with better focus from enhanced central organisation. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the role of the police is important, coupled with the Scottish Crime Squad, the new Scottish office of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and staff of H.M. Customs and Excise Investigation Division. They have been brought together to liaise and to join forces in this war against drugs.
To turn to the points raised by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, I have already dealt with the question of people indulging in criminal activity to feed their habit. As regards the impact on the health service, that is recognised and is met in part by the Scotland Against Drugs campaign. As your Lordships will recall, the campaign was launched in May 1996. The Government have renewed their commitment to Scotland Against Drugs by providing funding of £2 million to allow the campaign to continue into 1997–98. The activities of the campaign are varied, but they include a televised drugs debate in 1996–97, dance and song competitions, sports activities and a "shop a dealer" initiative, which attracted more than 1,400 calls. It is part of the education programme and I accept that it is important that children, parents and all members of society are properly educated. That is part of the scheme.
The issue of legalising cannabis and ecstasy were also raised by the noble Lady. I can assure her that it is not the intention of the Government to legalise either cannabis or ecstasy. Indeed, international obligations would make that difficult, even if it had been the intention of the Government. However, I assure the noble Lady that it is not.
On the point raised by my noble friend Lord Hughes, I agree that an important aspect of the war against drugs is the confiscation of the assets of dealers whenever possible. It may interest my noble friend to know that the Government in Scotland are committed to that and that the Crown Office will provide all available resources to ensure that the confiscation of assets is effective. It may also interest him to know that I recently chaired a conference in the Caribbean Dependent Territories, which was the Conference of the Attornies-General of the Caribbean Dependent Territories, and the issues of drug smuggling, drug trafficking and money laundering were high on the agenda. There is considerable co-operation between the United Kingdom Government and other governments in this important area. Again, I assure the noble Lord that the Government are committed to that. That would also address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, relating to importation.
Regarding the drug task force, I should advise the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, that the Government are committed to it and that drug action teams have been set up and are operational. The question of a drugs czar was raised. That initiative
878
was announced in Aberdeen by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and is a manifesto commitment. The purpose of a drugs czar is to co-ordinate work to tackle drug misuse. We consider that the co-ordination is vital and that that co-ordination should cover not only statutory agencies but also voluntary ones. I wish at this stage to pay tribute to the many voluntary agencies which are involved in combatting drug misuse.
As regards the drugs czar, the position is that at UK level a small group of Ministers, with the Secretary of State for Scotland represented, will meet to discuss the rules, powers and appointment process for the czar and it is essential that the arrangements we settle on reflect the distinctive position in Scotland. Again, despite what may have been said in the press, I can assure the noble and learned Lord that no decisions have been taken as to who might or might not be appointed.
I had hoped to deal with other points, but I am conscious that this is a maiden speech and that restrictions relate to time and to Members leaving the Chamber. Therefore, I shall seek to draw to a conclusion.
There are three main objectives of the Government to combat drug dealers. First, to reduce the health risks to drug misusers and their families. Secondly, to combat drug dealers. Thirdly—and above all—to enable our young people to resist illegal drugs through sustained interventions based on hard information and compelling facts. That may meet at least in part the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. We are determined to achieve these objectives and I can assure the House that if it is in my power, we shall do so.
The way forward is to co-ordinate the resources of everyone involved, statutory and voluntary. We will take account of the implications for the all-party Scotland Against Drugs Initiative and, as I have already said, we have committed and reaffirmed financial support for the campaign in the sum of £2 million. We also wish to see whether there is more we can do to improve the collaboration between the various agencies because complacency is the biggest danger in this situation. We must not be complacent; we must never give up; and we must consider at all times how best to improve collaboration between and among the various agencies, both statutory and voluntary.
That continued and increased collaboration is essential if we are to succeed in our campaign against the misuse of drugs and their dire consequences. I can offer no early solutions to a grave social problem that is worldwide in its challenge. We have developed some good approaches in Scotland. We must be prepared to vary and redouble our efforts across the piece to contain the damage to health and welfare that noble Lords have raised so properly and so eloquently tonight.
I hope that what I have said will demonstrate that the Government are determined to combat drug misuse in Scotland and to accept the offers of cross-party

879
support in that regard. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that we shall take up such offers. It is early days, but I have no hesitation in making our commitment clear. Tackling drug misuse across the UK matters a great deal to this Government and we shall play a very full part in the vital challenge in Scotland.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I on behalf of the whole House congratulate him on a most excellent and interesting maiden speech? I understand
880
that in his youth he intended to be a teacher of modern languages, until he was persuaded by an Irish lawyer's blarney to take up the law, in which he has had a most distinguished career. I believe that this House very much appreciates the fact that he has exchanged that lucrative career for the comparatively measly salary of a government Minister. We look forward very much to hearing him frequently in the future, and for my part I shall hope to enrol him as a member of the Scottish Peers Association.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past six o'clock.

  Privacy Legislation: Proposals
  Privacy Legislation: Proposals
  Dietary Supplements: EC Document
  Dietary Supplements: EC Document
  Copyright Period
  Copyright Period
  NATO-Russia Meeting, Sintra, 29/30 May
  NATO-Russia Meeting, Sintra, 29/30 May
  NHS: PFI
  NHS: PFI
  Student Loans Scheme
  Student Loans Scheme
  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Elephants and Tigers: Conservation
  Elephants and Tigers: Conservation
  Eurostar Sleeper Trains
  Eurostar Sleeper Trains
  Water Summit Action Plan: Response Date
  Water Summit Action Plan: Response Date
  Micheldever Station, Hants
  Micheldever Station, Hants
  Salisbury Bypass Proposal
  Salisbury Bypass Proposal
  Decriminalised Parking Enforcement
  Decriminalised Parking Enforcement
  European Union: Forthcoming Business
  European Union: Forthcoming Business