Sitting of 24 June 1997

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

  KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords]
  Order for Third Reading read
  To be read the Third time on Tuesday 1 July

SELECTION
Ordered,
That Mr. Andrew MacKay be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr. Peter Ainsworth be added to the Committee.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    Breast Cancer
    Ms Atherton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average waiting time for a woman with suspected breast cancer between referral by her general practitioner and receiving a diagnosis. [3466]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): My hon. Friend will no doubt be as surprised and dismayed as I was to discover that the Department of Health cannot provide a figure for the national average time women suspected of breast cancer have to wait for diagnosis after being referred by their general practitioner. I am determined to set up an information system that can supply such important facts.
    As my hon. Friend knows, we are committed to reducing the time women with suspected breast cancer have to wait for diagnosis. That is why we have made £10 million available to promote the establishment of one-stop clinics, to ensure that tests can be carried out and results given more quickly and to allow all women to benefit from quicker access to treatment provided by specialist teams.
    Ms Atherton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Will he take the opportunity to reassure women that the Government are determined to ensure that breast cancer screening is safe and effective? Will he further assure the House that the Government will leave no stone unturned in their efforts to discover exactly what took place in Devon and to ensure that every action is taken to remedy the position?
    Mr. Dobson: As my hon. Friend knows, on 9 June I asked the chief medical officer to set in train a review
    656
    of what had happened in east Devon and to report to me on that and on any general implications for the breast cancer screening service nationally. The review panel has visited Exeter. It has further investigations to conduct and I expect it to report in July; when I receive that report, I shall publish it.
    Sir Peter Emery: The right hon. Gentleman has been very honest with the House, but I want to keep him up to speed. Some people are still uncertain about their screening results; therefore, there is a real need to press on with the review. I am sorry to hear that the report is unlikely to be produced until the middle of July. I had hoped that it would have been completed by the end of June. It is essential that the information is made available, because the worry that has been caused can be understood only by someone who has experienced it. May I press that issue as hard as possible on the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Dobson: I understand the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes. Let me emphasise that any women in Devon who are concerned about their health should use the helpline or get in touch with their GPs or the hospital to arrange to have a further check. The establishment and conduct of the review should do nothing to inhibit anyone who may need to go back for a further check.
    Mr. Tyler: The Secretary of State is aware of my constituency interest in the failure of the breast screening service in Devon and Cornwall. Will he confirm that the current inquiries are being extended into Cornwall, where one of the consultants concerned provided that service and where there is continuing anxiety among people served by the Treliske hospital?
    Mr. Dobson: As I understand the position, one of the consultants involved in the failures in Exeter was also involved in failures at Treliske hospital in Cornwall. One of the review's purposes will be to discover how people can fail in one place and then move on to another.
    Mr. Gunnell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on switching resources so early to this issue from the extra bureaucracy with which the previous Government left the health service. Will he consider the delays that frequently occur between women receiving a diagnosis, having an operation and then having radiotherapy treatment? Some people in Leeds certainly experienced a delay in obtaining the treatment they needed. Will my right hon. Friend find out what is going on, so that when he is in a position to move more money from bureaucracy, he knows where to spend it?
    Mr. Dobson: The proposals for the concentration of cancer diagnosis and treatment services—the Calman-Hine proposals—pare intended to improve the performance of the national health service generally in cancer detection and treatment. Those proposals should be helping the situation in Leeds. If they are not, I will take the matter up with the health authorities and trusts in Leeds. Whatever the general arrangements, local management need to do their job in ensuring that the resources available are deployed properly and that the clinicians do their job properly. If those requirements are not met, we will not get the service that women need and deserve, whatever system is in place.

    Infant Health
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the indicators of the health of babies and very young children have changed since 1979. [3467]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Paul Boateng): Infant mortality rates are often used as an indicator of children's overall health status. They have been falling since the inception of the NHS under a Labour Government.
    Mr. Brazier: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer, but he did not answer the question. Had he done so, he would have had to reveal that almost all the indicators of health among children and babies improved during the Conservative Government's time in office, showing that the NHS was safe in our hands. Will he join me in congratulating the Kent and Canterbury paediatric and maternity units on their excellent work and their imaginative pooling of resources with neighbouring trusts to provide the critical mass necessary for the training of junior doctors?
    Mr. Boateng: I am delighted to congratulate the Kent and Canterbury paediatric unit. Its good work is in no way due to the efforts of the previous Government, because they ran the national health service down. I warn the hon. Gentleman against complacency, not least because the incidence of asthma among young children has more than trebled since 1979. The public health measures taken by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell), will attempt to deal with that problem.
    Mr. Sheerman: Will my hon. Friend consider a special group of babies and young children—those who are born to the poorest families, often in urban centres, with parents who are unemployed and on benefit—because worrying research reports suggest that the health of that group is deteriorating, while average levels of health are rising?
    Mr. Boateng: I share my hon. Friend's concern, not least because the infant mortality rate is one and a half times higher for poorer families than for wealthy families. This Labour Government will address that cause for concern.
    Mr. Maples: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that in no circumstances will the parents of young children who are ill have to contribute financially to the costs of their medical treatment?
    Mr. Boateng: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position of leadership in opposition. He asks an important question. He knows that we are determined to ensure that the NHS gives value for money and that the resources at its disposal are used for the benefit of all patients. That will be the issue that is addressed by this Government.
    Madam Speaker: Dr. Phyllis Starkey.
    Dr. Starkey: Question 19, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: I am calling the hon. Lady to ask a supplementary on Question 2. If she does not wish to do so, we shall go on to the next question.

    EU Health Council
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the outcome of the June EU Health Council meeting. [3469]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I represented the Government at the meeting. The Council adopted a decision on a Community action programme on health monitoring and a common position on a proposed Community network for the surveillance of communicable diseases. It also discussed a communication from the Commission on combating tobacco consumption, and a presidency paper on blood safety and self-sufficiency in the Community.
    Mr. Cunningham: Did my hon. Friend also discuss at the Council the impact of poor housing and environment, and of poverty in general, on public health?
    Ms Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As that was my first Health Council meeting, I briefed other European Health Ministers on my appointment as the United Kingdom Government's first Minister for public health, and made clear our Government's commitment to tackle the inequalities that compromise the health of children and adults in this country.

    NHS Trusts (Debt)
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital trusts have notified his Department that they will be in debt in the current year; and if he will make a statement. [3471]
    Mr. Dobson: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be interested to know that, as part of the unfortunate legacy that we inherited from the outgoing Tory Government, 128 NHS trusts out of a total of 429 entered the current financial year in deficit, as did 59 of the 100 health authorities. I have asked the trusts to submit to me by July their revised financial plans for the current year; then I shall be able to find out what debt they expect to be in at the end of the year.
    Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend, like the rest of us on the Government side of the House, acknowledge that those figures are appalling, as is the fact that when Labour assumed office there were 1,164,000 people on the waiting list? The Tory Government's grand Frankenstein experiment of meddling with the national health service, and trying to privatise it without telling the British people what they were doing, has resulted in misery for millions of people.
    I wish my right hon. Friend well in his shuffling of the pack at the national health service, moving money from one area to another, but does he agree—I shall help him here, so I hope that he does—that next Wednesday, when the Budget is announced, it will be essential for his Department to receive more money? Does he agree that we need to raise additional revenue, so that after five years the national health service will be in as grand a condition as it was when we kicked it off in 1945?
    Mr. Dobson: I should explain to my hon. Friend that even the figures that I announced in my main answer were

    659
    achieved only because health authorities and trusts failed to pay their creditors as quickly as they should have done—"doing a Hezza", I think it is called—and also transferred funds from capital to revenue. That demonstrates what a desperate situation they were in.
    For the time being, all I can say about the funding of the health service is that far too much money is going into the bureaucracy, and that we have arranged for £100 million of that to be transferred to patient care this year. We also revealed, in the recent report, that between £80 million and £100 million has been wasted by prescription fraud, about which the previous Government did nothing.
    We must ensure that every penny available to the national health service is spent as it ought to be, not lost through fraud or the bureaucratic nonsense of the internal market that the previous Government introduced—
    Mr. Forth: Waffle.
    Mr. Dobson: There certainly is a vast amount of waffle in the national health service at the moment, and it is there because of the internal market, which is draining funds out of patient care.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Although I accept that the Secretary of State is trying to find relatively small beer in the NHS Budget, may I take him back to the central question, which not only the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) but pretty much everyone in the country is asking? Given that Labour Ministers clearly knew the score before the election as to how much the NHS was in debt, and given that all the advice he receives is that the NHS needs more money, does the Secretary of State sign up to the Cabinet policy that there will be no additional money for the NHS this year and next? Will the Budget remain for two years at the limit inherited from the Tories, or is he arguing around the Cabinet table for something different?
    Mr. Dobson: For a start, it is worth reminding everybody that the NHS spends £36 billion a year—a lot of money—and some of that money could be better deployed in improving services. We are setting about that, and we are keeping all our election promises. We promised that we would have a comprehensive spending review, that we would shift funds from bureaucracy into patient care and that we would target that money initially on breast cancer treatment. We are carrying out those promises, and we will continue to meet our obligations and keep all the promises that we made.
    Mrs. Brinton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that today the Peterborough Hospitals NHS trust has announced that, by March 1998, it will face a £2 million overspend and that, to avert that overspend, it will have to close a theatre and drastically reduce beds? In view of that, will he assure me that, when considering hospitals for flagshipping for the private finance initiative, Peterborough will have top priority?
    Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend draws attention to yet another Tory failure. The Tories talked and talked about getting private finance for the building of hospitals, and spent £30 million on consultants' fees, but they never got a single brick laid in any hospital. The Minister of State,
    660
    my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), is working on that matter. Before long, work will start on the PFI hospitals that the previous Government failed to deliver.
    Mr. Jack: So far, all we have heard from the Secretary of State is waffle; we have had no straight answer to questions on the resourcing of the health service. His "savings" amount to the equivalent of one additional day's resources. On my first appearance at the Dispatch Box for Health questions, may I try to be helpful to the Secretary of State by offering him an opportunity to save some £740 million? He may be aware of the excellent work done at the Devonshire Road hospital in Blackpool on the treatment of osteoporosis. If that work were done widely in the NHS, some £740 million could be saved and 40 premature deaths a day could be prevented. On World Osteoporosis Day, may I ask him to include in his fundamental review of the health service a thorough re-examination of the way in which osteoporosis is treated in the NHS?
    Mr. Dobson: It beggars belief that a former Treasury Minister can get up and belabour us for inefficiency, as he sees it, in the NHS for which we have been responsible for eight weeks after 18 years of Tory responsibility.
    Mr. Jack: What about osteoporosis?
    Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Gentleman has mastered the word "osteoporosis" and we all admire his efforts.
    There are many areas within the NHS where we can improve the way in which money is spent, and that is one reason why we are having a fundamental comprehensive review. We will include that in the review. But I must ask the right hon. Gentleman—why did his lot not review that years ago?

    EU Health Council
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the outcome of the recent meeting of the European Union Health Council in respect of matters relating to mental health. [3472]
    Mr. Boateng: Mental health was not discussed at the European Union Health Council. Of course, the issue is a concern to member states and to this Government. We want to ensure that mental health problems are addressed through good-quality, effective services, which are sensitive to individual service users' needs, allowing them to achieve their full potential.
    Dr. Godman: Is any attempt being made by the Council of Ministers to establish good standards of practice in the treatment of those individuals with psychiatric illnesses? In particular, are the guidelines published by the Royal College of Psychiatrists for the use of electro-convulsive therapy for certain psychiatric illnesses followed by other medical authorities elsewhere in the European Union?
    Mr. Boateng: We will certainly commend the guidelines produced by the royal college to the European Union Health Council. They are very helpful. When

    661
    I meet the college in a few weeks' time, I shall also be discussing how the Department can ensure that the information that we collect on the number of ECT treatments can be brought together better. As my hon. Friend knows, in 1991 the Department ceased to collect those figures centrally. We want to re-examine that decision and we shall do so with the assistance of the royal college.

    Health Authorities Act 1995
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the likely savings to be made for patient care as a result of the Health Authorities Act 1995. [3473]
    Mr. Forth: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the projected savings to the national health service from the implementation of the Health Authorities Act 1995. [3486]
    Mr. Milburn: It is estimated that annual savings of around £150 million were made as a result of the 1995 Act, but it took three years to get there. We have already announced a £100 million reduction in management costs to be achieved in the current year alone and we are looking carefully at the scope for further savings in 1998–99 and beyond.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Given that answer, can the hon. Gentleman say whether he still supports the establishment of a regional tier of administration for the national health service, as was called for in his party's policy document "Renewing the NHS"?
    Mr. Milburn: We have no plans to reinstate regional health authorities.
    Mr. Forth: That sounds a bit bizarre to me. Was the Minister's party not the party which opposed the 1995 Act and all the savings that he has just told the House flowed from it? Has he not now admitted that he has done a U-turn on one of the undertakings in his party's policy document? How can we place any credibility on the Government's undertakings about savings in the NHS if, on the one hand, they opposed the measures that gave real savings—our measures—and, on the other, the hon. Gentleman is going back on his policy?
    Mr. Milburn: I know that the right hon. Gentleman wants to dwell on the past. That is because he and the Conservative party represent the past—they are living in the past. As he well knows, the Conservative party is not the enemy but the friend of red tape. It increased bureaucracy in the NHS and gave us more invoices, more paper, more red tape, more managers, more administrators and more accountants—but it gave us fewer nurses.
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: As well as the savings from cutting red tape, which can be diverted into patient care, does my hon. Friend agree that another potentially fruitful source of resources could be made available to the health service by removing the problem of bed blocking, whereby patients cannot be moved from health authority hospitals, where they cost more than £1,000 a week, to old people's homes or nursing homes, where they would
    662
    be looked after for £300 or £400 a week or less, because local social services departments do not have the money to pay for the patients' stay in an old people's home? Does he agree that if local authority social service departments—with their present bankrupt budgets—and health authorities could co-ordinate their budgets more tightly, savings of about £700 a week per patient could be achieved by removing that bed blocking problem?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. As he will be aware, the interface between personal social services and the health service is crucial in ensuring that very vulnerable people in the community are cared for—particularly the elderly, but also people with disabilities and mental health problems. Sometimes, the gaps in provision mean that such people are not looked after in the most appropriate way.
    My hon. Friend should consider two points: first, in planning for this winter, we will expect health authorities and local authorities to work closely together, precisely to achieve the co-operation that he advocates. Secondly, in the longer term, we will consider how best to pool resources to ensure that the gaps between social care and health care are closed.
    Mr. Hogg: Does the Minister accept that any savings that he might make through the Health Authorities Act 1995 would be dwarfed by the additional costs attributable to the minimum wage and to any restrictions that might be placed on competitive tendering?
    Mr. Milburn: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is the master of the red herring—although, in view of his former responsibilities, I apologise for the unintended pun. The Government are committed to ensuring that, in the future, health service resources go where they are most needed: not into back-line bureaucracy but into front-line patient services, where they should have gone in the first place.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On the question of savings, my hon. Friend the Minister will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that he expected to receive financial plans from health authorities, and trusts in particular, by a date in July. May we therefore assume that the documents submitted by trusts will include their proposals for reducing deficits by 1 April 1998?
    Mr. Milburn: It is important that all trusts and health authorities should set out clearly how they intend to cope with the financial deficits that many of them have, often through no fault of their own. We will scrutinise extremely carefully the plans from both health authorities and trusts, to ensure that they maximise value for money, and also lead to improvements in patient care.
    Dr. Harris: Given the Minister's surprising answer to the original question on health authorities, how will the Government bring back the necessary strategic planning, democratic accountability and openness in local services without a regional tier of health authorities?
    Mr. Milburn: As the hon. Gentleman knows fine well from his experience in the national health service, there is a regional tier. We intend to work through the regional offices to ensure, for example, that capital developments

    663
    in the NHS are much more strategically planned. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said a few minutes ago, we will no longer countenance a situation in which the private finance initiative is driven by the needs of the market; instead, we would expect regional offices to identify those capital schemes that best meet strategic health needs in their areas. We are, as it were, reinstating strategic planning at a regional level.

    National Screening Programmes
    Liz Blackman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for improving the reliability of national screening programmes. [3475]
    Laura Moffatt: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the breast cancer screening programme. [3482]
    Mr. Dobson: Breast and cervical cancer screening remain the best method of detecting breast and cervical cancers early so that women can get treatment as quickly as possible. It is vital therefore that women can be confident about the quality of that screening. That is why everyone is so disturbed by the record of failure in breast cancer screening in East Devon NHS trust and in cervical cancer screening in Kent and Canterbury NHS trust.
    Arrangements have already been set in train for the chief medical officer to conduct an inquiry into what has been happening in east Devon. At my request, Sir William Wells, the chair of South Thames regional office, has set up an independent inquiry into the lamentable failure of the cervical cancer screening services in Kent and Canterbury, and the equally lamentable failure of the management to deal with the situation. He has accepted the resignation of the chair and chief executive.
    Liz Blackman: 1 thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, which will give great reassurance to many women. A significant number of women in the target groups do not take up invitations to go for screening. The figure varies between 16 and 34 per cent. in different health authorities. Those women do not come forward for a variety of reasons: they lead busy lives, work anti-social hours or do not regard themselves as a high priority. Does he have proposals to encourage such women to come forward to take advantage of the screening programme?
    Mr. Dobson: As I think my hon. Friend knows, the target take-up rate for breast cancer screening nationally is 70 per cent. of women in target age groups. That is exceeded in every region except North Thames, but that figure does not apply to quite a lot of women in badly deprived areas or to substantial numbers of women among various ethnic groups. I have asked that special measures be taken both in North Thames and in other areas to lift the take-up rate in such groups. I have also asked officials to consider whether the 70 per cent. target is reasonable.
    Laura Moffatt: In Crawley, ethnic groups form about 10 per cent. of the population. For all sorts of reasons, women in those groups do not come forward. They may have problems understanding what the test is about and be worried about the people who will deal with them if they do come forward. I am thrilled that my right hon. Friend is keen to examine the issue of getting people to
    664
    breast screening programmes. Is there any way that we could talk to the voluntary organisations that deal with the different ethnic groups about the language that is used and the way in which screening is done? The plans that he mentioned were great, but we need to consider how we get people to come forward.
    Mr. Dobson: I support the propositions that my hon. Friend puts forward, both from her political knowledge and from her professional knowledge as a nurse. Speaking as one privileged to represent the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital, I can say she might have added that, for some ethnic minority women, a guarantee that they would be dealt with by women would undoubtedly help to raise the take-up rate.
    Mr. Baldry: The right hon. Gentleman has talked about shifting resources from elsewhere in the NHS to breast cancer. There has been much rhetoric about red tape, bureaucracy and reviews. Can he make clear what reviews are taking place in the NHS? What are their timetables? When will work be completed? Will he give an undertaking that their results will be transparent, so that we shall be able to compare what the Government say about NHS bureaucracy with what is there now to manage a system that spends £42 billion a year?
    Mr. Dobson: For a start, £10 million has been shifted into breast cancer treatment. That is half the sum saved by not proceeding with the eighth wave of fundholding: £20 million of the NHS budget had been earmarked for the paperwork of the additional wave. It has been shifted not from anything useful but into something useful. I would have hoped that everyone would welcome that. I have made it clear that the chief medical officer's review of screening provision in the south-west, and the review being carried out by Sir William Wells of cervical cancer screening services in Kent and Canterbury, will be reported to me and published.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: When we think of a 70 per cent. target for take-up, is the other 30 per cent. made up mainly of people in deprived or rural areas? Is there an opportunity to use mobile screening units, as promoted by Action Cancer in my constituency, which go out to where people are so that they do not have to wait to go to specialist centres?
    Mr. Dobson: Generally speaking, women who are better off and better informed get more screening than women who are worse off and worse informed. Therefore, we have to do everything that we can to target any effort to improve the take-up rate on the worst off and worst informed. Techniques such as the one that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned and those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) are all being applied in various parts of the country. I want to see them stepped up because I am not satisfied with the present level of take-up.

    Primary Health Care
    Ms Perham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about his plans for improving primary health care. [3476]
    Madam Speaker: I have called Question 11.
    Hon. Members: Come on!
    Mr. Dobson: I thought that I could have a bit of a rest, Madam Speaker. Primary care services are the first contact that most patients have with the national health service. Up and down the country, there are innumerable examples of very high quality services being provided by dedicated primary care professionals. The Government are determined to build on the achievements of those professionals, encouraging excellence and innovation and helping all practices to attain the standards of the best.
    We have begun to release primary care from the bureaucratic excesses of the internal market and we are working to ensure that non-fundholding practices and their patients are no longer at a disadvantage.
    Ms Perham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the waste of money on bureaucracy and the state of the health service were the issues that most concerned people in I1ford, North during the election campaign? My right hon. Friend touched on prescription fraud in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I understand that it costs about £100 million a year, which means that each health authority could spend an extra £1 million on 145 heart by-pass operations or even 222 hip replacements. That scale of deception was allowed to go on by the Conservative party. How does my right hon. Friend intend to tackle the scandal?
    Mr. Dobson: The first point to make is that the vast majority of patients, doctors and pharmacists are decent and honest and have had nothing to do with the scandalous level of prescription fraud. However, there are a limited number of villains among all three categories and we are determined that they will be stopped. One of the problems—this is another matter for our general review of the NHS—is that the system as operated at present is scandalously open to fraud. We have to make it less open to fraud, while not imposing additional bureaucratic burdens or making life difficult for patients who have to deal with their doctor and pharmacist.
    Mr. Maples: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, one of the things that are useful in planning the future of primary health care is to know the future of funding levels. In the past 18 years, spending in the NHS has risen in real terms by an average of 3.1 per cent. a year. Can the right hon. Gentleman commit himself to matching that performance over the lifetime of this Parliament?
    Mr. Dobson: We are committed in our manifesto to a real increase—
    Mr. Maples: Three per cent.
    Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman apparently wants to give the answers as well as ask the questions. That would be more understandable if he had shifted straight from one side of the House to the other, but he has had a five-year interval before doing so. I repeat that, in our election manifesto, we said that there would be an increase in real terms every year under the Labour Government.

    Waiting Times
    Mr. St. Aubyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS in-patients were waiting over one year for treatment (a) in March 1979 and (b) in the latest month for which figures are available. [3477]
    Ms Jowell: On 31 March 1979, there were 185,195 patients waiting more than 12 months for treatment at national health service hospitals—an increase of 24 per cent. over the previous year. The provisional figure for 31 March 1997, the latest available, is 31,318, which represents a 580 per cent. increase in those numbers over the past year. The highest-ever recorded March figure for patients waiting more than one year was the 223,311 who were waiting in March 1989. We now have the highest-ever number of patients waiting—more than 1.1 million.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: In view of the reply that the numbers waiting more than one year fell during the period of the previous Government from 185,000 to just 31,000, do the Minister and her colleagues continue to denigrate the previous Government's record on health because they think that waiting lists do not matter; or, if they think that they do matter, what commitment is the Minister prepared to make today to exceed the previous Government's outstanding record of cutting waiting lists to such an extent?
    Ms Jowell: We would not set our sights so low as to try to exceed the record of the previous Government. There are 1.1 million patients waiting for treatment—the highest-ever recorded figure. That was the last Government's legacy to the people using the national health service. It is a shameful legacy. We have made promises to patients and we shall keep the promises we made.
    Mr. Corbett: Is not the main reason for those appalling figures the indifference to the number of acute surgical and medical beds available to provide such treatment in our hospitals? Will my hon. Friend give an instruction to Mr. Bryan Stoten, who chairs the Birmingham health authority, that, when considering the reorganisation of hospitals in Birmingham, it is bed numbers in those categories that matter, and not his attempt to fulfil his ambition of getting rid of all but one or two of the city's hospitals?
    Ms Jowell: My hon. Friend makes an important point in underlining the increase in the number of emergency admissions, which has been a steady trend in recent years for a number of different reasons. The increase in emergency admissions certainly has an impact on the rate at which elective surgery is performed. As for the situation in Birmingham, I am sure that my hon. Friend, who is a Birmingham Member of Parliament, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State will discuss with other Birmingham Members of Parliament the need to maintain a proper balance in patient capacity in line with the development of community and primary care.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is not only the numbers of people on waiting lists that are important, but the length of time that those people are

    667
    on the waiting lists? Does she also agree that cases have to be prioritised? How does she believe that she can improve on the figures that she has inherited if further increased resources, year on year, are not made available?
    Ms Jowell: Patients on waiting lists want to be sure of the rate at which they will be treated and that they will be admitted to hospital and treated according to the severity of their condition. In recent years, there has been a collapse of public confidence that patients will be treated on the basis of clinical need and the severity of their illness. Our commitment on breast cancer and eliminating waits for breast cancer surgery is an important step in reassuring women, thousands of whom waited unacceptable lengths of time as a result of previous Government policy.

    Private Finance Initiative
    Mr. Singh: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been spent by the NHS on consultancy fees relating to proposed PFI schemes. [3478]
    Mr. Milburn: Information is now collected centrally on total expenditure on fees for external consultants involved in major PFI schemes. The total amount which has been spent on leading schemes by NHS trusts in legal fees and advice is £30 million. The total amount spent on all major PFI schemes, including those at an earlier stage, is £37 million.
    Mr. Singh: I thank the Minister for his reply and ask him whether he is as shocked as I am at that utter waste of public money by the previous Government. Can he confirm that, within weeks of taking office, the present Government have honoured their manifesto pledge to break the logjam in the PFI in the NHS, and does that not prove that, unlike the Conservatives, we keep our promises on health?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That £30 million could have bought an extra 7,500 hip replacement operations; so the £30 million legal fees bill that NHS trusts have faced has not only been a waste of taxpayer's resources but robbed patients of the money that they need for investment in front-line care. I can promise my hon. Friend that not only will we make the PFI work, but we shall cut through the PFI red tape bill to ensure that public money is spent on front-line patient services rather than on exorbitant advisers' fees.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: If the Minister is anxious to save money in national health service, may I take it that he continues to support compulsory competitive tendering in the NHS?
    Mr. Milburn: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we are conducting a comprehensive spending review and those issues will be considered in the context of the review. I should make it abundantly clear that the parameters of the review will be our manifesto commitments to ensure that the NHS is there for people when they need it, and that it is based on need, not ability to pay.
    Ms Drown: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking (a) to speed up decisions on private
    668
    finance initiative schemes and (b) to ensure public-private partnerships in NHS capital schemes properly meet the needs of patients and staff. [3480]
    Mr. Milburn: The NHS (Private Finance) Bill 1997 will confirm NHS trusts' powers to enter into PFI contracts. That will provide the private sector with the reassurance that it needs to enter into PFI contracts and enable the two major acute hospital PFI schemes, at Norfolk and Norwich and at Dartford and Gravesham, to proceed to financial close.
    I announced on 10 June an urgent exercise to prioritise all the other major acute hospital capital schemes currently testing for PFI. An announcement on which schemes have been selected to proceed will be made shortly. In future, all acute schemes will be prioritised and the PFI process will be streamlined.
    Ms Drown: Does the Minister recognise the urgency of upgrading Swindon's Princess Margaret hospital, which has £42 million of backlog maintenance and is the No. 1 priority of the South and West region of our health service?
    Mr. Milburn: I am of course aware of the urgent need that my hon. Friend's constituents feel about the PFI project in Swindon and of the representations that she and my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) have made to me in that regard. I can promise that the criteria that we use will ensure that NHS need and the ability to deliver quickly will be the key criteria and that, as a consequence of prioritising and taking tough action now, we shall ensure that, in future, NHS hospitals are built by means of the PFI process.
    Mr. Pickles: Before the Minister started his various reviews, there was a significant review of health needs in southern Essex and it was the unanimous view that an accident and emergency unit was necessary in Harold Wood hospital. That has gone through the PFI process and a preferred bidder is ready. Can we go ahead—or is further money to be expended on accountants and so on? Can my constituents look forward to the building of an emergency and accident unit in Harold Wood?
    Mr. Milburn: I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the London review that the Secretary of State announced on Friday will specifically consider the relationship between Harold Wood and Oldchurch hospitals. If there are proposals for PFI, we shall consider them in the light of reporting from the London review panel.
    Mr. Radice: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the steps that he is taking to speed up the PFI process. Will the Department carefully consider the case for a new general hospital at Dryburn being included in the first tranche?
    Mr. Milburn: I am aware of the strong feelings in the north Durham area about the need for a new hospital there. As my hon. Friend is aware, it is the Secretary of State who will decide on schemes in the north and in the Yorkshire area. I reiterate to my hon. Friend that the intention behind the PFI prioritisation exercise is to achieve what the previous Government signally failed to achieve by means of the PFI: getting hospitals built.
    Dr. Brand: I welcome the fact that the Minister will allow PFI projects to go forward only when they meet the

    669
    needs of patients and staff, but how confident is he that he knows what the needs of the health service will be over the whole period when a PFI arrangement may be in place, especially where services are involved?
    Mr. Milburn: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the assessment that we are undertaking—initially through the regional offices and then by Ministers—will include a number of criteria, of which NHS need is the most important. Of course, we shall consider carefully whether the schemes presented to us reflect high NHS need; equally, we shall consider whether they represent good value for money. Unless schemes can demonstrate that they improve risk transfer and that they represent good value for money, we shall not give them the go-ahead.

    Paediatric Intensive Care
    Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the need for paediatric intensive care provision in Chorley and South Ribble health district. [3481]
    Mr. Boateng: My right hon. Friend has no plans to assess the paediatric intensive care provision for Chorley and South Ribble, which is currently provided by Manchester Children's Hospital NHS trust and the Royal Liverpool Children's NHS trust, with appropriate retrieval services. My hon. Friend will be glad to learn that there are on-going discussions between Chorley and South Ribble NHS trust and Preston Acute Hospitals NHS trust on the provision of paediatric services for his constituency.
    Mr. Hoyle: I welcome that. I would, however, point out that expectant mothers and youngsters involved in accidents have to travel up to 20 miles to reach those hospitals. Chorley and South Ribble is an area with a large population, so will the Minister look into providing a new maternity unit with the full back-up of paediatric services?
    Mr. Boateng: The provision of locally accessible services is obviously important. It will be considered by both the NHS trusts concerned, and anything that the Department can do to assist that consideration we certainly shall do.

    Private Partnerships
    Mr. Heppell:To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the proportion of retired people who would be able to afford to take out private partnerships for long-term care. [3484]
    Mr. Boateng: No useful assessment can be made, given the nature of the previous Government's partnership scheme and the multiplicity of factors that would govern its take-up.
    Mr. Heppell: Does it not seem clear that private insurance can be of benefit only to a few, not to the majority of elderly people? Will the Government therefore introduce a charter for long-term care specifying what
    670
    health authorities and social services departments will provide for older people in need of long-term care?
    Mr. Boateng: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend—as did the overwhelming majority of people who responded to the former Government's consultation process on their ill-fated partnership scheme. It is our intention to ensure that there is a charter for long-term care so that all in receipt of such care have equal and fair access to higher-quality services. What matters is not whether the care is given in the private or public sector but whether the quality of the services, and the value for money that the public are entitled to expect of them, can be provided.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Did I hear the Minister say that he wants long-term care to be effectively transferred back to the NHS? Will he commit the Government to doing that, or to ensuring that people's homes are still maintained even if they have stopped living in them? Is that yet another spending commitment by the Government?
    Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman did not hear me correctly, but I suspect that he was not listening very hard. Had he been listening, he would have heard of our commitment to long-term care and our determination to ensure that the vulnerable people who need it get the best value for money. That is this Government's response to the crisis to which the previous Government helped to contribute.

    Breast Cancer
    Dr. Starkey: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve breast cancer services for women. [3485]
    Ms Jowell: The Government are committed to improving the provision and availability of high-quality cancer services and will direct savings achieved from cuts in the cost of NHS bureaucracy into patient care. As a first step, £10 million has been made available for breast cancer services to speed up access to diagnosis, reduce waiting times for treatment and support networks of specialist breast teams.
    Dr. Starkey: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which will reassure many women throughout the country. It is important that, once women have been diagnosed, they get the appropriate treatment. Will my hon. Friend outline the steps that are being taken to ensure that research is properly disseminated so that clinicians can take the right decisions on the most appropriate treatment for individual women?
    Ms Jowell: An essential part of rebuilding a national health service is to ensure common and high standards of care, wherever women are treated. The Calman-Hine approach to cancer treatment could not be effectively implemented by the last Government because of the obstacle of the internal market. By implementing that, we can take a co-operative approach to treating people with cancer and guarantee the high quality to which my hon. Friend refers.

Denver Summit
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the summit of Eight held at Denver last weekend. I have placed in the Library of the House the communiqué and other documents issued following the summit.
One of the most stimulating discussions at Denver was on the need for structural reform in all our economies. Different countries face somewhat different problems, but we all face the challenge of how to take advantage of increasing globalisation and provide new job opportunities. In many countries, unemployment, particularly among young people, is far too high.
We need to combine greater labour market flexibility with action to improve work incentives, skills and employability, and reduce the risk of marginalisation. The summit welcomed the UK's plan to take forward work on that at a meeting of G8 Finance and Social Affairs Ministers in London early next year, and then at the Birmingham summit.
We also discussed the problem of transnational organised crime, which is a growing preoccupation for us all. Crime is becoming increasingly sophisticated and international, and criminals will quickly exploit the newest technologies to evade detection. We must fight them on their own ground, developing greater international co-operation and new techniques to match the threat.
Over the coming months, we shall work up specific proposals on co-operation against crime, including drug trafficking and financial crime, which we can then consider in detail at next year's summit.
In Denver, the Finance Ministers reported on the progress that they had made on measures to increase financial stability. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will lead the follow-up next year on plans further to improve co-operation between financial supervisors.
The summit focused particular attention on Africa. We agreed on the need to combat poverty through debt relief, improved market access and support for education. The priority is to focus assistance where it is most needed and will reap most benefit—that is, those countries that are introducing economic reforms and which respect the principles of human rights and good governance.
We emphasised the importance of not wasting money on unproductive, especially military, expenditure and of combating corruption. I announced that, over the next three years, Britain would increase by 50 per cent. our support for primary education, basic health care and clean water in sub-Saharan Africa.
We discussed United Nations reform, and welcomed the Secretary General's efforts. We encouraged him to undertake a system-wide review of the UN and its agencies. We agreed on the need to develop the UN's ability to prevent and resolve conflict, and we all recognised the need to solve the UN's funding crisis as soon as possible.
The leaders of the Seven also agreed to provide $300 million towards the cost of restoring the sarcophagus over the Chernobyl reactor to prevent any further leak of radioactive material.
672
I was pleased to get the strong support of all other leaders for our views on Hong Kong. The communiqué underlined the G8' s durable interest in Hong Kong's stability and prosperity, and looked forward to democratic elections there for a new legislature as soon as possible.
Foreign Ministers discussed a number of regional and global issues, and presented a detailed report to Heads of Government. The summit issued a separate statement on Bosnia, reaffirming our commitment to the peace agreement, and backed efforts to achieve a lasting settlement in Cyprus. The communiqué also records unanimous support for progress towards a legally binding international agreement to ban anti-personnel land mines.
I welcome Russia's participation as a major partner in the summit of the Eight. President Yeltsin played a fuller role than ever before, and we agreed to continue our efforts to help Russia to integrate into the global economic system. Russia will shortly be participating as a creditor in the Paris Club.
We naturally devoted considerable time in Denver to environmental issues, many of which are being followed up at the UN General Assembly special session which opened yesterday.
There is much that we need to do to improve the environment we live in. Cleaner air, cleaner water, less congestion and better use of scarce resources matter to all of us. In developing countries, alleviating poverty is the key to sustainable development. We are committed over time to reversing the decline in Britain's development assistance that occurred under the previous Administration.
Much of the public attention, though, has focused on efforts to tackle the threat of global warming. We made some progress at Denver, which I hope to see consolidated at the UN session in New York. Everyone accepted that, by the time of the Kyoto conference later this year, we must agree binding targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions beyond the year 2000.
As the House will know, the European Union has already put forward proposals for a target reduction of 15 per cent. in greenhouse gases by the year 2010. The British Government have indicated their readiness to go further. We are already likely to achieve a reduction of 10 per cent. in greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2000.
Such targets are tough, but they are achievable by policies that are sensible in their own right: an integrated transport policy that makes public transport more attractive and gets traffic flowing more smoothly; increasing the use of renewable forms of energy; improving energy efficiency in firms and the public sector, bringing it up to the standards of the best, and increasing the use of combined heat and power; and improving energy efficiency in homes—for example, through promoting self-financing schemes by the energy suppliers.
Measures aimed at producing environmental benefits are often seen as burdensome or unachievable when they are first proposed, but experience shows that sensible measures produce sensible results—as we saw with measures to promote the use of unleaded petrol, for example.
We discussed a number of other key environmental issues, including the need to work for an international agreement on forests, with suitably high standards.

673
We also discussed how to increase access to clean water and sanitation, and how to improve international co-ordination of efforts to protect oceans and to manage fisheries.
This was my first G8 summit and I was struck by how much better the discussions were when we had time to focus on the key issues common to all our countries. Next year, I want to take that further and concentrate on fewer issues in greater depth. In some senses, it will mean a return to the original concept of G7 and G8 summits, using the opportunity for informal but substantive discussions.
At Birmingham, I want to concentrate in particular on two subjects: the issue of jobs and employability, and the challenge posed by organised crime. The first will be a major theme of our presidency of the European Union in the first half of next year. Both are of central importance to all the G8 countries.
I am grateful to the President of the United States for his hospitality at the Denver summit this year and to the authorities there, and I am grateful to the people of Birmingham for agreeing to host next year's summit, which I am confident will be an equal success.
Mr. William Hague: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I welcome many aspects of the Denver summit, in particular the new and deeper participation by Russia, and the conclusions on Hong Kong and on closer co-operation in fighting organised crime.
Does the Prime Minister agree that there is often too much on the agenda at such summits? I welcome his readiness to continue the efforts of his predecessor to reduce their length and to give them sharper focus.
I welcome also the discussion at Denver about the need for structural reform of economies, and the section of the communiqué that calls on countries to
"increase the responsiveness of labor markets to economic conditions".
Does the Prime Minister recognise that the achievement of increased responsiveness in the United Kingdom is a vindication of the strategy adopted by the previous Government, and is one of the reasons why the new Government have inherited the best economic prospects in a generation? How will he continue to work towards that objective? How does he believe that he will be supported in that endeavour by introducing job-destroying rigidities, such as the social chapter, into the labour market?
I welcome also the acknowledgement that aging populations mean that
"Some of our countries face major challenges in sustaining their public pension systems".
Does the Prime Minister believe that the United Kingdom is one of those countries? If so, will he recognise that pension systems can be sustained better and future pensioners advantaged by pursuing innovative pensions policies rather than disparaging them?
The communiqué calls for "active aging strategies". Can the Prime Minister tell us what an active aging strategy is? Does he have one?
674
The Prime Minister referred also to aid for Africa and announced increased support for primary education and other projects in sub-Saharan Africa. That is a worthy objective, but from which budget will the additional funds be drawn?
I thank the Prime Minister for congratulating the previous Government in his speech in New York on their environmental achievements—although we wish that he had done so before. Will he remind the House that, thanks to the actions of the previous Government, this country is one of only three in the world that are on course to meet the Rio targets? Do the Government understand why that is so? Does the Prime Minister agree that successful free enterprise economies that are based on private ownership are in the best position to safeguard the natural environment, and that sensible incentives often work better than heavy-handed regulation?
What specific measures does the Prime Minister propose in order to achieve the additional 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions to which he is now committed? Can he clarify that commitment, as it was not in his statement to the House this afternoon? He mentioned policies to achieve that objective that are in place already or are so general as to be meaningless. When will he be able to shed more light on those proposals? Will they entail going back on statements made by his Industry Minister favouring coal-fired rather than gas-powered power stations? Will he pursue that target irrespective of the actions of other countries or only in concert with them?
The Denver summit failed to agree on new targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Does the Prime Minister share our dismay that the G8 failed to reach a new agreement, since real progress can be made only through international agreement? In the light of our special relationship with the United States, does the Prime Minister agree that it is regrettable that President Clinton did not accept the proposed new targets? How will the Prime Minister persuade him to do so? Is it not vital to have international agreement on targets for the decade ahead, just as targets for this decade were negotiated successfully by the previous Government at Rio?
Will the Prime Minister reassure the House that any increase in taxation in order to meet environmental objectives will be matched by reductions in other taxes so that legitimate environmental concerns are not used to justify large rises in the overall burden of taxation? The country wishes to know that, along with the fine words and the worthy objectives, the Government can produce some specific policies, successfully negotiate international agreements, and produce tax proposals that have the desired effect without damaging the growth of enterprise that, alone, provides the means of safeguarding our environment.
The Prime Minister: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new position. He asked what is an active aging strategy. The best active aging strategy that I know of is to be either Leader of the Opposition or Prime Minister—we shall see how we both fare in that regard. I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman agreed with much of the Denver communiqué, particularly the points about organised crime, Hong Kong and the participation of Russia. That is precisely what I am saying in relation to G7 summits. It is important that they concentrate on fewer issues, but go through them in depth.

675
As for structural reform, the words "responsive to change" are those that the Government have been using. They mean not only more flexible labour markets but an emphasis on education and skills, and ensuring that people can be genuinely employable within new labour markets. Decent civilised standards of treatment for people at the workplace are not inconsistent with a prosperous economy.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about Africa, budgets there and the announcement of 50 per cent. more provision for basic education and health care. The money will be found within existing budgets as part of our policy of reallocating priorities and focusing our aid on the poorest countries. Commitments over the past three years have totalled about £240 million, and commitments over the next three years will therefore be increased to about £360 million.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me also about targets and the measures that we might take to meet those which we have set ourselves. I believe that the targets that we have set ourselves are achievable by continuing with the types of policy that we have been outlining over the past few weeks—for example, in relation to an integrated transport system, working with the rail operators to ensure that they make sure that more is done to integrate their services by introducing such things as through ticketing, giving people the real choice of being able to use public transport where they wish to do so and, in relation to improved energy efficiency in firms and the public sector, the energy efficiency best practice—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asked me for the details, and I am giving them to him.
The energy efficiency best practice programme has a target of generating additional savings worth £800 million a year by the year 2000. We are well on target to achieve that. If we continue with the policies that we have outlined, we believe that we will meet that target. It is part of a continuing programme. As for improving energy efficiency in homes, not merely is the home energy efficiency scheme in being, but part of the new Government's proposals is the establishment of an environmental task force that will be specifically charged with assisting measures that will combat some of our environmental problems. In all these areas, we shall continue to make progress. I believe that we can meet the targets.
The right hon. Gentleman said that it was a pity that Denver G8 failed to reach agreement. It is a pity that we were unable to go further there. The key event, however, will be the Kyoto conference, which will take place later this year. The US has given an indication that it will be in a position then to agree legally binding targets for the future. If that can happen, that will be substantial progress. Yes, we would have liked to go further at Denver, but, as I have said, I think that the key issue is what happens at the Kyoto conference. I think that the possibilities there are good.
The right hon. Gentleman will have to await the Budget for any matters of taxation. I believe that the most important thing that we can do in respect of meeting the targets to which I have referred is to continue with the measures that relate especially to transport and energy efficiency, which we have already outlined. If we do that,
676
we have the best chance of making a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which is what we all want to see.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I join the Prime Minister, first, in welcoming the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) to leadership of the Conservative party. I think that I am right in saying that he is the sixth leader of one or other of the two parties, Conservative and Labour, that I have seen since becoming leader of mine. I wish him—[Interruption.] Look how I look, Madam Speaker? I look younger every day. I wish the right hon. Gentleman well in his task, which most people regard as impossible.
I very much welcome the thrust of the Prime Minister's statement. The Denver summit of Eight was obviously more successful than most of these summits and it achieved a number of notable things. I welcome particularly the inclusion of Russia. I especially welcome the clear statement on Hong Kong. It is, of course, the case that the Sino-British agreement is an international agreement. The fact that that will be observed in detail by the international community will be a great incentive to ensure that the agreement is carried out in full, especially in relation to the preservation of democracy.
I also welcome the clear statement on Bosnia. I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree that, unless the warring parties understand that they must make faster progress, there is a real possibility that the momentum for peace will slip away and the situation will slide back towards warfare and conflict, perhaps even in the very near future.
I regret that there was not greater agreement on the environment, although perhaps that was too much to ask. It is welcome to see the Prime Minister and the Government taking the lead on environmental matters. I am almost tempted to say that, once again, they seem to be observing more of our manifesto than theirs, but that would be curmudgeonly, so I shall not say it.
No doubt the Prime Minister was happy to see the newspaper headlines about his leadership when he returned. I remind him that I have seen those headlines before, and so has he. I remember the 1989 summit, from which the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, returned to headlines—in The Daily Telegraph I think—saying, "Thatcher to save the planet" and "Thatcher dons green mantle for economic summit". The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) had similar headlines. Does the Prime Minister realise that he will be judged not by the rhetoric or the newspaper headlines, but by results and actions?
We will look for those results when we consider next week's Budget. Will there be a move towards green taxation? Will there be a reduction of VAT on home insulation? Will there be a national home insulation programme? The Prime Minister cannot answer those questions now, but does he recognise that we will judge what he does rather than what he says? He will be judged by his actions and not by the rhetoric, although welcome, that he used in Denver and New York.
The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his agreement to much of what we did. I shall deal with his two main points.
We want faster progress in Bosnia. We want a far greater impetus towards implementing the Dayton agreement and greater pressure from the countries

677
involved to achieve that. I have been saying that for some time, as has President Clinton. If pressure to reach agreement is taken off those countries, there is a risk that the whole process will slip backwards; that would be desperately unfortunate. I agree whole-heartedly with the right hon. Gentleman on that.
On the environment, the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the Budget, as he knows. I agree that the issue is results and not rhetoric. In the programmes that we have already outlined, there is at least the prospect that results will be achieved. I believe that they are achievable, provided that the national will and the political will are there.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On Africa, does the Prime Minister recall that the one subject about which President Mandela wrote a personal letter to the previous Prime Minister was his unease about Libyan sanctions? The unease felt about Lockerbie has been outlined in 11 Adjournment debates. Will the Prime Minister also reflect on the Channel 4 programmes that cast grave doubt on whether the Libyans were responsible for the brutal and wicked murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher? Before dismissing them merely as television speculation, will he take into account the fact that to do so he would have to suppose that George Styles, the senior ballistics officer of the British Army, does not know much about ballistics, that Hugh Thomas, who was the senior consultant at the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast, does not know much about the angles at which bullets enter bodies, and that Bernard Knight, as the distinguished Home Office pathologist in charge of the Cromwell street investigation, does not know about pathology? Will he take this matter seriously?
The Prime Minister: As I said to my hon. Friend last week, the Libyan sanctions will remain until Libya complies with the United Nations Security Council resolutions. The Channel 4 programme was a follow-up to the original programme that was made some time last year. The continuing investigation into the murder of WPC Fletcher is a matter for the police, and anyone who has new evidence relating to the crime should pass it to them. The original extensive investigation by the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory and the pathologist Dr. Ian West concluded that she was killed by a bullet fired from the Libyan People's Bureau. Every piece of new evidence has been reviewed, but my advice is that the view prevails that she was killed by a bullet from the Libyan People's Bureau.
The police are reviewing the contents of the programme broadcast on 5 June and they expect to have completed their analysis by the end of September. I do not hold out to my hon. Friend any prospect of change in that respect; I merely say that, whenever new evidence is presented or claims are made, they are investigated. However, the best advice that we have at the moment remains the original advice.
Mr. David Maclean: As most greenhouse gases are produced by America, south America, China and the developing world, why is the Prime Minister determined to punish British people, particularly our rural constituents, by setting targets that
678
go much further than those observed by the rest of the world and will be particularly damaging to Britain? Does he not agree that we should sign up unilaterally to targets for greenhouse gas emissions rather than trying to make a grand green gesture that will hurt our constituents?
The Prime Minister: It will not hurt our constituents at all. The agreement that was reached between European Union members for a 15 per cent. reduction in greenhouse gas emissions based on 1990 levels was negotiated by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. We believe that we can go further, but, even on existing policy, by 2000 we will have achieved a 10 per cent. reduction.
Of course, we want other countries to go further. That is why we have put pressure on them. The Kyoto conference will provide an opportunity to see what progress has been made with the United States and other countries, but I believe that the measures that have been taken with the support of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have been to the advantage of our constituents. It will be to the advantage of our constituents if we reduce pollution and the damage that has been caused not merely to the world's climate, but to clean air in Britain.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: In relation to land mines, have other countries stated their intention to follow Britain's lead in banning the production, sale and trade in those horrible weapons?
The Prime Minister: No specific country is about to follow precisely the lines that we have articulated, but the importance of the words in the communiqué is that there is agreement in principle that we need an internationally binding agreement banning the sale of anti-personnel mines. We are making progress, but we still have a long way to go. The fact that Britain has taken a lead will help to achieve that international agreement.
Mr. Eric Forth: Did the meeting take any opportunity to compare the economic reforms in the United States with those in the European Union? If so, were any conclusions drawn about the rather different approach taken in north America from that in Europe? Did the Prime Minister draw any conclusions about the direction that the European Union seems to wish to take, particularly in respect of labour market flexibility, and the disadvantage that that would inflict on the European Union in a globally competitive economy?
The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is important that we combine labour market flexibility with investment in people. The United States recognises that it has a significant problem in large numbers of young people in particular who are shut out from mainstream society without any hope or opportunity. That is something which our countries have to correct. It is not a one-way process: there is much to be learned on both sides. There are also measures that all countries agree make a difference to economic performance.
In contradistinction to the Opposition, I believe that there is a role for government, but that it is a different role today. It relates to infrastructure, education, technology and assisting small businesses and needs to be fulfilled here as well as in other countries.
Mr. Desmond Browne: I welcome the concentration by the G8 summit on

679
international crime and drug trafficking. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister mentioned specific proposals that are being worked up for discussion next year. What specific measures does Britain wish to see taken, with especial reference to the threat of organised crime emanating from Russian and eastern Europe?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. As the host of the G8 summit next year in Birmingham, we are expected to bring forward specific measures to combat organised crime. Already, the G8 working group has agreed some 40 detailed recommendations to counter transnational organised crime. Those are now being implemented, and include extradition proceedings, co-operation between law enforcement agencies and, specifically, attempts to track down the proceeds of drug trafficking. We hope that we will be able to take a significant step forward next year. One of the advantages of Russia's involvement in the summit is being able to talk face to face with the Russians about the measures they need to take to defeat the organised crime that often comes from Russia and is spreading across Europe.
Mr. John D. Taylor: The Ulster Unionists also welcome the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition to his new position and look forward to working with him on many issues, including the important one of Northern Ireland. The importance of that subject was underlined by the fact that the Prime Minister, following his journey back to the United Kingdom, is already devoting several hours to it today. We thank the Prime Minister for the statement that he has given on the Denver summit and, in particular, the apparent contribution he made to the summit on behalf of our nation.
I welcome the communiqué's reference to a lasting settlement in Cyprus. Does the Prime Minister agree that a lasting settlement in Cyprus would be preferable before the accession of Cyprus as a member of the European Union? Does he agree that it is important that the Government's attitude to the Turkish and Greek Cypriot communities is even handed and, therefore, does he agree that the Government should follow the example of the previous Government and that the Foreign Secretary should meet the leaders of both communities in their respective parts of Cyprus?
The Prime Minister: On the latter point, I will let the right hon. Gentleman know exactly what is proposed. I am sure that there will be no objection to that. On the question of Cyprus, the possibility of accession negotiations taking place makes it all the more important that a settlement is achieved. The United Kingdom fully supports the UN-led search for a settlement. The prospects of EU accession and the need to reduce tension make that settlement all the more necessary.
We support the EU commitment to open accession negotiations with Cyprus six months after the end of the intergovernmental conference, which will be during our presidency, so we will have a leading role to play. The conclusions of the Denver summit underline the importance that the international community attaches to the issue, and I hope that we can move forward on it. The right hon. Gentleman will know that Richard Holbrooke has been appointed as the US presidential envoy and Sir David Hannay is the UK's special representative.
680
I hope that their appointment will assist the process and help to develop ever greater urgency in the search for a settlement.
Helen Jones: While I am sure that the House welcomes my right hon. Friend's comments about tackling the problem of world poverty, will he indicate the time scale within which he thinks Britain will reach the UN target for development assistance?
The Prime Minister: No, I cannot put a specific time limit on it, because we will have to do it as we can. If my hon. Friend looks back at the record of the previous Labour Government, she will see that we made tremendous strides towards achieving it. We will do it as we can and we consider it important. It is essential to realise that the development of such countries, especially in Africa, is in the long-term interests of our country. We are not being asked to sacrifice our self-interest for others: there is a mutual self-interest in ensuring that the problems are dealt with.
Mr. Richard Ottaway: Does the Prime Minister agree that population growth is the root cause of African poverty and indeed, of general environmental decline? Will he confirm that he will make that one of his reallocated priorities and will he continue the all-party consensus on the subject?
The Prime Minister: I shall certainly continue the all-party consensus. However, the issue of population growth must be seen in the context of how the countries are developing. The greater their prospects of serious economic development, with a proper enterprise sector in their economies and reduced corruption—because corruption is a blight both on inward investment and on any sensible allocation of aid—the better things will be. It is important to see measures related to population growth in the context of all the other things that we are doing to bring about a different way of life in those countries. However, as I said, I am happy for the cross-party consensus on the subject to continue.
Mr. Keith Vaz: I warmly welcome the Prime Minister's statement, but does he agree that more should be done by our G7 partners to ensure the full implementation of the HIPC—heavily indebted poor countries—initiative by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, because that is one of the ways in which we can help to reduce debt for the poorest countries in the world?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree. The HIPC agreement is important, and the new Secretary of State for International Development has laid emphasis upon it. As I discovered during some of the bilateral meetings that I had with those from African countries during the United Nations meeting, some of those countries spend a vast proportion of the public money they spend simply on debt repayment, so that, of their overall expenditure, only a small percentage is left for trying to develop their countries. In the end, that is a huge inhibition on their development.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Did the summit accept the fact that it is traffic congestion

681
rather than traffic volume that causes the most air pollution problems? Will the Prime Minister make a contribution to solving such problems by removing as speedily as possible the freeze on road schemes designed to remove pollution, including those for the A13 and M25, which would make a considerable contribution to reducing air pollution?
The Prime Minister: We have moved pretty quickly from world statesmanship to constituency interests. As for the individual road schemes, the hon. Gentleman will know that a road review is now being undertaken, and I cannot tell him anything about his particular road. However, if there is something that we are about to do about it, I shall let him know. I might add that I believe that one of the most important things that we can do to reduce pollution is to encourage the use of public transport.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: In the attempt to combat international crime, has my right hon. Friend considered using the services of George Carman? As for the problem of the hole in the ozone layer, will he remember that he will not be able to solve it by market forces, nor by using a man with a bike, a ladder and an enterprise allowance? It can be solved only by intervention, planning and organization—[HON. MEMBERS: "Socialism."]—by other nation states. That cannot be done by market forces.
The Prime Minister: If I may so to my hon. Friend, there is some truth in what he says. [Interruption.] Nervous looks all round. I do not know about hiring George Carman. I do not think that we can afford his fees; I shall have to speak to the Chancellor about that. In my view, the environmental problems require a mixture of solutions. Of course, there are important measures involving regulation and intervention. I agree that if we want an integrated transport strategy, it will not come about through market forces.
On the other hand, unless developing countries in Africa and elsewhere have effective market economies, with private enterprise in them, they will never make the transition to more developed economies that is essential if they are to tackle their environmental as well as their other problems. If this does not seem like too much of a balancing act, I would say that we need a mixture of the two.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I welcome the general thrust of what has been said in the exchanges on the statement, and emphasise the point that expenditure will have to be involved in some aspects of it. Will the Prime Minister elaborate on what he meant when he said that the leaders had emphasised that there should be no "unproductive" expenditure, particularly in the military sphere? Will there be further developments in disarmament and particularly in getting rid of nuclear weapons—surely one of the white elephants of this century? Could not the money involved be better spent in other areas?
The Prime Minister: I meant that it is important that any aid that we give to countries is used for genuinely
682
productive purposes, not for corruption or buying weapons. Much of the debt of those countries is related to their weapons burdens. One of the reasons why it is important that Russia becomes a member and creditor of the Paris Club is precisely so that some of those debt problems can be reduced.
It is important that we continue with a properly structured aid programme and we would like to increase it if possible. But the quid pro quo is that the money must go into economies that genuinely have a chance to use it constructively. There must be an insistence that proper strings are attached to make sure that money is not wasted on corrupt or unproductive investment.
Finally, aid must be provided in a way that gives those economies a long-term future, rather than shovelling money for no proper purpose. In the end, our constituents are prepared to accept that we have an international and moral responsibility, but they insist—perfectly reasonably—that if money is spent, it should be spent properly.
Mr. Tony McNulty: Did the Prime Minister underline to the other Heads of Government the importance of ensuring the stability, peace and democratic future of Hong Kong? Will he outline some of the discussions that were held to ensure that those are guaranteed?
The Prime Minister: It is important that we have a continuing commitment to Hong Kong and, under the terms of the joint declaration, we will be involved for a significant period after the handover. We have made it clear that one of the key issues is the undertaking to hold democratic elections within 12 months of the handover. We must make sure also that we are sufficiently mobilising international opinion, so that not merely Britain but all parts of the international community are exerting pressure. The importance of the words in that communiqué was precisely that—there was a consensus in the international community that the joint declaration must be adhered to.
We want a strong and stable relationship with China—that is important to the future of the people of Hong Kong—but it must be on the basis of adherence to the terms of the joint declaration. That is the international agreement we concluded and that must be the basis for our relationship with China and Hong Kong.
Mr. John Wilkinson: The Prime Minister said that he was looking to an integrated transport strategy on the part of the United Kingdom to achieve the British contribution towards a reduction of 15 per cent. in greenhouse gases by the European Union by 2010. Can we therefore expect that, in perhaps the most congested and polluted part of the United Kingdom in terms of road transport—Greater London and the south-east of England—the Government will be investing money in improving public transport and, in particular, in London Underground, which is grievously in need of investment to which Labour committed itself during the election campaign?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will make proposals in respect of London Underground in due

683
course. Pollution in London is a big problem and that is precisely why the integrated transport strategy is the right one. Next spring, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will publish a White Paper on integrated transport as a whole. I look forward to its receiving the hon. Member's support and that of other Conservative Members, because that will be extremely important if we have any chance of meeting the EU target.
Mr. Phil Hope: I congratulate the Prime Minister on his success at the summit. What progress was made on the UN funding crisis and, in particular, on the refusal of the United States to pay its contribution to the UN?
The Prime Minister: Without exaggerating to my hon. Friend, I think that I can say that some progress is being made. President Clinton is personally committed to resolving the funding crisis and it has helped enormously that the new Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has made such a good and promising start in the reforms that he is making to the United Nations secretariat and the way in which it works. There is a general consensus that if those reforms receive the requisite degree of support and genuinely go deep and strong and make the necessary changes, the funding crisis should be resolved. We certainly want it to be resolved. It is very much in our interests that it is.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Since I took silk a minute or so, I think, before the Prime Minister's wife, may I suggest that he takes my advice on the employment of QCs rather than that of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? I congratulate him on his kind remarks about his predecessor and his Government over the Rio targets. It was gracious of him to acknowledge that. As I think that he represents a partly rural constituency, as I do, will he ensure that nothing that the Government do in seeking to achieve environmental targets damages the rural economy or the ability of our farmers and other rural residents to make a living and thrive in the modern economy?
The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind words about my remarks. I believe that achieving those environmental targets will not damage the rural economy at all. Indeed, properly done, they should help it, since farmers and those living in rural communities would perhaps benefit as much as anyone from a better transport system and, of course, people in rural communities will particularly benefit from greater energy efficiency.
The only way that we will make this argument on the environment work is when people cease to believe that it requires some sort of sacrifice of their interests and recognise that it is in everyone's collective interest that we make the changes to the environment that are plainly and obviously necessary.
Mr. Michael Clapham: Did the G8 discuss during the session on international crime ways and measures to prevent child pornography?
The Prime Minister: We did not discuss that specifically and I do not believe that it was specifically
684
referred to in the communiqué, although the subject was raised at the European Union summit in Amsterdam, where suggestions were made as to how we can co-operate on such issues. It is important that we do so. In general terms, there was a reference in the communiqué to different types of organised crime. On paedophiles, one of the most worrying aspects is that there is some evidence that that crime is happening on an organised basis across national boundaries. Perhaps that is something which we can study in the run-up to the Birmingham summit next year.
Sir David Madel: What the Prime Minister said on green issues at Denver will considerably affect the car industry and employment unless those matters are handled carefully. I remind the Prime Minister of the extreme anxiety on the Benches behind him when Ford threatened the production of the Escort at Halewood. The thing to do is to change the tax system so that car manufacturers are encouraged to produce more fuel-efficient and pollution-free engines. That is the way to guarantee jobs and satisfy environmentalists.
The Prime Minister: I agree that incentives have a role to play, although I cannot comment on any particular taxation proposals. Most people accept that it will be a matter of choice whether people use their cars. We should try to give them a better choice than they have at present. There are plenty of people who, in certain instances, would use public transport if it were there and available to them. The evidence from abroad as well as here, in certain instances, is clear.
I agree that this has to be done in co-operation with the car industry. That is absolutely essential. The hon. Gentleman will remember that when the debates about catalytic converters and unleaded petrol were taking place, the car industry came on side after a time to help develop those initiatives and they were successful. I commend to him the speech on the environment and business made by John Browne, the head of British Petroleum, a few weeks ago. He will see from that that many people in business see environmental measures as having a positive effect on business, not a negative one.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: I welcome the acknowledgement that limitation of arms and military expenditure in sub-Saharan Africa is extremely important. Were there any specific proposals to achieve it?
The Prime Minister: The initiative is one which I announced in relation to our own programmes. As the money is allocated, my hon. Friend will be able to see the conditions on which the aid is given. We are anxious to ensure that the money is spent on education, health care and sanitation; it is important that we ensure that no aid is being siphoned off into what is effectively military expenditure. He will see that developing. On the multilateral side, we intend to carry on working with other countries to get those principles accepted by them, too.
Mr. Graham Brady: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is vital that we seek

685
to move freight from roads to railways? Will he join me in congratulating the privatised rail industry on the measures that it has taken to encourage that process?
The Prime Minister: I am happy to congratulate anyone who contributes to solving the problem. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions is in touch with the rail operators at the moment, to consider how they can help to make the system more integrated. One of the worries that people always had about privatisation was that it would break up and fragment a unified system. It may be possible within the existing system to try to mitigate some of those problems. That is precisely what we want to work on. If the rail operators help us to achieve that, I shall be the first to congratulate them.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the stand that he took on the environment. I am sure that at Denver he spoke of the link between solving the problems of the environment and jobs and employability. Will he ensure that we in this country start to make that link? I am sure that he has seen the dispiriting league table showing that the investment record of the private sector over the past year was down yet again under the previous Government. If we are to tackle the environment and make jobs out of tackling it, we must lead in research. I hope that my right hon. Friend will lead a crusade on that.
The Prime Minister: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that we will make the link between jobs and employability and the environment, as we recognise that it is important to do so. Recent estimates by independent international organisations suggest that environmental technology could be one of the growth areas in employment over the next few decades.
It is tremendously important that we also recognise that those companies with the most advanced technology, capable of producing greater energy efficiency, are among the most successful anywhere in the world. Companies find that if, for example, they introduce proper measures for waste recycling, and engage properly with energy efficiency, they not only contribute to the overall impact on the environment of business but reduce their costs. It is extremely important to make the connection, and we will certainly do so.
Mr. James Clappison: I welcome the Prime Minister's frankness in acknowledging that the previous Government's policies, such as the energy efficiency best practice programme and the home energy efficiency scheme, enabled this country to be one of the minority of developed nations that met and surpassed their targets on greenhouse gases. Does he favour a switch to coal-fired power stations?
The Prime Minister: On the latter point—as the hon. Gentleman knows, because we agreed with it when it was the previous Government's policy—I favour a balanced energy policy. We have been perfectly happy all the way through to agree on the energy efficiency measures that were introduced under the previous Government and which we will develop. Indeed, the environmental task force will be a development of existing policies.
686
In respect of renewable energy, we are encouraging the greater use of solar energy and wind power, particularly through the non-fossil fuel obligation, which encourages power suppliers to make use of renewable energy sources. We will introduce a Bill to ensure that the levy continues, as it would otherwise expire next year. I am perfectly happy to accept that good work was done before; it was done with the Labour party's consent and we look forward to developing it further. If that can be done on the basis of political agreement, so much the better.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: I welcome everything that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about the conditions for giving overseas aid, but is it not vital that we recognise that developing nations have so much poverty, on scales that we can hardly envisage, to eliminate that they sometimes find that the less environmentally advantageous way is the easy way? It is essential that overseas aid and the environment are linked, because environmental problems never recognise national boundaries.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. That is one reason why it is important that, when we increase our aid to sub-Saharan Africa, we do so on the basis of programmes that will be environmentally beneficial as well as assisting the development of those countries. During the UN special session, we also announced measures that will assist forestry. There is a range of issues where we can link aid and the development assistance that we are giving to measures that will improve the environment. That should be read in conjunction with the measures to reduce the level of debt. For many of those countries, the level of debt is the single biggest problem that they face.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On greenhouse gas reductions, the right hon. Gentleman knows that much of Europe, and certainly his party, was wedded to carbon taxes. Was that raised at the Denver summit or later at the environment summit? How did the Prime Minister persuade people that his Government were keen on reducing greenhouse gases when it is their policy to reduce the cost of domestic fuels by taking money off VAT?
The Prime Minister: We have no proposals to introduce carbon taxes and that was not discussed at Denver. We believe that the measures that we have outlined will give us the very best chance of meeting the targets that we have set ourselves. The single best thing that we can do in relation to that is to improve energy efficiency. VAT on fuel harmed a lot of people, particularly those living in poverty, who faced rising fuel bills and sometimes, in the case of old age pensioners, a choice between heating and eating in winter. That is not acceptable.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: My right hon. Friend made passing reference to international fisheries management. Has Japan made any promise to impose tougher restraints on its tuna fishing fleet? May I remind him that that fleet has imposed severe economic damage on numerous coastal or littoral nations in the third world and that its vessels are beginning to appear in the north Atlantic?
The Prime Minister: I am not aware of any particular moves by the Japanese on international fisheries

687
management. Perhaps I could write to my hon. Friend on the tuna fishing fleet, because I am afraid that I cannot give an answer off the top of my head.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: I understand that there will be a further statement this week on earth summit 2, but, meanwhile, could the Prime Minister tell us more about the evolving American position on greenhouse gas emissions? America is responsible for 25 per cent. of global CO2 emissions. Is it likely that the United States will agree to significant reductions in Kyoto in December? Does he agree that environmental sustainability must become a major foreign policy issue and that countries that refuse to take it seriously should be regarded as a threat to global security?
The Prime Minister: I agree that it is important that we co-operate with other countries in safeguarding the environment, which is why we have taken the action that we have. In respect of the United States, there was some progress at Denver because all the countries committed themselves to binding targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases by 2010. That is a step forward. I think that the critical time will be between now and the Kyoto conference, when I very much hope that the United States will be able to do that. I think that both the President and the Vice-President are personally sympathetic, but obviously big interests are involved, and the United States has particular problems. I am hopeful of making progress.
Mr. Michael Connarty: Everyone commends the Prime Minister and the G7 leaders for their initiative on sub-Saharan Africa. Did they discuss indebtedness and poverty in Asia and in central and south America, where, for example, Nicaragua had, when I last read about it, the single largest debt per head of population of any country in the world? That is linked to the growth and distribution of addictive drugs such as cocaine and heroin. Was there discussion of whether policing was not enough and whether programmes were needed to lift such countries out of poverty and their dependence on growing addictive drugs?
The Prime Minister: There certainly was discussion of the debt problems of countries not only in Africa but in South America and elsewhere. There is a recognition that the problem is not by any means limited to Africa. There are programmes in place that encourage development of the economies of indebted countries and reduce their dependence on the production of drugs. Part of the discussion this week in New York at the UN special session will be on how to intensify those programmes and make them more effective.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: While I am sure that the Prime Minister is right to be critical of those industrial countries that have done little or nothing on CO2 emissions, does he agree that it is vital that we press ahead and do the most that we can for both our own environment and the global environment? Will he make it clear that there is no truth in the interpretation that has been put on the comments of some Ministers that Britain will stick to the new Government's 20 per cent. target for
688
cuts in CO2 emissions only if other countries co-operate in cutting their emissions? Will he confirm that our target is not conditional on the action of others?
The Prime Minister: It is not a conditional target, but the truth is that it is much easier for us to meet it if other countries are moving in the same direction. That is in a sense a statement of the obvious.
I believe that there is a general will in the European Union to make progress. It is possible that by Kyoto we will get a better deal than anything that is on the table now. Under the measures that we are taking now, we will achieve a 10 per cent. reduction by the year 2000 of 1990 levels. That is well in line with what we can then do to achieve our target. It is possible to do this by taking measures that are sensible in any event, but it is obviously easier if other countries are also taking such measures.
Mr. Barry Jones: With regard to the Prime Minister's welcome remarks on employment, how soon does he think that we can see more long-term unemployed, and the army of unskilled unemployed, placed in meaningful employment? My right hon. Friend will know that that is a matter of urgent interest in Wales, for example.
The Prime Minister: I hope very much that we can make a start on that as soon as we have provisions in our programme, such as the windfall tax, in place. There was a strong recognition among all countries that structural unemployment—people are sometimes unemployed through generations—is a problem which we all have a responsibility to tackle in our countries. Many of the problems relating to crime and social disorder stem from structural unemployment.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Britain has a good record on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, but does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that much of it is due to low economic growth in the early 1990s and, more especially, the dash for gas in the past few years? I agree with the 20 per cent. target by 2010, but it is set against 2.25 per cent. per year economic growth, which is a compound 50 per cent. increase in living standards. To use 20 per cent. less energy will entail a 50 per cent. increase in energy efficiency. We are setting ourselves demanding targets, which may mean hard choices.
The Prime Minister: It can be said that the progress that we have made is in some part governed by the low levels of economic activity in the years immediately following 1990, but we are on course to meet the target in 2000—10 per cent., at least half of the total—with projections of growth of more than 2 per cent. per year. I believe that it is well possible to do it. Yes, it will require a real seriousness of intent, but we have only scratched the surface of the possibilities of energy efficiency. There is an awful lot more that can be done and which we will do.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: In relation to the money agreed for restoring the sarcophagus at Chernobyl, was there specific agreement on a time scale for that to be done? As we know that in Russia and other parts of the former Soviet Union there are other nuclear power

689
stations that have the same sort of outdated technology and pose the same potential dangers as Chernobyl, what discussion was there on what could be done to prevent another Chernobyl in the future?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point. A significant part of our discussion was devoted not only to the problems of the remaining reactors at Chernobyl, but to other outdated nuclear reactors. Of the money that has been pledged, the European Union's share will come principally from the TACIS programme—technical assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States—but there will be a small bilateral contribution from Britain spread over a number of years. That is absolutely essential if we are to reach the target date of closing Chernobyl by 2000.
There is a great sense of concern that it is important that we move ahead in this matter, and the memorandum of understanding that we reached with Ukraine will be tremendously important in that respect. We will make progress, but I have to say that it was one of the most concerning aspects of our discussions, because there is still an awful lot that needs to be done.

Orders of the Day

  Plant Varieties Bill
  Order for Second Reading read
  4.35 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The basic purpose of the Bill is to implement the 1991 revisions to the international convention for the protection of new varieties of plants, or the UPOV convention as it is commonly known—UPOV is a French acronym, which I shall not seek to translate for the House. At the same time, the Bill will align the standards of protection offered by United Kingdom national systems of plant breeders' rights with those already available under the parallel, but quite separate, European Community plant breeders' rights regime, which was established in September 1994. The UK will therefore be able to ratify the international convention.
  Plant breeders' rights are a form of intellectual property—similar in many ways to patents—which enable plant breeders to obtain protection for their new varieties and an income, through royalties, from their commercial exploitation. A vibrant and successful plant breeding industry, committed to investment in developing new, improved varieties, is vital to the success of UK agriculture and of the nursery trade. A robust system of plant variety protection is essential to provide the necessary incentives to investment in plant breeding.
  In many ways, I would describe the Bill as a one-nation Bill, where old Labour—[Laughter.] I shall say that again: this is a one-nation Bill, where old Tory meets new Labour.
  Mr. David Curry: Did the Minister write his own speech?
  Mr. Rooker: Yes, I did write this bit.
  The Bill implements a 1991 international agreement of the previous Government. Consultation was conducted in November 1994 and a draft Bill was published in February this year. As 80 per cent. of the Bill re-enacts existing legislation, I do not propose to treat the House to a detailed speech on Second Reading as though this was a brand new subject, fresh to the House. I will, of course, touch on the main changes from existing legislation, because it is important to do so for proper scrutiny. Subject to the will of the House, we will take other stages today and I am willing to answer detailed questions about specific aspects in Committee, given that there are several amendments to be discussed.
  Plant breeding is an international system which, for more than 30 years, has been underpinned at international level by the UPOV convention. The UK played a major role in the development of the first UPOV convention, which was signed in 1961, and was a founder member of the union established by the convention. The union remains the main international forum for discussion,

  691
  co-operation and agreement on plant variety protection; the UK played a leading role in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has my hon. Friend any idea who will represent the United Kingdom in future?
  Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is predictable. Earlier this morning, because the matter was not covered in the briefings, I asked my officials about the devolution aspects of the Bill. On the basis that the controller of plant variety rights represents the United Kingdom, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food covers the budget.
  To the best of my knowledge, and subject to discussion on other legislation, the controller will continue to represent the United Kingdom. This may or may not be a devolved matter, but it seems inconceivable that it would be in future. Basically, this is a United Kingdom issue. The United Kingdom is a member of UPOV and will continue to be. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, because I had raised it in any event and we need clarity; needless to say, it will come in future legislation.
  Technology has moved on since 1964 and it was the driving force behind the revisions in 1991. Israel, Denmark and the Netherlands have already ratified the 1991 revisions. When the Bill receives Royal Assent and once we have ratified the convention, we shall be the third member of the European Union to ratify it. It is worth taking a lead in Europe and setting an example. Against that background, it is essential to provide UK plant breeders with the additional protection of the 1991 convention, to provide a secure basis for future investment in breeding in this country.
  It is highly desirable that we bring our national system of protection in line with that of the Community regime, which is already based on the 1991 convention. Plant breeders have a choice between national systems of protection and the Community system, which offers a right that is valid in all 15 member states. The Community regime is, however, more expensive than the national systems. A breeder who intends to commercialise his variety in one or two EU countries will find it more economic, therefore, to opt for national protection, provided the protection is as good as that offered by the Community regime. That is an important aspect of the Bill.
  If the national regime is aligned with the Community regime, plant breeders will be able to obtain the same standards of protection more cheaply if they intend to confine commercialisation of a variety to the UK or perhaps to one or two other EU countries. However, it will also put an end to the confusion that can arise when two systems that are different, but have the same users—plant breeders, farmers and seed processors—operate side by side.
  In broad terms, the main changes in the Bill compared to the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964 are, first, that the possibility of protection is extended to all genera and species; secondly, that the rules on prior exploitation in advance of an application for rights are relaxed to allow breeders, if they so wish and are prepared to take the risk, to test the market in the UK for their varieties before
  692
  seeking protection; thirdly, that a simplified system of provisional protection pending a grant of rights is introduced; and, fourthly, that the breeder's right is strengthened and extended in several areas.
  We are also taking the opportunity to extend the period during which proceedings may be taken for contravention of seed regulations from six to 12 months in Great Britain. That mainly affects what I might call, in my language, the seed potato scams in Scotland. That provision is contained in clause 44.
  When one compares the Bill to the 1964 Act, one finds that perhaps the most fundamental changes are in clause 6 and 7; I shall concentrate on those and on references to clause 9.
  Clauses 6 and 7 set out the scope of plant breeders' rights. The basic right in the 1964 Act is the exclusive right to sell propagating material of a protected variety or produce propagating material for sale. The Bill changes the nature of the breeder's right from the right to do to the right to prevent others from doing certain things with propagating material of a protected variety. This brings plant breeders' rights closer to patent rights, but the change in itself is, and will be, thought to have little practical effect.
  Clause 6 sets out the extent of the breeder's rights in a protected variety. The key change is the much wider scope of things that the breeder can prevent others from doing without his authority, including, for example, any production or reproduction of propagating material, conditioning—by which I mean preparing for planting—import, export and so on. Taken together, provisions in clause 6 give the breeder control of all the things necessary to exploit a variety. That includes the use of farm-saved seed, which I shall come to when I discuss clause 9.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: Does it also include the breeder's right to constrain the use by others, in varieties that have already been developed, of genetic manipulation, and the apportionment of the rights in those cases? I raise that point now for later consideration.
  Mr. Rooker: I do not want to repeat myself, but I guarantee that I shall refer to that later—if not on Second Reading, in Committee.
  In normal circumstances, the breeder's right is exhausted once propagating material is disposed of with his consent to produce a commercial crop. For example, he cannot exercise control of wheat seed sold to produce a crop of milling wheat and used for that purpose. In other words, the breeder has no control of the production or use of consumption crops.
  However, the ability of the breeder to take action against infringement of his rights has been strengthened by extending his rights to harvested material that has been obtained from the unauthorised use of propagating material, in circumstances where the breeder has not had a reasonable opportunity to exercise rights against the material before it is harvested.
  The Bill includes an optional provision from the 1991 convention that allows Ministers to extend rights, by regulation, to specific products made directly from harvested material of particular types of varieties that have been obtained through unauthorised use of propagating and harvested material, where the breeder has not had a reasonable opportunity to exercise his rights at an earlier stage. That is a crucial part of the changes.

  693
  The extension of rights to enable the breeder to act against harvested material and, where provided for in regulations, directly made products, is known as the "cascade" principle. I emphasise that it does not give plant breeders a choice between acting against propagating or consumption material. The breeder must always act against infringement of his rights at the earliest possible stage. He must, therefore, act against unauthorised use of propagating material right up to the point of harvest, if he can reasonably do so. If he knows of an infringement of his rights before harvest of the infringing material, he must act at that point—he cannot decide to wait until after harvest and act against the consumption crop.
  The most obvious instance where a breeder might not have the opportunity to exercise rights at an earlier stage is unauthorised use of propagating material outside the United Kingdom, in a country that does not offer protection to it, followed by the import of harvested material or, possibly, of a product made directly from the harvested material. An example would be the import of cut flowers that have been created from that earlier material. The breeder would have no opportunity to act because the flowers would be created outside the UK and the breeder would not know about it beforehand, but the import of the product of that seed is the point at which he can take action.
  Clause 7 implements the extension of the breeder's right in a protected variety to encompass a second variety dependent on it, which is a new provision in the 1991 convention.
  There are two types of dependency. The first, which is already recognised in the 1964 Act, occurs when a dependent variety can be obtained only as a result of repeated use of a protected variety. The most common example is that of hybrid varieties that can be obtained only by returning constantly to the parent line. In practical terms, that shift of emphasis is unlikely to have a substantial effect on the current use and production of hybrids, especially as parent lines and dependent hybrids are commonly "owned" by the same plant breeder.
  The second type of dependency recognised in the Bill—essential derivation—represents a more fundamental change, introduced to address developments in plant breeding technology. Protected varieties may freely be used in plant breeding programmes. The free use of germplasm to develop new varieties is, and has always been, a fundamental principle of UPOV. However, where the resultant change is very small—typically, one characteristic—but sufficient to make the second variety distinct from the initial variety, and in all other respects the second variety expresses the same characteristics as the initial variety, it may be essentially derived from the initial variety. In other words, there is no cop-out. The plant breeder's rights are protected.
  Clause 7 extends the umbrella of protection in the initial variety to cover the essentially derived variety. It is possible, with modern technology, for people to try to find ways around these protections; but tracing back to the original variety is also now possible. It is important to protect the intellectual rights of the breeder—hence this important part of the Bill.
  The consequence of this change is that the breeder of the initial variety has the right to prevent anyone from doing any of the acts in clause 6 in respect of the
  694
  essentially derived variety—in other words, he can prevent its commercial exploitation. The essentially derived variety may or may not be protected in its own right. If it is protected by a different person from the one with the initial variety, then the authorisation of both is required to enable it to be exploited. If it is not protected, authorisation is required only from the holder of rights in the initial variety.
  This enables the breeder of a protected variety to obtain a fair return on his investment. Such investments are made over many years and yield an uncertain return. In practical terms, those working on a breeding programme that may result in an essentially derived variety can be expected to reach agreement on its commercialisation with the owner of the initial variety—otherwise, there would be little point in their work. This is not a matter on which the Government should take a stand; it is a matter for commercial negotiation between the people concerned, and they have the right to insist on such negotiations.
  The 1991 convention also allows contracting states to restrict the breeder's right in respect of farm-saved seed, subject to safeguarding the legitimate interests of the breeder. Income from royalties is essential to encourage investment in UK plant breeding. Use of farm-saved seed without payment of royalty denies breeders income from their investment and restricts their ability to invest further in development.
  Although the Bill exempts the use of farm-saved seed of the main agricultural crops from the breeder's right, it nevertheless balances this with a requirement on farmers to make payment to breeders when seed is farm saved. For non-experts like me, that means farmers taking the seed from a crop, saving it, and replanting it. Personally, I had never heard of farm-saved seed until recently—but it is an important element here. Several million pounds of investment are at stake.
  Mr. Dalyell: I can sympathise with my hon. Friend. None of us is an expert in this area—it would take a professor of plant breeding studies to master it.
  The briefing notes to clause 9 state that the 1991 convention
  "does not allow contracting parties to restrict the breeder's right in respect of varieties whose production requires the repeated use of protected variety".
  I understand that there is some difficulty at law in defining the repeated use of protected variety. I do not expect the Minister to answer off the top of his head, but if he has access to legal advice, perhaps he can return to the subject later.
  Mr. Rooker: I shall deal with my hon. Friend's point on clause stand part.
  Mr. William Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman know that some people believe strongly that the Bill should be amended to make clause 9(6) apply only to varieties produced since 1 January 1992? Has the Minister received any representations about that; and what does he propose to do about it?
  Mr. Rooker: The answer is yes. I shall come to the point later on, and we can discuss it in greater detail in the clause stand part debate.

  695
  A similar provision permitting farmers to use farm-saved seed without the breeder's prior permission is in the Community regime, and UK plant breeders have been collecting payment for the use of farm-saved seed of Community-protected varieties since last autumn.
  Farmers will therefore be able to farm saved seed of varieties of these species for use on their own holdings without the breeder's authority. Unless they come into one of the exempt categories, though, they will be required to pay the breeder equitable remuneration which is sensibly lower than the royalty charged on certified seed of the same variety in the same area. Those points are clarified further in the legislation.
  It is for breeders and farmers to negotiate what to charge for the use of farm-saved seed, taking account of the requirement that the charge must be sensibly lower than the royalty on certified seed. The Bill gives guidance on what is meant by sensibly lower by reference to the Community regime. But it does not put any figure on it, and the Government do not intend to intervene in what we believe are essentially commercial matters between breeders and farmers.
  The requirement to pay for the use of farm-saved seed will apply to varieties protected under the 1964 Act, as well as new varieties that come into protection after the Bill comes into force.
  Some farmers are exempt from the requirement to pay. There is a permanent exemption for small farmers as defined in the Community regime; it is referred to in the arable areas payments scheme. Furthermore, farmers who have saved seed of a particular variety before the Act comes into force may also continue to do so, free of charge, until Ministers discontinue this prior-use exemption by order. A similar prior-use exemption is in the Community regime. This expires on 30 June 2001, though the Council regulation makes it clear that that date is subject to review in the light of a report that the Commission is required to make before then, and may be extended on a variety, group or species basis, depending on the findings in the report.
  We intend to discontinue the prior-use exemption at the same time as the corresponding provision in the Community regime is discontinued. I assure the House that that will not be before 30 June 2001, which means that the majority of farmers who have saved seed of older UK-protected varieties before this Bill comes into force may continue to do so free of charge until 30 June 2001 at least.
  I have been impressed over the past couple of weeks to read about the approach that the breeders, farmers and seed processors adopted to the farm-saved seed issue when it was first broached for Community-protected varieties. I also commend the former Government: the legislation was their draft Bill. For years we pushed for it, when in opposition. We all gladly embrace the idea of draft Bills—as far as humanly possible, legislation should be presented, following White and Green Papers, in draft form to those outside. The approach to the Bill has been constructive throughout.
  Clause 10 makes it clear that the breeder's right is exhausted once propagating material is disposed of by him or with his authority.
  The rest of the Bill relates to general issues: the maintenance and naming of varieties, offences, compulsory licences, appeals to the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal,
  696
  the work of the controller, and so on. Details are set out in the schedules. The Bill is technically complex, and its importance is not to be measured by the number of its clauses—any more than the importance of some Community legislation can be gauged from its length. About 80 per cent. of the Bill's contents are simply existing legislation, re-enacted and simplified, and designed to meet the UK's obligations under international conventions. I commend it to the House.
  4.58 pm
  Mr. David Curry: The Minister rightly said that he is the Bill's godfather; it was a foundling in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he arrived there. I do not know whether he discovered it with great enthusiasm, but it is an important addition to British legislation which aligns us with international law and we do not intend to oppose it.
  I suppose that I should declare an interest as a keen vegetable gardener. Whether saving a few examples of broad bean seed from one year to the next constitutes a punishable or taxable offence, I am not clear.
  I realise that this subject may not be wholly redolent of the romance and mystery that affect some parts of MAFF. Some of the Minister's sentences resembled the chunks of prose that are dropped on the desks of unsuspecting third formers at Ripon grammar school with the instruction, "Punctuate." The Secretary of State for Education and Employment will no doubt incorporate such chunks into the national curriculum to teach children to read and write in the future.
  Mr. Rooker: I simplified it.
  Mr. Curry: If the Minister simplified his speech, one can only imagine what it was like before. I shall not take him up on his admission, but this could be described as a hybrid Bill. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) might become too agitated in his seat if he feels that we are breaching constitutional practice as well.
  Mr. Dalyell: Such a thought had not occurred to me.
  Mr. Curry: We support the principles of the Bill, which implements in UK law the international agreement on plant breeders' intellectual property. I shall therefore limit my remarks to exploring a particular area. The Minister covered it to a degree and will no doubt complete his clarification in the course of today's proceedings. It concerns farm-saved seed. In March last year, the National Farmers Union reached agreement with plant breeders on payment and terms and conditions, the key element of which was that, where a variety was used before the agreement, farmers were free to continue using it without payment. Our main concern is that the Bill should respect the agreement and not impede it or cast doubt on it.
  Why does clause 9 empower Ministers to change the agreement by order? Under European Union legislation, no changes were envisaged in the royalty system until 2001, by which time the Commission may have formed a view. The UK legislation makes no reference to that date, although just before the Minister sat down he said with some precision that he would not act to bring that

  697
  agreement to an end until at least 2001. He has therefore given us the assurance that we sought, although I am not clear why the phraseology appeared in the Bill. Perhaps a civil servant was looking for an emergency fire escape in the event of a conflagration.
  Mr. Rooker: No date appears in the Bill so that the date can be extended, not shortened. That is why I said at least 2001.
  Mr. Curry: I am grateful to the Minister for that important clarification, which will be generally welcomed.
  The second issue relates to clause 6, which empowers Ministers to prescribe by regulation additional factors to be taken into account. Will the Minister outline what he envisages in that respect when we discuss those clauses? We have tabled amendments that are designed to encourage him to explore that matter.
  We need clarification of clause 6(2). I am familiar with the legislative use of the concept of "reasonableness". Indeed, braver men have spent much time in Committee trying to define its meaning. It would be useful to have clarification of the Government's intention in that regard.
  We support the Bill and I do not intend to blather when there is no need to do so. I accept that all Ministers have speeches like that to deliver from time to time and I look forward to the clarifications that we seek. We shall not divide the House on this matter.
  5.3 pm
  Mr. Norman Baker: May I place on record our slight concern that this important Bill is being rushed through, with all its stages being taken in one day? Our concern is shared by the National Farmers Union, which has made representations to me on that point. I know that the Government have a heavy legislative programme and want to get a lot done this Session, but the Bill should not be dealt with by a Committee of the House in one day. Neither is it as uncontroversial as the Minister implies. I accept that much of it re-enacts the 1964 Act, but things have moved on since then, with the advent of biotechnology. The Bill should reflect that change.
  Perhaps when the new Government took office their civil servants whipped out this Bill saying, "Here is one that we prepared earlier," and assured Ministers that it was both uncontroversial and urgent. They probably said that it fulfilled our European obligations, would be no problem whatever, had been subject to consultation and needed an early slot in the parliamentary timetable. I understand that the Minister and his Department have been busy finding their feet. They have had to deal with the mess of BSE and proposals for the food standards agency, and have been busy with other matters, so I understand if the points that I shall make have not been considered by them.
  I accept that, in many ways, the Bill is modest. Our concern does not necessarily lie with the Bill; the fact that it is the continuation of a process worries Liberal Democrats. I hope that Ministers will not feel obliged to defend every full stop and comma of the Bill but will be open to argument. I was pleased that the Minister responded to the point made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) a moment ago, as it was one which I intended to make.
  698
  The Bill has profound implications for the future of food production and the relationship between farmers and plant breeders. The Minister made much of the rights of breeders, but I heard little about the rights of farmers, which are of concern to Liberal Democrats. We have tabled a number of amendments following consultation with the National Farmers Union, the Soil Association, Greenpeace and others, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively. I hope that he might even be prepared to accept some of our amendments in a spirit of co-operation, or at least give an undertaking that the points that we raise today will be considered seriously once the Bill reaches the House of Lords.
  As the Minister said, the Bill amends the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964 and incorporates points from the international convention for the protection of new varieties of plants—UPOV 1991. The House in entitled to ask the wider question, whether the convention is in the public interest and the interests of farmers and consumers, as well as the narrower question of how its articles will be applied in the Bill. We have concerns about both. On the wider issue, few matters are more basic to society than the provision of a ready supply of wholesome food. Poor food supplies led to the creation of the common agricultural policy, and we are willing to spend millions of pounds each year in our determination never to run short of food again.
  There has been much talk in the House and elsewhere about the need for Britain to retain its sovereignty. I take the word sovereignty to mean our ability to determine our own destiny and to have in place arrangements that prevent our being beholden, against our wishes, to external powers in whatever form. None the less, we are now faced with the problem that, within 10 years, five American biotechnology companies may control some 80 per cent. of our staples. Monsanto, the American giant, has predicted that, within a decade, genetically modified crops will be the norm in 80 per cent. of temperate regions. I prefer to say modified to engineered because engineering is a precise art and that is not what those companies indulge in.
  The change represents a massive transfer of power away from British farmers and consumers to unaccountable transnational companies. Monsanto, the chemical company, has been active in getting a big stake in the seed business. Its boss, Robert Shapiro, is quoted in The Economist of 26 April 1997 as saying that he wants Monsanto to be the main provider of "agricultural biotechnology". By August 1995, his company was the world leader—I do not use the term in a flattering way—in securing biotech plant patents. On one estimate, again quoted in The Economist of 26 April 1997, the world market for genetically altered seeds will reach $7 billion by 2005, compared with only $450 million in 1995. It is interesting to note that Monsanto's share price rose from $14 at the beginning of 1995 to $39 by April 1997.
  The seed business is big business, particularly for chemical companies which are increasingly buying up seed companies. This year alone, Monsanto has bought three seed breeding and marketing companies for more than £1 billion, and Rhone-Poulenc has merged with Merck MSDA to become the world's largest poultry, genetics and animal health business.

  699
  The Bill acts in some ways as a catalyst and facilitator for transnational companies such as Monsanto to exert unprecedented control over our agriculture. I do not believe that hon. Members on either side of the House want that.
  I refer hon. Members to an excellent publication called "Future of our seeds" by Vandana Shiva, which lists on page 4 the way in which seed companies and chemical companies have converged. It also lists on page 17 the top 14 owners of biotechnology plant patents: 12 out of 14 are American, with only ICI Zeneca from this country getting a look-in. Monsanto comes top with 18 separate patents, as of August 1995. The author concludes:
  "Transnational companies will decide what is grown by farmers, what they use as inputs, and when they sell their produce, to whom and at what price."
  If that is even partly true, it should be a matter of concern to hon. Members. If they doubt the truth of that, let us ask why transnational companies are spending billions of pounds investing in seed companies and why the stock market is responding by increasing their share value dramatically.
  One of the main reasons for such investment is to produce genetically modified seed that is tied into the use of pesticides, so that farmers are obliged to buy those companies' products. Some pesticide patents—I am thinking of Roundup—are due to end shortly. How convenient it is for those companies to be able to patent seeds that are dependent on those pesticides, and so to give them a new lease of life.
  Apart from concern about the transfer of power to unaccountable transnational companies, there are grave concerns about the environmental consequences of the fast move towards genetically modified crops. I note that in the preamble to the Bill, on page v, under the heading "Environmental impact", the words "There is none" appear. Had I been sitting on a chair at the time, I would have fallen off when I read that. That statement is incredible.
  The Bill will lead inevitably to the production by transnational companies of seed varieties that may superficially bring benefits, but which could produce substantial long-term environmental problems. A comparison with nuclear power comes to mind. That was going to be clean and too cheap to meter—the best thing since sliced bread. It has turned out to be expensive and a proven danger to people and the environment on the occasions when the roulette wheel stops in the wrong place. I believe that that is a fair comparison to make with genetically modified crops.
  I shall try to give the House some feel for the environmental dangers. First, there is the creation of a permanent reliance on pesticides, which at present are optional. Early this week, I asked the Minister of State what plans he had to encourage organic farming, and I was given a positive response by the Government that they are committed to that sector, as I am sure they are. However, the Bill helps to pull the rug from underneath the sector, not only by building in a reliance on pesticides, but by raising doubts that any farmer in the future will be able to guarantee that his crops are organic, when there is the possibility of migration in the air of material from a genetically modified crop in a neighbouring field, which might latch on to a similar crop nearby.
  Secondly, there is the prospect that a modified crop might become a devastating weed, either by invading the countryside or by hybridising with another species to form
  700
  such a weed. Many of the traits that crop geneticists seek to engineer into their crops may increase the likelihood that they will survive as weeds. One need only think of animal species that were introduced into our country and which have changed the balance of the countryside significantly, such as the rabbit, the grey squirrel and the mink. Do we want to take huge gambles with new and unpredictable crop varieties which, once released into the environment, cannot be recalled?
  Mr. John Hayes: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the trebling of yields—for example, of cereal crops—since the last war is at least 50 per cent. the result of the work of breeders? Is that not worth the efforts that he is decrying and disparaging? It is in the farmers' interests, as well as the breeders'.
  Mr. Baker: I acknowledge that breeders have rights, and we seek not to take away those rights, but to modify them so that there is a balance between the right of the breeder and that of the farmer.
  Mr. Boswell: Following the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), does the hon. Gentleman accept that stringent safeguards on the release of genetic material to the environment are already in place and that those are designed to meet—and in my view substantially do meet—exactly the fears that he has expressed? Material is not loosely let out into the environment without proper consideration of the possible dangers, including any long-run dangers from genetic escape.
  Mr. Baker: I do not accept that. I remember being a researcher in this place when the Environmental Protection Act 1990 was produced, and I know how little coverage was given to clauses relating to genetically engineered material. I am also aware that there is controversy over imported maize and the inability to separate maize that is genetically engineered from that which is not. I am not happy with that, and I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point.
  My third environmental concern is that there is a danger of increased pesticide residues in our food. Crops can be drenched with pesticides—perhaps they even need to be drenched with pesticides to grow under the genetically engineered arrangement. That increases the prospect of residues remaining on the finished product.
  Fourthly, there is the danger of increased resistance in target insects on crops. At present, pesticides are applied in bursts, whereas an insect-killing gene in the plant will destroy susceptible insects daily. Constant exposure could lead insects to evolve resistance even more quickly than they already do.
  Fifthly, there is the question of marker genes, which are attached to what might be called the genetic payload to be inserted to find out how quickly it has arrived at its destination. One popular type of marker, as the Minister will know, is the gene that makes plants resistant to antibiotics. Instead of waiting for the plants to grow, researchers can simply test them with the antibiotic. The direct concern is that genes conferring resistance to antibiotics might find their way into bacteria when the crops decay in the ground or in the stomach of animals. That must encourage a build-up in resistance to antibiotics, which is already a significant problem.

  701
  Sixthly, there is the possibility of unwanted reactions in health terms from eating genetically altered material. Already there has been the case of one type of soya bean that has had to be abandoned because the inclusion of a gene from the Brazil nut generated in some people the same allergic reaction as comes from eating Brazil nuts themselves.
  There is the further objection that the private ownership of genetic material which is encouraged by the Bill is, in my view, ethically questionable. We are increasingly moving towards a patenting of life in all its forms, which I find profoundly worrying.
  Such private ownership exacerbates the gap between the rich north and the poor south. We heard from the Prime Minister today and from the Secretary of State for International Development on a previous occasion that the Government are keen to close that gap. I believe them, but the Bill will not help. The resources are predominantly in the south, whereas the technology is in the north. The north therefore wants to claim the south's resources as common goods, but to charge the south for the modified result.
  Biotechnology developments promote the move of genetic resources from goods that are freely available to all into goods that are privately owned. Some hon. Members may feel that the risks and objections that I have outlined are overstated, but if only one or two of them are justified, that merits concern. I have listed several objections. If only one or two are worth while, that is a matter of concern.
  These concerns are held not only on the Liberal Democrat Benches. There has been much greater public debate about these matters in other European countries. Governments in Italy, Austria and Luxembourg have banned their farmers from growing genetically modified maize. The European Parliament recently demanded a halt to the sale of such maize throughout the European Union, pending further investigations into its safety. In April, 1 million Austrians signed a petition calling for a total ban on genetically altered foods.
  Hon. Members will know that in Britain the NFU has expressed concerns about genetically altered crops in some respects and about key aspects of the Bill. The amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon emanate from the NFU and have Liberal Democrat support.
  Particular concern has been expressed by the National Farmers Union for Scotland. Scottish farmers tend to grow older varieties of wheat, barley and potatoes as newer plant varieties often produce inferior crops under Scottish growing conditions. At present, farmers are exempt from payments on older plant varieties, but the Bill puts at risk the agreement reached on exempted varieties that were granted protection prior to 27 April 1991. Will the Minister address that specific point when he responds to the debate?
  Mr. Dalyell: I represent a potato growing area in Scotland. Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House the problem to which he refers?
  Mr. Baker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to a letter from the Scottish branch of the NFU, of which I am happy to
  702
  give him a copy. It points out that crop varieties currently available to Scottish farmers that pre-date 1991 do not incur any extra payments to plant breeders. However, the Bill may introduce retrospective charges.
  English farmers are also unhappy with the Bill. I have received a letter from a Kent farmer, who states:
  "The main proposal under this Bill is to enable the cartel of international seed producers to levy a sum on all farm saved seed. At a time when it is Government policy to promote free enterprise and let market forces prevail it is the exact opposite of this."
  The Minister may dispute that point, but that view is shared throughout the farming community.
  Mr. Hayes: Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the studies and the research that suggest that the incidence of disease in farm-saved seed is greater than that in certified seed? That must concern him, given his anxiety about the health risks associated with seed and plant varieties.
  Mr. Baker: I was not aware of that problem, but it is clearly an important point. However, the answer does not necessarily involve handing over power to transnational companies that will deal with the matter differently.
  I sympathise with the points made by the farmer from Kent and I do not believe that the Bill is entirely good for farmers. We must strike a balance between the legitimate interests of seed producers and those of farmers and consumers. We are not trying to say that plant breeders have no rights and do not make an important contribution to agriculture—we recognise their valuable contribution—but we recognise that farmers and consumers have rights also. The regime presented in the Bill is based on the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964, which was enacted long before genetically modified organisms had been heard of and reduces further the freedom of farmers in law in respect of saved seed. That freedom has already been eroded by technological advances that make them more dependent on chemical giants than is healthy.
  It seems to me that the plant breeders have got everything they want from the Bill. For example, why is the Minister willing in clause 4 to countenance transnationals' claiming ownership of plants that occur naturally? The Prime Minister was able to amend one clause IV, so perhaps the Minister could help on this occasion. The Minister has explained why the Bill goes beyond the requirements of EU regulations. Why does clause 11 give the Minister the power to extend the duration of plant breeders' rights beyond 30 years? These and other questions must be answered, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response when the amendments are debated.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will have gathered that my colleagues and I have considerable reservations about the increasing powers of transnational companies and the detrimental effects that their acquisition of seed companies and their billions of pounds of investment in biotechnology may have on our farmers and consumers. We accept that EU regulation must be reflected in domestic legislation, but we remain very unhappy about where the legislation is leading. We do not believe that

  703
  sufficient weight has been given to the dangers and the downsides associated with the move towards genetically altered crops that the Bill effectively endorses.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: I thought that it was Liberal Democrat policy to see European directives and regulations transferred directly into United Kingdom law.
  Mr. Baker: The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon drew attention to an attempt to go further than the European regulation, and the Minister has clarified that point. We accept that EU regulation must be reflected in domestic legislation, but that does not necessarily mean that we agree with every decision that comes out of Europe.
  We are concerned about the Bill which, in its present form, is not in the interests of our farmers and consumers. It is important to draw the attention of the House to our impending concerns about biotechnology and the way in which it is developing. Those developments must be reflected sensibly in legislation, and Ministers must address those issues carefully. For those reasons, we shall oppose the Bill's Second Reading.
  5.24 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I thank the Minister for bringing forward the legislation urgently. It is extremely important in terms of our international obligations. I see the former Minister of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) nodding, and I think that all hon. Members would agree that we owe it to other countries to act swiftly in ratifying agreements. Perhaps the Minister could explain to the House the great difficulties that we would have faced if the legislation had not been introduced before the summer recess.
  The problem is that genes are no respecters of borders. When the European Union decided earlier this year to admit imports of American maize that had been genetically engineered for resistance to insects, the European consumer affairs commissioner, Emma Bonino, admitted concern that the decision had been taken "under conomic pressure". The silos of Antwerp and Lorient were already bursting with produce when Washington threatened a trade war.
  The previous Government set up the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes—an independent body of experts chaired by Derek Burke, former chancellor of the university of East Anglia—to assess the safety of genetically modified foods. The ACNFP compares those foods with their conventional equivalents using analytical and toxicological tests. That procedure was endorsed by the World Health Organisation.
  Processed products of the genetically modified maize, which is resistant to the European corn borer and tolerant to the herbicide glufosinate-ammonium, were tested in precisely that way. The ACNFP compared the modified maize with conventional maize and concluded that the products were toxicologically and nutritionally equivalent. The EU directive on novel foods and ingredients came into force in May this year. The regulation is designed to establish a Europe-wide system for approving any such foods before they reach the market. It covers foodstuffs that contain, or have been produced from, genetically
  704
  modified organisms. Their safety will be assessed using the ACNFP's established procedure. Under the regulation, foods that pass the safety test and go on sale will have to be clearly labelled.
  As the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) said, Luxembourg and Austria have recently imposed their own bans on genetically modified maize. Some people with farming interests in Britain would like to do the same.
  First, what is the Government's reaction to that proposal, given the pressure from America? Our trade relationship with the United States is very delicate and Governments are unwilling to override existing arrangements. However, it is a vital matter of principle and perhaps it is time to make an interim statement.
  Secondly, we must ask whether we are rapidly losing the genetic diversity of our crops. That is a highly charged issue in a constituency such as Linlithgow where potatoes are the staple crop. It is even more important in East Lothian, which is famous for its seed potatoes.
  There is the problem of whether we are leaving our crops too prone to pest and plague. The former Minister with responsibility for agriculture in Scotland, Lord Lindsay, thought that the position was perhaps misleading on the potato situation and blight—this is blight phytophthora infestans, which rots the crop. Agriculturalists accept that the genetic diversity of blight strains has increased with the appearance of the A2 strain of phytophthora infestans in Europe and north America, and that it is more aggressive in causing disease.
  Greater freedom of trade and increased imports over the past 20 years have contributed to a significant increase in the number of blight strains, from one to about 15 in the United States. There have been alarming blight outbreaks in the US and Canada, but that alarm is partly a result of the new, aggressive strains producing blight disease where there was none before.
  The situation was not helped by growers and agronomists lacking practical experience of controlling the disease over about the past 25 years. The north American authorities apparently did not give sufficiently high priority to breeding late-blight resistance into potato cultivars, and this has exposed commercial crop production to the disease. The strain P infestans US-8 has proved a major problem in parts of New England, but there is little evidence that it is more pathogenic than other strains.
  Agriculture experts in Britain believe that the US-8 strain can be controlled by blight fungicides, provided that they are applied accurately and at the right time. There is no evidence that US-8 is resistant to the range of new fungicides now available.
  Internationally, farmers have responded vigorously to the challenge posed by the new blight populations, and are investing effort and resources on a number of fronts. I am told that a number of international initiatives are being developed through the international programme for potato late-blight control in Mexico. The International Potato Centre in Lima, Peru, is co-ordinating a global initiative to combat the disease.
  Central to a strategy for blight control is the need to increase the level of resistance in new varieties of potato that are now being developed. As I have said, I have moved on to my second question. I wish to know exactly what is being done to prevent a tragedy over the level of resistance, and when I talk of tragedy, I speak with considerable constituency feeling.

  705
  Tens of thousands of my constituents are the descendants of those who came from Ireland during the 1840s and 1850s as a result of potato blight. Bearing that in mind, the idea that blight could occur again is appalling. The Bill is supposedly non-political, and so may it be, but when one thinks of the political and demographic consequences of the potato blight in Ireland in the middle of the previous century, one shudders at the thought that it could ever happen again. That is precisely the issue that we are discussing.
  I do not want to rabbit on for too long, but I have a third and final question. It concerns very much the same matter that was raised properly by the hon. Member for Lewes. The issue relates to Monsanto and genetically modified seeds.
  When I receive a briefing, I believe in making it clear to the House from whom I have received it. A series of questions has been asked of me by Dr. Tom Craig from Hyde in Cheshire, who is most concerned about the news that 60,000 bags of oilseed containing the "wrong genes" had been let loose by Monsanto in Canada. Dr. Craig quotes the "St. Louis Post-Dispatch", which states that Monsanto, which is based in St. Louis—it is a chemical and biotechnology giant—last month announced that it had recalled "small quantities" of a genetically engineered canola seed containing an unapproved gene that had got into the product by mistake.
  The briefing continues to explain that the recalled canola seed was "Roundup ready", meaning that it had been genetically engineered to withstand dousing with Monsanto's herbicide, glyphosate, which is marketed under the trade name Roundup.
  The presence of the unapproved canola gene in a commercial product revealed at a minimum that Monsanto's quality assurance programmes failed in that instance and that the biotechnology regulatory system in Canada is ineffective. The regulatory system in the US is more lax than in Canada, but what is our regulatory system like? Are we better than the Canadians?
  None of us can pretend to be anything like perfect and so we cannot ask for a perfect system, especially in this instance when we are talking about very difficult matters. However, my hon. Friend the Minister comes to the Chamber with a fresh mind, and I ask for an assurance that the extremely important and pressing issues that have been raised are being tackled.
  5.35 pm
  Mr. Tim Collins: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for letting me catch your eye and make my maiden speech. I understand that it is the tradition in a maiden speech to pay tribute to one's predecessor, to say a few a few words about the constituency, to make a brief reference to the subject of the debate and then to sit down quickly before taxing too much the indulgence of the House. That is exactly what I shall do. I do so most willingly in paying a tribute to my predecessor, Michael Jopling, now happily transferred—since last week—to another place as Lord Jopling.
  Michael Jopling became the Member for what was then the constituency of Westmorland back in 1964. He carried on serving for the subsequent constituency of Westmorland
  706
  and Lonsdale, following boundary changes that were implemented in 1983. Michael is well known to the House and much liked by hon. Members. He is enormously admired in what was his constituency as a diligent, able and effective representative of his constituents' interests. He first became a Member at my age of 33. As he is now 66, right hon. and hon. Members will understand that he spent precisely half of his life to date representing people in Westmorland and Lonsdale, and did so extremely ably.
  On the national scene, Michael Jopling was the Government Chief Whip during Lady Thatcher's first term in office between 1979 and 1983. He played a critical role then in holding together a fractious Conservative party and in contributing significantly to the success of what I believe was an extremely effective, important and revolutionary time in British politics.
  Subsequently, Michael served as an effective and long-serving Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the 1980s. More recently, in the present decade, he played a role in the Jopling reforms, which I think have won widespread acceptance and, indeed, enthusiasm among right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, in that they introduced civilisation to the working hours of this place.
  I think that the impish sense of humour and sense of style that is characteristic of Michael Jopling was summed up by an incident that occurred when he was Minister of Agriculture. He was due to arrive at a significant agriculture show—I believe that it was in the north of England—and, at the time when the Minister was due to appear, there appeared instead a large, leather-clad gentleman on a powerful motor cycle. That produced enormous consternation among the various officials, who instructed this gentleman to depart forthwith because a Cabinet Minister was due to arrive. At that, the gentleman on the motor cycle removed his crash helmet, said that he was the Minister of Agriculture, Michael Jopling, and would they please get out of his way.
  To steal one of Michael's better lines, I tell the House of what he said following a crash, which I know many right hon. and hon. Members are aware that he suffered earlier in the year. Thankfully, he has wholly recovered from it. He said that he was grateful that his translation to another place had occurred after he had had his crash and not before. He explained that if he had been translated to another place before the crash, he would not have been sure that the hospital would have sufficient quantities of blue blood.
  It is a truism in the House that every hon. Member, when making a maiden speech, claims that theirs is the most beautiful constituency in the country. I am unique in that a number of hon. Members have said to me, perhaps in the spirit of some enviousness, that they, too, believe that mine is the most beautiful constituency in the country. The Minister was there yesterday. I hope that he enjoyed his visit, and that he was not subject to the traditional lakeland rain greeting.
  Mr. Rooker: No, I was not.
  Mr. Collins: I am glad to hear it. However, given the damp atmosphere up there, the considerations about global warming to which the Prime Minister referred earlier do not always commend themselves to people in my constituency with the seriousness that they do to those elsewhere.

  707
  Westmorland and Lonsdale contains some of the most breathtakingly beautiful countryside in the whole of the United Kingdom. It is geographically at the heart of the United Kingdom, as it falls north-south half way between John o'Groats and Land's End and east-west half way between the west coast of Northern Ireland and the east coast of England. It comprises beautiful lakes, such as Windermere and Coniston, and it includes glorious towns such as Grasmere, Ambleside and the lovely and splendid Kendal, where my home is. The Lonsdale part of the constituency comprises what historically was part of north Lancashire, the area around Cark and Cartmel and Grange-over-Sands, and stretches into the east to include areas of the Yorkshire dales around Sedbergh. Given that it includes parts of historic Lancashire and Yorkshire, hon. Members will understand that it is not clever for its Member of Parliament to express an opinion about the outcome of the Wars of the Roses, or to debate the relative merits of the test cricketers Michael Atherton and Geoff Boycott. I admire both of them, and am careful to admire both of them at all times.
  Hon. Members will forgive me if I touch briefly on five matters that are of enormous importance to my constituency and constituents. The first is that Cumbria as a whole, and south Cumbria in particular, should remain part of the north-west for all regional government and regional development purposes. That is where our links are with regard to health, education, transport and other matters. I was delighted that, when the Deputy Prime Minister visited Windermere in my constituency, he said that there were no immediate plans to change the boundaries of regional government. I shall seek to hold him to that pledge.
  Secondly, the Government announced a road review last week. The Cumbria-Barrow bypass is one of the projects that will be subject to an accelerated review. The High Newton widening of the A590 is of enormous significance to my constituents, not merely because of its economic importance to the whole of Cumbria, but on safety grounds. As Michael Jopling used to point out, Westmorland and Lonsdale is perhaps the only constituency where an enormously busy, dual carriageway A-road passes through a farmyard. That is quite dangerous and needs to be upgraded with some speed.
  Thirdly, the vexed issue of a speed limit on Windermere is before the courts. I hope that a decision will be taken in accordance with the wishes of local people, and that it will not be taken by people sitting a long way away. I shall be writing to the Deputy Prime Minister on that matter.
  Fourthly, it is important that tourism, which provides about a third of the employment in our area, should be promoted effectively and vigorously.
  Fifthly and finally, it is important, as the Minister will know—I am sure that he discussed this yesterday—that small farms in general and hill farms in particular are looked after. When the Minister considers the review and reform of the common agricultural policy, he can expect strong representations from me on the importance of maintaining and expanding hill livestock compensatory allowances.
  As for the Bill, I share the views that have been expressed by many right hon. and hon. Members, who have spoken about its importance and about the need for
  708
  the United Kingdom to proceed rapidly towards ratifying the international conventions to which we have subscribed.
  I shall make two specific points that the Minister may have time to respond to later. Under paragraph (2) of schedule 1, Ministers are given a general power to give the controller virtually any remuneration or allowances that they deem fit. I do not expect the Minister to specify the precise salary that he intends to allocate to a specific civil servant, but could he give us the banding or the grade level at which the controller will be paid? Will there be any change as a result of the Bill to the way in which the controller is paid? Will there be any element of performance-related pay and, if so, how will performance be assessed?
  From a cursory reading of clause 9(7), it seems that Ministers will be able to instruct farmers to hand over information to plant breeders at the will of plant breeders. Farmers are concerned about the existing burdens of bureaucracy that are placed on them, and I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us how those powers will be exercised with a view to minimising the additional burdens that farmers face. They are interested in growing things and making money for themselves and their country; they are not interested in filling in forms.
  On my arrival in the House two things surprised me. First, I was greeted by a hard-working and popular member of the House of Commons staff with the words, "Good heavens, what are you doing here?" That was not perhaps the most auspicious of beginnings. It became even less auspicious when he went on to say, "Don't you realise that you should be at Church house, where the Prime Minister is about to address you?" I explained to him that some new Members of Parliament were on the Conservative Benches rather than the Labour Benches.
  The second thing pleasantly surprised me. As some hon. Members will know, my first days here were overshadowed by the tragic and sudden death of my father in a freak accident. In that time of family sorrow, I was pleased to receive messages of condolence not only from Conservative Members but from a number of Labour Members, for which I am very grateful. In particular, I want to single out the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), who sent me a kind personal message. I was also touched to receive a message from Mr. Alastair Campbell at 10 Downing street, a man with whom I have crossed swords before and will no doubt do so again. He was also kind enough to send me a message of condolence on the death of my father.
  The lesson that I learnt in that time of personal sadness was that there will and should always be important partisan differences between the two parties, but none the less human emotion and common feeling on occasions transcend those differences. I shall certainly bear that in mind for the future, and I am very grateful for those kind messages.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. David Kidney: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins). His maiden speech was amusing and informed. His constituency does not need to be described to those of us who have visited the area: it is the most delightful part of the country. He paid due tribute to his predecessor, now Lord Jopling, whose name is

  709
  particularly apposite to the debate, given that he was previously responsible for agriculture. His name is also relevant to the modernisation of our procedures that is currently being considered by a Select Committee. The hon. Gentleman's contribution was measured and astute, and I am sure that in future debates he will be listened to with interest and he will inform our deliberations.
  I shall immediately leap to the Minister's defence. He is piloting the Bill through the House against the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) and the comments about food safety made by my much more senior hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). In fairness to the Minister, he is not seeking to introduce a food safety measure. This is a measure to protect what is sometimes curiously described as intellectual property: the rights of breeders to a fair return on their research and development.
  That said, although I would not go as far as the hon. Member for Lewes in complaining and worrying that the Bill is going through the House too speedily, I am puzzled about that speed. The history of this matter is that the public consultation was a letter to interested parties in February 1997. The publication of the Bill was taken over by the election campaign. We knew about the timetable last week, and I am told that there is no proper briefing about the Bill in the Library: there is only a letter by a researcher that refers to there having been no public response to the publication of the Bill, which is perhaps not surprising, given the history that I have just recounted. It is rather strange that we are speeding through the Bill so early in the Session and giving it such high priority. The 1991 international convention superseded the defence of breeders' rights to their royalties contained in the 1964 Act. The European Commission scheme is already up and running. British breeders feel obliged to register under that scheme, which causes them additional expense. I join others in cautioning against the speed with which we are proceeding to catch up.
  My concern is about the royalties that will be received by breeders on farm-saved seeds that are currently free of royalties. As the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, under the European Commission scheme, farm-saved seeds that were free of royalties before the scheme came into force will remain so until 30 June 2001 at the earliest. If I understood my hon. Friend the Minister correctly, he gave a similar assurance in respect of farm-saved seeds in Britain.
  Therefore, what is the rush today? I dusted off my copy of the Labour party manifesto to see whether the Bill was one of our promised early measures. Alas, I found no mention of plant varieties among our promises on health, education, law and order, welfare to work or youth unemployment. In fact, the word plant does not appear, although there is an allusion to the work of Professor Plant on voting procedures at future elections. Nor does the word varieties appear, although the farce of the previous Conservative Government could be described as a variety act.
  Mr. Boswell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman remembers that our former colleague, Sir Julian Critchley, wrote a book called "The Palace of Varieties", which I commend to him.
  Mr. Kidney: That is most helpful, although "The Palace of Varieties" does not appear in the Labour manifesto. Nor does the word royalties, although there is a promise that there will be no changes to the monarchy.
  710
  Clause 9 deals with farm-saved seed. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has clearly received the same communication as I have from the National Association of Agricultural Contractors, expressing concern about how the United Kingdom scheme will mirror the European Commission scheme. It states that under the European scheme, the negotiations that were concluded last year included the promise that varieties that were in use when the 1991 convention came into force and were free of royalties will remain so for ever, not just until 2001.
  In his reply to the debate, will my hon. Friend say whether that is his understanding of the agreement and whether the United Kingdom scheme will contain the same arrangement? The national association referred to Riband and Hereward, which I understand are varieties of wheat.
  The British Society of Plant Breeders want all farm-saved seeds to be subject to royalty, so there is a difference between the two organisations. The hon. Member for Lewes mentioned that the Minister must strike a balance between the interests of the breeders and those of the farmers. The stated intention is to bring the United Kingdom scheme into line with the European Commission scheme. If some of the older farm-saved seeds will be free of royalties for ever under the European scheme, will my hon. Friend the Minister give the assurance that the same will apply under the United Kingdom scheme?
  The importance of the issue is demonstrated by the length of the compliance cost assessment which is available from the Library. Clearly, for breeders the issue is that they should not lose out on a fair return for their research and development work, and for farmers it is that their costs should not increase too greatly as a result of the Bill. The compliance cost assessment shows that farmers' costs will rise.
  Will my hon. Friend confirm two points when he replies to the debate? Perhaps if I put them in a memorable way he will remember to deal with them, so I ask him this:

  When farm saved-seed is royalty bearing,

  When the deed is finally done,

  How then will older seeds be faring

  And will it be from July 2001?

  5.55 pm
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: It was a particular pleasure to hear the maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins). I had the privilege to be a colleague of his for some years elsewhere and I know that it was the first of many significant and important contributions that he will make in the House and that many hon. Members look forward to hearing him in future.
  As the Minister explained, the Bill enables the United Kingdom to implement the 1991 international convention for the protection of new varieties of plants. I believe that, for that reason, it will generally be regarded as a useful reform.
  Within my constituency of South Cambridgeshire, I represent not only many excellent farmers, but Plant Breeding International at Trumpington. PBI in its current status was created in 1987 when Unilever acquired from

  711
  the Government the plant breeding and applied scientific resources of the Plant Breeding Institute and the National Seed Development Organisation.
  It may be helpful to hon. Members to know that PBI is the leading plant breeding company in the United Kingdom. It is dominant in respect of winter wheat, bean and oat and winter and spring malting barley. It has a high share of potato seed in the United Kingdom and a significant presence in the breeding of new oilseed rape varieties.
  A single successful plant variety can take between eight and 20 years to develop and involves the screening of millions of varieties. The success and economic significance of this activity can be illustrated by the development over recent decades of bread-making wheats. In the 1950s, the average white loaf in the United Kingdom contained only 20 per cent. home-grown grain. With Avalon in 1980, Mercia in 1986 and Hereward in 1991—which the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) mentioned—PBI continuously improved the yield, quality and agronomic characteristics of United Kingdom wheat varieties.
  Today, in a year favourable climatically to cereal production, the United Kingdom white loaf is almost entirely home produced. That progress is not necessarily the result of genetic modification, but of the successful application of selective breeding.
  That brings me to the points that were made by the hon. Member for Lewes. It seems to me that there are two problems with what he suggested. First, proving a negative and trying to demonstrate that there are no health or other hazards associated with genetically modified food will be a difficult process. Secondly, and more importantly in the context of today's debate, I do not share his view that the points that he raised are relevant to our consideration of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is not to determine whether genetically modified foods should be brought into use in Britain, but to make sure that when seeds and varieties are brought into use there is proper recompense to the holders of the rights and intellectual property vested in their development.
  Mr. Baker: The point I wanted to make was that the Bill facilitates the work of plant breeders who want to develop genetically engineered crops and makes it more difficult for others to oppose them. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that where there is doubt, the precautionary principle should apply and if we are not sure whether something is safe, we ought not to allow it?
  Mr. Lansley: The precautionary principle has to be judged in the context of the balance of the evidence and the best scientific evidence available at the time. It seems to me that we should not remove or obstruct the proper return for the intellectual property vested in the development of seeds and varieties that are brought into use and tamper with the Bill in order to achieve some objective relating to genetically modified foods. Those issues are developing all the time and if they are to be tackled by legislation, they should be tackled separately instead of being used to obstruct an important and valuable Bill.
  More than 200 staff are employed by the PBI on breeding research and analytical work, and 80 per cent. of its income stream derives from royalties. Therefore, it is
  712
  essential that we strive to give adequate protection to the intellectual property vested in the product of research and development. That is a general principle to which we should hold, but it should not be extended to allow excessive returns to the holder of rights through monopolistic exploitation. A balance must be struck. In the past, the balance was not right. The use of farm-saved seed without payment of a royalty for the rights of the original propagating material failed to give proper recompense to the owner of the rights, failed to provide the resources from which new development has to spring and gave a perverse incentive not to switch to improved varieties.
  That the farm-saved seed should carry a lower royalty than certified seed is a necessary part of striking the balance. Another part of the balance must be a power for the controller of plant variety rights to issue a compulsory licence. I am aware that the National Farmers Union regards as ineffective the provisions derived from the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964 and carried into the Bill. The Bill essentially re-enacts those provisions with some clarification. The power proposed in the Bill seems to me to be sufficient for the purpose and, if the NFU were to take up specific issues with the controller, that might be the best way to demonstrate any mischief that can be remedied.
  While the provisions on farm-saved seed are intended to be dealt with by order, it would have been clearer if the transition by autumn 2001 had been on the face of the Bill. I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will further reinforce the Government's intention that all protected varieties should be eligible for remuneration on farm-saved seed from autumn 2001. I listened carefully to the Minister's responses to earlier questions, and it is important that remuneration should not be provided before 30 June 2001. The holders of plant-breeding rights should also be aware that the decision will not be unduly prolonged beyond that point.
  It has been raised with the Ministry separately that the provisions in clause 13 for remedies for infringement do not specify whether action can be taken when a farmer fails in his obligation to pay equitable remuneration on farm-saved seed. The holder will not be able to sue him for infringement of plant variety rights. The Bill could reflect the provisions in the European regulation, articles 17 and 18. I should be grateful if the Minister could say whether the present provision, in its reference to infringements of other proprietary rights, is sufficient for that purpose.
  On the question of penalties, the Minister will be aware that, in some circumstances, the holders of seeds sell original seeds through local markets. Sometimes that happens inadvertently, but some offenders are persistent. The penalty for such infringement is £1,000, but representations have been made to me that the penalties could and should be higher. I should be grateful for the Minister's view on that point. Subject to those points, I welcome the Bill as a helpful step in providing a framework of proprietary rights to an industry that is increasingly important in ensuring that food production meets the economic, environmental and quality demands of the market place.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Colin Breed: I am grateful for the opportunity to make the second maiden speech today. I was surprised that another hon. Member was

  713
  making a maiden speech on this subject, but I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) on his speech. I share with him the delight of representing an area of outstanding natural beauty, although I do not wish to debate the relative merits of our constituencies. South-east Cornwall, like the rest of Cornwall, and like Westmorland, is a beautiful area.
  My constituency covers the part of Cornwall that is just over the border from England, marked by the River Tamar. It is a largely rural area, and this debate has great significance to the agricultural community. My constituency is mostly countryside and moorland, but it also has long stretches of coastline and river. The fishing community in Looe has been much exercised recently by the fisheries debate.
  Like much of Cornwall, south-east Cornwall has suffered recently from the rundown of Her Majesty's dockyard in Devonport. The unemployment generated by the lack of employment opportunities in the dockyard has hit south-east Cornwall hard, and we have some of the highest unemployment rates and lowest wages in the country.
  I have pleasure in paying tribute to my predecessor, Sir Robert Hicks, who was a Member much admired and respected on both sides of the House and in the constituency. He held the seat for some 27 years, with the exception of a six-month interregnum in 1974, when the seat was held by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). That six-month period is a record for brevity in representing the seat, and I firmly hope to leave that record intact. Sir Robert was a popular constituency Member, and I know that the House will join me in wishing him and Lady Hicks a long, happy and healthy retirement.
  Plant diversification is extremely important to the future of south-east Cornwall and, indeed, the planet. New varieties are being encouraged in several ways—including through genetic manipulation, as we have heard—but we must not let the prime cultivars become extinct. The rush to produce new varieties could bring the extinction of many existing varieties that may be considered uneconomic.
  I am delighted to remind the House of the recent award of nearly £40 million of millennium and lottery money for the creation of the Eden Botanical Institute, to be constructed near St. Blazey in my constituency. The institute will be the first major foundation to be based on the principles of the Rio convention, about which we have all learnt more recently.
  The institute's living plant and seed collection will give pleasure to millions of visitors and will present to the public the central concerns of land use, including the stewardship of nature and the associated conservation of habitat and species. In short, it will ensure that variety is maintained and that sensible diversification is undertaken for the future. The institute will demonstrate the need to produce food economically, as valuable crops, to sustain the world's population, and will ensure that plant variety is an important factor.
  That will not mean a diminution of plant varieties, or a concentration on varieties produced by genetically modified organisms. It will ensure that the old seeds and old plants will continue, because therein lies the possibility of future genetic material.
  714
  The institute will strive to bring together those who work for real conservation of both wild and primitive cultivars, and for economic crop production. An effective resolution of those often conflicting interests needs to be sought.
  Plant variety and diversification will be at the heart of the scientific endeavour in the Eden institute. The institute is only just completing its planning stage, but I believe that, when it is finished, it will provide a considerable resource for conservation projects, not only nationally but internationally.
  The institute offers not only this country but the world the opportunity to restore and maintain the old plants, rather than rushing to new varieties simply for economic purposes. In the years to come, we may well value its work. We may find, for example, that some of the new varieties now being produced, which will be given licences and which will be paid for by farmers, do not provide quite the value that we now believe they will.
  I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the debate and to raise the exciting subject of the Eden institute. The institute will provide a welcome boost for the local economy and, we hope will be a major visitor attraction of great interest to everyone. Above all, it will make a contribution to conservation studies that will make it a national centre of excellence, vital for plant diversification and variety in the future.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. Tim Boswell: I first pay tribute to the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), who has just made his maiden speech and introduced his lovely constituency and its interesting developments. He also paid a gracious tribute to our old friend Sir Robert Hicks.
  I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) for his elegant maiden speech, and especially for his warm praise of Michael Jopling, with whom I, too, had the privilege of working in the 1980s, when he was Minister of Agriculture. He is held in great affection in the House.
  I welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) to their new duties on the Opposition Front Bench. I also welcome the Minister of State, with whom we have already had exchanges in the House.
  I make it clear at the outset that I have no problem with the Bill, and do not seek to detain the House. The debate is something of a valediction to matters agricultural for me, as I leave my Front-Bench responsibilities for that subject in order—to coin a phrase—to spend more time with the tax system.
  I shall give the House three reasons for my taking part in the debate. First, I admit that, at the tender age of about 12, fired with enthusiasm by a lively father who was a farmer with a strong technical interest, and was prepared to take his son at an early age to the National Institute of Agricultural Botany and other such places, I developed the ambition to be a plant breeder—an ambition which I never succeeded in fulfilling.
  My second reason for involving myself briefly in the debate is that, until a month or two ago, I had ministerial responsibility for its subject matter, and I should like to

  715
  pay tribute to the officials who worked for me, as they now do for the Minister. He is excellently served in that respect.
  Thirdly, this is the appropriate moment to declare an interest. As is recorded in the Register of Members' Interests, I am a farmer, so I have a personal interest in the debate. More to the point, I grow Riband, which the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) mentioned. Even more to the point, I save my own seed, as I always have an eye to economy. That interest has not yet been introduced, wide though the debate has ranged. I have the seed treated by the chairman of the negotiating committee of the National Association of Agricultural Contractors, my near neighbour and good friend, Tim Rogers, who looks after it for me.
  I wish to record my appreciation of the wisdom of our predecessors, who in 1964—I make no party point—legislated for the first time to protect plant varieties. I remember that, at that time, there was concern that yields of cereals, in particular, had reached a plateau.
  We had made advances after the war, as we moved from Squarehead's Master and the other old varieties. For one awful moment, I thought that the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall intended to make the growing of Squarehead's Master or Little Joss compulsory. But he did not go quite that far.
  We have now moved on to the Bersée and the Cappelle. Both are French, incidentally. None the less, in 1964 we had a British regime for the first time. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said, it takes time to build up a breeding programme, but, as a result of that regime, we intensified and diversified the nature of plant breeding—especially, but not exclusively, cereal breeding—in this country.
  From that time on, we started a rapid expansion in the results of British agriculture and became one of the world leaders in plant breeding. Between the 1960s and the 1980s, roughly, we were adding about 2 per cent. annually to cereal yields. In due course, that caused trouble for the European common agricultural policy.
  Leaving that aside, however, if one is using land, it must be right to use it effectively. There was a 2 per cent. annual increase in yield, about half of which was directly attributable to modern varieties. I argue that those varieties would not have become available without the royalty regime introduced in 1964.
  The yield improvements continued—but there was also an important technical development, which leads me on to some of the other comments that I want to make. Superimposed on the yield improvements of the 1980s was an increasing emphasis, both by breeders and in the analysis of breeding by institutions such as the National Institute of Agricultural Botany, on resistance to disease and on balancing the mix of varieties and offerings, so that they were both safer to grow and more appropriate for the market.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was worried about genetically modified materials. It is almost 25 years since a particular variety, Rothwell Purdix, became the dominant United Kingdom wheat variety. It had single-gene resistance to yellow rust, and the whole variety was completely destroyed in one season.
  This year, it happens that we have another yellow rust outbreak, and one or two of the major varieties now grown in this country, such as Brigadier, seem to be rather
  716
  susceptible. However, as a result of diversification of variety, plus chemical protection where appropriate, especially on the more susceptible varieties, the situation has been contained this year—in my judgment, at least.
  All is by no means gloom and doom. British cereal breeding can hold its head up. It has diversified from simple pursuit of high yields to a much more varied and appropriate offering for modern conditions, and continues to improve under the present regime.
  The Bill will reinforce that regime, bring it up to date and extend it. That is why I welcome it, and I should like to touch on three features that have been brought out in the debate, two of which arose initially from the speech by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker).
  The first is internationalisation. I regard that as broadly a positive factor and, until today, I had thought that the Liberal Democrats tended to take the same view. The legislation is implementing an international as well as a European obligation, and I welcome that.
  We certainly cannot run away from the rest of the world and its breeding programmes to conduct a private policy behind closed doors on these islands. We must be prepared to be internationalist—although, at the same time, under the regime that we have had since the 1960s, private and individual breeders still exist. There are small breeding companies as well as large ones in the British Society of Plant Breeders.
  The second factor that concerns me and the hon. Member for Linlithgow—who is right to say that these matters should be debated—is the question of genetic manipulation. There are different kinds of genetic manipulation, according to whether one is importing genes from a completely different species or is simply bringing in a particular gene to help disease resistance from broadly within the same family of plants.
  It is worth recording that if one is a plant breeder—as I hoped to be all those years ago—one is in effect manipulating genes to produce a particular result. There is no absolute conceptual difference between that and using modern techniques such as gene splicing. The important thing is that they should not give rise to concerns about the environment.
  The hon. Member for Lewes did not pay sufficient heed to the existence of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment—which is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment—as against the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, which is the responsibility of MAFF. These matters are looked at carefully and, in my ministerial days, I discussed them not just with farmers and plant breeders, but with environmentalists.
  We have a sensible regime, which will take the precautionary principle seriously and will make good use of it. We should not run away from the concept of genetic modification, although we must watch it. As we have heard, it does not adhere directly to the Bill as drafted.
  Mr. Dalyell: During his time as a Minister, did the hon. Gentleman give any thought to recent American pressure in relation to maize and other items on the whole question of genetically modified organisms?
  Mr. Boswell: I am slightly concerned about that. I personally felt that, in the interests of genetic

  717
  modification, that was not the best way to handle the maize issue, and the inability to secure traceability and labelling was an unfortunate negative. Eventually, I hope that that will be a lesson learned by the producers of this material, as well as those seeking to use it.
  I was about to make the point that genetic manipulation, if used properly—for example, if it enhances disease resistance or enables less use of pesticides—can be positive for the environment. It is not a one-way street.
  My third point concerns what I might term specialist and minority uses. I mentioned that I did not feel that the hon. Member for Lewes quite gave sufficient credence to the fact that people still use the materials, even as owner-breeders. I have a cousin—as I discovered rather surprisingly during a Select Committee visit to New Zealand some years ago—whose family developed the Braeburn apple. I am not sure whether that is a positive in British terms, although, as I am no longer a Minister, I can say that, in my opinion, it is a very good apple.
  The apple was found growing in the drive of their farm in 1952. It was an indigenous apple and no one knew its breeding. But it was developed, selected and commercialised, and took 15 to 20 years to reach this country. I am glad it did, but whether it is regarded as a native or a developed cultivated plant is an interesting question.
  In my experience, there was a steady drip of correspondence on minority varieties that were not on the European descriptive list. There was reasonable concern from amateur gardeners, who felt that they might be prevented from selling seed to their neighbours, but we had ways around this problem which were satisfactory.
  I visited the Henry Doubleday research institute-like other hon. Members, I am interested in that side, as well as the purely industrial and commercial crops—which found a way of sending material out in plain envelopes and giving it away so that it was not commercialised. Perhaps unusually, we were in alliance with the French in trying to persuade the Commission into some kind of derogation, which would make things a little more legitimate. I should be grateful if the Minister could spare a moment on that matter during his winding-up speech.
  I wish to refer to clause 9 and the question of farm-saved seed, a direct interest of myself and agriculture contractors. I accept that the Minister has given assurances in good faith, although he may wish to reflect on whether they are the right assurances, or whether they could have been included in the Bill. It is an important matter, which will not entirely go away. It is not just the existing varieties that are involved.
  I have said that I grow Riband, but I could easily convert to Blaze or Consort, and I could possibly get another 1 or 2 per cent. uplift in yield, or better disease resistance. In making a decision, I shall have a mind to the commercial prospects of the two.
  I hope that the Minister will remember that that is one aspect. Assurances have been given as part of a complex deal to produce a sensibly lower level, which I always interpret to mean a lower level and a sensible level. I am glad that the parties were able to negotiate that without ministerial interference, but it is a delicately poised settlement, and he has sought with good will not to disturb it.
  718
  The final point is the speed of the Bill. The Minister was right to say that the Bill was out in draft and had been thought about—I say this delicately—for a year or two before that. I am pleased that it is now going forward. Nevertheless, as he well knows, a Minister does not get up every morning and read his potential Bill in detail before shaving. He deals with it and is briefed on it when it gets to the white heat of a parliamentary debate. At that moment, Ministers—whether in this or any other Department—start seeing the snags, angles and concerns about it. The trade associations will also make their representations at that moment.
  The Minister wants to get the Bill through today, and we will not seek in any way to inhibit that, but I hope that he will feel receptive to any comments made here and by the trade associations, because he and I wish to give the Bill a fair wind and to make sure that it works effectively to underpin what is already a British success story—the success of British plant breeders and our cereal-growing industry.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. John Hayes: I should like to start by supporting the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) that this is a British success story. The seed industry in this country is now worth between £350 million and £400 million per year, and one should not ignore the approximately £35 million of royalties from the activities that we are discussing. We are among the leading countries in plant breeding, although others, such as Holland, might claim greater status. For that reason, the Bill is a suitable and appropriate clarification of the position, and a clarification of the relationship between the farmer and the breeder.
  It seemed to me that there were three misconceptions in the speech of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker). The first was his antipathy to the internationalism that is increasingly prevalent in this field. It is unavoidable—the nature of such developments are, almost by definition, international. The collaboration between breeders across the world is an inevitable consequence of improving technology and communications, and it will not go away.
  As colleagues have pointed out, the British Society of Plant Breeders has about 45 members, including some independents—one of the top seven plant breeders is situated in my constituency. The picture is not one sided; there is diversity. The organisations represent the small breeders, the people who work in highly specialist fields and those who work with particular crop varieties and not merely the big companies to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  The second error made by the hon. Member for Lewes was to confuse this Bill with that affecting genetically modified organism technology.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman must address the Chair and not another hon. Member.
  Mr. Hayes: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  While the Bill will have some impact in that respect, it is not principally a means by which we will affect the controls on such developments. The hon. Gentleman perhaps exaggerated the impact that these proposals will

  719
  have on GMO technology. Thirdly, he displayed a certain naivety about the relationship between the farmer and the breeder. Clearly, it is in farmers' best interests to have a positive and co-operative relationship with breeders. For the most part, it is not true to say that there is a conflict of interest between the farmer and the breeder.
  On the margin, there may be some points of difference. The National Farmers Union will, of course, argue the farmers' case and I am an associate member of that union, so I certainly have no prejudice against farmers. However, the vast majority of farmers and growers will welcome the co-operation with breeders that the Bill embodies and will respect the fact that without plant breeders we would not have made the great advances in yield, quality and disease resistance that have been made in the past 40 years. In all those respects, farmers have clearly benefited substantially from the work of plant breeders. Most farmers would readily recognise that, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, who speaks with considerably more authority than I do, he being a practitioner.
  I shall comment on three aspects of the Bill. First, the Minister's comment about the relationship between farmers and breeders and the comment that he was happy to leave matters of royalty on farm-saved seed to informal agreement are valid, but such an arrangement would need to be monitored carefully. Farmers are understandably concerned that unrestricted control of royalties would not be desirable. Future discussions between farmers and breeders need to be studied carefully. One would not want unrestricted control to pass into the hands of the breeders through the degree of informality that the Minister mentioned. Informality is fine, but it needs to be carefully monitored.
  Secondly, I hope that the Minister will clarify the nature of the penalties for those who choose not to abide by the proposed legislation.
  Thirdly, perhaps the Minister can clarify the interface between these proposals and the legislation affecting GMO technology, to which the hon. Member for Lewes referred. The Minister alluded to it, as did several hon. Members. I and other hon. Members would welcome such clarification, as would the hon. Member for Lewes, I imagine, judging by what he said.
  On exclusion until 2001, much has been made of the fact that plant varieties have limited lives. That is certainly true of cereal crops, but it varies from one crop to another. For all sorts of commercial rather than technological reasons, potatoes have a much longer life cycle than many other crops. Many of the older varieties affected by control to 2001 will be played out beyond that date, as my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry said. One wonders—in the interests of farmers—whether the exclusion might continue in perpetuity. This is a personal view, but it is certainly one which has been expressed by a number of farmers and I do not think I am breaking any confidences when I say that the British Society of Plant Breeders would not be entirely unsympathetic to that view. The impact of such an extension of the exclusion would diminish over the years as the varieties became rarer. Many people would therefore welcome some extension beyond 2001.
  With those minor caveats, suggestions and questions I welcome the Bill, as have other hon. Members, on the grounds that it clarifies and codifies the situation and
  720
  brings it up to date. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the legislation should be based on the premise that the relationship between farmers and breeders is usually, although not always, one of co-operation and not conflict. We need legislation that would underpin that co-operation for the benefit of both farmers and breeders, as well as of the wider community.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. James Paice: I must start my brief contribution by informing the House of my interests in this matter. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), I grow corn, albeit on a much smaller scale. I have just one field of corn on my property, but the fact remains that I grow it—this year, it is Riband—and, therefore, I have an interest to declare.
  I am also privileged to represent the British Society of Plant Breeders, which has its headquarters in my constituency, a number of plant breeding companies—similar to those represented by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley)—and, of course, many farmers.
  This debate has been marked out by the exceptional maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins). As is traditional, he described his constituency in glowing terms and all of us who know it will accept them. At times when one listens to maiden speeches, it takes a little broad mindedness to accept the glowing terms ascribed to some areas, but that is certainly not true of his constituency. He also paid rightful tribute to our great friend Michael Jopling, who is now a colleague in the other place.
  Coincidentally, I first met Michael Jopling in 1975, when he held the post that I now occupy—the No. 2 Opposition spokesman on agriculture. That was at the time of the then Labour Government's destruction of the farm tenancy system by the introduction of inherited tenancies, which led to the drying up of supply, as we believed that it would.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale on an exceptionally good and clear speech about his constituency and his views on this issue. I was particularly interested in his comments about the controller's salary. I noticed the look of consternation that passed down the row of officials as soon as civil servants' salaries were raised. That bodes well for my hon. Friend's future contributions in the House. I also share his recognition and experience of the way in which, despite our differences, the House can come together at times of individual trial and grief. I, too, lost my father a few months ago, and I entirely share my hon. Friend's feelings.
  Most of the issues that have arisen are probably best dealt with in amendments, and I shall certainly press the Minister on them in Committee, so for now I want only to refer to one or two contributions. My hon. Friend—and neighbour—the Member for South Cambridgeshire represents part of the area that I formerly represented, including much of the National Institute of Agricultural Botany, where so much work is done with plant varieties and purity testing and where the approved lists originate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry demonstrated, as one would expect from a former Minister responsible for such matters, his immense knowledge of the subject. I look forward to his

  721
  contributions in Committee. He reminded us of many of the old varieties and I cannot forbear reminiscing for a moment: years ago, I was a qualified crop inspector, inspecting thousands of acres of cereals and legumes, as standing crops, for varietal purity. Sadly, other things got in the way and my qualifications have long since lapsed, but I recall many enjoyable and not so enjoyable days traipsing through standing crops with my yardstick—it was a yardstick in those days—testing for purity.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who also has a huge constituency, expressed a view that I hold dear: that ultimately the interests of farmers and of plant breeders must be the same. They are interdependent, and that is why the Opposition welcome the Bill, which originated in our time in government. It represents the convention for the protection of new varieties of plants—the UPOV convention—and the European Union regulation and has had a long and sometimes painful birth. I am aware, from my constituency involvement, of how long it took for the discussions between farmers and breeders to come up with an agreement on farm-saved seed. They now recognise their interdependence.
  We have some questions of detail, but not of principle, so we do not intend to oppose the Bill; if it is pressed to a Division, we shall support it.
  6.41 pm
  Mr. Rooker: I shall reply to the debate succinctly, on the basis that questions of detail can be dealt with in Committee. I am grateful for the constructive way in which hon. Members have approached what is a complex and technical Bill. There is an enormous amount of knowledge around from outside interests, and perhaps that has helped us to have a balanced and supportive debate. It is also clear that some hon. Members have taken the trouble to read the compliance cost assessment and check what is in the Library; I am grateful for that, and for the back-up that has been available to me as a new Minister in preparing for the debate.
  The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) asked various questions, many of which I hope that he will not feel obliged to repeat in Committee; nevertheless, I will do my best to give him detailed answers in Committee, rather than now. I want to disabuse him straight away of any impression that the Bill allows or provides for retrospective payments; it does not and there are no grounds for supposing that it does.
  We have an enormously complex protective arrangement to ensure that the food that gets on the table in our homes is safe. I freely admit—I have said it both inside and outside the House since taking office—as someone who was not involved with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the past, that I was astonished to see the hundreds of people working in MAFF on food safety and regulation, in a detailed, supportive and professional way, whose work has been completely overshadowed by the few big crises that we all know about and need not go into now.
  No new foods can be created in this country without being constantly checked and tested. No new products or ingredients are allowed into the country without checks and testing. Nothing should happen by accident, and if
  722
  accidents happen we have a procedure for dealing with them—and we even intend to tighten the procedures that we have inherited.
  Mr. Baker: If food safety has been such a roaring success in recent years, why are the Government introducing a food standards agency?
  Mr. Rooker: We are introducing legislation to transfer the very people whom I have just described, plus others in the Department of Health, to allow them to work in a more concentrated fashion. They will be seen to be completely independent of the Government, so when problems arise it will not have to be a Minister who is the arbiter. If hon. Members are not interested in having a food standards agency, I shall be glad to debate it with them when we introduce the relevant Bill. We want to improve the regulatory system and boost consumer confidence.
  The hon. Member for Lewes gave the impression that food ingredients and seeds are uncontrolled and appear on the plate in consumers' homes without any checks. That is simply not the case, as I shall make clear when we introduce the other legislation. I welcome his amendments, however, as we are proceeding not in a rush but at the convenience of the House.
  The House will rule on whether we proceed to further stages. As is right with such a Bill, announced only last week, starred amendments have been selected. I freely admit that the Government originally contemplated introducing the Bill in the other place, but the timetable following the general election for the preparation of legislation was such that there was a convenient slot that we thought it right to take advantage of today.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised many issues, some of which were well outside the scope of the Bill, but I understand why he raised them. He asked about the strength of our regulatory system. I told him that we have in place the necessary regulatory systems, through the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, to ensure that genetically modified plants are not released into the environment. As the hon. Member for Daventry rightly said, that is a matter for the Department of the Environment.
  On food safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow recognised that no new foods could be made available to the public without clearance from the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. A few weeks ago, I sat in on a meeting of that Committee. I freely admit that I am an ordinary production engineer and the science is way over my head, but the committee is incredibly high powered, with people with doctorates, vice-chancellors and professors around the table. There are two non-scientific members, one of whom is specifically concerned with ethics; I believe that that is almost unique among the Government's advisory committees.
  People are concerned about novel foods and processes. We did not invent the committee; its members were already in place when we came to office. It is not a secret science committee: it has a consumer input and an ethical input, and that is extremely important. We want to reinforces that contribution in other bodies involved with the Ministry.
  Mr. Dalyell: Is there any disadvantage in having two committees running in parallel, one responsible to MAFF and the other to the Department of the Environment?
  Mr. Rooker: I know of no difficulty, but there is clearly incredible cross-fertilisation between Whitehall Departments. Sometimes it is right that matters are dealt with by more than one Ministry so that a different set of minds is brought to them. The point will be raised in more detail later in the year, or certainly next year, when we produce a draft Bill on the food standards agency following the White Paper.
  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins). I have no problem in saying that the Lake district is the most beautiful part of my country. I really enjoyed my ministerial away-day in his constituency yesterday. It was my second away-day out of London, both of which have been in the north of England. I was educated, informed and made extremely welcome by all the people whom I met in the environmentally sensitive farm that I visited, in the farm shops and while launching the booklet. I freely admitted that the farm shop innovation was not thought up by this Government but was something that we carried through happily from the previous Government. I pay tribute to the previous documents that MAFF has published on farm diversification.
  The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale made a remarkable maiden speech. He rightly reminded us of Michael Jopling, to whom hon. Members who were in the House before the general election are grateful. It took 34 months for us to debate the Jopling report after it was published. I always said that that was a disgrace. A questionnaire found that 85 to 90 per cent. of hon. Members agreed with all its recommendations and could not understand why we had had to wait for 34 months to civilise our arrangements. That involved not cutting but reorganising our hours. We pay tribute to Michael Jopling for that.
  The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale asked about the power of the controller and the assistant controller. I make no bones about it. I am not prepared—I do not think that any Minister would be—to discuss the individual salaries of professional, career civil servants. This is not a quango. They are career civil servants appointed by Ministers. One of their duties is dealing with plant varieties. I asked about the other duties that they perform this morning. They deal with plant variety rights, national listing—which was raised by many hon. Members but has nothing to do with the Bill—and seed certification. The plant variety office, in respect of all the factors that I mentioned, is operated by about three dozen people; the plant variety rights system costs about £1 million a year. All of that is recovered from the fees that plant breeders pay; there is no cost to the taxpayer. When officials represent Britain abroad, plant breeders do not pay; that is a taxpayer-funded job because it is a matter of public interest. He would not expect me to go beyond that.
  The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale asked about the powers of Ministers to instruct farmers to hand over information under clause 9. Farmers will have to give exactly the same information as they do under the EC system, including their name and address, the amount of seeds saved, the name and address of the processor and, if appropriate, when they previously saved seed of the
  724
  variety concerned. That is not onerous. Processors will have to give breeders the same information as they have given under the EC system, including name and address, the name and address of the person for whom they processed the farm-saved seed, and the amount and variety they processed. That is not onerous. If anyone can put a case that it is, I shall consider it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) asked about the speed of the Bill's passage. I hope that I have covered that point. I compliment him for taking the trouble to find out that notes on clauses were in the Vote Office and that the compliance cost assessment was in the Library. That is a very helpful document and the only one in which figures are given. I commend it to hon. Members. They may find it useful reading while we are having the Division that the Liberals may call.
  The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) exemplified the knowledge of hon. Members who represent both breeders and farmers. It is helpful to have Members who represent both sides. They understand the balance that has been struck. They realise that breeders cannot operate without farmers and vice versa; they are interdependent.
  The second maiden speech was that of the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), to whom I pay tribute. I note his compliments to Robert Hicks. I was first elected in February 1974, and remember that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) was here during the interregnum in 1974 and then out of the House for all the years that Robert Hicks looked after the constituency so ably. Everyone will be grateful for his tribute to Robert Hicks. I wish his constituency well with the Eden institute. I hope that the lottery money for it does not take as long as that for some projects in my constituency. That is a constant problem for hon. Members.
  The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), a fellow midlands Member, supported the Bill. He was right to pay tribute, as do I, to the work of the officers, officials and scientists who put the Bill together over the years. If the issue had been different on 1 May he would probably have been standing at the Dispatch Box now. He understood the need for speed. We are not rushing against anyone's wishes. We will do our best.
  I accept that a Bill that goes through all its stages in one day, if that is the wish of the House, deserves very detailed consideration in the other place. The Government will be more than susceptible to amendments tabled and comments made in the other place. If the other place amends the Bill, we should be happy to provide the necessary time, as would be our duty, to ensure that the House can properly debate the issue. I give that assurance. Given what I have said for about 20 years as a Back Bencher, I would do nothing else.
  I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) for the Bill and for his comments on the speech of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), which I found helpful even though he had to do a 180 deg turn to the Chair to present them. He pointed out that co-operation of farmers and breeders is crucial. He asked about genetically modified organism technology. I cannot go into detail now, but there will be an opportunity to do so in Committee or on Third Reading. I will certainly give him an answer. Whenever we discuss such issues, hon. Members will raise GMO technology. I am as concerned as anyone: I am an

  725
  ordinary consumer. Where genetic modification is involved, there must be complete openness. Public confidence must be built, and that can come only from openness of information on labelling and on technology transfer and exchanges. It is vital that we do that. We do not want to put people off. GMO technology will happen anyway, so Britain cannot opt out. We and our farmers would suffer economically. Our technology and economic interests would suffer if we sought to opt out of technology.
  The hon. Member for Daventry asked about smaller varieties. That is a question for the national list. Without going over the matter in greater detail, having had a quick opportunity to take advice, my views are generally those that he expressed in writing to people when he was a Minister. Clearly, we will press for changes in the Community. It would be churlish to quote him back his own letter, but I hope that he will be satisfied that that is the view that I am currently content to take. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 35.

  Division No. 38]

  [6.58 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Ainger, Nick

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Atkins, Ms Charlotte

  Clelland, David

  Austin, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Banks, Tony

  Coaker, Vernon

  Barnes, Harry

  Cohen, Harry

  Barron, Kevin

  Collins, Tim

  Battle, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

  Cooper, Ms Yvette

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Corbett, Robin

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cousins, Jim

  Benton, Joe

  Cranston, Ross

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Crausby, David

  Best, Harold

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Betts, Clive

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Boswell, Tim

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davidson, Ian

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Day, Stephen

  Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

  Dean, Ms Janet

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Denham, John

  Burden, Richard

  Dismore, Andrew

  Burgon, Colin

  Dobbin, Jim

  Butler, Christine

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Byers, Stephen

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Caborn, Richard

  Drew, David

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Edwards, Huw

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Efford, Clive

  Caplin, Ivor

  Ellman, Ms Louise

  Casale, Roger

  Ennis, Jeff

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Chaytor, David

  Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna

  Clapham, Michael

  Flint, Ms Caroline

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Flynn, Paul

  726

  Follett, Ms Barbara

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Gapes, Mike

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Garnier, Edward

  Lock, David

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Love, Andy

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McAllion, John

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McCabe, Stephen

  Goggins, Paul

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McDonagh, Ms Siobhain

  Grant, Bernie

  Macdonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)

  McFall, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Grocott, Bruce

  McIsaac, Ms Shona

  Grogan, John

  McKenna, Ms Rosemary

  Gunnell, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hain, Peter

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McWatter, Tony

  Hanson, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hayes, John

  Marek, Dr John

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Healey, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Heppell, John

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Hill, Keith

  Martlew, Eric

  Hinchliffe, David

  Maxton, John

  Hoey, Kate

  Meale, Alan

  Hood, Jimmy

  Michael, Alun

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Milburn, Alan

  Hope, Philip

  Miller, Andrew

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mitchell, Austin

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morley, Elliot

  Hurst, Alan

  Mudie, George

  Hutton, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Iddon, Brian

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

  Norris, Dan

  Jamieson, David

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Johnson, Ms Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Paice, James

  Pearson, Ian

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Pickles, Eric

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Pope, Greg

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Khabra, Piara S

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kidney, David

  Rapson, Syd

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lansley, Andrew

  Rooney, Terry

  Laxton, Bob

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Roy, Frank

  Levitt, Tom

  Ruane, Chris

  727

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Salter, Martin

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Tipping, Paddy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Touhig, Don

  Sheerman, Barry

  Truswell, Paul

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Singh, Marsha

  Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Snape, Peter

  Watts, David

  Soley, Clive

  White, Brian

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Whittingdale, John

  Spellar, John

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Wilkinson, John

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Williams, Dr Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Stevenson, George

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wise, Audrey

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wood, Mike

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Woolas, Phil

  Stott, Roger

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Streeter, Gary

  Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stringer, Graham

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mr. Jim Dowd and

  Mr. Graham Allen.

  NOES

  Baker, Norman

  (Ross Skye& Inverness W)

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Livsey, Richard

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Maclennan, Robert

  Breed, Colin

  Moore, Michael

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Oaten, Mark

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Opik, Lembit

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Rendel, David

  Cotter, Brian

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Sanders, Adrian

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Hancock, Mike

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro & St Austell)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Wallace, James

  Harvey, Nick

  Webb, Steven

  Heath, David (Somerton)

  Willis, Phil

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Keetch, Paul

  Mr. Paul Tyler and

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Mr. Andrew Stunell.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),
  That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Betts.]
  Question agreed to.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I have a statement to make. On the list of manuscript amendments some hon. Members may have in their hands, the amendments are
  728
  numbered 1 to 4. On the Chairman of Ways and Means' provisional selection of amendments, the manuscript amendments are listed as amendments Nos. 9 to 12. The Chair will ensure that hon. Members will know which amendment is before the Committee when each debate starts.
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Plant Varieties Bill
    Clause 2

      THE PLANT VARIETY RIGHTS OFFICE
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 25, after subsection (1), insert—
      `(1A) The Controller shall each year make a report of his activities to Ministers, who shall lay a copy of every such report before Parliament.'.
      The amendment relates to the accountability of the controller of plant variety rights. I shall not take up too much of the Committee's time, because we had the substantive debate on Second Reading and now we want to concentrate on minor, technical points.
      I am grateful to the Minister for having said earlier that he recognised the need for the public to have confidence in the food safety system. He also recognised the need for openness in that system. Given the concerns that have been expressed, not only by Liberal Democrat Members, but, to a lesser extent, by Labour and Conservative Members, I hope that he will look favourably on the amendment. Given the uncertainty in some people's minds about the direction in which those matters are progressing, it is an important safeguard for openness in food safety that, once a year, Ministers should have to lay a copy of such a report before Parliament. That is also in line with the Minister's thinking, so I hope that he will accept the amendment.
      Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his amendment. If a report on the activities of the controller were not already to be published, I would have accepted the amendment; however, what the hon. Gentleman is asking for already happens.
      The decisions that the controller proposes to take or has taken are required to be published—and are published—monthly in the Plant Varieties and Seeds Gazette, of which I have obtained a copy for my better information. An annual edition of the gazette is published each year and provides details of all grants of rights in effect at the time of publication and information showing, for example, the name of the variety, who holds the rights and when they expire. The gazette is publicly available. Other information in applications for rights and rights granted is held on the registers in the plant variety rights office. Those may be inspected by members of the public during normal office hours and copies of entries on the register are freely available on request.
      A substantial amount of information is therefore already published. More information is in the public domain and may be inspected or copies obtained on request. The amendment is therefore unnecessary. I have been told that no part of the work of the plant variety rights office is not already published and available. Accountability to the House is therefore ensured.
      Mr. Baker: I am grateful to the Minister for listing the ways in which members of the public and Members of Parliament can obtain information about the activities of the controller. Perhaps the amendment was badly worded; what I sought to achieve was that, each year, Parliament would have an opportunity to debate those matters, rather than the information being published in a form that required hon. Members to bring the matter forward in a different way. However, I am grateful for the Minister' s response and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 4

      CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANT OF RIGHTS
      Mr. Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 42, at end insert
      `, but no variety which occurs naturally in the wild shall be the subject of a grant of plant breeders' rights.'.
      Thank you for selecting my amendment, Mr Deputy Speaker.
      This is a testing amendment, to which I hope the Minister will respond in a positive mariner. There is anxiety about the fact that, with plant breeders' rights, it is possible to annex something that occurs naturally and claim it as a "discovery"—which is a word that is used in clause 4(6)—and thereby to market it and claim credits, and remuneration, for that.
      The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) mentioned a species or variety of apple. I can understand that sometimes a naturally occurring plant—fruit, vegetable or whatever—may be developed in such a way as to constitute something that has been added on and so would qualify for some sort of intellectual right. However, I am anxious to prevent it being possible for something that has always occurred naturally to be "discovered" and for benefit in financial terms to be accrued from that "discovery".
      There is a dangerous precedent, which I hope that the Minister will address, regarding relations between the north and the south. If this principle were written into the Bill, something that has been growing for a very long time, to the benefit of farmers in the third world in particular, might be "discovered" and written into legislation in Europe. If that were the case, that could be to the detriment of those who were perhaps, dare I say it, simple farmers in the third world, and to the benefit of those who understood how laws worked and were able to exploit that knowledge for their own purposes.
      That is the purpose of moving the amendment. I hope that the Minister can give an assurance that he understands that.
      Mr. Rooker: I hope to satisfy the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) again.
      If a breeder discovers a plant growing in the wild, he must carry out significant selection and re-crossing to establish distinctness, uniformity and—most important—
      730
      stability. Wild plants invariably lack uniformity and stability, so it is not just a question of discovering something that is in the wild; the breeder must develop and do something about it. It is for that reason that clause 4(3) provides that:
      "the person entitled to the grant of plant breeders' rights"
      in respect of a wild plant
      "is the person who…discovers and develops it"—
      not just discovers it. I cannot accept the amendment because it is both unnecessary and unworkable.
      The hon. Member for Daventry, who mentioned the apple in New Zealand, said that, having discovered the apple in the wild, it took that family 15 years to bring it to the market; it was not a question of picking something up and commercialising it.
      I hope that, following that assurance, the hon. Member for Lewes will withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Baker: I will withdraw the amendment, but I draw to the Minister's attention the fact that, in clause 4(6), the word "discovery" is present and the word "develop" is not. That was why I moved the amendment. I am now happy to withdraw it.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 6

      PROTECTED VARIETY
      Mr. Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 9, page 3, line 21, leave out from 'above' to end of line 22.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 10, page 3, line 23, leave out from 'may' to end of line 24 and insert—
      'impose reasonable conditions or limitations when giving authority for the purposes of subsection (1) above.'.
      Mr. Paice: I do not wish to detain the Committee long, but the two amendments are specific.
      I should like to press the Minister on why he has decided to insert in paragraph (h) of clause 6(1) what most of us would describe as a catch-all phrase. It is additional to the wording that appears in the European regulation, so we are seeing, not a direct transposition of European law into British law, but what, under the previous Government, would have been termed "gold plating"—the habit that some people have of taking a European regulation and not only transposing it into law but adding bells and whistles, with the often undesirable consequential effect of overburdening those whom it affects.
      The purpose of amendment No. 9 is to persuade the Government that they do not need paragraph (h) because the EU regulation in the other items covers all the possible acts. If the Minister is convinced that he needs that catch-all phrase, I should be grateful if he would give the Committee some examples of the type of situation in which he envisages that the phrase will need to be used.

      731
      Amendment No. 10, which, like amendment No. 9, stands in my name and the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), would introduce a requirement that due regard be given to the balance of interests of those beyond the plant breeding industry, which would benefit the whole of the agri-food industry without restricting plant breeders' rights. It stems from the belief that some protection is required from the potential abuse of unrestricted rights, which is detrimental as it stands.
      The potato crop is an example which has been mentioned many times. The current system allows for excessive marketing levies, from which breeders derive very little benefit. The purpose of the amendment is simply to introduce the element of reasonableness into breeders' rights.
      I hope that the Minister responds positively to the two amendments, which we believe to be in the spirit of the Bill.
      Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) for the way in which he has spoken to the amendments. He has asked legitimate questions.
      Regarding amendment No. 9, it is envisaged that paragraph 6(1)(h) may be used, for example, to extend the breeder's rights in respect of ornamentals to include their use for production of cut flowers. The 1991 convention permits contracting states to extend the breeder's rights to acts other than those specifically mentioned in it. I do not believe that anyone would argue about that.
      However, we envisage that, in some circumstances, Ministers might use those powers to extend the breeder's right to the production and propagation of a variety for the purpose of producing cut flowers, foliage or fruit. Similar provisions exist in the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964 and rights have been extended in a number of species. If, and only if, we are convinced that breeders of ornamentals and fruit varieties need a similar provision to enable them to protect their rights and obtain a reasonable return on them, we would consider using those powers for that purpose. That is why those powers are in the Bill. That is an example of the way in which we envisage using them, and the area in which we envisage doing so.
      Some aspects of the Bill relate to the public interest, but we are legislating for relationships between two contracting parties, neither of whom are the Government: the grower and the seed specialist—the breeder. We can set ground rules on some issues, but the way in which they develop their arrangements is for them, not for the House.
      I cannot accept amendment No. 10 because it goes further than any provisions in the EC sector or in other countries which protect their plant breeders' rights. If holders of rights impose conditions that are against the public interest, an application can be made to the controller of plant variety rights for a compulsory licence. No licences have been issued, but that is the level of the sanction against those who impose the wrong conditions. That sanction is necessary. If the holder of rights imposes conditions that are unacceptable to a person seeking a licence, but are not against the public interest, that is a matter for the parties concerned. It is not a matter for us to write into the Bill or for the Government to take a view about.
      732
      I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that the Bill should not be amended in the way that he wishes.
      Mr. Paice: I thank the Minister. On amendment No. 9, I appreciate his explanation of the need to allow for the addition of cut flowers and other items. I thought of another example earlier—gifts—but the Minister did not mention them. What would happen if some bright salesman decided to give away a tonne of seed with a tractor that he was selling? Perhaps the power would be invoked on such an occasion.
      I was less enthused by the Minister's reply to amendment No. 10, but I understand what he says about it going much further than the European regulations. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 9

      FARM SAVED SEED
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 5, line 20, at beginning insert—
      `After 30th June 2001, where required to do so by a regulation made by the Council of the European Communities,'.
      The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in page 6, line 4, leave out subsection (11).
      Mr. Paice: The subject matter of the amendment was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on Second Reading. The Minister responded by assuring the Committee that the purpose of giving him or his successors the right to remove the exemption at a date other than 30 June 2001 is purely to allow the date to be extended. That is precisely the intention behind the amendment, too.
      If the Minister were in my position today, I am sure that he would point out that the Bill as published does not provide for such an extension. He would therefore be serving the interests of the House and the industry, and strengthening his own words, if he accepted the amendment, which merely includes in the Bill the undertaking that he gave earlier.
      Mr. Cash: The Bill is much more complex and important than its innocuous title suggests, and it poses problems for constituents of mine and for the National Association of Agricultural Contractors. I am glad to note that my successor as the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney)—I now represent Stone—has already alluded to some of the questions that I want to raise. He appears to have some of the briefing papers that I have.
      I abstained on Second Reading because of those difficulties. Indeed, I cannot accept the direction in which some of the provisions are headed. The issue that concerns my constituents and their association most has to do with subsection (6):
      "The Ministers may by order provide that, on such date as may be specified in the order, subsection (5) above shall cease to have effect in relation to a variety so specified, or varieties of a species or group so specified."

      733
      The reference here to subsection (5) lies at the heart of the difficulty.
      European Union plant breeders' rights gave holders rights over farm-saved seed which enabled them to charge a royalty on it. The United Kingdom breeders applied for the EU rights for varieties no older than the end of 1991, as first registered. Some difficult and protracted negotiations led eventually to agreements between the farmers, breeders and contractors on rates of royalty and collection methods. Those agreements were reached on the basis that varieties older than those applied for in the EU would not be royalty bearing. This, for the farmers and contractors, was an extremely important principle and was expected to last for the lifespan of the older varieties.
      The arrangement partially maintains an ancient agricultural right. It also helps to maintain a fair market balance in terms of royalty rates; and it is the cornerstone of farmers' and contractors' acceptance of a radical devaluation of their rights.
      Subsection (6) will destroy all this unless amended so as to apply only to varieties older than 1 January 1992. That is roughly in line with the practice under European Union rights. Contractors and farmers can live with some aspects of the Bill, but that provision worries them a great deal.
      The Bill uses the term "sensibly lower" in relation to royalty rates—a curious bit of Euro-speak arrived at during the discussions on the trade agreements. The extension of rights to all the older varieties would make a mockery of those agreements, as the older varieties may not be "sensibly lower".
      I am told that the problem could put the industry back a long way—unless the wording is amended. It is of far greater consequence than has yet been acknowledged. If the Government insist on the Bill in this form, it will cause considerable difficulties for the people who have written to me. I await the Minister's reply with interest.
      Mr. Lansley: I want to take up again the point I made on Second Reading. The Minister has explained that the intention is to allow Ministers to extend the date from which the provisions can be applied, but that date should not be extended so far as to reduce the returns to plant breeders.
      The timing of the introduction of the measure is all-important. Will the Minister refer again to the Government's intention, other things being equal, to introduce the provisions in the autumn of 2001?
      Mr. Rooker: I hesitated before getting to my feet because I was wondering whether the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) was going to speak to amendment No. 3.
      I understand the point made by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). Amendment No. 11 would add a date to the face of the Bill,
      "where required to do so by a regulation made by the Council of the European Communities".
      I have already offered the assurance that the exemption will not be withdrawn before 30 June 2001; but the Council regulation is quite separate from national law governing plant breeders rights, so it imposes no
      734
      obligation on the UK. A decoupling may be required in the drafting of the amendment and this is neither the time nor the place to do it. Writing a date in the Bill would present problems because it would tie Ministers' hands if we had to change the date.
      Getting space for primary legislation is not easy; the Bill has been in the queue for several years. That is the reality of parliamentary life. It is therefore essential that we can amend our national legislation through secondary legislation just as we can amend legislation that comes through the EC. The amendment couples the date and the regulations, whereas the two matters should be separate.
      Mr. Cash: As the Minister says, the provision under subsection (6) can be made by order. Clause 45 provides for regulations and orders. The Bill empowers Ministers to make different provisions for different circumstances, and to make other adjustments to the arrangements in question. In the light of what I said about the difficulties that have been caused by the conjunction of subsections (5) and (6), would the Minister be prepared to consider at the very least making an order rectifying the question which the shadow Minister and I have raised?
      Mr. Rooker: I am no expert and I have not been able to take advice, but I have been in the House long enough to know that the powers under clause 45, which are supplemental, incidental and transitionary provisions, would not come to that. This is a meaty issue, which cannot be dealt with by a technical drafting amendment.
      The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) raised the issue from the other side of the coin. Let us suppose that the date were 2009. I do not wish to be quoted on that, although it may now have been taken down and used in evidence against me. Ministers do not intend to abuse that power, but would use it in the light of agreements with the industry. Following a meeting last week between the NFU and plant breeders, understandings were arrived at and will be complied with in the normal course of professional discourse. If they are not, the first to complain to Ministers will be hon. Members from both sides of the House. They will not be happy if that happens when people enter freely into commercial agreements with which the House does not wish to interfere.
      There is a point of substance regarding the drafting of the amendments and I have no doubt that my words will be carefully dissected and probably looked at in another place.
      Mr. Cash: Further to the point that the Minister has just made about statutory instruments, he seemed a little unsure about the application of orders. Clause 9(11) says:
      "Ministers may by order amend this section as they think fit"—
      I stress the words "as they think fit"—
      "for the purpose of securing that it corresponds with the provisions for the time being of the law relating to Community plant variety rights about farm saved seed."
      Will the Minister reconsider the point that he made, because my question relates directly to whether there is a power to revisit by order the matter to which I referred? Subsection (11) is unusual as it overrides many of the more general points, which I agree would normally apply to the making of orders.
      Mr. Rooker: At the risk of repeating myself, order-making powers exist throughout the Bill and they

      735
      are quite specific. There is no general order-making power. Clause 9 contains two such powers. If it were accepted that we could do as we thought fit with one order-making power, the House would operate in that way and would not give Ministers those powers.
      The order-making powers in the Bill are specific. The order-making power in subsection (6), which is the subject of the amendment, relates specifically to the date. We are reluctant to write a date into the Bill. I have given a commitment about the date and said that the exemption would not be withdrawn before 30 June 2001, so the amendment is unnecessary. I understand that Ministers can come and go, but I speak on behalf of the Government.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He has a longer period of service in the House than I, but he would agree that no Minister wants to abuse the powers given to him in a Bill; that does not necessarily mean that, at some stage in the future, that would not happen. The amendment would ensure that it would not.
      I appreciate the Minister's argument that the amendment may be defective because it couples two issues that should not be coupled, but I wonder whether I may push him. He made it clear that the Government have no intention of abandoning the exemption before 30 June 2001. Will he give an undertaking that he or his noble Friends will accept an amendment to that effect when the Bill goes to the other place if the two issues are decoupled? I am concerned that the Minister's undertaking should appear in the Bill by inserting that date.
      Mr. Rooker: I undertake to discuss, well in advance of the Bill going to the other place, with my noble Friend Lord Donoughue, who will take the Bill through the other place, whether the Government can come up with an amendment likely to meet those points.
      Mr. Cash: Would the Minister be kind enough to give the same consideration to the point that I made?
      Mr. Rooker: Yes, of course.
      Mr. Paice: In the light of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 11

      DURATION
      Mr. Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 6, line 32, leave out subsection (2).
      I understand that I should not have called you Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir Alan. I hope that you will forgive me. Some of us are still learning our ways in this place and the intricacies are many.
      The Chairman: Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that we are all learning in this place.
      Mr. Baker: That makes me feel better.
      736
      The amendment is to test the Minister on the reasons for including subsection (2). Subsection (1) clearly states for how long plant breeders' rights should have effect. Subsection (2) seems to undermine that by saying that those specific periods can be removed or extended but gives no maximum period. Earlier contributions to the debate showed that hon. Members on both sides of the House wanted, albeit with different interpretations, to ensure that plant breeders' and farmers' rights were balanced. Subsection (2) would weigh those rights in favour of plant breeders and away from farmers. I should be grateful for any clarification and assurance on that.
      Mr. Rooker: Indeed, we are all learning. This is all new to me, too.
      Clause 11, as the hon. Gentleman says, is an important clause which extends the period of protection for most trees and vines from 25 to 30 years, as compared with the 1964 Act, and from 20 to 25 years for many other species. Potatoes already enjoy 30 years protection, and a few minor ornamentals and tree species are protected for 25 years under the 1964 Act.
      I cannot accept the amendment because it would prevent periods of rights being altered by secondary legislation, which is currently possible under the 1964 Act. As I said on Second Reading, 80 per cent. of the Bill is existing law. We are not introducing a great deal of new legislation. If we were doing so, the House would rightly want to proceed with the Bill in a different way.
      It is unlikely that the powers in the clause would be used very often. The current periods of protection mirror those in the Council regulation. The periods specified in the clause bring the position in the United Kingdom into line with that in the European Community. Should they be changed by regulation by the Community, that would lead to considerable confusion and unfair competition, if the UK were unable to respond quickly to bring the periods of protection into line with our own legislation. We need the power to do that by secondary legislation.
      Mr. Baker: I am grateful for the Minister's clarification and for his assurance that he would not—or rather, that the Government would not, as I doubt whether he will still be in the same role in 30 years' time, although he may be here perhaps in a different role—extend the time limits willy-nilly, and that the purpose of the clause is to accommodate European legislation. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 13

      REMEDIES FOR INFRINGEMENT
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Lansley: I wanted to raise two matters, to which I referred briefly on Second Reading, and to seek the Minister's reply. First, I refer to provision for remedies for infringement in clause 13, which do not provide specifically for circumstances in which the holder of rights fails to receive remuneration from the user of farm-saved seed. Would it be possible for the provision

      737
      also to be used by the holder of those rights to sue for proper remuneration? I understand that the clause could reflect provisions in the European regulation, articles 17 and 18.
      Secondly, if persistent offenders take original seed and sell it in local markets or by other routes without giving proper return to the original holder of the rights in those varieties, could the clause be used to increase the penalties for such persistent offending?
      Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Because of our truncated arrangements, I am keen that no part of the Bill which any hon. Member wants to discuss gets hidden away. The fact that amendments have not been tabled is no reason not to ask questions about clauses. I could not answer every question on Second Reading.
      The plant variety rights office has no role in enforcing rights. It would be incorrect to read such a role into the Bill. Clause 13 provides for holders of plant breeders' rights to take civil action in relation to infringement of their rights, including their rights in a dependent variety. It gives plant breeders the same remedies in law as are available to other owners of proprietary rights.
      The Bill and the 1964 Act do not cover the case. It is a matter for arguments in the courts between two parties who happen to disagree. We do not seek to give new powers to the plant controller and the PVRO. Individuals who are aggrieved must go to court.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 15

      COMPULSORY LICENCES
      Mr. Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in clause 15, page 7, line 29, leave out from the beginning to end of line 33 and insert—
      '(a) that for the variety to which the application relates it is necessary in the public interest to do so, including the need to supply the market with material offering specified features, or to maintain the incentive for continued breeding of improved varieties,'.
      The Minister will be aware that the amendment is a direct concern of the National Farmers Union. It was part of the NFU's original submission in response to the draft Bill under the previous Government. I shall press the Minister to tell the House why the Government have not accepted the NFU's view on the matter.
      The amendment deals with compulsory licences, a system which the NFU believes to be inadequate and ineffective. I understand that a compulsory licence has never been granted. The limited grounds on which the controller may grant a compulsory licence as set out in the Bill are inadequate to accommodate the potato sector, for example, which has become extremely diverse in its requirements. The need to supply the market with specific varietal characteristics has become commonplace.
      Moreover, the current system provides the applicant with no anonymity. That often deters an individual who is considering taking on the might of a large organisation.
      738
      The NFU and the Opposition seek a mechanism within the Bill whereby application for a compulsory licence could be made by way of a corporate approach, which would provide some protection for the individual who was seeking a compulsory licence.
      It is imperative not only that the Bill is aligned with European legislation, but that it is updated to reflect the changes that have occurred in this diverse industry since 1964. That is the basis of the amendment. I hope that the Minister will accept it and give us an assurance of the intent behind it.
      Mr. Rooker: It is important that the point is considered in this place, as it will clearly be raised in the other place.
      The amendment looks as though it was designed to widen the grounds of public interest, so that public interest is redefined to include the need to supply the market with material offering specific commercial features—for example, potatoes for chipping.
      The amendment is unnecessary. Under the Bill, the controller is required to issue a compulsory licence if a variety is not available to the public at reasonable prices or is not widely distributed. The fact that a variety may have particular qualities would be one of the many factors that he would have to take into account in ensuring that the variety was available to the public at appropriate prices and in sufficient quantities to meet the needs of the market.
      I accept that such a licence has never been issued under the compulsory system. I am not sure whether anyone has ever tried—and I am not inviting anyone to do so—to question the decisions that have been reached. I do not know whether applications for such licences have been refused, or whether the process of reaching that decision is questioned. There is a system available to anyone who feels aggrieved, whether that is the NFU, any of its members or anyone else.
      I see no reason for anonymity. I said earlier that there was a widely accepted degree of openness about this exercise of government and public interest. I would not want to introduce any new aspect behind closed doors.
      Mr. Paice: I thank the Minister, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 16

      SELECTION AND REGISTRATION OF NAMES
      Mr. Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in clause 16, page 8, line 34, after subsection (1), insert—
      '(1A) Any provision for the keeping of a register made under subsection 1(c) above shall include provision for such a register to be freely open for public inspection.'.
      I shall press the Minister again on a freedom of information point. The purpose of the amendment is quite clear: to ensure, first, that any information relating to the keeping of a register is open and in the public domain; and, secondly, that anyone wishing to access the register is not subject to a substantial charge. The Minister may say that such information is already available in the public domain—in which case, he should not object to writing

      739
      the provision into the Bill. He accepted my earlier point about the need to ensure that arrangements are open and above board, and this is a constructive amendment which will help the Minister to achieve that aim.
      8 pm
      Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman has got it the wrong way around: the Government would have to seek the approval of Parliament if we were to try to deprive anyone of information that is freely available. The present system seems to work adequately. The information to which the hon. Gentleman refers is freely available and is published both monthly and annually. All the lists are available. In addition, the register may be inspected at the plant variety rights office in Cambridge during normal office hours.
      There is nothing closed about the register. Before the Government could close it, we would have to seek Parliament's approval. There is no need to write into the Bill procedures that are already followed willingly.
      Mr. Baker: I hear the Minister's assurances that the register will remain open. My point—which has not been answered fully—is that, unless the provision is written into the Bill, there is nothing to stop a future Government removing the right of access without seeking the approval of Parliament. I explained earlier why I believe the issue of plant breeders' rights will become more sensitive in future, and I hold to that view. It would be convenient to withhold such information in those circumstances. Although there is no problem at present, we may face difficulties in the future. The amendment would ensure that every Government had as much backbone on this issue as the Minister has demonstrated. I shall withdraw the amendment in light of the Minister's personal expression from the Dispatch Box.
      Mr. Rooker: I do not give personal commitments: I make commitments on behalf of the Government. I make that absolutely clear so that there is no misunderstanding in future. Consistent with the policy of open government followed by the previous Government, the information to which the hon. Gentleman refers is openly available. This Government plan to introduce a freedom of information Act: we are not in the business of denying access to information that is already available.
      Mr. Baker: I hope that the Minister will not take it personally—or be insulted on behalf of the Government—if I retain my slight scepticism regarding this matter. He mentioned a freedom of information Act. I understand that it has been drafted, but it was not in the Queen's Speech and the Government have promised to introduce it some time in the future.
      The Government have denied me other information by way of written parliamentary answers although it was provided by the previous Conservative Government. Therefore, I am not convinced that the Government are committed to freedom of information—although I hope to be proved wrong in due course and I shall be happy to accept such legislation. However, until such time as we can be sure that the Government are committed to freedom of information, it is right to push them on individual cases to ensure that information is available.
      I accept that the Minister is speaking on behalf of the Government, who are committed to ensuring that information is available. However, I seek to ensure that
      740
      future Governments will not be able to withdraw that information without seeking the approval of Parliament. My concern remains. I hope that the Minister will not dismiss it, but will perhaps reflect on the matter with his colleagues in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 17 to 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 32

      REFERENCE COLLECTIONS OF PLANT MATERIAL
      Mr. Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 14, line 7, leave out from 'Controller' to 'reference' and insert
      'shall establish and maintain comprehensive'.
      This amendment attempts to be constructive. Hon. Members have heard about the establishment that has opened in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) and about the importance that is placed upon collections. The Bill refers to a reference collection, but it does not required that it be maintained. It refers simply to the fact that:
      "The Controller may establish and maintain reference collections".
      The amendment seeks to emphasise the importance that the Liberal Democrats attach to the maintenance of such collections for future reference and possible future use. I hope that the Minister will accept that this is an important point and will respond positively.
      Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The operation of the plant breeders' rights system would not be practical in the absence of a comprehensive reference collection, which includes information about all United Kingdom protected varieties. That is the foundation without which the system would not work, and it must be maintained. It is not a question of "may" or "shall": the system would collapse and be ineffective without that reference collection.
      As drafted, the amendment would require the controller to keep a list of information from around the world. That would prove impractical and unnecessarily expensive. International co-operation in plant variety testing under the UPOV umbrella includes facilities for the exchange of information and material between testing authorities. The establishment of a more extensive reference collection in the United Kingdom would result in unnecessary expense. All information is available and can be accessed by 32 member nations under the UPOV umbrella.
      As I have said, the system would not work without a reference collection. It is not a matter of discretion: it is the foundation of the system.
      Mr. Baker: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I found it slightly confusing, but perhaps that is my fault. He seemed to say that a comprehensive collection exists, while resisting replacing "may" with "shall" on the basis that an extensive reference collection would cost too much money. However, I note that the Minister is committed to maintaining a comprehensive reference collection and, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 33 to 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New clause 2

      REFERENCE OF CERTAIN APPLICATIONS TO THE MONOPOLIES AND MERGERS COMMISSION
      'If it shall appear to the Ministers that any company making application for the grant of plant breeders' rights would, were the application to succeed, hold more than five per cent. of the market for the crop of which the variety which is the subject of the application is a variety, then that application shall stand referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.'—[Mr. Baker.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Baker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I shall not rehearse the arguments that I advanced in my speech on Second Reading. The new clause is an attempt to highlight the importance that we attach to the direction in which the ownership or patenting of seeds is moving in this country and across the world. I cited figures earlier regarding the market penetration of Monsanto and other companies. Chemical companies are buying seed companies in large numbers. In the past, there was a natural division between seed and chemical companies that provided some protection because it diluted ownership within the agricultural sector. However, that is no longer the case and we are witnessing a concentration of ownership.
      In those circumstances, individual companies are able to control significant sections of the market and adversely affect it to benefit themselves and to disadvantage farmers. The Minister has not had a chance to respond in detail to the serious issues about genetically modified material that are not in the Bill but are certainly germane to it. What happens will be significant in terms of plant breeders' and farmers' rights in future.
      The Minister may say that the clause is unworkable, but I hope that he will not dismiss the real concerns of hon. Members and others about market penetration by genetic engineering chemical companies that are buying up seed companies. I hope that he will not be dismissive either about my argument that we need to have some control to ensure that transnational companies that are not answerable to the Government or anyone else in this country do not distort the market to their benefit and to others' disbenefit.
      If the Minister wants to find a better way of achieving my objective, I shall be happy to hear of it. I have explained what I am trying to achieve by moving the clause, and I hope that the Minister will accept the spirit that lies behind it. I hope also that he accepts that it relates to an important point. For me, it is perhaps the most important point: the interface between the chemical companies and the seed companies. The issue cannot be ignored and I hope that the Minister will respond to it.
      Mr. Rooker: I shall not dismiss what the hon. Gentleman has said—far from it, because he has raised an important matter. He has attached the new clause to the Bill, but it has much more significant implications for the Department of Trade and Industry because the hon. Gentleman is seeking to deal with monopolies and market power.
      742
      The hon. Gentleman may not like it, but the plant breeder is entitled to take commercial advantage of the varieties that he has bred, discovered or developed. The breeder or breeders may, and generally have, invested considerable sums, time, resources and technical expertise. If there is a problem and for some reason a breeder is holding back or acting, as it is thought, against the public interest, clause 15 contains powers for the controller to issue a compulsory licence. If anyone thinks that there is a real problem, such a licence can be issued if it is thought that it is in the public interest to do so. If a breeder abuses the dominant position of the marketplace, appropriate powers are available to the controller.
      The hon. Gentleman is on a much wider issue, in many ways, than those with which we are dealing. I do not knock that because he is right to raise it on this occasion. The new clause, however, is not suitable for inclusion in the Bill for both the narrow and the wider reasons that I have advanced.
      Mr. Baker: I am grateful to the Minister for accepting that I have raised an important matter. I fully accept that it fits into a much wider arena than the Bill covers, the Bill being quite narrowly drawn on a narrow subject. The Minister has accepted, I think, that the matter I have raised relates to the Bill in a way, and that is important.
      As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said, no compulsory licence has ever been issued. That worries me somewhat. My other concern is that big business is involved. There is an attempt by certain companies to corner the market in a monopolistic way. Furthermore, as I understand it, there is pressure from the American authorities to ensure that licences and advances are introduced and take place as soon as possible without the precautionary principle being applied. It is surely important for the Government to protect the interests of all involved in this country so that they might stand up to the pressures that will follow. I accept, however, the Minister's argument. The new clause represents an attempt to raise a matter of principle. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      Schedule I agreed to.

    Schedule 2

      CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANT OF PLANT BREEDERS' RIGHTS
      Mr. Baker; I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 20, line 31, after 'application', insert—
      ' 1A. The variety shall not be deemed to be distinct if, for the purposes of assessment of genetically modified organisms under United Kingdom or European Union law it has been deemed substantially equivalent to an existing variety.'.
      The amendment represents an attempt to set out for the Minister what I perceive to be a potential weakness; I hope that he can convince me otherwise. It seems that plant breeders, especially transnational companies, argue clearly for distinctness as a reason for their having benefits under the Bill, but when they seek to convince the European Union that any plant or feedstuff that contains a genetically modified material should be available for

      743
      human consumption they argue that there is no distinctness and that the feedstuff or material is almost exactly a replica of something that occurs naturally. In some instances, the plant breeding industry will attempt to have it both ways by arguing sameness when trying to obtain EU permission and distinctness when, in future, trying to benefit from the Bill.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Rooker:. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman again because he has raised an important issue. At the same time, I am not entirely clear what he seeks by way of the amendment. I shall not nit-pick about technical defectiveness, but I am unclear about the use of
      "The variety shall not he deemed to be distinct".
      Varieties are not deemed to be substantially equivalent in UK law or EU law: they are deemed, to be either distinct or not. A technical protocol has been developed by UPOV, which is recognised internationally, for checking whether there is distinctiveness. It is true that a difference in one characteristic is sufficient to make a variety distinct, but the second variety may be dependent on the variety from which it is derived. In those circumstances, as I said on Second Reading, the holder of rights in the first variety will be able to claim an interest in the exploitation of the dependent variety.
      The language set out in the amendment about deeming would be entirely impracticable when considering inclusion in the Bill. That illustrates why we need precision and clarity in the Bill. It is necessary to ensure that everyone knows where he or she stands—breeders, farmers and producers—so that there is no argument in law about deeming something to be substantially equivalent or distinct, bearing in mind the fact that there is a set of international protocols for testing the distinctiveness of plant varieties. The amendment would muddy the waters, if I may put it that way.
      Mr. Baker: Perhaps I might apologise for my earlier defective amendments, if there were any. I feel rather more vindicated on this amendment because the words
      "The variety shall not be deemed to he distinct"
      are a replication, with the addition of the negative, of the first line of schedule 2. That being so, I assume that it is a reasonable form of words. I am grateful to the Public Bill Office for helping me with the rest of the amendment.
      These matters are complicated and I accept that it is possible to move one pawn on the chess board and upset everything else. At the same time, I believe that it is possible for the plant breeder to have it both ways. Perhaps that is not a matter to be pursued now but perhaps the Minister will ensure that what the breeder benefits from in terms of the Bill will not be argued the other way round during another stage in the process. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Schedule 2 agreed to.
      Schedules 3 and 4 agreed to.
      Bill reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  Solicitor-General (Salary)
  8.19 pm
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): I beg to move,
  That the draft Solicitor General's Salary Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 12th June. be approved.
  Before I say a few words about the order, I should like to welcome the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) to the Opposition Front Bench in his new capacity. I am sorry that this debate is such a relatively minor event for his debut, but I am sure that there will be many fuller opportunities to discuss House affairs.
  The draft order is straightforward. It provides for an increase in the Solicitor-General's salary, so that it is at the same rate as that of the Lord Advocate. The House will know that, following the general election, the Solicitor-General was appointed as a Minister in the other place, which created an unusual situation that had not previously applied.
  The House will also know that the Top Salaries Review Body and the Senior Salaries Review Board have published reports that have supported the traditional arrangement of paying the Solicitor-General the same salary as the Lord Advocate when both have been in the same House. As both are now in the other place, the Solicitor-General's salary needs to be increased so that it is once again the same as the Lord Advocate's. I do not think that this issue is contentious: it is a simple, straightforward amendment to bring that salary into line. I hope that it will meet with the approval of the House.
  The order, if it is accepted this evening, will come into effect on 27 June this year, and will determine the salary of the Solicitor-General to be £78,072, which is exactly the same as the salary that was recommended for the Lord Advocate in the 1996 SSRB report. I hope that this simple measure will find favour with the House.
  8.22 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank the right hon. Lady, the Leader of the House, for her gracious words of welcome. I immediately reassure her that, although the Opposition agonised long over this measure, we have finally come to the conclusion that it would be appropriate not to impede the passage of the order.
  I expected the Government Benches to be full of disappointed lawyers. It is somewhat surprising that the Government could not find a lawyer in this House to occupy this position. When I glanced at Dod's, the invaluable guide to this new House of Commons, I saw that only two Members had registered an interest in jobs, both of whom are from the Government Benches but neither of whom is a lawyer. The only Member of the House of Commons who has indicated an interest in the law is the recently appointed Opposition Chief Whip.
  I suppose that one can understand why the Government wanted to look elsewhere for their Solicitor-General. Perhaps this is a case of "it's not what you know, but who you know", although I fully accept that Lord Falconer is very learned in the law. I also accept that, in taking this salary, which may seem gargantuan to some of us, he is doubtless depriving himself of large fees.

  745
  The Government are clearly fortunate to have the services of such a learned lawyer. It would be churlish in the extreme for us to deny him this exceptionally modest salary. So I am delighted, in what the right hon. Lady referred to as my debut from the Dispatch Box, to welcome the order and urge the House to approve it.
  8.24 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I should begin by declaring an interest, in that I once appeared unsuccessfully against the new Solicitor-General in a tribunal hearing before the Civil Aviation Authority. I should also declare a further interest. Such is the nature of the village of Scots law that it was his father, an eminent practising solicitor in Edinburgh, who gave me my first substantial case after being called to the bar in Scotland.
  I therefore have compelling reasons for not adopting the churlish attitude that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), making his debut, eschewed. I add my congratulations to those that have already been expressed. If I may respectfully say so, it was a matter of astonishment to many of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches that the hon. Gentleman did not have an equivalent responsibility at a much earlier date. I welcome him, and congratulate him warmly.
  The Law Officers play a special role, because they give advice to the Government on legal matters affecting Government policy. Sometimes they have to stand aside from the Government. Some of us remember when Sir Patrick Mayhew, as Solicitor-General, had to threaten to put the Metropolitan police into 10 Downing street to get proper responses to inquiries that arose out of the Westland helicopter affair. On occasion, the Law Officers must exercise responsibilities in the public interest rather than on behalf of the Government.
  It is right to say that there is great disappointment that there is no candidate from the House of Commons for the post of Solicitor-General for England and Wales. It is a double disappointment, because there is no candidate in the House of Commons to be Lord Advocate or Solicitor-General for Scotland.
  The Scottish legal system is distinct and different, and, some would argue, in some respects a material improvement on the common law system of England and Wales. It is a civil law system: part of the exchange between Scottish scholars and the universities of Leiden and Utrecht in the middle ages. It is disappointing that it is not properly represented in this House. We are constantly told that this is a United Kingdom Parliament. It is a matter of great distress that hon. Members from Scotland do not have the opportunity to ask of a Law Officer from Scotland the questions that they are able to ask of Mr. Attorney.
  My astonishment is, in some respects, based on my ignorance. I had not appreciated that it was being suggested that the lowly office of Solicitor-General is equivalent to the traditional and important office of Lord Advocate in Scotland. The Lord Advocate's office is of considerable age. About the time of the 1745 rebellion, the Lord Advocate, Duncan Forbes of Culloden, was, in effect, running Scotland. Before there were Secretaries of State for Scotland, the Lord Advocate was the Government's representative in Scotland.
  746
  I know things have changed a little, and the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar) is the Secretary of State for Scotland. I take nothing away from his great ability, charm and aptitude, but it is slightly galling that the great office of Lord Advocate should be compared to this inferior office, not least because the Lord Advocate's responsibilities are substantial. Every prosecution in Scotland runs in the name of the Lord Advocate, who is ultimately responsible for its conduct. That burden is not placed on the shoulders of the Solicitor-General for England and Wales.
  I am not renowned for quarrelling with the Top Salaries Review Body, but in this particular regard I do not think that its analysis of the respective importance of these two jobs is accurate and justified.
  Finally, although I never did national service, there used to be an observation that applied to people who did not enjoy their national service, to the effect that, if they could not take a joke, they should not have joined up. If, on I May, the Solicitor-General did not consider that the salary was good enough, he need not have accepted the appointment. [Interruption.] A sotto voce voice, which I shall not identify lest it embarrass the individual in his chambers later, says that the Solicitor-General nearly did not take the job. That says quite a lot about public service and the high motivation that Ministers require to serve the nation in either House of Parliament.
  I should also say that it is pretty soon for the Solicitor-General to get a pay rise. If it is awarded on the basis of productivity, one would have to work a little longer in a factory or in Sainsbury's before receiving such a pay rise.
  The Leader of the House said that the debate was not controversial. It may not be controversial, but it does not stand proper comparison with the dignity of the office of Lord Advocate in Scotland. I wish that it were possible to amend the order, as I certainly would have tabled an amendment recognising the remarkable responsibilities of the Lord Advocate and the fact that he is poorly remunerated compared with what now appears to be generous provision for the Solicitor-General for England and Wales.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Edward Garnier: At the outset of the remarks by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), I was persuaded not to join my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), whom I congratulate on his appointment to the Front Bench, in teasing the Labour party about its failure to find within a huge parliamentary party a suitable candidate for Solicitor-General.
  First, the point had already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire; secondly, I risked being ticked off by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, who is a learned member of the Scottish Bar and a fine advocate on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman then proceeded to make what I can only consider to be one of the most churlish speeches I have ever heard. I know that he was presumably speaking in jest and forensically, but it was an unhelpful speech because the Solicitor-General—in this House or in another place—needs to be properly remunerated.
  I have to declare an interest, as I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the former Attorney-General and Solicitor-General at the same time. I consider that the Law

  747
  Officers in the House are underpaid. Perhaps I am echoing the views of Mr. David Pannick, one of the leading lights of the English Bar, who wrote an article in The Times recently suggesting that the Attorney-General should receive the same salary as a Lord Justice of Appeal—some £140,000 a year.
  English and Scottish Law Officers carry immense burdens. Their offices are undervalued by us mere politicians. They perform duties on behalf of the Scottish and English and Welsh legal systems that go far beyond the usual public recognition that Ministers of their seniority normally expect. They do not appear every night on "Newsnight" and other exciting programmes, but that is probably because they are still working in the House or in their Department at the behest of the Government.
  In my view, the Government—of whatever complexion—get very good value for money, and not just from the individual Law Officers and their staff—including the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General and the Scottish Law Officers and their predecessors under the Conservative Government.
  The debate allows me to suggest that the law and Parliament have become two separate countries. That is much to be regretted. The myth persists that the House of Commons is overstuffed with lawyers. The lawyers who are here—I include myself—may well be overstuffed, but sadly the legal profession is not over-represented in the House. It is to the detriment of the law and the House that the preponderance of legal talent in the Houses of Parliament now rests in the other place.
  The whole point of tonight's debate is to draw attention to the sad separation between two great institutions. The election result underpins the assumption that there must be an enormous number of Labour-supporting lawyers in the solicitors' profession and at the Bar, so why are they not attracted to public service in the House of Commons? Pay must play some part. I do not agree with the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife that those who are attracted into public service should not also be attracted by reasonable salaries.
  People such as the Solicitor-General, the Attorney-General and their predecessors will have given up a great deal in financial terms in order to enter Parliament. They will have given up great and highly respectable practices at the Bar, for which they were properly remunerated. That must be a discouragement, as, by the time one attained sufficient seniority at the Bar to be worthy of consideration as a Law Officer, one would have to be a Queen's Counsel of some experience.
  It is not in the interests of the House or the country to discourage well-qualified barristers from entering the House. I dare say that the difference between the £78,072 and £52,278 that we are now discussing will not begin to compensate the Solicitor-General for what he has given up.
  The second reason why the law and the House have become two different countries relates to the lowering of public esteem for Members of Parliament. I shall not go in for a fascinating discussion about sleaze, as that would cause too much trouble on both sides of the House, but we as parliamentarians must recognise the lowering of public esteem. If the public do not think much of the House, why should members of the Bar wish to join it when they have a respectable occupation already?
  748
  Thirdly, there are fears at the Bar that, in future, Members of Parliament will be discouraged from continuing to practise at the Bar and that, either through exhortation or by changes in the rules of the House, it will become increasingly difficult for Members to maintain a practice or any other outside paid interest, so the House will shut itself off from a huge well of talent from which we should be able to draw law officers.
  The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife has already outlined the width, breadth and depth of the burden that falls upon the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, so I will not repeat them. I hope that the House will by acclamation pass the order, not just because the current Solicitor-General deserves his salary, but because all Law Officers deserve it. I hope that it will send a message to those practising at the Scottish or English Bar who might otherwise be discouraged from entering politics, and to do so with a will to discharge public service.
  8.38 pm
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Like other Opposition Members, I was rather surprised that it was not possible to find a new Labour lawyer in the House to take up such a responsible position. My mind went back to an article in The Independent last September, which reported:
  "New Labour is awash with lawyers, all waiting for their rewards".
  It even said that the Society of Labour Lawyers had experienced a massive increase in membership. In just 12 months, it had increased to 800 members—an increase of two thirds in a single year. So why was Mr. Falconer, as he was at the time, selected?
  The answer is a good and honourable one. Charles Falconer QC is an outstanding and gifted lawyer, and he has much in common with the Prime Minister. They have known each other since their schooldays, they have been friends for many years, they have great mutual professional respect, and they both send their children to fee-paying schools.
  That is an important point to make when paying tribute to Lord Falconer, because he has taken an important salary cut. According to The Times on 8 May, in a decent year Lord Falconer could expect to make £500,000, which will fall to a derisory £78,000. Out of that, he will still have to find the £21,000 that he apparently spends sending his four children to private schools. I respect him greatly for taking a cut in his income of that magnitude, and my only sadness is that his children will not be joined at their private schools by the children of even poorer families, because of the abolition of the assisted places scheme.
  I wish to draw attention to the gender discrimination that lies behind the treatment of Lord Falconer by the Government in comparison with the treatment of the new Minister for Women, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), with whom I have crossed swords in a previous existence outside the House. We are reliably informed by The Guardian that there are no fewer than 101 Labour women Members, but the Minister for Women was appointed six weeks after all the other Ministers, and will not receive a salary—not even a minimum wage. That contrasts badly with the treatment of Lord Falconer.

  749
  I shall conclude on a positive suggestion, arising from the bible of the old Labour party—The Guardian—which today pointed out that the Government will send no fewer than 50 of its Members of Parliament at a time away from Westminster to keep them out of trouble—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman has strayed dangerously far from the confines of the order. He seems to be unrepentant. I wish him to return swiftly to the terms of the order.
  Dr. Lewis: I merely wish to suggest that similar consideration should be given, as we approve the order, to other people in less prestigious posts. They should perhaps be remunerated by a tithe from those of their colleagues who will not be serving in the House for part of the time.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Given that the Opposition will not oppose the order, my comments are independent, but I hope that they will make a contribution to the decision. Perhaps they will inform future decisions, so that they will be better made. To my mind, there is something of the 18th century about the way that the new Government have approached their responsibilities. They have an 18th-century style majority, and they are now distributing the largesse of office among their friends.
  On the one hand, we heard time and again before the general election attacks by the Labour party on the powers and privileges of another place, although the ordinary members of another place receive merely a subsistence allowance for their daily attendance. On the other hand, when the Government choose to magic their new Solicitor-General—who has not taken part in any election, and who does not face the duties to his electorate that we face to ours—into office, they brazenly ask the House to give him a salary nearly twice the size of that of an ordinary elected Member of this Chamber.
  I expect howls of anguish from Labour Members, and, perhaps, given the earlier comments by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier), from some of my hon. Friends with a legal background, when they contemplate the huge fall in income that the Solicitor-General faces. Having accepted such a huge loss in his income, he would have shown a little more style if he had gone the whole way and accepted no income at all.
  I believe it was said in the 18th century by one of the Treasury Ministers who served under Pelham and Walpole and other Prime Ministers of the day that, as Ministers of the Crown went to and from the House of Commons, they were passed their money "with a squeeze of the hand". Tonight, we will have a more open process to pass money to the Solicitor-General, and we must all be in favour of that. I believe it was an 18th-century Prime Minister who said that every man has his price, and some will say, perhaps mistakenly, that the price of the Solicitor-General is £78,000.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) said, the order is a stark contrast with the treatment of the Government of their Minister for women. It says much for the latent chauvinism of the Government that they cannot see the irony in paying an unelected male
  750
  nearly £80,000, when they refuse to pay an elected female any money for her ministerial duties. At this rate, I fear that the effect of the order will be single handedly to reverse the great process that occurred under the previous Conservative Government, by which the wage differential between men and women narrowed to merely 20 per cent.
  Ms Louise Ellman: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his comments are gross hypocrisy, given that the Conservatives now have fewer women Members than before the election, while the Labour party has many more? In view of that fact, the comments by Opposition Members tonight are grossly hypocritical, and do them little credit.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful that the hon. Lady has drawn attention to the fact that there are now many lady Labour Members. I appeal to them to join me in criticising the difference between the treatment of the Solicitor-General and the treatment of the Minister for women. I regret that there are fewer women Conservative Members, and I believe that, at the next election, the electorate will vote in many more women Conservatives—and, indeed, many more male Conservatives—so that we return to government. We all look forward to that.
  The Government have shown discrimination in advancing this much appreciated and well-argued case for money for the Solicitor-General, when the treatment of the Minister for women has been so shabby. I am surprised that a Labour lady Member should criticise me for hypocrisy, when the actions of her party have been hypocritical in this instance.
  8.48 pm
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I confined my earlier remarks to the principles involved in presenting the order—and, having heard a couple of Conservative Members speak, I think that that was wise of me. I do not want to spend much time on some of the points that have been raised, but let me say a word about what was described as "gender discrimination".
  I do not think that Labour Members need any lectures from Conservatives, who obviously found it difficult to bring themselves to allow women candidates to stand in winnable seats. This year, especially, when we have seen the election of the largest number of women ever, the vast majority of them on our side of the House, we need no lectures from Opposition Members.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Would the Leader of the House care to comment on her own remarks in the context of women-only short lists? Might not those just possibly have had something to do with it?
  Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure that that is relevant to the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's question. He ought to know that most Labour women Members were not selected from all-women short lists. That is a matter of fact, for the record.
  I can tell the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), who has recently been appointed to a junior position as Minister for women, to assist the Secretary of State for Social Security in representing the

  751
  interests of women, needs no help from Opposition Members in defending her position. I am sure that she will enjoy debating such matters with them whenever they take an interest.
  We heard some different views from Opposition Members about the exact level of salary appropriate for the Solicitor-General. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), who I understand was an investment banker before he entered the House, and may still be one, complaining that the suggested salary for the Solicitor-General was too high. I am not sure how that salary compares with the average salary of investment bankers, but it would be interesting to speculate what that might be.
  It is also interesting that the hon. Gentleman claimed that my noble Friend would receive such a salary only because he was a friend of certain people in the Labour party, whereas the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) extolled his virtues. There is an interesting contradiction there.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Surely the Leader of the House has come to the heart of the matter now. I have not recently been an investment banker, but we know that many people are prepared to give up large salaries in order to serve their country as Members of Parliament. I do not think that one should single out the legal profession above all others.
  Mrs. Taylor: Nor do I, but when we have an independent recommendation and the person appointed is, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough said, well qualified to do the job, that person should be paid the rate independently recommended for that job by the SSRB. I feel strongly that, when the SSRB makes recommendations about the salaries of Members of Parliament and of individual Ministers, we should as a general principle act upon them. Otherwise, we would be saying that we as Members of the House should determine those salaries. I think that that would be dangerous.
  Sir Patrick Cormack indicated assent.
  Mrs. Taylor: I am glad that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman agrees on that matter of principle. I assure him that those of us who have been here for several years know that interfering with the principle can only cause hon. Members on both sides of the House many difficulties.
  The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who spoke for the Liberals, was uncharacteristically churlish—I must agree with the hon. and learned Member for Harborough that that is the appropriate word.
  752
  I speak as someone quite well versed in Scottish history, not only because I was born in Scotland but because my father was intent on ensuring that we all knew a good deal of Scottish history. None the less, I would not compare my knowledge of 1745 with that of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I shall not go down the route that he suggested and debate whether the office of Solicitor-General is inferior to that of the Lord Advocate. However, I know that he accepts the principle that the SSRB makes recommendations that the House should accept.
  It is on the basis of that principle that I recommend the order—not because the salary is one which I have plucked out of the air, or one which I think appropriate for the Solicitor-General, but because it is a matter of principle. The SSRB laid down a comparison, and I think it appropriate that we should stick to it as closely as possible.
  I do not want to comment on the personality of the Solicitor-General. My earlier remarks were not personal, and the salary is being suggested because of the position, not because of the personality. None the less, I welcome the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, another Queen's counsel, who tells us that my noble Friend is so well qualified for the position.
  Finally, I shall put Opposition Members in the picture on the increase before us. In one sense, it is an increase, but the salary of the Solicitor-General in the Conservative Administration was £82,189 on 1 April 1997, and on 2 May, the last day of the previous Government, it was £96,138. So although there is a technical increase for the present Solicitor-General because he is in another place, the actual sum paid is significantly lower than that paid to the previous Solicitor-General.
  Mr. Garnier: The right hon. Lady will, of course, wish to clarify the fact that the previous Solicitor-General, Sir Derek Spencer, was also a Member of Parliament, so part of the figure she mentioned included his salary as such.
  Mrs. Taylor: That is exactly the point, and that is why we had to introduce the order. The totality of the pay of the former Solicitor-General was significantly higher than the totality of the pay of the present Solicitor-General, because my noble Friend is in a different House. People who complain as if we were suddenly increasing the salary do not quite understand the situation, that the order arose directly out of the fact that the Solicitor-General is a member of another House, and directly out of the recommendation of the SSRB. I urge the House to accept it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Solicitor General's Salary Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.

  Plymouth Ocean Projects Ltd.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mudie.]
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Gary Streeter: I wish to bring to the attention of the House a sad and disturbing story of a fine company based in my constituency, responsible for many jobs both locally and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, which has been dealt a devastating financial blow through no fault of its own, because of bureaucratic bungling and intransigence of the worst kind.
  I shall begin with a summary. The company in question, Plymouth Ocean Projects Ltd., which trades as Fort Bovisand Underwater Centre, is owned by a constituent of mine, David Welsh. It entered into various arrangements in August 1996 with two colleges of further education to train students in diving. All was well until confusion arose between the Further Education Funding Council and the two colleges over whether such courses should be funded. By this time, the training was well in progress and the company carried on the training.
  As a result of the confusion, which remains today, the company, although it has incurred all the overheads involved and has continued to train young people for their future careers, has not been paid since November 1996 and is threatened with insolvency. Job losses have already occurred through no fault of the company, and further job losses will occur unless the matter is resolved. I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) in his place and I welcome him to his position. My argument tonight is that the Secretary of State has the power to intervene to direct the funding council to confirm that the courses should be funded. At the conclusion of my remarks, I will urge the Minister so to intervene.
  It might be helpful if I flesh out the sequence of events in slightly more detail so that the House is aware of the full horror of the circumstances. Fort Bovisand Underwater Centre is the largest diving school in Europe. It has been established for 27 years and has a worldwide reputation for quality. It uses many subcontractors to carry out its training work and, in all, about 300 jobs are directly related to the existence of the company.
  Last August, the company entered into a contractual arrangement with South Devon college, based in Torbay, and the Mid-Kent college, based in Chatham, to carry out a series of 10-week courses. The arrangement with South Devon college amounted to 50,000 units of training, and with the Kent college to 100,000 units of training—a substantial investment by the diving centre.
  The courses began in August and all went well. Overheads were incurred, staff were paid and students were trained. In November and December 1996, problems began. In correspondence between the Further Education Funding Council and the two colleges, the council intimated that the courses might not be appropriate for funding and that funding might not be forthcoming.
  The funding council's attitude was that it was for the principals of the colleges to decide whether to continue the courses. The colleges understandably took the view that they could not possibly pay for the courses unless
  754
  they were reimbursed by the funding council, and they were not able to obtain funding from outside the funding council route. Therefore, a stalemate arose and it largely remains today.
  The funding council relied on a circular from early 1996 in which, it said, it made it clear that such courses could no longer be funded. The colleges—in my view, rightly—said that the circular made nothing clear and that the situation was extremely confused. The confusion continued from November 1996. From that date, no more payments to the company were made, although it rightly continued to train young students and to honour its contracts. It continued to train to the same high standard. It is now owed the staggering sum of £562,000 as a result of the confusion and the lack of funding by the funding council. It is clear that the company is in a severe financial position.
  My constituent began to lobby his then Member of Parliament and the then Government to intervene to break the logjam so that the company could continue to train students and be paid for it. He saw the then Minister in April 1997 and a great deal of correspondence took place. Legal advice was sought and much paperwork generated, but action came there none.
  Since the general election, I have been in contact with the Department for Education and Employment, which was waiting for legal advice. I can tell the Minister that the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 seems to give him the power to intervene. Section 57(3) states:
  "If the Secretary of State is satisfied, either upon complaint by any person interested or otherwise, that—

  (a) a council, or

  (b) the governing body of any institution within the further education sector,

  have failed to discharge any duty imposed on them by or for the purposes of the Education Acts, he may make an order under this subsection."
  The explanatory note to the section states:
  "This section enables the Secretary of State to intervene, on the recommendation of the Further Education Funding Council, in the event of mismanagement of an institution. It also provides for intervention where there has been a failure—either by the Council, or by the governing body of an institution within the further education sector—to discharge a duty.imposed upon them, or unreasonable action on the part of such a governing body."
  I would say that that entitles the Minister to intervene and direct the funding council to confirm that the courses should be funded.
  Ms Louise Ellman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Liverpool Dive school in my constituency is also affected? I want its situation to be given further consideration and I want a broader study of the operation of the Further Education Funding Council and its accountability.
  Mr. Streeter: I am glad that the hon. Lady intervened. I am concerned to learn about the institution in her constituency. Many institutions and organisations throughout the country are awaiting funding because of these circumstances—many of them are subcontractors to Fort Bovisand Underwater Centre. She is right to call for a general review of the way in which the council carries out its duties in that regard.
  We are still waiting for a definitive answer from the Department for Education and Employment. My constituent was told that we would have an answer on

  755
  17 June about the legal advice received by the Department, but sadly we are still awaiting the outcome. In the meantime, jobs have been and will continue to be lost. Indeed, more than 100 people have lost their jobs as a result of this bureaucratic bungling and the jobs of more than 100 more are on the line.
  All that it would take for the matter to be resolved is for the funding council to confirm that the courses, which were entered into in good faith by all the parties, will be funded. It saddens me to think that people in secure jobs in the funding council in Coventry, who understand the threat to the livelihoods of more than 200 people—many of whom are my constituents—will not do more to be flexible, exercise discretion and common sense, do what is right and recognise that a genuine misunderstanding arose and that they can intervene and resolve matters.
  I urge the funding council tonight, as I have urged it in correspondence, to reconsider and confirm that the courses will be funded, which would remove the logjam. I am asking the council not to create a precedent or to open the floodgates, but to recognise that an honest misunderstanding has arisen and that it has the ability to resolve the problem. My constituent, Mr. Welsh, is an innocent victim and he does not deserve to be treated in this way.
  In conclusion, having dealt with the funding council for the past three months on this problem and felt the cold indifference of its response to date, I am not optimistic that it will change its mind. That is where I come to the Minister, whom I know to be a good-hearted man, even though he is Welsh. I urge him to act and to use his powers under the 1992 Act to direct the funding council to exercise common sense. At the stroke of a pen, he can resolve this issue. On behalf of my constituents, I urge him to do so.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: I will not keep the Minister or the House long.
  The implications of this affair go much wider than Plymouth, or indeed Liverpool. In my constituency, I have a company called the Scubadoo diving centre. It has appealed to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), who has taken a close interest in the matter as some of his constituents work for Scubadoo.
  The implications of the matter seem to be extensive, ranging across a number of companies throughout the country. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) is making noises from a sedentary position. Perhaps he is speculating why a diving centre is located in Croydon, some 50 or 60 miles from the sea. The answer is that, being a good, middle-class, prosperous, Tory-voting constituency, it contains people who want to go diving for recreation and so it seems a logical place for a diving school.
  Through the Mid-Kent College of higher and further education, Scubadoo was a subcontractor to Plymouth Ocean Projects, providing services under contract. It describes itself as a satellite company. I am not sure what the contractual relationship is, but it was providing services in Plymouth for Mid-Kent college and expecting to be funded by the Further Education Funding Council. The company was astonished to be informed in March that funding had been withdrawn from August.
  756
  A small company is now owed about £19,000. There have been redundancies, and four divers' jobs are at risk. I hesitate to use the word bungle, but there has certainly been an administrative and bureaucratic oversight. We are talking about people's jobs and lives; it is not a question of people who should have known better than to enter into a contract: they were led to believe that they were serving the nation by providing educational facilities.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), I have always respected the Minister. I am delighted that he is on the Front Bench, as he has always behaved in a courteous and logical manner for and on behalf of his party. I hope that he will be able to say something constructive about a human situation that needs attention.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) seemed somewhat bewildered by my interest in the debate. Like him, I have a satellite or subcontracting company, Rhino Divers, in my constituency, so I came as, I hope, a diligent Member of Parliament. I was also approached, fairly and appropriately, and asked to attend the debate, by the desperately anxious constituent of the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter).
  I share hon. Members' deep concern and anxiety for people who have contracted in good faith to provide services and find that they are not being paid and are consequently financially embarrassed. The situation is clearly wholly unsatisfactory and shambolic. I look forward to what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say, but it seems to me that both the college and the Further Education Funding Council deserve serious criticism for the mess that they have created.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will have the same difficulty that existed for the previous ministerial team. I understand that the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), expressed sympathy, but said that it was not a matter for her; however, that is not set in tablets of stone, so I look forward to what my hon. Friend will say. I know that he will do all that he can to help people who have been substantially disadvantaged, including those in both the substantive company to which the hon. Member for South-West Devon referred and the sub-contractors.
  I fully endorse the concerns expressed by other hon. Members, but I am also here to say that it would be quite wrong for it be inferred that the new Labour Minister has a magic wand to wave that was not available to the previous Secretary of State.
  Mr. Streeter: Party politics.
  Mr. Mackinlay: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I did not intend to introduce a note of partisanship. I wanted to say only that the matter had properly been referred to the previous Secretary of State, who was unable at that stage to help the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I wanted to flag it up that if the new Minister had found some way to overcome the impediments I would say hip hip hooray. I hope that the hon. Members for South-West Devon and for Croydon, South would join me.

  757
  It should not be inferred that the problem is down to the Government, when they have demonstrably inherited it. The previous Secretary of State was not lacking in good will, but had difficulties that were conveyed to the constituent of the hon. Member for South-West Devon in a lengthy letter.
  9.14 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): I thank the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) for giving me the opportunity to make several points on this issue and to set the record straight. I assure him and other hon. Members who have spoken that I intend that this mess should be cleared up as soon as possible. His advocacy for the jobs that are at stake was passionate. I shall certainly try to ensure that the jobs are preserved because they are to be found in some of the most difficult parts of the country in terms of unemployment. They are valuable and we need them.
  Essentially, Mr. Welsh, managing director of Plymouth Ocean Projects, has made a complaint to the Secretary of State against the Further Education Funding Council. The complaint is being considered by the Department, and has been for some time, as the hon. Member for South-West Devon pointed out. It is being dealt with urgently but properly. Officials are not yet in a position to provide advice to the Secretary of State. I am very surprised about that because it is clear from letters from the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), that this thing has been dragging on. It should not have dragged on as long as it has. When officials give that advice, the Secretary of State will come to a decision and communicate it, with reasons, to both parties.
  Let me recount the history of the complaint, which was made in the last days of the previous Government. Lord Henley, in one of his last actions as Minister, wrote to Sir Robert Gunn, chairman of the Further Education Funding Council—which I shall refer to as the FEFC, even though I hate such abbreviations—enclosing Mr. Welsh's complaint, identifying what seemed to be its main elements and seeking the council's views. Before turning to the complaint, it may be useful if I set out the legal framework for handling it.
  Under section 57(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992,
  "If the Secretary of State is satisfied, either upon complaint by any person interested or otherwise, that—

  i) a council, or

  ii) the governing body of any institution within the further education sector,

  have failed to discharge any duty imposed on them by or for the purposes of the Education Acts, he may make an order under this subsection".
  The hon. Gentleman referred to that power, which is very important.
  The following subsection states that
  "an order under subsection (3) above shall declare the council or the governing body, as the case may be, to be in default in respect of that duty, and may give such directions for the purpose of enforcing the execution of that duty as appear to the Secretary of State to be expedient".
  758
  The Secretary of State also has the power under section 496 of the Education Act 1996 to prevent the funding council from acting unreasonably. This is important. That section states that
  "if the Secretary of State is satisfied (either on a complaint by any person or otherwise) that a body to which this section applies have acted or are proposing to act unreasonably with respect to the exercise of any power conferred or the performance of any duty imposed by or under this Act, he may give such directions as to the exercise of the power or the performance of the duty as appear to him to be expedient".
  It is obvious to me from the reply of the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk to an earlier letter from the constituent of hon. Member for South-West Devon that she did not consider it to be clear and expedient to act in that way. I want to explore how we might be able to act in that way.
  When considering the exercise of any of these powers, the Secretary of State is acting in a quasi-judicial role in the general public interest, because public law may have been breached. The Secretary of State is not acting in the private interests of the complainants who have brought the matter to the Department's attention.
  I should note that the meaning of the word "unreasonable" has been defined by the courts in the context of the exercise of the power. To fall within this expression, the conduct of the body must be conduct that no sensible body acting with due appreciation of its responsibilities would have decided to adopt. The interpretation of the word "unreasonable" imposed by the courts is therefore much more constrained than common usage implies. I assure the hon. Member for South-West Devon that I do not say that to make an excuse for the lack of resolution of the matter. To justify the Secretary of State's intervention, a decision has to be "unreasonable" to the point at which no sensible person in possession of the facts could possibly have reached it.
  Mr. Welsh's complaint is that the Further Education Funding Council is refusing to fund training courses in diving that his company has provided, through a contract that he has with two FE colleges—Mid-Kent and South Devon. I am glad that the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) spoke on the matter. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Ms Ellman) have made it clear that the decision on this case goes much further than the decision on Fort Bovisand Underwater Centre, the company involved, and its associated companies.
  Lord Henley identified four main elements to the complaint: first, that the FEFC should have accepted the open water and advanced open water courses as eligible for schedule 2(d) funding. Section 3(1) and schedule 2 to the Further and Higher Education Act define the courses for which the FEFC has a duty to secure adequacy of provision for part-time students aged 16 and over and full-time students aged 19 and over. Schedule 2(a) consists of courses leading to a vocational qualification approved by the Secretary of State. Schedule 2(d) consists of courses that prepare students for entry to courses in schedule 2(a). The FEFC is responsible for deciding which courses properly come under schedule 2(d). If I can translate that into English—it needs translation—open water and advanced open water training courses are intended to train people as scuba divers. I have discovered

  759
  that the word scuba does not come from some exotic Cuban drink, but means self-contained underwater breathing apparatus.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I knew that.
  Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend may have known that, but I did not.
  The instructor manual of the Professional Association of Diving Instructors says that the open water diver course enables the student to engage in
  "recreational open water diving without direct or indirect supervision".
  The same manual says that the advanced open water diver course provides the
  "novice diver with a structured, well-supervised means to gain additional experience".
  Diving courses are arranged in the form of a ladder, with an individual needing to succeed at one level before passing to the next. Several diving courses are included in schedule 2(a). The highest rung of the ladder in schedule 2(a) is divemaster. There are three training courses below this level: in reverse order, rescue diver, advanced open water diver, and open water diver. The FEFC accepts that rescue diver, as covered by schedule 2(d), prepares the individual for the next level, divemaster, which is in schedule 2(a). It does not accept that open water diver and advanced open water diver courses should fall within schedule 2(d).
  I have described that first element in some detail to provide the background to the other elements of the complaint identified by Lord Henley. The second element is that the FEFC should have accepted the opinions of the college principals involved that the courses were eligible for funding. This bears on the system in place for determining eligibility. The third element is that the FEFC did not make its decisions sufficiently clear, sufficiently well known or sufficiently early. This bears on the way in which the FEFC communicated its views to the sector. The fourth element is that the FEFC did not take action, even though it was aware of colleges' plans to include such courses. This bears on the system of communication between colleges and the FEFC.
  I have outlined the complaint. What has happened since? The FEFC has replied to Lord Henley's letter, rejecting the four elements of the complaint in some detail. Departmental officials are considering the matter. In doing so, the FEFC has been asked for clarification on certain points, and the advice of counsel has been taken. In the light of that advice, officials have written to the FEFC seeking its further comments.
  760
  Departmental officials and our legal advisers have been aware of the urgency with which this matter should be pursued and they are even more aware of it today. However, the important thing is that it should be dealt with properly. Ministers are being kept informed of progress and are content that the matter is being dealt properly. It should be dealt with now and it is being dealt with now. Counsel advises that it should be dealt with as speedily as the nature of the complaint allows, but it is a complicated issue. We do not think that it would helpful or appropriate for the advice that we have received from counsel to be made public at this point.
  Throughout, departmental officials have kept Mr. Welsh informed. We will continue to do so. Officials have also reminded him that he must take his own advice about the merit of pursuing alternative courses of action, in particular, pursuing the colleges in question in court—after all, it is with them that he has the contractual arrangement. Mr. Welsh has pursued this matter with energy and vigour and is in regular written and telephone contact with the Department. He has been kept fully informed of progress and, as I am sure the hon. Member for South-West Devon knows, conversations with Mr. Welsh have been many and there has been a full exchange of information.
  I repeat that we are dealing with the matter urgently, but properly. I will certainly interest myself closely in the case and want to assure myself that the matter is being handled with all due speed. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider the complaint only on the basis of advice from officials and that advice will not be offered until it is soundly based. Mr. Welsh will be kept informed of developments.
  I give the hon. Member for South-West Devon an undertaking that these matters are proceeding and that they will proceed more quickly. I understand the passion with which he addressed the issue; these jobs are important. I am shocked at what appear to be several instances of a lack of communication and of coherent interaction between the FEFC and the colleges in question. I am more than a little shocked by the way in which these matters generally are inspected and monitored. This is one of several cases that show that there should be much more careful monitoring of what contracts are allowed and of the interpretation and understanding of the legislation involved.
  I believe that we can resolve this case. It must be resolved quickly. We have instructed departmental officials to get on with that job and I assure the hon. Member for South-West Devon that we will not relax until resolution has been reached.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Nine o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Service (Sickness Absence)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the overall level of sickness absence in the Civil Service. [5469]

  Dr. David Clark
  The average number of working days sickness absence per staff-year in 1995 was 10.7.

  I have placed in the house Libraries copies of the report prepared for my department by OHSA Limited on Sickness Absence in the Civil Service during 1995, which contains a comprehensive analysis of the figures about the Civil Service. That report also contains corrections to some of the figures about sickness absence in the Civil Service for previous years.

  My Department regularly encourages Departments and agencies to review their approaches to sickness absence management.

  Cash Limits
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals there are to change the 1997–98 cash limit or running cost limit for the Office of Public Service. [5470]

  Dr. David Clark
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for the Office of Public Service (Class XVII, Vote 1) will be increased by £74,000 from £140,987,000 to £141,061,000 and the gross running cost limit will be decreased by £411,000 from £80,886,000 to £80,475,000.

  The changes reflect the transfer of responsibility for the Hardcopy Publications function from the Lord Chancellor's Department (Class VIII, Vote 1); the transfer of Competitiveness Unit to the Department of Trade and Industry (Class IV, Vote; the creation of the Government Car and Despatch Agency (GCDA); provision for the introduction of trade between The Buying Agency (TBA) and the Republic of Ireland Civil Service; provision for TBA loan repayments; re-classification of CCTA marketing and research expenditure; and provision for the residual costs of the privatisation of executive agencies in 1996–97. The increase in the cash limit will be offset by a transfer in and will not, therefore, add to the total of planned expenditure. The GCDA will have a net running cost limit of zero.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Cash Limits
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what changes he proposes to make to his Department's cash limits for 1997–98. [5550]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for Class X, Vote 1 will be increased by £1,523,000 from £866,330,000 to £867,853,000. This is to increase provision for transfers from the Department for Education and Employment (Class IX, Vote 1) for awards to dance and drama students, and from the Ordnance Survey (Class VI, Vote 8) to the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England for rent on a property; and a machinery of government change transferring voluntary services to the Home Office. The increases will be offset by transfers and savings, and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much(a) was expected and (b) has been realised to date (i) for good causes and (ii) in tax from the national lottery. [3778]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Camelot's original forecasts for turnover from the start of the licence to the end of March 1997 suggested that £2,228.8 million would be raised for good causes and that £955.2 million would be paid in lottery duty. In fact £3,212.6 million was raised for the good causes and £1,324.3 million was paid in lottery duty during that period.

  Camelot Directors
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when the Government were first informed of arrangements for bonuses for Camelot directors. [3777]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The bonus arrangements for the directors of Camelot were set out in their 1995 and 1996 annual reports. The scale of the current bonuses was drawn to my attention after reports appeared in a magazine on 28 May.

  Accommodation Grading Schemes
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress he has made to rationalise accommodation grading schemes throughout the United Kingdom. [3092]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  [holding answer 23 June 1997]So far as England is concerned, the AA, RAC and ETB announced in February plans for a new harmonised scheme which for the first time would give a single rating for hotels according to both the quality of their service and the facilities they offer. They will be consulting the industry on the details of this and on a scheme covering non-hotel serviced accommodation, such as guest houses, B&Bs, farmhouses and inns.

  Responsibility for accommodation rating schemes in Scotland and Wales rests with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for those countries.

DEFENCE

  Royal Navy Fleet Maintenance and Repair Organisation
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the results of the review of the Royal Navy's Fleet Maintenance and Repair Organisation, Portsmouth and the Tidworth/Bulford and Salisbury Garrisons and on his Department's approach to efficiency in the Army Individual Training Organisation. [5475]

  Dr. Reid
  Against the yardstick of our approach to securing best value for money for the taxpayer explained in my hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) on 19 June,Official Report, column 264–65, we have now considered the results of two recently completed market tests, of the Royal Navy's Fleet Maintenance and Repair Organisation (FMRO) and of support services at the Tidworth/Bulford and Salisbury Garrisons.

  At the FMRO, I am pleased to announce that Fleet Support Limited (FSL) a joint venture company formed by Vosper Thorneycroft and VSEL (GEC Marine), is the preferred bidder for the operation of the facility and, subject to a satisfactory conclusion of detailed discussions on terms and conditions, we will shortly place a five year contract for the management of the FMRO, with a vesting day this autumn. We are confident that the FMRO under commercial management will continue to provide a first class service to the Fleet. Additionally, FSL has guaranteed to attract a minimum level of commercial work into the FMRO and will maintain the apprentice training scheme. Although there will initially be some redundancies, FSL's bid provides the most promising set of arrangements for the future of the FMRO and its workforce, and for the people of Portsmouth. It offers excellent value for money, with savings of over 30 per cent.

  At the Tidworth/Bulford and Salisbury Garrisons, I am pleased also to announce that the market test of support services has been won by the in-house team supported by a commercial partner, in competition with four commercial consortia. We expect shortly to put in place a service level agreement with the in-house team, providing savings of over 25 per cent. through rationalisation and reorganisation of the wide range of support services covered by the market test. Job losses will occur but redundancies will be kept to a minimum.

  In addition, we have reviewed previous plans to conduct market tests at establishments throughout the Army Individual Training Organisation (ALTO), a Defence Agency. A new approach has been developed based on the concept of wider partnering with the private sector. We expect to introduce this programme progressively in the majority of AITO establishments. Previously planned market tests at some establishments have been abandoned in favour of programmes to achieve efficiencies in-house, with the prospect that these establishments will join the partnering programme at a later stage.

  The establishments include the Army Training Regiments at Bassingbourn, Glencorse, Lichfield, Purbright and Winchester; the Infantry Training Centre at
  424
  Catterick; the Royal School of Artillery Larkhill; and the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. We will complete the contractorisation project at the Royal Armoured Corps Centre, Bovington, and issue invitations to tender for a market test at the School of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering at Bordon, and for the renewal with wider scope of the support contract at the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers at Arborfield.

  These specific announcements underline our determination to adopt, in each area of our business, the approach best calculated to maximise the value we obtain from defence resources.

  Science and Technology Division
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the Defence Review will include a reappraisal of the proposal to transfer the Science and Technology Division from Colchester to Bicester; [4476]

  (2) what the current estimated capital cost is of the proposed transfer of the Science and Technology Division from Colchester to Bicester; and if he will make a statement;[4475]

  (3) if he will postpone preparations for the transfer of the Science and Technology Division from Colchester to Bicester until the conclusion of the Defence Review. [4477]

  Dr. Reid
  Any outcome of the Defence Review will retain a requirement for the Armed Forces to be clothed. As a consequence, we assess that there will be an on-going need for the continuing activity of the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency (DCTA) and the need to retain a research and development capability.

  A number of studies have examined the most cost effective way for this capability to be provided. These include the Prior Options Study that preceded the formation of the Agency, specific scrutiny in the Defence Cost Studies and most recently by consideration of private finance involvement in the Agency. Further studies have specifically addressed the collocation of the Agency, including the transfer of the Science and Technology Division from Colchester. These have identified considerable savings and business benefit from collocation. The Strategic Defence Review will not look specifically at the Science and Technology Division of the DCTA, and there are no plans to postpone its transfer from Colchester to Caversfield.

  The transfer of the Science and Technology Division from Colchester to Bicester is part of a single project for the collocation of laboratories and workshops of the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency on a single site. Further laboratories and workshops will transfer from the Quality and Product Support Division currently at Didcot. A major benefit from the collocation plan is to merge the currently duplicated facilities at each site and the project is costed on the basis of providing dual use facilities. Because of this joint development I regret it is not possible to identify separately the capital costs of the transfer for the Colchester element alone.

  The cost of the total project has been revalidated recently by a firm of consultants employed by the Defence Estates Organisation. Their report dated 13 June 1997 indicated a cost of £5.9 million for the total project the figure remains very close to the last costing of

  425
  £5.1 million when savings were forecast at £17.7 million over the Investment Appraisal period of 20 years, in addition to the £6 million per year savings predicated on the new businesses practices that the DCTA can introduce by collocating.

  Polaris
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what were the capital and running costs of the Polaris fleet in each year from 1967; [4837]

  (2) what was the annual running and maintenance cost in each year when the four boat Polaris fleet was fully operational. [4838]

  Dr. Reid
  Full details of capital and running costs for the Polaris fleet over the 30-year period in question are not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Expenditure on Polaris running costs for the years 1980–81 to 1996–97 at historic prices are as follows:

  Financial year

  Spend at historic prices £ million

  1980–81

  162

  1981–82

  238

  1982–83

  256

  1983–84

  233

  1984–85

  219

  1985–86

  241

  1986–87

  281

  1987–88

  296

  1988–89

  271

  1989–90

  236

  1990–91

  210

  1991–92

  164

  1992–93

  151

  1993–94

  103

  1994–95

  65

  1995–96

  67

  1996–97

  (estimated) 53

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what remediation and post-operational monitoring has taken place at the British overseas chemical weapons test sites at(a) Rawalpindi, Wellesley barracks, Cannanore Porkal and Kumbla, India, (b) Sorbo Plain Near Sapele, Nigeria and (c) Pualo Tenggol, Dungun, Malaysia. [4301]

  Dr. Reid
  We are unable to find any records that document remediation work of post-operational monitoring at the sites listed other than for Obanokoro where it is stated that all efforts were made to retrieve any unexploded munitions. The information we do have suggests that usage of these sites was relatively small scale and would not have been expected to leave any traces.

  Trident
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his current estimate of the total cost of the four boat Trident fleet. [4839]
  426
  Dr. Reid
  The latest estimate of the total acquisition cost of the Trident programme is £12.57 billion at 1996–97 economic conditions. This is over £3.6 billion less in real terms than the original 1982 estimate. Operating costs are estimated to be some £200 million per annum over a 30-year in-service life.

  Dockyard Workers, Chatham
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how his Department intends to reconstruct records of the ex-Chatham dockyard workers who may have been exposed to radiation. [4787]

  Mr. Spellar
  As required by legislation, dose records are kept for former Chatham dockyard radiation workers who were designated as classified persons because their work led to higher annual radiation exposures. Many, but not all, records relating to the radiation exposure of non-classified workers have also been retained.

  Where no dose record exists, my Department is examining methods of dose reconstruction based on employment history, radiation exposure information from surveys, and the exposure of comparable workers for whom there are dose records.

  Falklands Garrison
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has the cost of maintaining the Falklands garrison in each of the last three years. [4862]

  Dr. Reid
  The outturn cost to the Ministry of Defence of the Falkland Islands Garrison, in each of the past three years, is as follows:

  1994–95: £65.5 million

  1995–96: £70 million

  1996–97: £81 million.

  Nuclear Submarines, Chatham
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the accident records of nuclear submarines whilst they were undergoing maintenance at Chatham dockyard. [4786]

  Dr. Reid
  There have been no nuclear reactor accidents involving HM submarines. However, my Department does have records of a number of less serious incidents at Chatham dockyard involving the exposure of personnel to radiation and/or unauthorised discharges to the environment which warranted investigation at the time.

  The reports of these incidents contain reference to individuals who may have been involved and to others who may have contributed information, sometimes in confidence, to the investigation. This precludes the release of the reports as they stand. I am seeking information from my officials as to the practicability of providing summaries of those incidents, and will write to the hon. Member in due course.

  Family Quarters
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the empty service quarters for families which his Department(a) identified for disposal and (b) classed as empty and under review in March have been sold to private buyers
  427
  Mr. Spellar
  A total of 159 of the 1,755 family quarters identified for disposal in March, have been sold. The 3,740 empty properties are still under review.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Speeding Offences (Fines)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy with regard to on-the-spot fines for speeding offences administered by police officers; and if he will make a statement. [4622]

  Mr. Michael
  There is no system of on-the-spot fines for the enforcement of road traffic offences but drivers who are stopped by the police for alleged speeding may be issued with fixed penalty notices requiring payment of a set sum of £40 to a court within 28 days and have their licence endorsed with three penalty points. Police officers have no authority to demand or accept payment of a fixed penalty on the spot.

  Payment of the fixed penalty discharges the offender's liability to conviction by a court. It is open to a driver to decline to accept a fixed penalty and instead request a court hearing in respect of the alleged offence.

  Policy on the circumstances in which fixed penalty notices are used for enforcing road traffic law is an operational matter for individual chief officers of police. Guidance has been issued to forces by the Association of Chief Police Officers, with the aim of promoting a uniformity of approach to enforcement.

  Tote
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement about the future of the Tote; [4771]

  (2) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) of 12 June, Official Report, column 512, if he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to secure a successor to the chairman of the Tote; which parties he has consulted; and when he expects to make an announcement. [4772]

  Mr. Straw
  I hope to appoint the new chairman of the Tote shortly.

  The competition for the post is being conducted in accordance with the Nolan procedures for public appointments, including advertising the post and consideration by a Home Office advisory panel. I am considering a short list of candidates. It would be premature to make any further comment at this stage.

  There are no plans at present to change the statutory arrangements governing the Tote. The new chairman will be tasked with a wide-ranging review of the Tote's operations.

  Puppy Farms
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning animal welfare standards in puppy farms. [4768]
  428
  Mr. George Howarth
  Representations have been received from hon. Members, members of the public and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

  HM Prison, Weare
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the recent fire on HM prison, Weare. [4767]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  There was no fire on the Weare. On the morning of Thursday 12 June, staff on board the Weare saw smoke and immediately activated the fire alarms. Staff and contractors were quickly evacuated and the fire brigade called, no prisoners were on board the vessel. The fire brigade found no evidence of any fire and have classed this as a false alarm. Staff believe the smoke came from welding work flushed out when the air conditioning system was tested.

  The smoke alarms were also activated in the evening of Tuesday 17 June. The ship was again quickly evacuated and the fire brigade called. The fire brigade found no fire and confirmed that the alarm had been activated because of smoke from welding work.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the animal welfare implications of selling animals to children under the age of 16 years; and if he will make a statement. [4769]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Pet Animals Act 1951, as amended, prohibits the sale of animals as pets to persons under the age of 12 years. No assessment has been made as to whether the current age limit has implications for animal welfare.

  Cash Limits
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for changes to the 1997–98 cash limits within his responsibilities. [5474]

  Mr. Straw
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for Class VII, Vote 1 (Home Office administration, police, probation, immigration and other services, England and Wales) will be increased by £127,000 from £4,729,044,000 to £4,729,171,000. This increase is the net effect of a transfer of running costs from the Cabinet Office, and from non-voted fire credit approvals. This transfer from non-voted provision reduces the non-voted cash limit (HO/LACAP) by £60,000 from £89,606,000 to £89,546,000. The Supplementary Estimate will also cover the transfer of responsibility for voluntary services from the Department of National Heritage.

  In consequence of the above changes, the Home Office gross running cost limit will be increased by £67,000 from £1,887,613,000 to £1,887,680,000.

  The increases will be offset by transfers and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Police Grant
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to re-examine the apportionment of police grant to shire and metropolitan authorities. [4998]

  Mr. Michael
  We will be looking carefully at the funding formula by which resources are allocated between police authorities, to consider what modifications might be made both for the short and the longer term.

  Internet
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what use he plans to make of the Internet to make government more open. [5095]

  Mr. Straw
  My Department will continue to pursue its programme of publishing material on the Internet whenever suitable opportunities arise.

  The Home Office site www.homeoffice.gov.uk includes two pages of information about my Department's open government policies. The first, www.homeoffice.gov.uk/opengovl.htm, gives details of the system for making suggestions or complaints. The second, www.homeoffice.gov.uk/opengov2.htm, sets out the procedures for requesting information.

  A wide range of information is available on the site, which is updated continually, and at present contains 288 pages. It has already been used to make consultation papers available more widely. It was also the first Government site to include details of its new ministerial team, and has links to other Government and relevant public sector pages.

  UK Passport Agency
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the UK Passport Agency performed against its targets in 1996–97; and what performance targets he has set for the Agency in 1997–98. [5553]

  Mr. Straw
  I am pleased to say that the UK Passport Agency achieved all its targets in 1996–97. The targets for processing properly completed straightforward applications were met with demand for passport services at its highest recorded level. The average turnround time for the whole year was 6.3 working days. The Passport Agency's financial target was to reduce its unit cost by three per cent. in real terms. The latest indications are that the agency has achieved an 8.5 per cent. real terms reduction in its unit cost. Customer satisfaction levels remain very high.

  During 1997–98, I expect the Passport Agency to continue to improve its standard of service to the public and manage a predicted reduction in demand as efficiently as possible.

  I have set the agency the following key targets:-

  1. to process properly completed straightforward applications within a maximum of 10 working days.

  2. to secure real terms efficiency savings of 11.1 per cent. in the 3 year period 1995–96 to 1997–98.

  430
  The Chief Executive will remain directly accountable to me for the performance of the Passport Agency. An advisory board, including two private sector members with experience of delivering services to the public, will continue to provide me with an independent assessment of the agency's performance.

  Drugs
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what means he ensures that each police authority follows a consistent policy on cautioning persons for possession of cannabis; and if he will make a statement on the practice of multiple cautioning. [4793]

  Mr. Michael
  It is for the police to decide whether to caution a person found in possession of a controlled drug, in light of the circumstances of the individual case and in accordance with the guidance on the cautioning of offenders in Home Office Circular 18/1994. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary examines forces' overall cautioning policy and determines whether the policy is being observed in practice.

  In 1995, the Association of Chief Police Officers issued further guidance on cautioning which encourages the use of gravity factors to ensure consistent identification of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the decision-making process.

  The Government intend to tackle the lack of consistency in cautioning and to reduce repeat cautions in respect of all offences. This is why we have pledged to replace repeat cautions with a single final warning for young offenders.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the total amount(a) spent and (b) allocated by his Department on tackling problems relating to drugs in respect of (i) improving international co-operation to reduce supplies from abroad, (ii) increasing the effectiveness of police and Customs enforcement, (iii) maintaining effective deterrents and tight domestic controls, (iv) developing prevention publicity, education and community action and (v) improving treatment and rehabilitation, for (1) 1994, (2) 1995, (3) 1996 and (4) 1997. [4784]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Information on total Government and individual Departments' expenditure on tackling drug misuse is not recorded on an annual basis. The most recently available estimates were published in the White Paper, "Tackling Drugs Together" in May 1996. They show that at least £526 million of expenditure in 1993–94 could be directly attributable to drug programmes and activities across the United Kingdom.

  The Government will be appointing a "drug czar" to co-ordinate action against drugs, working to the President of the Council as Chair of the Cabinet's co-ordinating committee on drug misuse. One of his or her first tasks will be to review urgently the existing drugs strategy, and put forward proposals for tackling the problem with renewed vigour. This review will include current Government expenditure
  431
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by type of drug the number of persons for each police authority in England and Wales(a) cautioned, (b) proceeded against in a magistrate's court and (c) tried at the Crown Court for possession of a proscribed drug in (i) 1994, (ii) 1995 and (iii) the last 12 month period for which figures are available. [4794]

  Number of persons cautioned for possession of drugs by police force area and type of drug, 19941

  Type of drug

  Police force area

  All drugs

  Cocaine

  Crack

  Heroin

  LS

  MDMA

  2Methadone

  Amphetamines

  Cannabis

  Other drugs

  Avon and Somerset

  673

  —

  —

  2

  1

  3

  —

  34

  595

  38

  Bedfordshire

  101

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  78

  22

  Cambridgeshire

  503

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  501

  —

  Cheshire

  937

  2

  —

  19

  61

  9

  —

  35

  784

  27

  Cleveland

  390

  —

  —

  —

  7

  1

  —

  63

  318

  4

  Cumbria

  353

  —

  —

  1

  3

  3

  —

  5

  341

  4

  Derbyshire

  412

  —

  —

  —

  4

  3

  —

  9

  264

  133

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,328

  4

  —

  8

  7

  14

  —

  107

  1,210

  45

  Dorset

  147

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  144

  —

  Durham

  161

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  154

  —

  Essex

  963

  —

  —

  3

  6

  5

  —

  60

  884

  17

  Gloucestershire

  471

  —

  —

  1

  2

  3

  —

  9

  464

  —

  Greater Manchester

  2,540

  12

  —

  135

  9

  1

  —

  108

  2,230

  45

  Hampshire

  1,476

  1

  —

  2

  2

  4

  —

  19

  1,458

  3

  Hertfordshire

  536

  2

  —

  2

  4

  9

  —

  34

  483

  2

  Humberside

  427

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  413

  12

  Kent

  782

  3

  —

  —

  6

  2

  —

  33

  738

  9

  Lancashire

  1,268

  —

  1

  14

  5

  1

  —

  53

  1,194

  6

  Leicestershire

  389

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  5

  382

  2

  Lincolnshire

  223

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  12

  204

  5

  Merseyside

  904

  1

  1

  6

  2

  2

  —

  12

  610

  278

  City of London

  372

  —

  —

  1

  —

  12

  —

  10

  350

  2

  Metropolitan Police

  14,010

  73

  18

  66

  25

  146

  —

  318

  13,446

  31

  Norfolk

  355

  1

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  15

  243

  101

  Northamptonshire

  469

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  10

  450

  10

  Northumbria

  1,012

  —

  —

  3

  12

  6

  —

  62

  865

  73

  North Yorkshire

  321

  —

  —

  —

  4

  2

  —

  4

  312

  3

  Nottinghamshire

  418

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  17

  370

  30

  South Yorkshire

  854

  3

  2

  9

  14

  2

  —

  51

  787

  5

  Staffordshire

  424

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  424

  —

  Suffolk

  649

  —

  —

  8

  7

  5

  —

  42

  585

  17

  Surrey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sussex

  991

  4

  —

  6

  12

  7

  —

  80

  911

  7

  Thames Valley

  909

  2

  —

  2

  9

  10

  —

  55

  834

  13

  Warwickshire

  414

  —

  —

  —

  13

  6

  —

  32

  356

  8

  West Mercia

  903

  1

  —

  5

  13

  2

  —

  43

  840

  24

  West Midlands

  1,852

  3

  5

  13

  17

  8

  —

  66

  1,633

  107

  West Yorkshire

  667

  1

  —

  14

  5

  3

  —

  43

  588

  18

  Wiltshire

  483

  1

  —

  5

  9

  18

  —

  65

  428

  14

  England

  40,087

  115

  29

  329

  264

  292

  —

  1,523

  36,871

  1,115

  Dyfed-Powys

  546

  —

  —

  2

  6

  3

  —

  33

  506

  20

  Gwent

  509

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  8

  502

  —

  North Wales

  948

  1

  —

  19

  5

  —

  —

  51

  862

  36

  South Wales

  512

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  9

  500

  2

  Wales

  2,515

  1

  —

  21

  13

  3

  —

  101

  2,370

  58

  England and Wales

  42,602

  116

  29

  350

  277

  295

  —

  1,624

  39,241

  1,173

  1Columns cannot be added together since a person may be dealt with for more than one type of drug.

  2This drug was not separately identified until 1995.

  432
  Mr. Michael
  Details of the numbers of persons cautioned, proceeded against in a magistrates' court or tried at the Crown court for possession of a controlled drug in 1994 and 1995, by type of drug and police force area, are given in the tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library. Data for 1996 will not be available until the late autumn.
  433

  Number of persons proceeded against at Magistrates' Courts for possession of drugs by police force area and type of drug, 19941

  Type of drug

  Police force area

  All drugs

  Cocaine

  Crack

  Heroin

  LSD

  MDMA

  2Methadone

  Amphetamines

  Cannabis

  Other drugs

  Avon and Somerset

  897

  29

  23

  132

  47

  26

  —

  217

  585

  64

  Bedfordshire

  262

  4

  1

  3

  4

  4

  —

  49

  223

  14

  Cambridgeshire

  421

  11

  1

  4

  11

  11

  —

  119

  329

  26

  Cheshire

  1,052

  44

  —

  217

  33

  39

  —

  157

  721

  40

  Cleveland

  277

  2

  —

  3

  16

  12

  —

  125

  168

  11

  Cumbria

  696

  3

  —

  21

  21

  23

  —

  106

  597

  60

  Derbyshire

  432

  5

  3

  23

  23

  21

  —

  109

  330

  10

  Devon and Cornwall

  843

  11

  2

  32

  33

  59

  —

  229

  588

  110

  Dorset

  378

  12

  1

  36

  15

  7

  —

  67

  292

  27

  Durham

  374

  3

  2

  —

  22

  20

  —

  132

  236

  22

  Essex

  703

  30

  —

  15

  18

  38

  —

  147

  532

  64

  Gloucestershire

  266

  5

  —

  13

  11

  10

  —

  58

  227

  8

  Greater Manchester

  2,472

  54

  30

  420

  50

  43

  —

  489

  1,634

  102

  Hampshire

  1,048

  24

  —

  31

  34

  40

  —

  259

  831

  53

  Hertfordshire

  523

  13

  —

  12

  25

  25

  —

  100

  433

  3

  Humberside

  473

  10

  —

  77

  23

  13

  —

  105

  305

  69

  Kent

  715

  15

  3

  12

  17

  39

  —

  141

  568

  44

  Lancashire

  951

  17

  135

  42

  40

  —

  —

  227

  660

  29

  Leicestershire

  370

  8

  5

  10

  15

  8

  —

  75

  293

  46

  Lincolnshire

  430

  2

  —

  9

  21

  5

  —

  121

  335

  9

  Merseyside

  2,266

  77

  23

  260

  41

  42

  —

  227

  1,541

  294

  City of London

  78

  9

  3

  3

  5

  7

  —

  9

  57

  —

  Metropolitan Police

  9,846

  661

  243

  740

  202

  523

  —

  929

  7,576

  135

  Norfolk

  478

  3

  —

  22

  8

  12

  —

  111

  383

  34

  Northamptonshire

  236

  8

  —

  3

  16

  10

  —

  70

  172

  16

  Northumbria

  809

  17

  33

  48

  55

  —

  —

  260

  545

  66

  North Yorkshire

  583

  4

  16

  28

  22

  —

  —

  93

  453

  54

  Nottinghamshire

  913

  20

  —

  21

  55

  19

  —

  214

  655

  114

  South Yorkshire

  1,013

  17

  9

  98

  57

  59

  —

  305

  690

  37

  Staffordshire

  670

  28

  4

  47

  36

  36

  —

  159

  481

  55

  Suffolk

  350

  7

  1

  17

  8

  8

  —

  59

  251

  71

  Surrey

  355

  13

  1

  14

  17

  22

  —

  81

  295

  8

  Sussex

  918

  22

  —

  37

  32

  18

  —

  152

  776

  58

  Thames Valley

  1,424

  46

  8

  59

  47

  76

  —

  243

  1,181

  38

  Warwickshire

  190

  3

  —

  4

  6

  4

  —

  41

  153

  15

  West Mercia

  428

  5

  2

  15

  24

  11

  —

  83

  354

  26

  West Midlands

  1,682

  54

  58

  75

  61

  51

  —

  260

  1,390

  62

  West Yorkshire

  2,452

  61

  51

  308

  77

  83

  —

  463

  1,803

  75

  Wiltshire

  152

  2

  —

  6

  5

  5

  —

  40

  107

  14

  England

  38,426

  1,359

  474

  2,983

  1,254

  1,546

  —

  6,831

  28,750

  1,983

  Dyfed-Powys

  471

  39

  —

  11

  32

  12

  —

  97

  373

  47

  Gwent

  431

  143

  2

  9

  18

  2

  —

  83

  216

  17

  North Wales

  736

  1

  —

  39

  28

  9

  —

  123

  599

  58

  South Wales

  1,250

  2

  18

  45

  16

  —

  254

  1,072

  63

  Wales

  2,888

  185

  2

  77

  123

  39

  —

  557

  2,260

  185

  England and Wales

  41,314

  1,544

  476

  3,060

  1,377

  1,585

  —

  7,388

  31,010

  2,168

  1Columns cannot be added together since a person may be dealt with for more than one type of drug.

  2This drug was not separately identified until 1995.

  Number of persons tried at the Crown Court for possession of drugs by police force area and type of drug, 19941

  Type of drug

  Police force area

  All drugs

  Cocaine

  Crack

  Heroin

  LSD

  MDMA

  2Methadone

  Amphetamines

  Cannabis

  Other drugs

  Avon and Somerset

  185

  9

  —

  12

  25

  16

  —

  67

  129

  24

  Bedfordshire

  33

  —

  —

  2

  1

  1

  —

  10

  30

  2

  Cambridgeshire

  91

  2

  —

  5

  6

  9

  —

  35

  68

  6

  Cheshire

  154

  7

  —

  22

  3

  7

  —

  18

  52

  77

  Cleveland

  60

  1

  —

  —

  6

  9

  —

  24

  42

  3

  Cumbria

  89

  3

  —

  —

  7

  8

  8

  26

  61

  9

  Derbyshire

  87

  2

  —

  —

  3

  4

  7

  24

  64

  6

  434 435

  Number of persons tried at the Crown Court for possession of drugs by police force area and type of drug, 19941

  Type of drug

  Police force area

  All drugs

  Cocaine

  Crack

  Heroin

  LSD

  MDMA

  2Methadone

  Amphetamines

  Cannabis

  Other drugs

  Devon and Cornwall

  140

  3

  —

  7

  9

  13

  —

  46

  97

  19

  Dorset

  41

  2

  6

  3

  2

  —

  5

  30

  Durham

  47

  —

  —

  —

  6

  7

  —

  22

  31

  2

  Essex

  94

  9

  —

  9

  4

  11

  —

  15

  54

  21

  Gloucestershire

  28

  3

  —

  4

  2

  2

  —

  7

  23

  4

  Greater Manchester

  381

  20

  5

  86

  15

  16

  —

  102

  223

  12

  Hampshire

  153

  8

  —

  8

  10

  17

  —

  52

  118

  8

  Hertfordshire

  32

  1

  —

  2

  2

  5

  —

  4

  23

  —

  Humberside

  73

  1

  1

  14

  6

  3

  —

  21

  37

  17

  Kent

  109

  2

  —

  1

  13

  8

  —

  40

  77

  11

  Lancashire

  210

  5

  3

  42

  13

  11

  —

  76

  124

  3

  Leicestershire

  63

  3

  2

  1

  6

  5

  —

  24

  43

  6

  Lincolnshire

  66

  —

  —

  2

  5

  6

  —

  24

  50

  5

  Merseyside

  183

  18

  3

  34

  4

  6

  —

  35

  104

  28

  City of London

  8

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  Metropolitan Police

  1,109

  212

  31

  130

  43

  57

  —

  133

  652

  57

  Norfolk

  67

  2

  —

  3

  2

  5

  —

  28

  48

  7

  Northamptonshire

  52

  1

  —

  —

  3

  1

  —

  17

  39

  1

  Northumbria

  176

  7

  —

  6

  25

  17

  —

  69

  106

  22

  North Yorkshire

  88

  —

  —

  2

  8

  4

  —

  23

  76

  4

  Nottinghamshire

  154

  11

  —

  6

  23

  12

  —

  56

  116

  4

  South Yorkshire

  160

  6

  1

  17

  19

  16

  —

  72

  95

  2

  Staffordshire

  128

  16

  —

  7

  11

  11

  —

  39

  76

  16

  Suffolk

  67

  2

  —

  5

  8

  6

  —

  24

  49

  1

  Surrey

  54

  6

  —

  1

  6

  6

  —

  18

  40

  5

  Sussex

  107

  14

  1

  6

  6

  17

  —

  34

  78

  6

  Thames Valley

  111

  10

  —

  4

  10

  18

  —

  37

  84

  5

  Warwickshire

  18

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  3

  14

  1

  West Mercia

  53

  —

  I

  10

  2

  4

  —

  12

  35

  1

  West Midlands

  257

  22

  2

  16

  31

  15

  —

  54

  196

  6

  West Yorkshire

  396

  19

  8

  73

  35

  14

  —

  125

  250

  13

  Wiltshire

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  3

  6

  4

  England

  5,337

  429

  58

  553

  385

  375

  —

  1,424

  3,446

  418

  Dyfed-Powys

  35

  1

  —

  3

  2

  2

  —

  9

  27

  8

  Gwent

  47

  —

  —

  6

  1

  2

  —

  9

  35

  4

  North Wales

  62

  —

  —

  8

  4

  2

  —

  15

  47

  4

  South Wales

  186

  4

  —

  6

  21

  5

  —

  57

  143

  29

  Wales

  330

  5

  —

  23

  28

  11

  —

  90

  252

  45

  England and Wales

  5,667

  434

  58

  576

  413

  386

  —

  1,514

  3,698

  463

  Notes:

  1Columns cannot be added together since a person may be dealt with for more than one type of drug.

  2This drug was not separately identified until 1995.

  Number of persons tried at the Crown Court for possession of drugs by police force area and type of drug, 19941

  Type of drug

  Police force area

  All drugs

  Cocaine

  Crack

  Heroin

  LSD

  MDMA

  Methadone

  Amphetamines

  Cannabis

  Other drugs

  Avon and Somerset

  313

  —

  10

  1

  1

  —

  18

  282

  1

  Hertfordshire

  105

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  94

  8

  Cambridgeshire

  388

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  4

  384

  —

  Cheshire

  665

  2

  —

  28

  1

  10

  1

  26

  590

  7

  Cleveland

  490

  —

  —

  3

  1

  6

  —

  38

  418

  29

  Cumbria

  352

  —

  —

  2

  2

  5

  —

  20

  327

  3

  Derbyshire

  587

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  —

  37

  478

  72

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,354

  1

  —

  20

  5

  25

  —

  152

  1,194

  22

  Dorset

  198

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  197

  —

  Durham

  239

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  23

  217

  —

  Essex

  991

  7

  —

  14

  4

  7

  —

  87

  903

  6

  Gloucestershire

  654

  4

  —

  1

  3

  3

  —

  49

  612

  3

  Greater Manchester

  2,604

  12

  5

  244

  10

  28

  1

  242

  2,032

  30

  436 437

  Number of persons cautioned for possession of drugs by police area and type of drug, 19951

  Type of drugs

  Police force area

  All drugs

  Cocaine

  Crack

  Heroin

  LSD

  MDMA

  Methadone

  Amphetamines

  Cannabis

  Other drugs

  Hampshire

  1,218

  1

  —

  3

  2

  4

  —

  19

  1,195

  2

  Hertfordshire

  515

  2

  —

  —

  —

  19

  —

  40

  453

  2

  Humberside

  322

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  12

  304

  6

  Kent

  713

  16

  1

  1

  1

  3

  —

  20

  672

  6

  Lancashire

  1,530

  2

  —

  42

  12

  11

  —

  91

  1,365

  19

  Leicestershire

  348

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  341

  1

  Lincolnshire

  278

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  33

  238

  6

  Merseyside

  1,136

  9

  1

  15

  1

  8

  —

  49

  831

  237

  City of London

  636

  9

  —

  2

  1

  39

  1

  41

  545

  2

  Metropolitan Police

  15,483

  147

  40

  174

  36

  337

  —

  562

  14,298

  113

  Norfolk

  702

  —

  —

  4

  1

  21

  —

  89

  513

  118

  Northamptonshire

  554

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  6

  540

  10

  Northumbria

  1,691

  —

  —

  13

  3

  30

  —

  158

  1,236

  275

  North Yorkshire

  332

  —

  —

  6

  1

  —

  —

  14

  315

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  448

  —

  —

  1

  2

  2

  —

  19

  398

  27

  South Yorkshire

  862

  1

  —

  13

  1

  14

  —

  78

  763

  7

  Staffordshire

  520

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  33

  478

  6

  Suffolk

  630

  1

  —

  10

  3

  20

  —

  54

  544

  13

  Surrey

  264

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14

  251

  3

  Sussex

  1,142

  10

  —

  18

  6

  5

  —

  104

  1,034

  10

  Thames Valley

  816

  2

  —

  2

  —

  22

  —

  74

  740

  15

  Warwickshire

  569

  2

  —

  2

  6

  26

  —

  53

  471

  9

  West Mercia

  999

  1

  —

  13

  3

  15

  —

  84

  897

  22

  West Midlands

  1,702

  2

  4

  7

  8

  13

  —

  73

  1,530

  66

  West Yorkshire

  811

  3

  —

  15

  4

  17

  —

  57

  707

  13

  Wiltshire

  302

  1

  —

  3

  3

  2

  —

  18

  277

  1

  England

  43,463

  238

  51

  673

  124

  703

  3

  2,499

  38,664

  1,175

  Dyfed-Powys

  576

  —

  —

  —

  5

  13

  —

  45

  513

  28

  Gwent

  516

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  5

  510

  3

  North Wales

  975

  —

  —

  22

  3

  —

  —

  63

  879

  41

  South Wales

  648

  —

  —

  1

  12

  3

  —

  47

  589

  5

  Wales

  2,716

  —

  —

  23

  21

  16

  —

  160

  2,491

  77

  England and Wales

  46,178

  238

  51

  696

  145

  719

  8

  2,659

  41,155

  1,252

  1Columns cannot be added together since a person may be dealt with for more than one type of drug.

  Number of persons proceeded against at Magistrates' Courts for possession of drugs by police force area and type of drug, 19951

  Type of drug

  Police force area

  All drugs

  Cocaine

  Crack

  Heroin

  LSD

  MDMA

  Methadone

  Amphetamines

  Cannabis

  Other drugs

  Avon and Somerset

  1,066

  152

  21

  188

  17

  48

  2

  189

  649

  80

  Bedfordshire

  393

  5

  —

  10

  6

  13

  —

  71

  345

  26

  Cambridgeshire

  397

  13

  1

  8

  7

  20

  —

  87

  229

  134

  Cheshire

  1,241

  35

  —

  294

  24

  55

  3

  176

  879

  40

  Cleveland

  293

  2

  —

  11

  12

  40

  —

  103

  176

  18

  Cumbria

  662

  5

  5

  34

  6

  59

  2

  126

  487

  60

  Derbyshire

  530

  3

  —

  17

  17

  39

  —

  164

  397

  20

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,084

  15

  2

  55

  28

  67

  —

  256

  706

  205

  Dorset

  527

  14

  2

  62

  19

  20

  —

  104

  377

  29

  Durham

  457

  1

  —

  1

  17

  40

  —

  143

  323

  21

  Essex

  753

  20

  1

  36

  18

  38

  —

  158

  561

  94

  Gloucestershire

  367

  5

  —

  30

  7

  25

  —

  84

  295

  10

  Greater Manchester

  2,833

  55

  28

  574

  46

  113

  7

  558

  1,825

  89

  Hampshire

  1,316

  17

  —

  48

  29

  63

  —

  292

  1,030

  96

  Hertfordshire

  599

  19

  —

  33

  15

  48

  —

  109

  505

  9

  Humberside

  643

  10

  1

  103

  14

  20

  —

  142

  399

  106

  Kent

  660

  9

  1

  24

  11

  11

  —

  131

  506

  49

  Lancashire

  1,409

  17

  7

  232

  33

  63

  1

  308

  945

  77

  Leicestershire

  505

  10

  7

  13

  22

  19

  —

  142

  391

  29

  Lincolnshire

  425

  —

  —

  4

  11

  24

  —

  116

  319

  28

  Merseyside

  2,354

  89

  29

  283

  21

  79

  3

  192

  1,627

  278

  City of London

  164

  15

  —

  4

  6

  23

  —

  27

  125

  2

  438 439

  Number of persons proceeded against at Magistrates' Courts for possession of drugs by police area and type of drug, 19951

  Type of drugs

  Police force area

  All drugs

  Cocaine

  Crack

  Heroin

  LSD

  MDMA

  Methadone

  Amphetamines

  Cannabis

  Other drugs

  Metropolitan Police

  8,481

  652

  250

  834

  124

  554

  3

  779

  6,242

  139

  Norfolk

  560

  4

  9

  15

  5

  10

  —

  83

  500

  19

  Northamptonshire

  272

  7

  —

  13

  9

  9

  —

  72

  195

  27

  Northumbria

  825

  8

  —

  13

  14

  46

  —

  108

  370

  377

  North Yorkshire

  569

  3

  1

  31

  14

  20

  —

  108

  450

  33

  Nottinghamshire

  1,066

  27

  1

  29

  22

  41

  —

  246

  784

  122

  South Yorkshire

  1,386

  11

  26

  237

  25

  96

  8

  357

  885

  37

  Staffordshire

  818

  22

  7

  115

  18

  66

  2

  153

  536

  71

  Suffolk

  432

  13

  —

  34

  7

  26

  —

  92

  323

  40

  Surrey

  414

  15

  3

  23

  12

  29

  1

  65

  356

  9

  Sussex

  993

  43

  7

  78

  28

  26

  —

  224

  808

  60

  Thames Valley

  1,605

  50

  10

  99

  41

  150

  —

  280

  1,250

  36

  Warwickshire

  199

  1

  —

  —

  7

  3

  —

  45

  162

  22

  West Mercia

  617

  5

  1

  21

  27

  33

  —

  130

  507

  35

  West Midlands

  1,649

  41

  40

  97

  32

  85

  —

  288

  1,354

  55

  West Yorkshire

  2,720

  55

  17

  548

  30

  122

  —

  473

  1,807

  129

  Wiltshire

  171

  7

  —

  7

  5

  12

  —

  38

  120

  22

  England

  41,455

  1,475

  477

  4,258

  806

  2,255

  32

  7,219

  29,745

  2,733

  Dyfed-Powys

  648

  45

  —

  7

  19

  47

  —

  147

  512

  47

  Gwent

  478

  62

  3

  14

  13

  18

  —

  148

  295

  22

  North Wales

  777

  8

  2

  52

  20

  14

  —

  167

  607

  58

  South Wales

  1,484

  8

  —

  25

  52

  44

  1

  379

  1,234

  64

  Wales

  3,387

  123

  5

  98

  104

  123

  1

  841

  2,648

  191

  England and Wales

  44,842

  1,598

  482

  4,356

  910

  2,378

  33

  8,060

  32,393

  2,924

  1Columns cannot be added together since a person may be dealt with for more than one type of drug.

  Number of persons tried at the Crown Court for possession of drugs by police force area and type of drug, 19951

  Type of drug

  Police force area

  All drugs

  Cocaine

  Crack

  Heroin

  LSD

  MDMA

  Methadone

  Amphetamines

  Cannabis

  Other drugs

  Avon and Somerset

  164

  14

  4

  19

  9

  12

  —

  31

  111

  27

  Bedfordshire

  58

  2

  1

  1

  5

  —

  9

  46

  5

  Cambridgeshire

  91

  3

  2

  1

  —

  5

  8

  37

  67

  11

  Cheshire

  255

  8

  1

  39

  7

  17

  —

  49

  127

  72

  Cleveland

  81

  2

  —

  4

  6

  9

  —

  32

  38

  14

  Cumbria

  62

  1

  —

  5

  2

  9

  —

  21

  40

  9

  Derbyshire

  126

  2

  —

  5

  8

  17

  —

  48

  79

  20

  Devon and Cornwall

  148

  7

  —

  7

  5

  16

  —

  44

  100

  15

  Dorset

  71

  5

  —

  6

  3

  6

  —

  14

  49

  4

  Durham

  56

  2

  —

  —

  4

  10

  —

  22

  31

  7

  Essex

  167

  11

  —

  5

  9

  25

  —

  51

  114

  20

  Gloucestershire

  48

  3

  —

  4

  —

  4

  —

  18

  36

  3

  Greater Manchester

  537

  38

  12

  126

  16

  30

  —

  128

  321

  25

  Hampshire

  189

  5

  —

  2

  5

  16

  —

  42

  147

  25

  Hertfordshire

  77

  8

  —

  4

  3

  10

  —

  14

  49

  13

  Humberside

  142

  5

  1

  27

  6

  8

  —

  40

  77

  28

  Kent

  146

  4

  2

  10

  5

  8

  —

  37

  96

  19

  Lancashire

  258

  11

  —

  37

  10

  22

  —

  78

  163

  15

  Leicestershire

  62

  —

  —

  —

  5

  5

  —

  18

  53

  6

  Lincolnshire

  72

  1

  —

  —

  3

  5

  —

  32

  54

  8

  Merseyside

  275

  35

  9

  40

  17

  23

  —

  58

  153

  18

  City of London

  13

  4

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  1

  10

  Metropolitan Police

  1,216

  179

  66

  154

  40

  120

  2

  133

  735

  113

  Norfolk

  91

  3

  —

  9

  8

  9

  —

  20

  63

  12

  Northamptonshire

  48

  —

  —

  2

  1

  2

  —

  15

  32

  5

  Nurthumbria

  178

  4

  —

  8

  10

  30

  —

  74

  105

  22

  North Yorkshire

  94

  1

  —

  6

  8

  11

  —

  21

  68

  11

  Nottinghamshire

  185

  7

  2

  9

  14

  11

  —

  57

  119

  17

  South Yorkshire

  209

  5

  2

  42

  11

  20

  —

  73

  121

  18

  440 441

  Number of persons tried at the Crown Court for possession of drugs by police force area and type of drug, 19951

  Type of drug

  Police force area

  All drugs

  Cocaine

  Crack

  Heroin

  LSD

  MDMA

  Methadone

  Amphetamines

  Cannabis

  Other drugs

  Staffordshire

  164

  10

  3

  29

  9

  22

  —

  44

  100

  32

  Suffolk

  98

  8

  —

  8

  2

  15

  —

  42

  72

  9

  Surrey

  101

  4

  1

  6

  3

  8

  —

  21

  81

  17

  Sussex

  148

  18

  —

  9

  4

  21

  —

  44

  114

  18

  Thames Valley

  194

  23

  9

  19

  16

  40

  —

  58

  119

  15

  Warwickshire

  31

  1

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  10

  23

  4

  West Mercia

  86

  6

  2

  3

  5

  10

  —

  17

  67

  14

  West Midlands

  308

  31

  6

  25

  18

  26

  —

  77

  215

  27

  West Yorkshire

  468

  30

  10

  70

  23

  37

  —

  114

  303

  45

  Wiltshire

  32

  1

  —

  —

  4

  7

  —

  10

  18

  9

  England

  6,749

  502

  133

  741

  308

  658

  2

  1,654

  4,316

  752

  Dyfed-Powys

  47

  —

  —

  —

  6

  5

  —

  12

  39

  8

  Gwent

  64

  —

  1

  4

  4

  4

  —

  19

  45

  11

  North Wales

  87

  —

  1

  10

  10

  9

  —

  32

  58

  7

  South Wales

  215

  4

  —

  5

  29

  9

  —

  79

  170

  26

  Wales

  413

  4

  2

  19

  49

  27

  —

  142

  312

  52

  England and Wales

  7.162

  506

  135

  760

  357

  685

  2

  1,796

  4,628

  804

  1Columns cannot be added together since a person may be dealt with for more than one type of drug.

  Deportations
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 12 June,Official Report, column 510, how many persons removed from the United Kingdom in each of the last five years under the deportation process made a voluntary departure. [4835]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is given in the list:

  Voluntary departures from the United Kingdom after deportation action had been initiated, 1992–96.

  1992: 94

  1993: 208

  1994: 271

  1995: 365

  19961: 355.

  1Provisional.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many decisions to make a deportation order (form APP 104) have been issued in each month of 1997 to date; [4731]

  (2) how many deportation orders have been signed by Ministers in each month of 1997 to date. [4730]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested for Janaury to May 1997 is given in the table:
  Persons issued, under the deportation process, with a notice of intention to deport (form APP 104) and deportation orders signed by Ministers' January to May 1997

  APP 104 issued

  Deportation orders signed

  January

  480

  105

  February

  490

  92

  March

  539

  91

  April

  492

  122

  May

  270

  49

  1Provisional data.

  442
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 12 June,Official Report, column 510, how many decisions to make a deportation order (form APP 104) were issued in each of the last five years. [4834]

  Mr. O'Brien
  The information requested is given in the list:

  Persons issued, under the deportation process, with a notice of intention to deport (form APP 104), 1992–1996.

  1992: 3,594

  1993: 4,283

  1994: 5,421

  1995: 5,274

  19961: 6,518.

  1Provisional data.

  Polygraphs
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what use his Department makes of polygraphs, and if he will make a statement. [4585]

  Mr. Straw
  None, so far as I and my official have been able to ascertain. The Home Office does not encourage the use of polygraph testing for decision making on employment screening or security vetting. The Home Office's views on the use of polygraphs are broadly in accordance with those of the Scientific Affairs Board of the British Psychological Society. We have concern with regard to polygraphs' use of non-standardised administration procedures; internal inconsistency; unreliable rescoring of charts; insufficient evidence of retest reliability provided for examinees; disproportionate numbers of false positive results produced; absence of data on the adverse impact on minority groups; seemingly non-voluntary participation of examinees; and its sensitivity to aspects of temperament.
  443
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the advantages of admitting in evidence the results of polygraph tests; and if he will make a statement. [4583]

  Mr. Michael
  I have made no assessment of the admissibility of polygraph tests as evidence in criminal trials. The courts have held that, as a matter of principle, evidence produced by mechanical, chemical or hypnotic truth test on a witness is inadmissible to show the veracity or otherwise of that witness.

  Under the general rules of evidence, the previous statements of a witness are inadmissible as hearsay and also, where such statements are consistent with his oral testimony, they are inadmissible as evidence of consistency under the rule against previous self-serving statements.

  Electro-shock Devices
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the cost to central funds of the Hard Arrest programme; and what further research has been carried out on the operation, safety or use of el ectro-shock equipment; [3817]

  (2) what was the duration of the Hard Arrests trial programme; and what equipment, policy issues and training were involved. [3816]

  Mr. Michael
  I understand that these questions relate to the possible development of electric shock shields for use against people. Neither my Department nor the police service have any knowledge of the Hard Arrests trial programme, or of any other programme of development, testing or training in the use of such equipment in this country.

  Chief officers of police, with their police authorities, are responsible for deciding what equipment to obtain for their officers, either for testing or for introduction. A number of forces have electric-shock shields and cattle prods for use against ferocious dogs, but no force has such equipment for use against people.

  In 1990, the Forensic Science Service published a theoretical assessment of the effects of electric shock weapons.

  Departmental Advisers
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the special advisers in his Department, the minister to whom each is responsible, the subjects on which they advise and the number of advisers in his Department in the year up to 1 May. [5362]

  Mr. Straw
  I have two special advisers, Mr. Ed Owen and Mr. Norman Warner. They are employed under terms and conditions based on the model contract for special advisers, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. Mr. Owen and Mr. Warner are advising me on all subjects relevant to the Department, save those of a confidential nature, in accordance with Schedule 1 (Part 1) of the Model Contract.

  In the year to 1 May 1997, there were two special advisers

  Protection from Harassment Act
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the definition of violence his Department uses in interpreting section 4(1) (4) (2) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. [4846]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 20 June 1997]Section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 makes it a criminal offence for a person to pursue a course of conduct which they know, or ought to know, causes another to fear that violence will be used against him or her. The offence is intended to catch the most serious cases of stalking, where the stalker's conduct is so threatening that the victim fears for his or her safety.

  The Act does not define "violence", nor is there any guidance on the meaning of the term in the circular issued by the Home Office to the courts and police for the implementation of the Act on 16 June. The courts already have long experience of interpreting the term and should continue to exercise that judgment in cases arising under section 4 of the 1997 Act. Violence does not need to be established to prove an offence under section 4: fear of violence will suffice.

  Under the 1997 Act there will be scope for early intervention, in the form of the offence of causing harassment and a restraining order on conviction to prevent further harm being caused, which is designed to prevent the harassment escalating any further.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on how his plans for(a) employment, (b) training and (c) education will incorporate the principles of sustainable development. [3581]

  Dr. Howells
  Although few of DfEE's policies have any significant impact on the environment, DfEE is committed to the principles of sustainable development.

  We are currently setting up the Environmental Task Force (ETF), as part of the New Deal which will provide valuable work experience and training for unemployed young people. The ETF will provide a range of placements to help the local community, such as tree planting, energy efficiency measures and landscaping.

  We have an environmental National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) framework and a Modern Apprenticeship NVQ Level 3 in Environmental Conservation.

  We issue guidance to schools to enable them to monitor their own energy use as well as provide opportunities for pupils to learn about the environment. We are also considering the establishment of a national panel to co-ordinate environmental education and will announce our intentions in due course.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much each training and enterprise council has spent on special needs training in each of the last three years.[4168]
  445
  Dr. Howells
  The information requested is not available. Separate accounts for TEC expenditure on those with special needs are not maintained. The Department's contract with TECs does however specify a number of targets which ensures that special needs are given prominence.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the comparative performance of individual TECs; and if he will make a statement. [4620]

  Dr. Howells
  The performance of individual TECs varies across the range of activities in which they are involved. The Department intends to work with the TEC National Council and the wider TEC network to improve the performance of all TECs through, for example, benchmarking and the sharing of best practice more effectively.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what external audits have been carried out since 1 January 1995 into the use of public money by Sussex Enterprise. [5195]

  Dr. Howells
  Sussex Enterprise, like other Training and Enterprise Councils, is subject to audit by the FAM (Financial Management) team of the relevant Government Office, at least annually.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what balances were held by Sussex Enterprise and its predecessor Sussex TEC at the end of each of the last five financial years; what this figure represents as a percentage of turnover for each year; and if he will make a statement. [5194]

  Dr. Howells
  These figures are available from the published annual reports, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what safeguards exist to ensure the proper and effective use of public money by Sussex Enterprise. [5193]

  Dr. Howells
  Sussex Enterprise, like all other TECs, is under a general/contractual obligation from the Secretary of State to have sound financial controls and to provide value for money on all expenditure on government programmes.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make it his policy to require representation at member level for local authorities on the boards of TECs; and if he will make a statement. [5192]

  Dr. Howells
  The contract the Department has with TECs requires that at least two-thirds of the Directors hold the office of chairman, or chief executive, or top level operational manager at local level of a company, or senior partner of a professional partnership in the private sector. The remaining Directors must be senior figures within the local community, which includes members of local authorities. I will be reviewing the arrangements with the TEC National Council over the coming months to decide whether any changes are appropriate.

  University Degrees
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans his Department has to control the quality of university degrees delivered on-line(a) in part or (b) in full. [4734]

  Dr. Howells
  The quality of degrees is a matter for universities and other institutions with degree-awarding powers. The Secretary of State expects to ask the newly established Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education to address issues relating to the quality and standards of degrees, taking into account the forthcoming report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to increase awareness among students in higher education of the dangers of drug abuse. [5082]

  Mr. Howells
  Higher Education Institutions are independent autonomous bodies. They contribute to the effort to tackle drug misuse by individually adopting rules governing the prohibition of drugs from college premises and disciplinary sanctions. They also provide welfare and counselling services for their students. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Standing Conference of Principals were invited to encourage the higher education sector to provide appropriate prevention, counselling and support services for their students and to put in hand whatever further action they considered to be necessary.

  The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Standing Conference of Principals published guidance on 20 June 1997 on information provision and education for students and staff, support infrastructure (internal and external), disciplinary procedures, staff awareness and training, liaison between institutions and local community expertise. The guidance was issued to all higher education institutions in the UK and to all members of the Association of Managers of Student Services in Higher Education.

  The Government will be appointing a 'drug czar' to co-ordinate our action against drugs. One of his or her first tasks will be to revise urgently the existing drugs strategy, and put forward proposals for tackling the problem with renewed vigour.

  Education Action Zones
  Mrs. GilIan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what criteria he will set for the establishment of education action zones. [4890]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 20 June 1997]: We shall set out our plans for education action zones in the Education White Paper, which will be published shortly.

  Key Stage 2
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he asked the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority to look into the national curriculum for key stage 2; whether SCAA has been advised to make key stage 2 less prescriptive to
  447
  allow for greater concentration on numeracy and literacy; and when he expects SCAA to report on this matter. [5353]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I wrote to SCAA's Chairman on 9 June asking for his interim report, due in August, to inform my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on how a sharper focus on literacy and numeracy can be achieved in key stages 1 and 2 through non-statutory means.

  My letter asked for a range of specific options to be considered, including the place for explicit guidance on the minimum that needs to be done to cover the National Curriculum in non-core subjects.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to improve the public accountability of colleges of further education. [4621]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan),Official Report, 16 June 1997, column 48.

  Racial Discrimination
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the level of racial discrimination in the labour market; and if he will make a statement. [4853]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Recent research and industrial tribunal cases show that racial discrimination in the labour market remains a matter of serious concern.

  I deplore racial discrimination and racial harassment. I will ensure that my actions and those of the Department play their part in combating unfair treatment. Current action to promote race equality includes: the work of the Race Relations Employment Advisory Service, DfEE booklets on equal opportunities, and conferences in partnership with the Commission for Racial Equality and other key players.

  I am pleased that the Department is setting an example to other employers by becoming a Champion of the Race for Opportunity campaign, promoting racial equality to employers.

  I will be meeting Sir Herman Ouseley in the near future to discuss further ways in which the Department can work with the CRE to combat discrimination.

  Young People
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his estimate of the number of 16 and 17-year-olds who are currently not in full-time education, in work or on a training place; and if he will make a statement. [4855]

  Dr. Howells
  In winter 1996–97 there were 142,000 16 and 17-year-olds not in full-time education, in employment, or in Government Training in the UK, according to the Labour Force Survey.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the use of discretion by jobcentre staff in applying postal signing rules for the jobseeker's allowance for claimants with high travelling costs; and if he will issue guidance. [4872]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. 1 have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Lembit Öpik, dated 24 June 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the postal signing rules. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Under our present rules a person claiming Jobseeker's Allowance whose normal journey to their Jobcentre would take more than one hour in either direction, or would entail an absence from home of four hours or more, is allowed to sign on by post. People whose mobility is affected by a disability may also be allowed to sign on by post.
  In addition Jobcentre Managers do have discretion to allow postal signing in other circumstances. The relevant guidance, which is contained within the Employment Service's Jobseeker's Allowance Interventions Guide, chapter 20, paragraph 3, states that:
  'Business Managers may also use some discretion in offering the postal facility to other jobseekers, even if their journey is possible within the time limits in paragraph 2, (i.e., their journey time is less than 1 hour in either direction or they would be absent from home for less than 4 hours.) For example, if the jobseeker would have to use a form of transport which they could not be expected to use on a fortnightly basis, for example, an InterCity train, a ferry or a plane'.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many young people are currently receiving the jobseeker's allowance, under the severe hardship provision or receiving a bridging allowance; and if he will make a statement. [4852]

  Mr. Howarth
  There were 16,000 young people aged 16 and 17 years old receiving jobseeker's allowance (JSA) in February 1997, the latest date for which figures are available. The vast majority of these young people would have been receiving JSA because they would otherwise have faced severe hardship.

  There were 5,150 young people receiving a Youth Training Bridging Allowance in May 1997.

  Vocational Courses
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the implications of recent changes to the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1995 for vocational courses involving work experience and a work placement; and if he will make a statement. [5110]

  Dr. Howells
  The changes made to the provisions governing sandwich courses in the Regulations will not take effect until 1 September 1997. They were made in order to clarify the provisions in the current Regulations, which were unsatisfactory and unclear. I am aware that certain courses which contain a period of full-time study at an institution that aggregates to less than 19 weeks per
  449
  academic year may be adversely affected by the changes. I am currently considering the effect of the changes on these courses.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will ensure that all nursery providers currently registered under the Nursery Voucher Scheme are eligible for funding under the new arrangements whether or not they are included in a local education authority interim development plan. [5198]

  Mr. Byers
  It is for education authorities to submit interim early years for development plans. All existing providers in the voucher scheme are eligible, and local authorities have been asked to give convincing reasons fornotincludingthem.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Social Chapter
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the implementation of the social chapter through European Union legislation. [4460]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Agreement was reached at the Amsterdam summit to incorporate the agreement on social policy into the treaty and to give the UK an immediate seat at the negotiating table, before the new treaty comes into force.

  The Government said at Amsterdam that they will implement the two directives already adopted under the social agreement. The details of how the directives, on European Works Councils and Parental Leave, are to apply to the UK will be agreed before the signature of the new treaty.

  "Britain: The Preferred Location in Europe"
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the document "Britain: The Preferred Location in Europe" was published. [4745]

  Mrs. Roche
  The document, "Britain: The Preferred Location in Europe" was published on 23 May 1997.

  National Physical Laboratory (Land Disposal)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the compliance of her policy in disposing of surplus land on the National Physical Laboratory site at Teddington with the unitary development plan of the local planning authority. [4588]

  Mr. Battle
  Final bids under the public private partnership for the redevelopment of the National Physical Laboratory site will not be available for assessment until the beginning of July. We have made tenderers aware of the need to take account of land planning policies in completing their bids.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export licences were granted in each 450
  year since 1990 for the export of police or paramilitary training equipment to Indonesia; what public funds were involved in such transactions; and if she will make a statement. [1832]

  Mrs. Roche
  There is no category within the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 from which police or paramilitary training equipment can be readily identified. To search export licence records for this purpose would entail disproportionate cost.

  As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced on 22 May, Official Report, column 135, the Government have initiated an urgent review of the criteria used in considering licence applications for the export of conventional arms. The new criteria will be made available to the House when the review is complete. In the meantime, officials will consult Ministers whenever there are export licence applications which may raise concerns about human rights or international stability.

  Chemical Weapons Convention
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of Britain's progress in implementing the chemical weapons convention 1996; and if she will make a statement regarding the identification and recording of manufacture, holdings and transfer of law enforcement and riot control agents and chemical irritants. [3583]

  Mrs. Roche
  The United Kingdom has made substantial progress in implementing the chemical weapons convention which entered into force on 29 April. The Chemical Weapons Act 1996 provides the legislative framework to implement the convention. All the necessary secondary legislation has been made to enable my Department to license the production, possession and use of the most toxic chemicals and to implement the convention's trade controls. The United Kingdom submitted its initial declaration to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) on 27 May and preparations are well advanced to receive the first inspection under the convention.

  The holding of riot control agents for law enforcement purposes is permitted under the convention and the United Kingdom has declared to the OPCW the chemicals which are held for this purpose. There is no requirement under the convention to declare information concerning the manufacture and transfer of such agents.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to advise small businesses of the problems likely to occur with their computer systems as a result of the year 2000 problem. [5317]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department is working closely with Taskforce 2000, a body set up by the CBI and the IT industry, with our financial support, to spread awareness of the century date change problem to all levels of industry and co-ordinate action. A senior DTI official is seconded to the Taskforce, working through Business Link and their counterparts in Scotland and Wales, specifically to focus on alerting SMEs.
  451
  In March 1997, DTI wrote to 120,000 UK Chief Executives drawing their attention to the issue and offering a DTI information pack containing advice and sources of help. To date, over 15,000 information packs have been distributed.

  Officials are also working with the accounting and auditing professions to ensure that, as far as possible, all business in the UK are aware of the implications.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals she has to eliminate fuel poverty; and if she will make a statement. [4395]

  Mr. Battle
  We have made a commitment in our Manifesto to reduce poverty and welfare dependency: this commitment cuts across a number of policy areas, including energy. We are considering how to achieve that overall Manifesto commitment. In the energy field, competition is already bringing lower prices to many consumers; and we aim to ensure that these benefits are shared by all consumers, including those on low incomes. To inform our future policies, I have asked the gas and electricity regulators for a report on how competition will impact on people taking their supply via a prepayment meter.

  Auditors
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals for the reform of audit regulation will accompany her proposals for limited liability partnerships for auditing work. [4288]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be considering the content of the draft legislation on limited liability partnership in the light of all the representations received.

  Atomic Energy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is her Department's policy on the duration of contracts(a) British Nuclear Fuels and (b) the Atomic Energy Authority may sign with foreign companies for the storage of spent nuclear fuel at (i) Sellafield and (ii) Dounreay. [4304]

  Mr. Battle
  British Nuclear Fuel's contracts with foreign companies are only for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel at Sellafield. The fuel is stored awaiting reprocessing in Thorp. The duration of storage is a commercial matter for the company involved. Similarly, UKAEA imports spent nuclear fuel only for reprocessing and not for storage. It should be noted that there is only a limited capacity for the temporary storage of nuclear fuels prior to reprocessing so it is in the commercial interests of both organisations to make optimum use of this.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes will be made to cash and running cost limits within her responsibility for 1997–98. [5548]
  452
  Mrs. Beckett
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class IV, vote 1—programmes and administration—will be increased by a token amount of £1,000. This increase results from:(i) the transfer of responsibility for the Competitiveness Unit to the Department of Trade and Industry from the Cabinet Office: Office of Public Service (Class XVII, Vote 1) resulting in an increase of –1,694,000 to vote section C (Departmental capital and administration) offset by a payment of –1,693,000 from the Cabinet Office under a new vote section M of class IV, vote 1; and,
  (ii) an increase of –270,000 to the Iron and Steel Employees Readaptation Benefits Scheme offset by a corresponding increase in individual industry receipts under section B of the Vote.
  Within this total, the gross running cost limit for the Department of Trade and Industry is being increased by –1,692,000 from –365,001,000 to –366,693,000 as a result of the Competitiveness Unit transfer.

  Also, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class IV, vote 9—Office of Gas Supply—will be increased by –1,975,000 from –8,100,000 to –10,075,000 and the running cost limit by –1,975,000 from –9,437,000 to –11,412,000. The requirement for an increase results from an increase in running costs associated with the introduction of domestic competition.

  The DTI token increase will be offset by savings, and the OFGAS increase will be charged to the Reserve. Neither will therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Kenya
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the current level of trade between Britain and Kenya; and what is the current balance of imports and exports between Britain and Kenya. [4910]

  Mrs. Roche
  In 1996, the value of UK exports of goods to Kenya was –241 million, a slight decrease on 1995. UK imports increased, by 18 per cent., to –191 million. The crude balance of trade in goods decreased, from a surplus of –82 million in 1995, to –50 million in 1996.

  Post Office
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to amend the legal immunities of the Post Office in respect of the services it provides. [4981]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Post Office's immunity from contractual liability for ordinary post was granted by Parliament in the Post Office Act 1969 because of the very high volumes of mail handled and essentially unrestricted access to posting at over 100,000 pillar boxes and over 19,000 post offices.

  In view of the fact that individual recording of each letter would be impracticable and would give rise both to substantial delays and large increases in costs, Parliament took the view that the acceptance of liability by the Post Office, without proof of posting or delivery, could give rise to an escalating level of fraudulent claims and to high costs which could be met only by a substantial increase in the standard letter tariffs. It is the Government's view

  453
  that the vast majority of mail users would not wish to see much higher tariffs or to obtain proof of posting for all items posted as the price for abolishing the Post Office's immunity. We therefore have no plans to introduce legislation to do so.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list for each operating nuclear power station in Britain (i) its year of construction, (ii) the year it began supplying electricity to the national grid, (iii) its anticipated decommissioning date at year of construction, (iv) its actual decommissioning date, if now decommissioned and (v) its expected decommissioning date at the present time. [4638]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 20 June 1997]: Dates for the start of construction, first commercial operation and date of shutdown, where applicable, for nuclear power stations operating in Britain are given in the 1997 World Nuclear Industry Handbook extracts of which are reproduced in the following table.

  Nuclear stations are subject to constant review by the regulatory authorities through a closely monitored licencing system, which ensures that the companies owning these power stations can only operate them for as long as it is safe to do so. Anticipated lifetimes when these stations were first built were based on the technological and economic estimates made at that time and typically ranged between 20 and 30 years.

  The decommissioning of nuclear power stations is undertaken by agreement with the regulatory authorities, the Nuclear Industries Inspectorate and the Environment Agency, to ensure that environmental, safety and economic concerns are fully taken into account.

  Station

  Construction began

  Commercial operation

  Shutdown

  Dungeness B1

  1966

  1985

  —

  Dungeness B2

  1966

  1988

  —

  Hartlepool 1

  1968

  1984

  —

  Hartlepool 2

  1968

  1985

  —

  Heysham 1–1

  1970

  1984

  —

  Heysham 1–2

  1970

  1985

  —

  Heysham 2–1

  1980

  1988

  —

  Heysham 2–2

  1980

  1989

  —

  Hinkley Point B3

  1967

  1978

  —

  Hinkley Point B4

  1967

  1976

  —

  Hunterston B1

  1967

  1976

  —

  Hunterston B2

  1967

  1977

  —

  Torness 1

  1980

  1988

  —

  Torness 2

  1980

  1989

  —

  Bradwell 1

  1957

  1962

  —

  Bradwell 2

  1957

  1962

  —

  Calder Hall 1

  1953

  1956

  —

  Calder Hall 2

  1953

  1957

  —

  Calder Hall 3

  1953

  1958

  —

  Calder Hall 4

  1953

  1959

  —

  Chalpelcross 1

  1956

  1959

  —

  Chalpelcross 2

  1956

  1959

  —

  Chalpelcross 3

  1956

  1960

  —

  Chalpelcross 4

  1956

  1960

  —

  Dungeness A1

  1960

  1965

  —

  Dungeness A2

  1960

  1965

  —

  Hinkley Point A1

  1957

  1965

  —

  454

  Station

  Construction began

  Commercial Operation

  Shutdown

  Hinkley Point A2

  1957

  1965

  —

  Oldbury 1

  1962

  1968

  —

  Oldbury 2

  1962

  1968

  —

  Sizewell A1

  1961

  1966

  —

  Sizewell A2

  1961

  1966

  —

  Wylfa A1

  1963

  1971

  —

  Wylfa A2

  1963

  1972

  —

  Sizewell B

  1988

  1995

  —

  Windscale

  AGR

  1958

  1983

  1981

  Dounreay DRF

  1966

  1962

  1977

  Dounreay PFR

  1967

  1976

  1994

  Winfrith

  Dragon

  n/a

  n/a

  1976

  Berkeley 1

  1957

  1962

  1989

  Berkeley 2

  1957

  1962

  1988

  Hunterston A1

  1957

  1964

  1990

  Hunterston A2

  1957

  1964

  1989

  Trawsfyndd 1

  1959

  1965

  1993

  Trawsfyndd 2

  1959

  1965

  1993

  Winfrith

  SGHWR

  1963

  1968

  1990

  Political Parties (Donations)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will introduce legislation requiring companies to undertake a ballot of all(a) shareholders and (b) employees before making donations to political parties. [4816]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 23 June 1997]: The Government gave a commitment in the Queen's Speech that they would consider how the funding of political parties should be regulated and reformed.

  Social Chapter
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to introduce legislation incorporating the social chapter into British law. [4926]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 23 June 1997]: Following signature of the new treaty, which incorporates the agreement on social policy, the Government expect to introduce in the autumn a Bill to amend as necessary the European Communities Act 1972.

  The Government have undertaken to implement the two directives which have been adopted under the agreement on social policy within two years of the signature of the new treaty or when it enters into force if that is later.

  Oil Exploration
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment her Department has made of the environmental impact of drilling for oil in the Atlantic. [4402]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 23 June 1997]: In deciding which blocks to offer for licence in the 17th round, the Department of Trade and Industry took account of advice from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, its principal adviser on environmental matters, relevant Government Departments and environmental groups. Blocks awarded for licence in the round are subject to

  455
  conditions which seek to mitigate any possible adverse environmental impact of petroleum activities. The conditions were agreed with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

  Defence-related Jobs
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the total number of people employed on defence-related jobs in British manufacturing industry. [4753]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 23 June 1997]: In 1994–95, 360,000 jobs in UK industry were estimated to be dependent on defence expenditure and equipment exports.

  Source: UK Defence Statistics 1996, MoD.

TREASURY

  Bank of England
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to answer the question tabled on 2 June by the right hon. Member for Llanelli relating to the proposed legislation transferring to the Bank of England operational responsibilities for the setting of interest rates. [5339]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I did so on 20 June.

  Gini Coefficient
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the current Gini coefficient for each member state of the European Union. [3442]

  Mrs. Liddell
  International comparisons of income distribution are difficult to make and there are no officially recognised current estimates of Gini coefficients for each member state of the European Union. Estimates of Gini coefficients for the early 1990's, using data from the Luxembourg Income Survey, have recently been published in an article "Poverty in the UK: A Comparison with Nineteen Other Countries" by Jonathan Bradshaw and Jun-Rong Chen. This can be found in the January 1997 issue of "Benefits", a journal published by Nottingham University, which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Income Support
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what stage in the annual public expenditure cycle it is appropriate for him to discuss openly the resources of households with children above income support levels. [3964]

  Mr. Darling
  There is not going to be a Public Expenditure Survey in 1997. If the hon. Member wants to make representations to my right hon. Friend then he is free to do so.

  Internet
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what use he plans to make of the Internet to make Government more open. [5098]
  456
  Mrs. Liddell
  The Treasury's Internet site (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk) has received various commendations and awards, and has been warmly received by the public. The site offers a wide range of information and documentation, which we are committed to expanding the scope of further. Some of the information already published on the site includes all Treasury news releases, speeches, consultation documents, and Treasury occasional papers. Next week, shortly after the Chancellor finishes his statement, we shall be making the speech and the related Budget documentation available on the site. In the 1996 Budget week the site was accessed almost 400,000 times, up from 250,000 accesses in 1995. We expect even greater levels of interest next week.

  Personal Pensions (Misselling)
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what responses the Treasury has received in reply to the initiative on misselling of personal pensions announced by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 14 May. [5472]

  Mrs. Liddell
  On 14 May I spoke to senior representatives of the 24 firms which are together responsible for nearly three-quarters of the cases requiring review under the terms of the guidance issued by the Securities and Investments Board (SIB). I told them of the Government's concern about the delays in completing these case reviews and challenged them to perform to better standards than those expected in the targets set by SIB and the Personal Investment Authority (PIA) for each firm. I also made clear that, in the public interest, I plan to publish regular information about each firm's progress.

  I am placing copies of my letters to these firms in the Library of the House. In them I asked for information about their strategies for case reviews and for monthly information about progress with cases. In the letters, I set out my intention to publish the information provided, firm by firm, in the spirit of open government, and in the interests of the investors and the investing public generally. I now have replies from all 24 firms. I am placing copies in the Library of the House and making them available to the press.

  Most of these replies suggest a willingness to deliver the targets for completion of case reviews set by the regulators. A number of companies claim to have adopted practices which will hasten the conclusion of case reviews. These include providing additional staff, placing responsibility with a director and outsourcing expertise where there are resource constraints. I regret that some firms place more emphasis on the impediments to progress such as information flows and the scarcity of appropriate expertise. It is important that case reviews are treated as a matter of priority so that investors can be reassured that their pensions are secure.

  There are also some indications that firms are adopting, or considering, accelerated case management techniques which will improve the speed of case handling without prejudicing investors' rights. Such methods include waiving consideration of whether sales procedures were strictly at fault; use of automatic formulae to top up certain smaller cases; and potentially guarantees which will ensure that investors will either get reinstatement into occupational schemes or equivalent treatment where that proves impossible. I shall be looking for evidence that

  457
  firms are showing their sincerity and commitment to customer service while moving quickly to adopt such streamlined procedures.

  While most of the policy statements sent to me showed a businesslike sense of purpose, I regret that there are two which appear to misunderstand the Government's determination that this matter must be resolved with dispatch. The Sedgwick Group is quite wrong to assert that the Government's initiative on 14 May was in any way under-researched. And I am not convinced by the objections of the board of Legal and General to well merited criticisms of the industry's performance so far.

  When I met these firms on 14 May I made clear that, in the public interest, I would review progress each month and publish information monthly about the progress being made by each firm toward delivery of the regulators' targets. Some firms have already demonstrated that the pace of their reviews is quickening. I trust that this trend will accelerate over the months to come. But progress must not be made through shortcuts achieved to the detriment of investors' rights. Any attempt of this nature will quickly be picked up by the quality control process which the regulators will carry out at my request.

  When I review the progress made by each of the 24 firms each month, I will consider what further action may be called for if I am not convinced of their good intentions. I wish the first reports to be available to me by 3 July, and each month thereafter. It is now urgent that the pensions industry honours its commitments and puts its house in order. Only in that way can it assure its customers, and indeed the general public, of its ability to look after their interests responsibly.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each year since 1970(a) the nominal and real rate of interest and (b) the change in the nominal and real rate of exchange based on relative unit values for manufactures based on the second half of 1973 equals 100. [2025]

  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 for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 24 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 (2025) on the nominal and real rate of interest.
  The attached table shows nominal and real rates of interest for the dates requested. The real rate of interest is the nominal rate of interest deflated by a measure of price change over 12 months. There are many different interest rates and price indices and therefore many ways of calculating real interest rates. However, interest rates move in line and thus overall movements provide an accurate indication of general movements.
  The retail banks' base rate was used to represent the interest rate. This is the rate of interest retail banks lend to each other and can be considered the market interest rate for the UK economy. It moves in line with the Bank of England's Minimum Lending Rate (the minimum rate the Bank discounted bills to relieve money market shortages), which represents the cost of borrowing for retail banks from the Bank.
  458
  The nominal rate of interest was deflated by the average annual change in the retail prices index excluding mortgage interest payments (RPIX), except between 1970–1976 where the headline retail price index (RPI) was used. RPIX was used in preference to RPI, since i) the nominal interest rate is a priori sensitive to changes in mortgage rates and ii) the real interest rate is compatible with the Government's chosen inflation target measure. Data for RPIX between 1970 and 1976 was not available.
  For the second part of the question, refer to Export unit value index for the United Kingdom published in table 2.16 of ONS monthly publication Economic Trends. This data is supplied to us from the Department of Trade and Industry. For methodology for the derivation of the export unit value index, refer to Competitiveness in Manufactures article on page 43 of June 1997 edition of ONS publication Economic Trends. The Department of the Environment can give more detail on international comparisons.

  Year

  Nominal rate of interest percentage per annum

  Real rate of interest percentage per annum

  1970

  7.25

  1.25

  1971

  5.50

  0.75

  1972

  6.00

  1.00

  1973

  9.25

  1.00

  1974

  12.25

  0.75

  1975

  10.50

  0.50

  1976

  11.00

  0.75

  1977

  9.50

  0.50

  1978

  9.50

  1.00

  1979

  13.75

  1.00

  1980

  15.50

  1.00

  1981

  14.25

  1.25

  1982

  11.25

  1.25

  1983

  10.00

  2.00

  1984

  10.00

  2.25

  1985

  12.50

  2.50

  1986

  11.00

  3.00

  1987

  9.50

  2.50

  1988

  9.00

  2.00

  1989

  14.50

  2.50

  1990

  14.00

  1.75

  1991

  12.00

  1.75

  1992

  9.25

  2.00

  1993

  5.75

  2.00

  1994

  5.75

  2.50

  1995

  6.50

  2.25

  1996

  6.00

  2.00

  The nominal rate of interest is an average over the year. The price index used is the rate of change in prices over the year.

  All figures were rounded to the nearest 0.25 percentage point.

  Dependent Children
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the mean average number of dependent children for each year since 1971 following the form of table 2.6 of "Living in Britain" for the family type whose head of household is(a) married, (b) cohabiting, (c) a lone mother and (d) a lone father. [4792]

  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 for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Edward Leigh, dated 24 June 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as Director of the Office for National Statistics, to your recent question about the average number of dependent children.

  459
  The analysis requested is not currently available from published or unpublished tables produced from the General Household Survey (GHS). Table 2.6 in Living in Britain (SO, 1997) is the only breakdown of mean (average) number of dependent children by family type available for each year since 1971. Unpublished information on the average number of dependent children for lone mother families and lone father families is available for the 1994 and 1995 surveys. The figures are:

  Families with dependent children: Mean average number of dependent children

  Family type

  1994

  1995

  Married/cohabiting couples

  1.9 (2,442)

  1.9 (2,358)

  Lone mothers

  1.7 (660)

  1.7 (607)

  Lone fathers

  1.3 (48)

  1.5 (51)

  All lone parents

  1.7 (708)

  1.7 (658)

  All families with dependent children

  1.8 (3,150)

  1.8 (3,016)

  Base numbers are in brackets, and correspond to the number of respondents in the survey within each group.
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the age of the youngest dependent child by family type following the form of table 2.9 of "Living in Britain", indicating the percentages of children living in a household headed by a person who is(a) married, (b) cohabiting, (c) a lone mother, (d) a lone father and (e) a lone parent. [4844]

  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 for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Edward Leigh, dated 24 June 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as Director of the Office for National Statistics, to your recent question about the age of youngest dependent children.
  The analysis requested is not currently available from published or unpublished tables produced from the General Household Survey (GHS). Table 2.9 in Living in Britain 1995 (SO, 1997) is the only breakdown of age of youngest dependent child by family type available. The unit of analysis (ie the base for calculating percentages) is 'all families with dependent children' rather than 'all children'.
  The forthcoming Office for National Statistics publication 'Social Focus on Families', to be published by the Stationery Office in August 1997, will include a table (based on 1995 data) showing the age of the youngest dependent child by family type using the categories a) married couples b) cohabiting couples c) all couples d) lone mothers e) lone fathers f) lone parents g) all families with dependent children. As with Table 2.9, the unit of analysis is 'all families with dependent children' rather than 'all children'.

  Average Earnings
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made(a) of the contribution of wage drift to the recent increase in average earnings and (b) of the current methods employed by the ONS in its seasonal adjustments. [4577]

  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 for a reply to be given.
  460
  Letter from Tim Holt to Ms Ruth Kelly, dated 24 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 contributions of wage drift to the recent increase in average earnings and the current methods of seasonal adjustment employed by the ONS.
  It is difficult to decompose reliably whole economy average earnings into wage drift and pay settlements because we do not have adequate information on whole economy settlements. Consequently, ONS does not estimate the contribution wage drift makes to increases in average earnings. We monitor the general level of settlements in the economy, which have been relatively stable over the last year or so. This suggests that recent increases in average earnings have been, in part, due to wage drift and particularly larger bonus payments, especially in the financial services sector.
  The ONS currently publishes a seasonally adjusted series of average earnings growth and an underlying rate, which attempts to adjust for temporary influences such as arrears of pay and variations in the timing of bonus payments. A recent review of the monthly wages and salaries survey, from which earnings statistics are derived, recommended that ONS should consider moving to X-11 ARIMA seasonal adjustment software for earnings data; this is currently being evaluated. X-11 ARIMA is one ONS's standard method of seasonally adjusting time series.

  Unemployment
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to ensure that the true level of unemployment at ward level in Rotherham will be reflected under the proposed new method of measuring employment. [5006]

  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 for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Dennis MacShane, dated 24 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 introduction of a monthly version of the Labour Force Survey.
  I am responsible for deciding the form, coverage and timing of release of statistics issued by ONS, taking into account the views of customers. ONS consulted on the future presentation of labour market statistics; the consultation exercise was launched through an article in the Labour Market Trends published on 8 May. Comments on the proposals should have been sent to ONS by 14 June.
  The proposals set out for consultation reflect the House of Commons Employment Select Committee recommendation that more prominence should be given to the measure of unemployment which is based on the internationally agreed ILO definition.
  ONS is committed to providing the statistics that users need and will maintain existing outputs wherever possible.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in the Colchester parliamentary constituency were paid at rates below(a) £4, (b) 3.50 and (c) £3 per hour, at the latest date for which figures are available. [5001]

  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 for a reply to be given.
  461
  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Bob Russell, dated 24 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 the Colchester parliamentary constituency.
  The latest information, from the New Earrings Survey (NES) April 1996, precedes the creation of Colchester parliamentary constituency. Data for the areas prior to the last General Election are given in the table below.

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

  £3.00

  £3.50

  £4.00

  North-Colchester

  Full-time

  0.8

  2.5

  8.1

  Part-time

  7.0

  18.6

  37.2

  All

  2.5

  6.8

  15.8

  South Colchester and Maldon

  Full-time

  3.9

  7.0

  13.3

  Part-time

  14.6

  33.3

  47.9

  All

  6.8

  14.2

  22.7

  Spending Review
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list categories of assets which will form part of the proposed Government inventory in the comprehensive spending review; what method of valuation is to be employed; if the national gold reserves will be included; and what method will be employed for their valuation. [4216]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 19 June 1997]: The Government has not yet finalised which categories of assets to include in the national asset registers or what basis of valuation will be employed. An announcement will be made in due course.

  However, information on the amount held in the national gold reserves is already available. It is published monthly in the Bank of England's "Monetary and Financial Statistics" and in the International monetary fund's publication "International Financial Statistics". A conservative basis is adopted for the valuation of the gold reserves: the reserves are revalued at the end of March each year on the basis of 75 per cent. of the average London fixing price for the three months up to the end of March or at 75 per cent. of its final fixing price on the last working day in March whichever gives the lower price.

  Privatisation
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government on privatisation. [675]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 5 June 1997]: Privatisation will be considered, on its merits, where it is in the public interest to do so.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Amsterdam Treaty
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those articles and Protocols of the provisional treaty of Amsterdam for whose implementation primary legislation will be required; and when he expects to publish the necessary Bill. [5011]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The draft Treaty of Amsterdam is not yet in final form, and needs further technical work before it can be submitted for signature by all Member States. After signature of the Treaty, which is planned for October, primary legislation will be required before the United Kingdom ratifies it. We anticipate that such legislation would need to add to the list of Community Treaties in the European Communities Act 1972 all parts of the new Treaty, including Protocols, except those relating to the intergovernmental pillars. However, it is too soon to say when a Bill might be published or what its precise contents will be.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for parliamentary scrutiny of the Treaty of Amsterdam. [5094]

  Mr. Henderson
  A Bill will be required before the UK ratifies the Treaty of Amsterdam. In the meantime we have deposited for parliamentary scrutiny and placed in the libraries of the House a provisional version of the draft Treaty circulated by the Netherlands Presidency. As indicated in the conclusions of the Amsterdam European Council, the necessary final legal editing and harmonisation of the texts must now be completed, with a view to signature of the Treaty in October.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list under the treaty of Amsterdam the(a) areas in and (b) articles under which a group of member states of the European Union may proceed with any description of common arrangements or legislation, which currently would require unanimous assent; and what representations Her Majesty's Government made in respect of those articles at the conference. [5012]

  Mr. Henderson
  The conditions and limitations on the scope of flexibility are as set out in general clauses inserted into the Treaty of European Union; Article 5a of the European Community Treaty; and Article K12 of the Treaty on European Union. Article J13a of the Treaty on European Union establishes a constructive abstention mechanism in the Common Foreign and Security Policy.

  We made clear in the Intergovernmental Conference that we accepted the need for enhanced flexibility provisions but we believed the scope of such provisions in the Community pillar should be limited, and that any Member State should, in all pillars, where its key national interests were affected, be able to prevent flexible actions taking place. We achieved those objectives.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which areas currently resolved under unanimity are to be transferred to qualified majority voting under the final Amsterdam treaty text. [4997]
  463
  Mr. Henderson
  The following areas currently resolved under unanimity are to be transferred to Qualified Majority Voting under the Amsterdam treaty:Article 45 (3): Compensatory aid for imports of raw materials.
  Article 56 (2): Coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action for special treatment for foreign nationals (right of establishment).
  Article 130i (1): Adoption of the research framework programme.
  Article 130i (2): Adapting or supplementing the research framework programme.
  Article 130o: Setting up of joint undertakings in R&T development.

  There will also be QMV for implementing decisions and decisions on the basis of the Common Foreign and Security Policy as provided for by Article J13. However, a Member State may prevent a vote from being taken for important and stated reasons of national interest, whereupon the decision may be referred to the European Council for decision by unanimity.

  The flexibility provisions in Articles 5a (Community Pillar) and K12 (Justice and Home Affairs) are also subject to qualified majority voting. However a similar national veto mechanism applies.

  The new Articles B (2) (b) (i) and (iii) (some visa questions) in the new chapter on free movement of persons, asylum and immigration shall also be subject to QMV. The UK will not be obliged to take part in co-operation under this chapter.

  European Commission (School Packs)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria determine the material included in school packs sent out by the European Commission Office in London; and in what circumstances external bodies may submit material for distribution via the European Commission Office. [4908]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the European Commission.

  European Union (Public Image)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much money was spent on programmes designed to improve the public image of(a) the European Union and (b) the Single Currency in 1996; and if he will list the projects involved. [4909]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  On the basis that the question is referring to expenditure from the EC budget, a total of 113 million ecu was committed in 1996 for information and communication activities under Title B3-3. Of this, 50 million ecu was spent on Budget line B3-306, which covers a number of specific information programmes, including to publicise the euro.

  The EC Budget sets out Commission spending on information activities by broad categories (or Budget lines) within Title B3-3. Details of the individual projects funded from these lines are not published in consolidated form by the Commission.

  Montevideo Convention
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the cases at the International Court of Justice to which the United Kingdom has been a party since 1967, to which the Montevideo convention on the Rights and Duties of States applied. [5007]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There have been no such cases.

  Former Prisoners of War (Japan)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which representatives he has met of former prisoners of war of the Japanese; and what discussions he has had with representatives of the Japanese Government in regard to compensation to such former prisoners of war; and if he will make a statement.[5078]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 2 June at column 86 to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) by the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs invited representatives of the former prisoners of war and civilian internees to a meeting which took place on 3 June.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the strong feelings held by many in this country about the former prisoners of war with the Japanese Foreign Minister when they met on 21 June. We will continue to maintain close contact with the Japanese Government on this issue.

  Indonesia (Arms Exports)
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the export of arms to Indonesia. [4996]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced on 22 May at column 135 an urgent review of the detailed criteria used in considering licence applications for the export of conventional arms worldwide. Countries will be judged against the new criteria.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with the government of Saudi Arabia concerning human rights; and if he will make a statement. [4765]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed human rights, among other matters, with the Saudi Ambassador on 21 May. We look forward to having a more thorough discussion with the Government of Saudi Arabia at the earliest opportunity on this and a wide range of other issues of interest to us.

  Diplomatic Immunity
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many serious offences were committed in the United Kingdom in 1996
  465
  by persons entitled to immunity; and how many foreign diplomats or members of their families were withdrawn from their posts in the United Kingdom in the past year as a result of alleged offences. [5551]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  From a diplomatic community of over 17,000 persons, thirty four alleged serious offences by persons entitled to immunity were drawn to the attention of this Department in 1996. "Serious Offences" are defined in accordance with the Report to the Foreign Affairs Committee "The Abuse of Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges (1985)" as offences which fall into the category which in certain circumstances attract a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment or more: the majority involved drinking and driving and shoplifting.

  Six diplomats or members of their families were withdrawn at this Department's request from posts in the United Kingdom as a result of alleged offences, compared with five the previous year.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes he proposes to make in his Department's cash limits and running cost limits for 1997–98. [5552]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate the following changes will be made.

  The cash limit for Class II, Vote 1 (Overseas Representation) will be increased by £225,000 from £619,601,00 to £619,826,000. The increase is required to take in a transfer of £225,000 (Other Current Expenditure) from the Cabinet Office for costs incurred on their behalf.

  The gross running costs limit on Class II, Vote 1 will be increased by £3,250,000 from £524,020,000 to £527,270,000.

  There is a requirement to provide for new costs and income associated with the Hong Kong Ethnic Minorities Citizens Unit and increased visa costs and income associated with new regimes in Colombia and Ecuador. All increases in provision will be fully offset by extra receipts, and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Malawi
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the projects supported by Britain in Malawi in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement on aid to Malawi. [5016]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I am placing in the Library of the House a list of projects supported under the bilateral aid programme to Malawi between 1992–93 and 1996–97. A Country Aid Policy Statement for Malawi was produced in 1995. In 1995 Britain provided to Malawi about £30 million in bilateral aid and £8 million through the European Community. My right hon. Friend the Secretary 466
  of State for International Development has recently approved £15 million in programme aid to help Malawi pay teachers' salaries.

  Internation Development White Paper
  Mr. Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress is being made with the White Paper on International Development. [5554]

  Ms Short
  It remains our intention to publish a White Paper on International Development in the Autumn. A process of widespread consultation is underway. I am delighted that there is to be a debate on International Development policies on Tuesday 1 July, during which hon. Members will have an opportunity to feed their thoughts and ideas into the Paper.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Church of England Pensions Board
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will take measures to ensure that the Church of England Pensions Board responds to the letter from the Parish Protection Board, dated 7 November 1996; if he will place a copy of the reply in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [4496]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  This is not a matter for the Church Commissioners; it is a matter for the Church of England Pensions Board. I understand, however, that a reply was sent to the Parishes Protection Group on 18 February 1997, after consideration at a meeting of the full Pensions Board (No. 4496 in the Order Paper dated 17 June).

SCOTLAND

  Cigarette Smokers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what percentage of adult(a) men and (b) women in Scotland are cigarette smokers in each 10 year age band; and if he will make a statement. [4761]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The estimated number and percentage of adult men and women cigarette smokers in Scotland in 1994 are provided below.

  Age group

  Percentage of cigarette smokers

  Estimated number of cigarette smokers

  Male smokers

  16–24

  31

  99,000

  25–34

  30

  125,000

  35–44

  32

  112,000

  45–54

  31

  96,000

  55–64

  39

  99,000

  65–74

  25

  50,000

  75+

  18

  19,000

  467

  Age group

  Percentage of cigarette smokers

  Estimated number of cigarette smokers

  Female smokers

  16–24

  25

  77,000

  25–34

  36

  148,000

  35–44

  32

  113,000

  45–54

  30

  96,000

  55–64

  30

  84,000

  65–74

  21

  54,000

  75+

  14

  30,000

  1. The percentage of cigarette smokers has been calculated from the 1994 General Household Survey conducted by the Office for National Statistics.

  2. The number of smokers has been estimated using Registrar General for Scotland 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.

  Pensions Agency
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the key performance targets he has set for the Scottish Office Pensions Agency for 1997–98. [5546]

  Mr. Dewar
  I have set the Scottish Office Pensions Agency the following key performance targets for 1997–98:To ensure that all awards and transfer payments are accurate to within 0.5 per cent. of their value.
  To pay on time 99.5 per cent. of all pensions and lump sums where the target date for receipt of claims is met.
  To make transfer payments within 16 working days of members' final instructions to transfer pensions rights.
  To ensure that 96 per cent. of contributions due from employers of teachers are received within 15 days of the end of the month to which they relate.
  To reduce total identified operating costs per member/beneficiary by 6 per cent.

  Prison Service
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what targets he has set for the Scottish Prison Service for 1997–98. [5547]

  £Million

  Authority

  Right to buy

  Land sales

  Total receipts2

  Target

  Near actual1

  Target

  Near actual1

  Target

  Near actual1

  Aberdeen City Council

  13.050

  11.381

  0.300

  0.164

  15.212

  12.018

  Aberdeenshire Council

  7.260

  7.005

  0.500

  0.626

  8.533

  7.954

  Angus Council

  3.600

  4.508

  0.050

  0.025

  4.070

  4.557

  Argyll and Bute Council

  3.060

  3.379

  0.260

  0.141

  3.622

  3.543

  Clackmannanshire Council

  2.706

  2.856

  0.219

  0.102

  3.166

  2.958

  Dumfries and Galloway Council

  6.274

  7.103

  0.400

  0.578

  7.210

  7.691

  Dundee City Council

  4.500

  4.103

  0.400

  0.044

  5.984

  4.305

  East Ayrshire Council

  5.154

  7.220

  0.125

  0.000

  6.016

  7.234

  East Dunbartonshire Council

  2.451

  2.674

  0.000

  0.000

  2.705

  2.695

  East Lothian Council

  3.730

  3.836

  0.200

  0.030

  4.386

  3.919

  East Renfrewshire Council

  1.409

  0.922

  0.020

  0.764

  1.609

  1.686

  City of Edinburgh Council

  9.410

  9.039

  2.000

  1.449

  12.650

  10.531

  Falkirk Council

  6.206

  6.400

  1.000

  0.813

  8.067

  7.213

  Fife Council

  15.066

  11.771

  1.500

  0.351

  18.051

  12.357

  468
  Mr. Dewar
  I have set the Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service the following targets:

  Performance measures

  Key targets

  The number of prisoners

  No A Category prisoners should

  unlawfully at large.

  escape.

  The number of escapes by B Category

  prisoners should be no higher than 1.7

  per 1,000 prisoners.

  The number of escapes by C Category

  prisoners should be no higher than 2

  per 1,000 prisoners.

  The number of serious

  The number of serious assaults on staff

  assaults on staff and

  should be no higher than 3 per 1,000

  prisoners.

  staff.

  The number of serious assaults on

  other prisoners should be less than the

  1996–97 outturn.

  Basic quality of life for

  By end March 1998 70 per cent. of

  prisoners

  prisoners will have access to forms of

  night sanitation.

  The amount of available

  To ensure that 450 prisoners have

  opportunities for

  completed a cognitive skills

  prisoners' self

  programme and 70 prisoners have

  development.

  completed a sex offender programme

  during 1997–98.

  Average annual cost per

  To keep costs within £28,317 per place

  prisoner place.

  available for use.

  The level of absence

  To reduce the average number of days

  through staff sickness.

  lost per person per year through staff

  sickness to 15.

  Capital Receipts
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each local authority the actual annual capital receipts for 1996–97, indicating in each case receipts from(a) right to buy, (b) stock transfer and (c) land sales; and if he will indicate for each authority and for each category of receipts the annual targets set out in the estimates at the start of the year. [3308]

  Mr. Chisholm
  [holding answer 17 June 1997]Information on local authority housing capital receipts in 1996–97 is set out in the table. A target of £22 million was set for receipts from stock transfer, but no receipts were achieved.
  469

  £Million

  Authority

  Right to buy

  Land sales

  Total receipts2

  Target

  Near actual1

  Target

  Near actual1

  Target

  Near actual1

  City of Glasgow Council

  15.620

  20.489

  3.000

  2.098

  22.666

  22.814

  Highland Council

  8.600

  10.388

  0.500

  0.113

  9.908

  10.632

  Inverclyde Council

  3.750

  4.031

  0.182

  0.050

  4.438

  4.089

  Midlothian Council

  2.606

  3.168

  0.100

  0.222

  3.009

  3.426

  Moray Council

  3.950

  4.100

  0.231

  0.139

  4.484

  4.291

  North Ayrshire Council

  4.062

  4.332

  0.236

  0.036

  5.009

  4.378

  North Lanarkshire Council

  15.690

  19.868

  2.000

  0.546

  19.700

  20.548

  Orkney Islands Council

  0.800

  0.809

  0.010

  0.000

  0.849

  0.809

  Perth and Kinross Council

  3.919

  4.076

  0.100

  0.180

  4.515

  4.326

  Renfrewshire Council

  4.200

  5.529

  3.000

  0.417

  8.091

  5.959

  Scottish Borders Council

  2.900

  2.880

  0.300

  0.013

  3.559

  3.167

  Shetland Council

  1.435

  1.046

  0.005

  0.007

  1.577

  1.074

  South Ayrshire Council

  5.052

  4.750

  0.000

  0.300

  5.468

  5.050

  South Lanarkshire Council

  14.758

  16.935

  0.100

  0.208

  16.503

  17.225

  Stirling Council

  3.870

  4.020

  0.200

  0.062

  4.459

  4.162

  West Dunbartonshire Council

  3.710

  2.629

  0.000

  0.000

  4.296

  2.677

  West Lothian Council

  5.200

  6.958

  0.482

  0.250

  6.272

  7.245

  Western Isles Council

  0.665

  0.528

  0.000

  0.000

  0.769

  0.599

  Scotland

  184.663

  198.733

  17.420

  9.728

  226.853

  211.132

  1Near actual information is based on returns from local authorities.

  2The total receipts target and near actual figures include, as well as right to buy and land sales, target and near actual receipts for stock transfers, rent to mortgage, tenants' choice and loan repayments.

  Schools
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the total value of balances held by state schools in Scotland. [5068]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 23 June 1997]The information sought is not held centrally.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Low Pay
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time employees at her Department and its agencies are paid (i) less than £4.00 an hour, (ii) less than £3.50 an hour and (iii) less than £3.00 an hour. [4195]

  Mr. Murphy
  The information requested from the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments is listed:

  Belfast education and library board

  Expenditure £000s

  Controlled or maintained

  Full time equivalent pupil places

  Primary school

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Existing provision

  Controlled

  25

  Seaview

  440

  522

  542

  548

  Controlled

  25

  Wheatfield

  387

  439

  447

  477

  Controlled

  25

  Mersey Street

  302

  382

  359

  371

  Controlled

  25

  Ballygolan

  199

  231

  261

  268

  Controlled

  25

  Blackmountain

  210

  257

  240

  238

  Controlled

  25

  Rosetta

  387

  434

  422

  438

  Controlled

  25

  Stranmillis

  385

  442

  470

  474

  Controlled

  25

  Botanic

  274

  321

  350

  338

  Controlled

  25

  Fane Street

  326

  395

  392

  429

  Controlled

  25

  Ballysillan

  259

  290

  321

  331

  Controlled

  25

  Orangefield

  422

  536

  549

  576

  Controlled

  25

  Cliftonville

  300

  398

  372

  391

  470

  Earnings

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Less than £4.00 an hour

  522

  181

  Less than £3.50 an hour

  1,765

  36

  Less than £3.00 an hour

  24

  2

  Nursery Education
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for each education and library board those schools which have nursery school provision, indicating which are in the(a) voluntary, (b) maintained and (c) controlled sectors, indicating the year in which provision was first available, the sums expended by each board in each of the last 10 years for each school and the proposals for the coming school year. [4066]

  Mr. Worthington
  The available information is as follows:
  471

  Belfast education and library board

  Expenditure £000s

  Controlled or maintained

  Full time equivalent pupil places

  Primary school

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Controlled

  50

  Fernhill

  361

  401

  404

  418

  Controlled

  50

  Dundela

  333

  382

  385

  417

  Controlled

  50

  Grove

  367

  423

  439

  449

  Controlled

  50

  Lowwood

  398

  478

  472

  503

  Controlled

  50

  Nettlefield

  419

  500

  523

  572

  Controlled

  50

  Suffolk

  278

  288

  283

  307

  Controlled

  50

  Taughmonagh

  357

  371

  378

  383

  Controlled

  50

  Blythefield

  337

  384

  385

  412

  Controlled

  50

  Avoneil

  414

  479

  488

  518

  Controlled

  50

  Euston Street

  387

  435

  469

  511

  Controlled

  25

  Knocknagoney

  285

  322

  353

  370

  Maintained

  50

  St. Bride's

  723

  865

  892

  963

  Maintained

  50

  St. Malachy's

  347

  401

  410

  460

  Maintained

  50

  St. Matthew's

  364

  428

  444

  463

  Proposed extra provision

  Nil

  North-eastern education and library board

  Expenditure £000s

  Controlled or maintained

  Full time equivalent pupil places

  Primary school

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Existing provision

  Controlled

  25

  Mossgrove

  265

  301

  310

  325

  Controlled

  25

  Victoria

  466

  525

  577

  610

  Controlled

  50

  Ballykeel

  490

  521

  586

  596

  Controlled

  50

  Whitehouse

  335

  370

  399

  414

  Controlled

  50

  Oakfield

  494

  569

  585

  602

  Controlled

  50

  Rathcoole

  398

  436

  441

  457

  Maintained

  50

  St. James'

  230

  271

  316

  318

  Controlled

  50

  Clough

  132

  168

  176

  189

  Controlled

  50

  Kilmoyle

  91

  98

  96

  92

  Proposed extra provision

  Earliest start date: 1 September 1997

  Controlled

  25

  Bushmills

  Approved under the EU Special Support

  Controlled

  25

  Harpurs Hill

  Programme for Peace and Reconciliation

  South-eastern education and library board

  Expenditure £000s

  Controlled or maintained

  Full time equivalent pupil places

  Primary school

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Existing provision

  Controlled

  50

  Braniel

  417

  481

  476

  460

  Controlled

  50

  Belvoir Park

  385

  457

  491

  530

  Controlled

  50

  Lisburn Central

  359

  402

  438

  480

  Controlled

  50

  Brooklands

  638

  720

  862

  793

  Maintained

  50

  St. Mark's

  648

  715

  819

  841

  Proposed extra provision

  Earliest start date: 1 September 1997

  Controlled

  25

  Westwinds (Newtownards)

  Approved under the EU Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation

  Controlled

  25

  Kilcooley (Bangor)

  Approved under the EU Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation

  Controlled

  25

  Old Warren (Lisburn)

  Approved under the EU Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation

  472 473

  Southern education and library board

  Expenditure £000s

  Controlled or maintained

  Full-time equivalent pupil places

  Primary school

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Existing provision

  Controlled

  25

  Dickson

  290

  326

  332

  331

  Controlled

  25

  Donacloney

  196

  217

  248

  287

  Controlled

  25

  Hart Memorial

  390

  468

  488

  513

  Controlled

  25

  Bessbrook

  143

  178

  181

  189

  Controlled

  25

  Lurgan Model

  140

  160

  183

  213

  Controlled

  25

  Craigavon

  163

  180

  176

  164

  Controlled

  25

  Hardy Memorial

  456

  511

  541

  559

  Controlled

  50

  Carrick Lurgan

  323

  358

  408

  419

  Controlled

  50

  King's Park

  580

  629

  671

  740

  Controlled

  50

  Ballyoran

  379

  445

  493

  560

  Controlled

  50

  Drumgor

  516

  568

  605

  601

  Controlled

  50

  Tullygally

  340

  397

  414

  411

  Maintained

  25

  St. Malachy's

  307

  345

  349

  356

  Carrickcroppan/

  Camlough

  Maintained

  25

  Seagoc

  206

  237

  248

  271

  Maintained

  50

  Cloughoge

  376

  423

  504

  495

  Maintained

  50

  St. Anthony's

  642

  746

  787

  796

  Maintained

  50

  St. Brendan's

  597

  688

  684

  697

  Maintained

  50

  St.Joseph's

  447

  500

  451

  569

  Infants, Lurgan

  Maintained

  50

  St. Joseph's

  421

  481

  533

  550

  Bessbrook

  Proposed extra provision

  Earliest start date: 1 September 1997

  Maintained

  50

  St. Patrick's (Newry)

  Approved under the EU Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation

  Maintained

  50

  St. Patrick's (Dungannon)

  Approved under the EU Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation

  Western education and library board

  Expenditure £000s

  Controlled or maintained

  Full-time equivalent pupil places

  Primary school

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Existing provision

  Controlled

  25

  Londonderry

  376

  486

  467

  523

  Model

  Controlled

  25

  Sion Mills

  320

  363

  374

  458

  Controlled

  50

  Ebrington

  650

  702

  745

  728

  Controlled

  50

  Greenhaw

  340

  375

  407

  411

  Controlled

  25

  Fountain

  Opened 12 June 1995

  Maintained

  25

  St. Columbkilles

  379

  404

  419

  424

  Maintained

  50

  Dungiven Road

  486

  550

  569

  562

  Maintained

  50

  Holy Child

  500

  543

  584

  584

  Proposed extra provision

  Earliest start date: 1 September 1997

  Maintained

  50

  Rosemount (Londonderry)

  Approved under the Londonderry Regeneration Initiative

  Maintained

  50

  Barrack Street (Strabane)

  Approved under the EU Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation

  Maintained

  50

  St. Ronan's (Lisnaskea)

  Maintained

  25

  St. Patrick's (Castlederg)

  Controlled

  25

  Ashlea PS Londonderry

  1. The year in which the provision became available is not available for all schools and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  2. The information is for nursery units only.

  3. Expenditure details are only available from 1991–92 (when formula funding was introduced) to 1994–95. Expenditure statements for 1995–96 and 1996–97 are not yet available. The figures relate to the total expenditure at each school as it is not possible to disaggregate expenditure on a nursery unit from expenditure on the rest of the school.

  4. Not all of the new provision will be available in September: it will come onstream over the course of the year. There are likely to be further approvals under these programmes.

  Government Training Centres
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which Government training centres have(a) achieved and (b) not been awarded the job skills quality management status. [4240]

  Mr. Worthington
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Ian Walters to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 19 June 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me, as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency, to reply to your question about the number of Training Centres which have reached the standards required under the Jobskills Quality Management System (JQMS).
  There are ten Training Centres in Northern Ireland and to date three, Dundonald, Lisburn and Omagh, have been awarded JQMS. The remaining Centres at Ballymena, Craigavon, Enniskillen, Felden, Maydown, Newry and Springtown are on line to achieve JQMS before 31 December 1997 in line with a staged implementation of this new standard.
  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Southern Area Health Board Headquarters
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals there are for the future use of the former headquarters of the Southern Area Health Board at Carn, Craigavon; and if she will make a statement. [4241]

  Mr. Worthington
  The former Southern Health and Social Services Board Headquarters at 20 Seagoe Industrial Estate, Portadown was vacated and became surplus to requirements at the end of 1996. In accordance with Government procedures for the disposal of surplus land and property, the site and the portable buildings were advertised for sale on the open market in January 1997. A sale was agreed and the legal formalities were concluded on 21 March 1997.

  Health Centres
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the names of health centres(a) owned by the Southern Area Health Board, (b) for which the Southern Area Health Board contributes a loan towards capital expenditure and (c) for which the Southern Area Health Board contributed a grant towards capital expenditure. [4245]

  Mr. Worthington
  Health Centres are either in the ownership of the Department of Health and Social Services or the relevant Health and Social Services Trust. Details are provided in the table. The Southern Health and Social Services Board does not contribute loans or grants towards the capital expenditure of any health centre. At present a board may only provide financial support in relation to Health Centre premises which have been sold to general medical practitioners.

  Table: Health centres in the Southern board area

  Location

  Ownership

  Portadown

  DHSS

  Warrenpoint

  DHSS

  476

  table: Health centres in the southern area

  Location

  Ownership

  Crossmaglen

  DHSS

  Rathfriland

  DHSS

  Armagh

  DHSS

  Richill

  DHSS

  Markethill

  DHSS

  Ballygawley

  DHSS

  Lurgan

  Craigavon/Banbridge

  Community Trust

  Banbridge

  Craigavon/Banbridge

  Community Trust

  Brownlow

  Craigavon/Banbridge

  Community Trust

  Gilford

  Craigavon/Banbridge

  Community Trust

  Newry

  Newry and Mourne Trust

  Kilkeel

  Newry and Mourne Trust

  Newtownhamilton

  Newry and Mourne Trust

  Arts Policy
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she plans to review policy on the arts; and if she will make a statement. [4418]

  Mr. Worthington
  I have no plans at present for a review of arts policy in Northern Ireland. However, in conjunction with the Arts Council, I wish to promote the widest possible access to the arts, particularly for young people, and to increase the impact of the cultural sector on the economy.

  Council for Voluntary Action
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to meet representatives of the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action; and if she will make a statement. [4419]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I met representatives of the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action on Friday 20 June when I opened their annual conference in Belfast.

  Targeting Social Need Policy
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to review the Targeting Social Need policy; and if she will make a statement. [4422]

  Mr. Worthington
  It is anticipated that recommendations on Targeting Social Need will be included in the forthcoming report by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights on employment equality in Northern Ireland. The Government will give the fullest consideration to the Commission's recommendations, including its implications for the Targeting Social Need initiative.

  Unemployment
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she plans to issue a statement concerning the consultation on long-term unemployment; and if she will make a statement. [4423]
  477
  Mr. Worthington
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter form Ian Walters to Dr. Norman Godman, dated 24 June 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency, to reply to your question about the current consultation on long-term unemployment in Northern Ireland.
  The initial stage of the consultation process has been completed with the publication of a consultative document and a series of public seminars across Northern Ireland. Those attending the seminars had the chance to discuss long-term unemployment with Agency officials and indeed with each other. In addition, we have received over 80 written submissions on the document and are currently in the process of reviewing each of them.
  As we continue the review we will take full account of the Government's Welfare to Work proposals and the priority attached to them.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Courts (Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the future of the county court in Chelmsford. [4897]

  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. Simon Burns, dated 24 June 1997:
  The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the future of Chelmsford County Court.
  I can confirm that there are no plans to move or close Chelmsford County Court.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on plans to reorganise the(a) county courts and (b) magistrates' courts in Essex, with special reference to the Chelmsford area. [4894]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor is currently considering a proposal to close the Braintree and Bishop Stortford County Courts. If these courts are closed, some work previously dealt with at the Braintree court might be dealt with in Chelmsford.

  Responsibility for the civil and higher criminal courts network falls to the Court Service which must constantly monitor and review the viability of its resources in the light of changing business needs and workload trends. Decisions on any proposals for change will be made by the Lord Chancellor taking account of all the relevant factors.

  Turning to the question of magistrates' courts in Essex, there are no current plans for closures in the area. Essex Magistrates' Courts Committee has, however, issued a consultation paper setting out a number of options for the reorganisation of petty sessional divisions in the County. The consultation period closes on 30 June. One of these
  478
  options is that the current Chelmsford and Maldon and Witham PSDs should be amalgamated, together with some or all of the Braintree and Halstead and Brentwood PSDs, into a single PSD.

  The MCC has indicated that this new PSD could be served by one courthouse to be centred at Chelmsford or possibly at Witham.

  Decisions concerning the future and number of magistrates' courts in their area are for the relevant MCC to determine. A local authority that contributes financially may appeal to the Lord Chancellor against a proposed closure. The procedure for such appeals is set out in section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. In the absence of an appeal, however, the Lord Chancellor plays no part in the process.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to move the(a) county court and (b) magistrates' court from Chelmsford to elsewhere in Essex, indicating the place; and if he will make a statement. [4895]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have no proposals to move either the county court or the magistrates' court from Chelmsford.

  Responsibility for the civil and higher criminal courts network falls to the Court Service which must constantly monitor and review the viability of its resources in the light of changing business needs and workload trends. Decisions on any proposals for change will be made by the Lord Chancellor taking account of all the relevant factors.

  Decisions concerning the future and number of magistrates' courts in its area are for the relevant MCC to determine. A local authority that contributes financially may appeal to the lord chancellor against a proposed closure. The procedure for such appeals is set out in section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. In the absence of an appeal, however, the Lord Chancellor plays no part in the process.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the future of the magistrates' court in Chelmsford. [4896]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have no proposals to move either the county court or the magistrates' court from Chelmsford. Decisions concerning the future and number of magistrates' court in its area are for the relevant MCC to determine. A local authority that contributes financially may appeal to the Lord Chancellor against a proposed closure. The procedure for such appeals is set out in section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. In the absence of an appeal, however, the Lord Chancellor plays no part in the process.

  Running Costs
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make changes to the running costs limit for Class VIII Vote I for 1997–98. [5473]

  Mr. Hoon
  The running costs limit for Class VIII Vote 1 has been reduced by£73,000 from £427,754,000 to £427,681,000 to reflect a transfer to the Cabinet Office for editorial support for the hard copy publications functions of the Statutory Publications Office.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Town Centre Management Schemes
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to encourage town centre management schemes. [4010]

  Mr. Raynsford
  PPG 6 (Town Centres and Retail Developments) actively encourages local authorities to prepare town centre management initiatives. To help facilitate this the Government provide core funding for the Association of Town Centre Management (ATCM), which has a lead role in the promotion of town centre management. The Government have also provided financial support for the ATCM research reports on "Town Improvement Zones" (undertaken by KPMG), "Managing urban open spaces", undertaken by Chesterton's, and "Town Centre Partnerships: a survey of good practice", undertaken by Hillier Parker and URBED.

  Unfit Homes (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when he proposes to publish targets for the reduction in the number of unfit homes in Portsmouth; [4294]

  (2) what representations he has received from Portsmouth City Council concerning the number of unfit homes in Portsmouth; [4295]

  (3) how many unfit homes there are in Portsmouth; and what plans he has to reduce their number. [4293]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department has received no representations from Portsmouth city council concerning the number of unfit homes in Portsmouth. Local authorities in England are asked to provide estimates of dwellings in their area which are unfit on the annual housing investment programme returns. Portsmouth's latest HIP return reported that, on 1 April 1996, 340 of its own dwellings and 5,300 private sector dwellings were unfit. Figures for other public sector bodies and housing associations were not provided. Local authorities are responsible for taking action to tackle unfit homes within their area, including the setting and publishing of any targets for reduction, within the context of their housing strategy and investment programmes.

  Environmental Taskforce
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consultation he will undertake on his proposals for an environmental taskforce; and if he will consult with non-Governmental environmental organisations. [4480]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government are committed to delivering the New Deal programme in partnership with other organisations in the voluntary, private and public sectors, including non-governmental environmental organisations, and will consult those organisations shortly.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the time scale for the creation of regional development agencies. [4789]

  Angela Eagle
  We propose to bring forward legislation in the autumn with a view to the agencies beginning operation on 1 April 1999.

  Sex Offenders
  Ms Hewitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will issue guidelines to local authorities on how they should handle applications for local authority tenancies from individuals who have been convicted of sex offences against children; [4815]

  (2) if he will review the responsibilities and powers of local authorities where an individual who has been convicted of sex offences against children (a) moves into the authority's area and (b) applies for a local authority tenancy; and if he will make a statement. [4814]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We recognise that this is a matter of great concern. It is being actively considered by my Department in close co-operation with other relevant Government Departments and the representatives of local authorities and housing professionals. Local housing authorities already have the power to decide which classes of person qualify or do not qualify to be included in their housing registers and whether to allocate tenancies to such persons. The Home Office is consulting other Government Departments, the police and other practitioners about guidance to be issued to the police on the management of the information acquired under the Sex Offenders Act 1997. The guidance will cover the disclosure of information to third parties. The representatives of local authorities and the housing profession are considering whether to issue separate advice on this matter to local authorities and will discuss this with my Department.

  Housing Estates (Pavements)
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to lay down guidelines to ensure that housing estates are not built without pavements. [4611]

  Mr. Raynsford
  General guidance relating to the design of residential roads and footpaths is set out in my Department's "Design Bulletin 32", issued in revised form in 1992. This advises that, when designing the layouts for new housing development, appropriate provision should be made for pedestrians. It will be a matter for local judgment about how this might best be achieved, taking account of local circumstances. The bulletin recognises that in some cases surfaces shared by pedestrians, cyclists and motorists may be appropriate provided they allow for safe use by all users.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the estimated total staffing level for the Environment Agency in 1996; what are his estimates for(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and

  481
  (c) 1999; and what additional responsibilities the Environment Agency will be taking on during this period. [4729]

  Angela Eagle
  The staffing level of the Environment Agency is a matter for the Agency. The Agency's 1997–98 Corporate Plan shows the following total staffing figures: 1996–97 budget 9,450; 1997–98 plan 9,300; 1998–99 plan 9,100; and 1999–2000 plan 8,950. The 1998–99 Corporate Plan is in the course of preparation. The Government would discuss any changes in responsibilities with the Agency and would expect to announce any major additions.

  Composting Sites
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the results of research commissioned by the Environment Agency on bio-aerosol production of commercial composting sites will be available. [4598]

  Angela Eagle
  The results of the research on bio-aerosol production at commercial composting sites, originally commissioned by the Department and now managed by the Environment Agency, are expected to be available early in the autumn.

  Solar Homes
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide incentives to local authorities to examine the buildings of solar homes. [4597]

  Angela Eagle
  Local planning authorities are required by "Planning Policy Guidance Note 22" to have regard to renewable energy—including solar energy. Detailed technical guidance is freely available from the DTI and my own Department on how to make the most of this energy source.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide Government funding for solar homes. [4600]

  Angela Eagle
  In line with its manifesto commitment to undertake a new and strong drive to develop renewable energy sources, including solar energy, the Government have announced a review of policy in this area. The review includes 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. In the meantime, the Government's new and renewable energy programme, currently under way, will continue.

  Oil Extraction (Atlantic Ocean)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what procedures are in place to ensure that proposals for future oil extraction in the Atlantic are compatible with the requirements of the European Habitats directive. [4727]

  Angela Eagle
  The DTI carries out a full consultation with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee before offering any licences for oil extraction. Indeed, as a result 482
  of advice received from JNCC on the 17th licensing round that the Flannan Isles could be affected by certain blocks of licences, DTI withdrew those blocks from the round. Offers of licences are usually conditional upon the acceptance of special conditions to protect environmental sensitivities and the interests of users of the sea. This process is analogous to the requirements of article 6(2) and 6(3) of the Habitats Directive.

  Zoo Licensing Act 1981
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to review the Zoo Licensing Act 1981; and what arrangements he will make for consultation on that review. [4606]

  Angela Eagle
  We are currently considering how best to take forward our commitment to aim for the highest standards of care for animals in zoos. We shall be looking shortly at the operation of the Zoo Licensing Act and considering what changes may be required. As part of this process, we will consult the relevant organisations representing zoo operators, veterinary and animal welfare interests.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list examples of best value arrangements that he is using as models to replace CCT. [4884]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Although a number of local authorities and others have put forward their ideas, we do not have preconceived models of best value arrangements. We intend to work with local government and other interested parties over the coming months to develop a practicable and effective best value framework which will apply the principles which we announced on 2 June. Pilot projects, which will include a variety of approaches, will play an important part in this. We will shortly be inviting local authorities to bid to undertake pilot work.

  Footpaths and Bridleways
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what initiatives he proposes to assist local authorities to maintain public footpaths and bridleways. [4999]

  Angela Eagle
  We attach great importance to the maintenance of footpaths and bridleways. We propose to look closely at the adequacy of existing measures to see whether further initiatives are needed.

  Highway authorities already have a statutory duty to maintain most footpaths, bridleways and byways. The Countryside Commission is assisting them through the Parish Paths Partnership scheme, which gives grants and advice to parishes to encourage them to participate in the better management of footpaths and bridleways in their areas. The Commission also provides authorities with grants of up to 75 per cent. of the maintenance costs of footpaths of bridleways which form part of National Trails.

  Energy Efficiency
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he plans to take to ensure that the majority of energy efficiency works are carried out in those homes which are most in need of improvement. [5151]

  Angela Eagle
  Local authorities have to draw up strategies for improving the energy efficiency of all the residential accommodation in their areas under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. In assessing them my right hon. Friend will expect an approach which targets those properties where the need is greatest, and he will, where necessary, require authorities to modify their strategies. Energy efficiency will also be a factor taken into account when assessing authorities as part of the housing investment programme.

  Leghold Traps
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what is his policy on the use of leghold traps(a) on land and (b) in water; [4527]

  (2) what representations he has received concerning the United Kingdom's position on leghold traps and fur imports; and if he will make a statement. [4528]

  Angela Eagle
  Leghold traps have been banned in the United Kingdom for more than 40 years. The Government fully support efforts to improve the welfare of trapped animals in general and believes that the phasing out of leghold traps is an essential element of this.

  The Government received representations from the European Commission and the Government of Canada on the United Kingdom's position on the Commission's proposed "framework agreement on humane trapping standards". Representations were also received from a number of animal welfare bodies—including the RSPCA and the International Fund for Animal Welfare—and from the British Fur Trade Association. We received more than 20,000 letters and postcards from the public urging the Government to reject the agreement.

  The Government made clear its intention before the Environment Council meeting that we would vote against the agreement since we believed that it did not go far enough in banning the use of leghold traps. Several other member states shared our reservations but no decision was taken on the Commission's proposal at the meeting.

  Council Tax (Carer's Discount)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate his Department has made of the proportion of eligible people who are currently claiming the carer's discount for council tax bills. [4297]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Department has not made such an estimate. Local authorities are under a duty to ensure that discounts are granted to the right households.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps his Department has taken to ensure that eligible people on(a) disability living allowance and (b) the higher rate of
  484
  attendance allowance are aware of their entitlement to (i) the carer's discount for council tax bills and (ii) the facility to backdate claims to April 1993. [4307]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The council tax regulations require local authorities to include with council tax bills information on the circumstances when a bill may be subject to discount. Local authorities are also under a duty to make sure that discounts are being granted to the right households. If somebody is entitled to a discount but has not received one, local authorities must backdate the discount to the date when entitlement first arose. The Department has also produced a leaflet "Council Tax: A Guide to your Bill" which explains the council tax and the circumstances when a carer may be disregarded for the purposes of a discount. The leaflet is made available to the general public and has been distributed to local authorities and voluntary organisations.

  Police Wildlife Liaison Officers
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many wildlife liaison officers are currently in post for each police force. [4623]

  Angela Eagle
  A definitive list of Police Wildlife Liaison Officers (PWLOs) is not held centrally, but I understand that most forces have at least one full or part-time PWLO, and that the total number of officers who deal with wildlife enquiries is about 350. These officers mainly carry out their wildlife responsibilities voluntarily and in addition to their day-to-day police duties.

  The allocation of responsibilities within forces is for each chief constable to decide, having regard to all their policing obligations, including the investigation of wildlife offences.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what training, guidance and expert advice is made available to police wildlife liaison officers. [4625]

  Angela Eagle
  Training and guidance is provided within forces, and is also available from Government Departments and agencies and non-Government sources.

  The annual Police Wildlife Liaison Officer' conference provides an important opportunity for training. Speakers cover a wide range of issues and subject areas and Police officers have an unparalleled opportunity to share experience and expertise.

  The Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime supports the network of Police Wildlife Liaison Officers. It published a handbook "Wildlife Crime: A Guide to Wildlife Law Enforcement in the UK" at the end of last year, and will publish guidance on the use of DNA evidence in wildlife investigations shortly.

  Work on identifying training needs is being carried out by the Partnership, and many of its members, including my Department, contribute actively to investigations by providing advice and expertise. Separate work is also underway in the Police Service, under the direction of the Wildlife Advisor to the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Police)
  Mr. Hincliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to review the policing aspects of the operation of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. [4626]

  Angela Eagle
  The Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime submitted recommendations for changes to the enforcement provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 earlier this year. Eleven recommendations were made including giving the courts the option of imprisoning wildlife criminals, and facilitating the use of DNA evidence in wildlife investigations.

  The recommendations were circulated for consultation in March 1997. The Department is considering the comments received and the Government's response will be published shortly.

  Housing, London
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made for each London borough of(a) the current year's capital expenditure, (b) the capital requirement for urgent repair and refurbishment and (c) capital spending required on new building to house all homeless people for which the authority is responsible. [4411]

  Mr Raynsford
  [holding answer 23 June 1997]: Local authorities are allocated resources for capital investment in housing under the housing investment programme (HIP). A table showing allocations to London boroughs for 1997–98 is as follows. In addition local authorities received resources for capital expenditure on housing via the single regeneration budget and the capital challenge pilot and can also use their own resources, such as useable capital receipts.

  As part of the HIP round local authorities are asked to submit expenditure plans and information on need for capital works. The relevant HIP forms for each authority for 1997–98 are available in the Library.

  The Government are committed to increased investment through the capital receipts initiative, and has recently issued a consultation paper to all local authorities. Under this initiative local authorities will be expected to consider appropriate schemes to meet needs including the repair and refurbishment of existing stock and the provision of new homes to meet the needs of homeless households.

  1997–98 Housing investment programme allocations

  London

  Total housing investment allocations (£ thousand)

  Barking and Dagenham

  4,975

  Barnet

  4,790

  Bexley

  2,639

  Brent

  10,932

  Bromley

  2,614

  Camden

  10,270

  City of London

  343

  Croydon

  8,477

  Ealing

  7,799

  Enfield

  5,895

  Greenwich

  10,491

  Hackney

  13,884

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  9,376

  486

  1997–98 Housing investment programme allocations

  London

  Total housing investment allocations (£ thousand)

  Haringey

  10,405

  Harrow

  2,598

  Havering

  2,384

  Hillingdon

  5,999

  Hounslow

  5,134

  Islington

  9,996

  Kensington and Chelsea

  6,358

  Kingston upon Thames

  2,396

  Lambeth

  13,648

  Lewisham

  11,327

  Merton

  3,310

  Newham

  16,394

  Redbridge

  4,258

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,911

  Southwark

  13,661

  Sutton

  2,944

  Tower Hamlets

  9,777

  Waltham Forest

  6,432

  Wandsworth

  10,147

  Westminster

  10,274

  London

  242,837

  OECD Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions by which procedures the House will be able to scrutinise the OECD Multilateral Agreement on Investment. [3972]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has primary responsibility for the OECD Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI). Two Explanatory Memoranda on the MAI have already been put before Select Committees by this Department—dated 31 March 1995 and 6 March 1997–copies of which are available in the Library. My Department will continue to follow the scrutiny procedures for international treaties that the UK and the EC are negotiating.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the dates, routes and nature of aircraft flights transporting nuclear waste which have taken place in United Kingdom air space to date. [4802]

  Mr. Battle
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since January 1990 there have been six flights carrying small amounts of nuclear waste into the United Kingdom. Five of these shipments were in 1993 and the other was in 1994, and involved UK waste arising from fabrication of fuel pins as part of the European Fast Reactor programme. The pins were fabricated in France and the associated waste was returned to the UK on these flights. Since 1994 there have been no flights involving the transport of nuclear waste in the UK. All shipments of nuclear material comply fully with national and international regulations with regard to safety and security and are in accordance with IAEA recommendations.

  Information on any such flights prior to 1990 is not easily available and would incur disproportionate costs.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures his Department plans to take to reduce the number of road accidents; and if he will make a statement. [4532]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department is committed to giving road safety a high priority and is currently reviewing its road safety strategy. We shall be announcing new measures from time to time. Road and other transport safety issues will be among the important subjects covered in our fundamental policy review leading to a White Paper on an integrated transport policy.

  Cones Hotline
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 9 June,Official Report, column 315, if he will provide a breakdown of the cost of the Cones Hotline between April to September 1995. [4847]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The cost of operating the Cones Hotline in the period April to September 1995 is estimated at £20,000, broken down as follows:

  £

  Call-handling company's set-up costs

  7,000

  Call-handling company's operating costs

  8,000

  Highways Agency staff costs

  5,000

  Total

  20,000

  The figure for Highways Agency staff costs covers the transition from a contracted-out service to the in-house Highways Agency information line which began operation in September 1995.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place a copy of the Cones Hotline telephone log in the Library. [4848]

  Ms Jackson
  The records of calls to the Cones Hotline contain the names of callers and, in most cases, their addresses and telephone numbers. Personal information given in confidence is exempt from the commitment to provide information in the Code of Practice on Access to Government information.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 9 June,Official Report, column 315, how many calls to the Cones Hotline resulted in action by the Department or others to (a) alter the layout of road traffic cones, (b) improve signposting at roadworks, (c) review diversion routes, (d) re-paint road markings and (e) investigate road lighting at roadworks. [4806]

  Ms Jackson
  The records are not sufficiently detailed to give an accurate answer to this question.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 9 June,Official Report, column 315, (a) how many and (b) what percentage of telephone calls made to the Cones Hotline between June 1992 and September 1995 were specifically about traffic cones. [4849]
  488
  Ms Jackson
  This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. In its first year of operation (September 1995 to August 1996) the Highways Agency information line, which replaced the Cones Hotline, received 319 calls specifically about road traffic cones about 4 per cent. of all calls.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 9 June,Official Report, column 315, how many staff were employed (a) full-time and (b) part-time to run the Cones Hotline between March 1994 and September 1995. [4860]

  Ms Jackson
  From March 1994 to March 1995 one member of staff worked full-time on the Cones Hotline during normal office hours. Weekend and out of hours cover was provided by the Department of Transport's duty officer. From April 1995 to September 1995 the Cones Hotline was staffed by an external contractor. From July to September 1995 transitional arrangements were managed by three staff in the Highways Agency.

  Variable Speed Limiters
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will estimate the(a) number and (b) percentage of vehicles licensed in the United Kingdom currently equipped with variable speed limiters; and if he will make a statement; [4529]

  (2) if he will list the (a) dates, (b) locations, (c) duration and (d) results of trials undertaken by his Department into the use of variable speed limiters in vehicles; and if he will make a statement; [4530]

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of the relationship between variable speed limiters and the total number of (a) road accidents and (b) fatalities recorded; and if he will make a statement. [4531]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Several different makes of vehicle speed limiter are available. All are designed to limit a vehicle's maximum speed and are required by law to be fitted to large goods vehicles and coaches. Some makers of speed limiter allow the driver to set a lower limit than the maximum but it is not possible to give an estimate of the number or percentage of vehicles fitted with speed limiters which have this additional feature.

  Research has been commissioned by my Department to examine the feasibility of equipping vehicles with speed limiters which may be controlled by devices outside the vehicle, for example, by roadside transponders. It is too early to draw any conclusions from this work. In addition, we are monitoring trails taking place in other countries but at present no specific plans exist to trial externally controlled variable speed limiting equipment on public roads in the UK.

  We have made no assessment of the relationship between existing variable speed limiters and numbers of road accidents in the UK.

  Cycling (London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the total expenditure in the current year by each London borough on cycling measures; and what proportion of this is borne by central Government. [4762]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Central Government are providing £4 million to London authorities in the current financial year, to support their expenditure on the development of the London cycle network and the Thames cycle route. The following table of figures, copies of which are being placed in the Library of the House, gives the breakdown of this sum by authority. The London authorities are able to incur additional expenditure on such measures by drawing on their own resources, but they are not required to declare to what extent, if any, they will be doing so.

  Cycle measures in London financial support from central government (1997–98)

  Authority

  £000s

  Barking and Dagenham

  83

  Barnet

  95

  Bexley

  88

  Brent

  146

  Bromley

  73

  Camden

  93

  City of London

  66

  Croydon

  75

  Ealing

  125

  Enfield

  116

  Greenwich

  91

  Hackney

  77

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  80

  Haringey

  106

  Harrow

  126

  Havering

  81

  Hillingdon

  140

  Hounslow

  175

  Islington

  85

  Kensington and Chelsea

  90

  Kingston Upon Thames

  106

  Lambeth

  73

  Lewisham

  82

  Merton

  95

  Newham

  91

  Redbridge

  81

  Richmond

  77

  Southwark

  73

  Sutton

  102

  Tower Hamlets

  99

  Waltham Forest

  101

  Wandsworth

  85

  Westminster

  71

  Sub total

  3,148

  Thames Cycle Route

  752

  Contingency held by Lead Borough

  100

  Total

  4,000

  A27 Polegate Bypass
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy in respect of the construction of the A27 Polegate bypass; and if he will make a statement. [5196]
  490
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport announced last week that he would be taking forward our manifesto commitment to carry out a strategic review of the roads programme. The A27 Polegate bypass scheme is part of the Weald and Downland design, build, finance and operate (DBFO) project which is one of 12 cases in which there are urgent decisions pending. These will be considered in an accelerated review. Decisions will be announced in July.

  Air Services (London)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to(a) maintain and (b) improve access by air to London from regional United Kingdom airports. [4400]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A wide range of services connect regional airports to London in a flourishing market. Ministers are considering what options might be available and appropriate to support and develop regional services.

  Cycling
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what additional financial support is available to assist local authorities to encourage cycling within local integrated transport strategies. [5384]

  Dr. Gavin Strang
  It is Government policy to encourage cycling. The sum of £79 million has been allocated to local authorities in 1997–98 for their integrated transport packages. Virtually all the packages include measures to promote cycling. The Department will continue to support these initiatives in future, as far as resources allow. It is not possible at this stage to predict the levels of funding that will be available in 1998–99 and later years.

  Integrated Transport Policy
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the White Paper on the long-term strategy for an integrated transport policy to be published; and if he will make a statement. [5162]

  Dr. Strang
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 5 June 1997,Official Report, column 226.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the(a) desirability and (b) feasibility of internalising social and environmental externalities within each transport mode. [4882]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government welcome the principle of internalising the external costs of transport which encourages more environmentally friendly, fairer and more efficient use of transport. However, the Government also recognise the uncertainties and difficulties of implementation, and supports the need for further study and debate on the issues raised. For example, the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions is at the forefront of research trying to place monetary values on the environmental impact of transport and other activities.

  Warsaw Convention Compensation
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which airlines flying into and out of the United Kingdom have(a) fully waived, (b) partially waived and (c) not waived their right under the Warsaw convention to limit compensation payable in respect of passengers injured or killed whilst travelling with them. [5122]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have placed a copy of the information required in the Library.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Warsaw convention limits on compensation for death or personal injury. [5121]

  Ms Jackson
  The United Kingdom has long recognised that the limit of liability for death or personal injury to passengers contained in the 1929 Warsaw convention was inadequate, and has adopted for the purposes of national law the higher limits set out in the Hague and Montreal protocols. Consequently, airlines registered in the UK are currently required to accept a liability limit of not less than 100,000 special drawing rights—approximately £85,000.

  Earlier this year the UK supported the European Commission's proposals for a regulation on air carrier liability in case of accidents. This will require airlines to accept strict liability for passenger death or injury up to the ECU equivalent of 100,000 SDRs, with a fault-based regime for higher claims, subject to no upper limit. The new regulation, which also places obligations on both EU and non-EU carriers to make more prominent disclosure of their liability arrangements, is expected to come into force during 1998.

  An United Nations specialised agency, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), which has responsibility for these matters, is currently preparing a new convention which will replace the 1929 Warsaw convention and introduce much more realistic limits of liability which will not be restricted to passenger death or injury. The UK participated fully in the recent meeting of the Legal Committee and a diplomatic conference is expected to take place next year during which ICAO members will vote to adopt the new convention.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Birmingham Northern Relief Road is subject to a penalty clause if the scheme is not approved. [4982]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The risk of the public inquiry outcome rests with the concessionaire.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he intends to review the proposed Birmingham Northern Relief Road in the context of the Government's integrated approach to transport environmental planning; [4983]

  (2) if the Birmingham Northern Relief Road will be included in the moratorium on road building. [4994]
  492
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We announced a comprehensive roads review on 19 June. The Birmingham Northern Relief Road is one of the 12 cases that will be the subject of an accelerated review.

  Traffic Control
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the impact on traffic control of(a) mini roundabouts and (b) road humps; and if he will make a statement. [5080]

  Ms Jackson
  The Transport Research Laboratory has recently completed for the Department a major study of the safety aspects of mini roundabouts in relation to traffic flow. The results will be published later this year.

  The Department has a programme of research into the effect of road humps and other traffic calming measures on traffic. Road humps have been found to be effective in reducing vehicle speeds and hence accidents in residential areas. The results of this research are published in the form of research reports and traffic advisory leaflets. A selection of leaflets relevant to road humps have been placed in the library.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Mr. McCall
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will set aside the decision of the disability appeal tribunal held at Chester on 22 April concerning Mr. McCall of Broughton, near Chester, and if she will make a statement. [1115]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Neither I, nor any other Minister, has the power to intervene in the decision of independent adjudicating authorities. However, it is open to an appellant who is dissatisfied with the decision of a Disability Appeal Tribunal either to apply to have that decision set aside or to seek leave to appeal against it on a point of law to a Social Security Commissioner. Statutory provisions, including time limits, apply to either course.

  Absent Parents
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the maximum percentage of net income that an absent parent may be liable to pay; and if she will make a statement. [4628]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Child support assessments made under the maintenance formula are generally restricted to 30 per cent. of an absent parent's net income. Most absent parents pay significantly lower amounts, although higher percentages can apply, for example where an interim maintenance assessment has been imposed in an effort to secure the absent parent's co-operation or the absent parent is in arrears with his payments.

  We will be looking closely at all aspects of child support policy over the forthcoming months.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the total number of people removed from benefit as a result of a jobseeker's allowance interview for each month since its inception. [4766]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on 18 June,Official Report, columns 213–14.

  Domestic Fuel (VAT)
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the effect on(a) the average family on benefit, (b) a single pensioner and (c) a pensioner couple of the introduction of VAT on fuel at 8 per cent., taking into account (i) VAT fuel subsidy added to their benefits and (ii) the impact on the annual uprating of benefits of the inflationary effect of increasing domestic fuel prices by 8 per cent. [5200]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  As part of our commitment to reducing poverty we will cut VAT on fuel from 8 to 5 per cent. the lowest possible level.

  The net effect of the introduction of VAT on fuel at 8 per cent. is given in the following table:

  Family type

  Net effect of VAT on fuel at 8 per cent. (1997–98 prices and benefit levels)

  Average family on income

  15p per week worse off

  support (assumed to be a couple

  with two children aged under 11)

  Single retirement pensioner

  No net effect

  Couple retirement pensioner

  5p per week better off

  1. Expenditure estimates based on the 1994–95 Family Expenditure Survey, uprated to 1997–98 levels using the fuel and light component of the Retail Prices Index.

  2. Effect of VAT on domestic fuel and power on the uprating indices estimated using the 1997 weight of the fuel and light component of the Retail Prices Index.

  Fraud
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she will commence provisions of the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997; and if she will make a statement. [5452]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government aims to rebuild confidence in a Social Security system which will support work, savings and honesty. We are developing a range of measures in order to prevent fraud from occurring in the Social Security system. We will take effective action against fraudsters.

  Fraud within a system designed to help those in need is anti-social behaviour which has no place in a society where the right to benefit goes hand in hand with responsible citizenship.

  We have today made a commencement order for Sections 1 to 4, 5 to 10, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 18 and most of the Schedules 1 and 2 of the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997, to come into effect on Tuesday 1 July.
  494
  This is an important step towards achieving a secure and fair system. These measures will strengthen action against Housing Benefit fraud, particularly fraud by landlords, which for too long has been allowed to go unchecked.

WALES

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many classes of five, six and seven-year-olds in each local education authority had more than 30 children on 1 January 1997 based on returns from the All Schools Census; and what this is as a percentage of the total number of classes of five, six, and seven-year-olds in each case. [3166]

  Mr. Hain
  The information requested is not collected centrally. The Schools' Census in Wales collects information on the number of classes by size of class but does not distinguish classes by age of pupils.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make a statement about the future of nursery provision in the Ponthir area of Torfaen; [3570]

  (2) if he will make a statement about the future of nursery provision in Monmouthshire. [3569]

  Mr. Hain
  The provision of nursery education is at the discretion of local education authorities. Our aim is to ensure a free, at least part-time, place for every four-year-old whose parents want one, with targets for extending provision to three-year-olds. We shall be consulting shortly with the local authority sector and interested organisations about arrangements for early years education from April 1998.

  I understand that nursery age children from Ponthir are currently receiving education in the Newport county borough council area under an arrangement with Torfaen county borough council. Torfaen will be reviewing the position for the 1997–98 school year.

  Ponthir Primary School
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what applications she has received relating to Ponthir Primary School, Torfaen, under the Popular Schools Initiative. [3576]

  Mr. Hain
  The Department has received no applications.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about overcrowding at Ponthir Primary School. [3577]

  Mr. Hain
  The Department has received three representations. The responsibility for the matter rests with Torfaen county borough council.

  Monnow Bridge
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the need for an additional bridge over the Monnow River in Monmouth. [3572]
  495
  Mr. Hain
  The main access to the town is by the Monnow bridge on the local road network. Any proposals for an additional bridge are therefore a matter for Monmouthshire county council as local highway authority. As far as the trunk road network is concerned my present assessment is that there is no requirement for any additional crossing.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from CADW about the physical condition of Monnow Bridge, Monmouth. [3571]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Monnow Bridge is a scheduled ancient monument under the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 although it remains in use as a crossing of the River Monnow, Monmouth. Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments is a part of my Department, and monitors the bridge on my behalf. Incidents of damage such as that recently caused by a motor vehicle are reviewed by Cadw with the county council which owns the bridge.

  School Transport
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what guidance he plans to issue to local education authorities in Wales about their statutory obligations to provide transport to and from school; [3960]

  (2) how many local education authorities in Wales have curtailed spending on school transport in the present year to date; by how much they have done so; and if he will make a statement; [3936]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of spending by local education authorities in Wales on school transport; [3935]

  (4) what is the statutory duty on local education authorities in Wales concerning the provision of free school transport; and what representations he has received from them about their difficulties in carrying out that duty. [3934]

  Mr. Hain
  Although, home to school transport is the responsibility of individual local education authorities (LEAs) Welsh Office Circular 19/95, issued in May 1995, gives guidance on the statutory obligations of LEAs in their provision of home to school transport, and their discretionary powers. A copy is in the Library of the House. My right hon. Friend has not received any representations from LEAs in respect of their statutory duties. LEAs may operate more generous transport policies than statutorily required but this is at their discretion, in the light of their assessment of local priorities. Details of spending by LEAs in Wales on school transport are not held centrally.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the names of schools in Wales with pupils on the assisted places scheme; and in each case what is the number of pupils and the income which the school recovers from the scheme. [4133]
  496
  Mr. Hain
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  School

  Number of APS pupils in scheme 1996–97

  Income from APS in financial year 1996–97

  Christ College

  101

  490,854

  Ffynone House1

  7

  15,075

  Howell's, Cardiff

  186

  504,516

  Howell's, Denbigh

  83

  399,684

  Kings Monkton1

  11

  26,805

  Llandovery College

  69

  366,701

  Monmouth Boys

  146

  518,626

  Monmouth Girls

  82

  259,417

  Rougemont School1

  15

  34,662

  Ruthin School1

  11

  33,952

  Rydal Penrhos

  142

  749,093

  St. Clare's School1

  14

  26,527

  St. Gerard's School1

  9

  16,869

  St. John's College1

  11

  19,539

  Total all Wales

  887

  3,462,320

  1Joined Scheme in September 1996.

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many qualified speech therapists there are in each of the health authorities in Wales. [4458]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The information is given in the following table:

  Qualified speech and language therapists

  Health Authority area1

  Whole-time equivalent number of staff in post at 31 December 19962

  Bro Taf

  53

  Dyfed Powys

  36

  Gwent

  32

  Morgannwg

  42

  North Wales

  60

  1Staff are employed by NHS Trusts but are shown here under the Health Authority area in which the Trust is situated.

  2Provisional.

  Smoke Detectors
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which housing associations in Wales have not installed smoke detectors in their housing stock. [4779]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  As this is an operational matter for Tai Cymru, I have asked the Chief Executive to collect the data from the housing associations and to write to my hon. Friend direct. A copy of this letter will be placed in the Library.

  Hip Replacements
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what reports he has received of the failure rates of operations involving replacement hips using biomet protheses and boneloc cement in(a) Rhydlafar hospital and (b) other hospitals in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [4491]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The failure rates of operations is a matter for NHS Trusts to address, in liaison with health authorities and GP fundholders. However, the NHS is
  497
  immediately informed of any particular product that gives rise for concern via various hazard notices issued by the Department on the advice of the Medical Devices Agency. One such notice on Boneloc was issued in 1995 and I understand that this product was subsequently withdrawn from use.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his plans in respect of the level of expenditure on the NHS. [4856]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Provision for the NHS in Wales in 1997–98 was £2,368 million. My right hon. Friend will announce provision for 1998–99 in due course.

  NHS Service Provision
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the areas of service provision in the NHS which are currently under review by the Welsh Office; and if he will make a statement. [4851]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  It is primarily for health authorities to plan for and review service provision in the light of local circumstances and strategic priorities. Currently, the Welsh Office is separately leading reviews of the configuration of NHS trusts, critical care and occupational health services for NHS staff in Wales.

  Exports and Imports
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the statement of the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), of 18 June,Official Report, column 245–48, what, for the latest available year, was the total value (a) of Welsh exports and (b) of Welsh imports. [5130]

  Mr. Hain
  Export and import statistics are only collected on a UK basis and I am afraid my statement on 18 June was based on a misinterpretation. I intend to write to the hon. Member with an explanation as soon as possible and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Teacher:Pupil Ratios
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average teacher:pupil ratio for(a) all schools, (b) primary and junior schools and (c) secondary schools in Wales for each of the last five years for which figures are available, based on planned expenditure; what is the expected teacher:pupil ratio for (i) all schools,

  Percentage and number of adults smoking at least occasionally

  Age in years

  18–24

  25–34

  35–44

  45–54

  55–64

  18–64

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Men

  38,000

  33.9

  66,000

  34.9

  68,000

  34.3

  67,000

  33.9

  50,000

  30.0

  288,000

  33.5

  Women

  36,000

  32.5

  63,000

  32.6

  57,000

  28.5

  56,000

  28.9

  40,000

  25.4

  251,000

  29.4

  Source:

  1996 Health in Wales Survey (sample size 9,003).
  498
  (ii) primary and junior schools and (iii) secondary schools in Wales, in each of the next two years; and if he will make a statement. [4871]

  Mr. Hain: The following table shows figures for the last five years derived from returns to the Schools' Census. Projections of pupil:teacher ratios are not prepared centrally.

  Pupil:teacher ratios within schools1

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  All schools2

  18.2

  18.2

  18.4

  18.7

  18.7

  Primary3

  22.3

  22.1

  22.3

  22.5

  22.5

  Secondary

  15.6

  15.7

  15.9

  16.1

  16.0

  1At January each year. The pupil:teacher ratio shown is the ratio of the total number of full-time equivalent pupils within the sector concerned to the total number of full-time equivalent qualified teachers.

  2 Includes all maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools, and independent schools.

  3Includes all infant, junior with infant, and junior without infant, schools.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the ambulance service provision; and if he will make a statement. [4850]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Latest figures for the year to March 1997 show that on an all Wales basis ambulance trusts have met the patient's charter requirement for responding to emergency calls. The Department has written to the Dyfed Powys and Bro Taf health authorities, where the standard has not been achieved. In addition, a review by ambulance trusts in Wales, which is expected to include reconfiguration options with a view to improving patient services, will be submitted to me next month for consideration.

  Cigarette Smokers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many and what percentage of adult(a) men and (b) women in Wales are cigarette smokers in each 10 year age band; and if he will make a statement. [4770]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The estimated numbers and percentages of adults in Wales who smoke cigarettes at least occasionally are given in the following table. They are based on data from the 1996 Health in Wales Survey carried out by Health Promotion Wales. The survey results are provisional pending publication later in the year.

HEALTH

  Hospital Performance Ratings
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals achieved five-star performance ratings in the last year for which figures are available. [3468]

  Mr. Milburn
  The last year for which figures are available is the period ended 31 March 1996, when 397 out of a total of 400 trusts achieved five stars for at least one indicator in the Tables, 42 achieved five stars in all categories. I plan to publish the figures for the period to 31 March 1997 in the NHS Performance Tables on 9 July 1997.

  Surrogacy
  Mr. Wills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to review the law relating to surrogacy. [3470]

  Ms Jowell
  As I announced on 11 June, at columns 478–79, following public concern, UK health ministers have invited a small team to carry out a review of the existing law on surrogacy. The terms of reference and membership of this review were set out in the Official Report, and are as follows:
  To consider whether payments, including expenses, to surrogate mothers should continue to be allowed, and if so, on what basis;
  to examine whether there is a case for the regulation of surrogacy arrangements through a recognised body or bodies; and if so to advise on the scope and operation of such arrangements;
  in the light of the above, to advise whether changes are needed to the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 and/or section 30 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.

  The review team is lead by Margaret Brazier, Professor of Law at Manchester University. The other team members are Susan Golombok, Professor of Psychology at the City University, London and Alastair Campbell, Professor of Ethics in Medicine, University of Bristol.

  Accident and Emergency Services
  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the accident and emergency services in the Leigh and Greater Manchester area. [3474]

  Mr. Milburn
  The proposed change in opening hours of the minor injuries unit at Leigh Infirmary has now been referred to Ministers who will be considering this in the near future. The issue of accident and emergency services across Greater Manchester is a matter for individual health authorities.

  Social Service Funding
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the overall funding made by his Department for social services. [3483]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government's aim is to ensure that social services is fairly funded, and that those people who require services receive appropriate, good quality, cost-effective services.

  Children (Domestic Violence)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to protect children from domestic violence. [3487]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government are firmly committed to ensuring that women and children are better protected against the impact of all forms of violence. We recognise that exposure to domestic violence can have a profoundly damaging impact on the health and development of children, as well as on women. Over the coming months, we shall be launching the Department's strategy for making domestic violence a higher priority for health and social services.

  Life Expectancy
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to increase life expectancy. [3488]

  Ms Jowell
  We will fulfil our manifesto commitments to tackle the root causes of ill-health and we shall set new goals for improving health which recognise the impact of poverty, unemployment, poor housing and a polluted environment.

  Locality Commissioning Projects
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to encourage general practitioners to work together in locality commissioning projects. [3490]

  Mr. Milburn
  We mean to work with all in the NHS to develop new arrangements which best meet our objectives of providing high quality care to all on the basis of need. We wish to develop local commissioning and have already begun to meet the GP representative groups to explore how best to build on good practice wherever we may find it.

  NHS Pharmacists Bill
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to introduce the NHS Pharmacists Bill.[3491]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have no immediate plans to introduce an NHS Pharmacists Bill.

  Bureaucracy
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to reduce waste in the national health service. [3492]

  Mr. Milburn
  On 22 May we announced a programme of measures to remove the bureaucratic processes of the internal market and reduce management costs by £100 million this year. We will be looking for further reductions in 1998–99 and beyond.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the role of community dental services. [3493]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Community Dental Service has an important role in providing a range of services to help improve and maintain the oral health of the population.

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next plans to visit Redbridge and Waltham Forest to discuss the financial deficits of local trusts and the health authority. [3494]

  Mr. Milburn
  My Ministerial colleagues and I will be visiting as many NHS organisations as we can over the coming months, and this may include Redbridge and Waltham Forest. We recognise the difficulties faced by health authorities and trusts, particularly the many who entered the financial year in deficit, and will be working with the service to rebuild the NHS.

  NHS Trusts (Deficits)
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he proposes to take to avoid(a) reductions in the level of service and (b) asset sales by health service trusts which are expecting a financial deficit in the current year. [3495]

  Mr. Milburn
  Health Authorities and Trusts must work together to return to financial stability. For their part, the Government are committed to raising spending on the NHS in real terms every year and to ensuring that more of every pound spent goes on patient care, not bureaucracy. Proceeds from the disposal of trust assets are available to finance capital investments to improve patient care.

  Consultation
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review NHS guidelines on consultation. [3496]

  Mr. Milburn
  We shall be considering the current arrangements for consultation on major service changes in due course.

  Hospital Ward Closures (North Thames Region)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he has made in reversing ward closures in hospitals in the North Thames region of the NHS. [3497]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have inherited a difficult legacy in terms of pressure on the health service, in the North Thames region as elsewhere. The National Health Service Chief Executive has asked health authorities and NHS trusts to ensure that the current resources of the NHS are used to maximum effect.

  Breast Cancer Services
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve breast cancer services for women. [3499]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have signalled their commitment to make cancer a priority and will direct savings achieved from cuts in the costs of the National Health Service internal market into patient care. As a first step, £10 million has been made available for breast cancer services to speed access to diagnosis, reduce waiting times for treatment and support networks of specialist teams.

  Silicone Breast Implants
  Mr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the safety of silicone breast implants. [3500]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 16 June at column 26–27.

  Elderly People (Care)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of the eligibility criteria on continuing care for the elderly. [3501]

  Mr. Boateng
  The National Health Service Executive issued an Executive Letter (EL(96)89) in October 1996 which reported on an evaluation of the early impact of the continuing health care guidance and set out issues which health authorities and social services departments should address. We will be considering the implications of a more recent evaluation for the development of continuing health care services. Copies of EL(96)89 are available in the Library.

  GP Fundholders (Croydon)
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS patients are covered by GP fundholders in Croydon. [3502]

  Mr. Milburn
  37 per cent. of the registered population of Croydon Health Authority is served by a General Practitioner fundholding practice.

  NHS Funding (Northern England)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to review the funding allocations to the north of England with particular reference to the role of the market forces factor. [3503]

  Mr. Milburn
  We shall honour the health authority revenue allocations agreed in 1997–98 by the previous Government.

  We will look at how resources are distributed across both secondary and primary care, to ensure that these fully reflect local population needs and operate as fairly as possible.

  Public Health Minister
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the role and work of the Minister with responsibility for public health. [3504]

  Ms Jowell
  I will be working to take forward our manifesto commitments to improve the overall health of the nation, setting targets which recognise the impact on health of poverty, poor housing, unemployment and a polluted environment.

  I will be working closely with colleagues in other Government Departments on issues such as food safety and use of Lottery funds for health projects. Work has already been put in train to address some of the crucial issues on the public health agenda. For instance:
  a White Paper on tobacco and a draft Bill to ban tobacco advertising are both in preparation for the summer;

  503
  work is in hand to enable midweek Lottery funds to be used to create a network of Healthy Living Centres.
  the Ministerial Group on Food Safety, of which both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are members, have started work on developing the new Food Standards Agency.

  We plan to outline our new health strategy at a conference on 7 July.

  Hospital Closures (Mental and Psychiatric Care)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans Her Majesty's Government have to review the policy of the closure of the larger hospitals providing mental and psychiatric care; and if he will make a statement. [3505]

  Mr. Boateng
  We are concerned to ensure that a high standard of mental and psychiatric care is available to those who require it in an appropriate setting; planned closure of the larger hospitals will take place in that context as part of the development of a comprehensive mental health service offering a range of inpatient and community provision.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for compensation for haemophiliacs infected with Hepatitis C as a result of treatment by the national health service. [1905]

  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to pay compensation to people infected with Hepatitis C contracted through blood transfusions in NHS hospitals. [3633]

  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received since 2 May with regard to people with haemophilia who have been infected with Hepatitis C via contaminated blood products; and what plans he has to review their claim for financial recompense. [4180]

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his proposals to set up a hardship fund for the haemophiliacs who may have been infected with Hepatitis C through blood supplied by the national health service. [5125]

  Ms Jowell
  Since 2 May, in addition to these Parliamentary Questions, Ministers have received 19 letters on the subject of financial recompense for patients, both haemophiliacs and others, infected with hepatitis C through National Health Service treatment.

  We have agreed to give this matter our most careful consideration.

  Adoption
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the rule concerning the age of adopting parents as a criterion for approving overseas adoption; and how many and what proportion of applicants with a prospective parent over 60 years of age have been(a) approved and (b) rejected (i) in 1996–97 and (ii) in each of the last five years. [4234]

  Mr. Boateng
  The minimum age for prospective adopters in England and Wales is 21 years. There is no legal upper age limit. However, age is just one factor 504
  among many which must be taken into account when assessing the suitability of applicants. Figures on the acceptability of prospective adopters are not held centrally.

  Radiotherapy
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to compensate female patients who have suffered serious physical damage following post-operative radiotherapy to treat breast cancer; and if he will make a statement. [4836]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government have every sympathy with women who have suffered adverse side-effects as a consequence of radiotherapy treatment. However, it is a longstanding principle that compensation should be paid by the National Health Service only when there is evidence that negligence has been involved.

  The following action has been taken to help women with damage as a result of radiotherapy for breast cancer:
  In May 1994 the Department issued guidance entitled "Quality Assurance in Radiotherapy—A Quality Management System for Radiotherapy".
  The Royal College of Radiologists at the Department's request, convened a small group of professionals and lay people in autumn 1994 to consider guidelines for care of women who have suffered tissue damage following radiotherapy for breast cancer. This report was issued to the NHS by the Department in October 1995.
  The Royal College of Radiologists carried out a confidential clinical review of 126 women who had suffered injury following radiotherapy treatment for breast cancer at 15 centres in the period 1980–1993. The report makes recommendations on the management of breast cancer, particularly on radiotherapy, and for further research.

  With regard to those suffering adverse effects following pelvic radiotherapy for gynaecological cancers, in 1996, a Working Group, which includes representatives from a number of Royal Colleges, voluntary organisations and the Department, was set up to consider the preparation of patient information leaflets concerning possible adverse effects following pelvic radiotherapy and to raise awareness generally. A sub-group is also considering issuing guidelines for health professionals on the care of women suffering adverse effects as a result of pelvic radiotherapy.

  Hernias
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the use of homeopathy for the treatment of patients, before and after undergoing a surgical hernia operation; and if he will make a statement;[4781]

  (2) what research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on complementary and alternative medicine for the treatment of (i) a hernia and (ii) patients before and after undergoing a surgical hernia operation; and if he will make a statement; [4780]

  (3) what research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on alternatives to surgery for the treatment of hernias; and if he will make a statement. [4725]
  505
  Ms Jowell
  We have not commissioned research, nor are we aware of any published studies, relating to alternative and complementary treatments in groin hernia surgery. The Department of Health does, however, support the Surgical Epidemiology and Audit Unit at the Royal College of Surgeons which is engaged in a systematic review of previous research literature on groin hernia surgery. Additionally, the Department of Health is supporting work by the Research Council for Complementary Medicine to develop clinical audit methodologies for use by practitioners of complementary medicine. This includes homeopathy, but is not related to the management of groin hernia.

  Year

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Finished Consultant episodes with primary diagnosis of hernia abdominal cavity

  128,732

  128,798

  135,031

  135,289

  145,430

  154,503

  Finished Consultant episodes with primary diagnosis of hernia of abdominal cavity, where a hernia repair operation was performed

  91,120

  90,975

  95,978

  92,950

  96,712

  101,704

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES).

  ICD 9 Diagnosis codes 550 to 553 and OPCS4R Operating codes T19 to T26.

  Alternative and Complementary Medicine
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many practitioners of (i) alternative and (ii) complementary medicine(a) are registered in England currently, (b) were registered in 1992 and (c) were registered in 1987. [4596]

  Ms Jowell
  The information requested is not available. Some complementary and alternative medicine organisations maintain, on a voluntary basis, a register of their membership. It is not necessary for a practitioner to register with any organisation in order to practise.

  When the Osteopaths Act 1993 and Chiropractors Act 1994 are fully implemented, statutory registers will exist for these two professions.

  Drugs
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total amount(a) spent and (b) allocated by his Department on tackling the problems relating to drugs in respect of (i) developing prevention publicity, education and community action and (ii) improving treatment and rehabilitation, for (1) 1994, (2) 1995, (3) 1996 and (4) 1997. [4796]

  Ms Jowell
  Information on total Government and individual departments' expenditure on tackling drug misuse is not recorded on an annual basis. The most recently available estimates were published in the White Paper "Tackling Drugs Together" in May 1995. They show that at least £526 million of expenditure in 1993–94 could be directly attributable to drug programmes and activities across the United Kingdom.

  The Government will be appointing a "drug czar" to co-ordinate action against drugs, working to the President of the Council as Chair of the Cabinet's coordinating committee on drug misuse. One of his or her first tasks will be to review urgently the existing drugs strategy, and put forward proposals for tackling the problem with renewed vigour. This review will include current Government expenditure.
  506
  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hernias have been diagnosed in each of the last 10 years, how many required surgery; and if he will make a statement.[4728]

  Ms Jowell
  We are unable to provide the information in the form requested. The information that is available is set out in the table. It shows those cases admitted to hospital where the primary diagnosis was hernia of the abdominal cavity and covers the years 1989–90 to 1994–95. We are unable to provide information about the number of patients who have their hernias diagnosed and/or treated outside National Health Service hospitals.

  Asthma
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children are recognised as suffering from asthma currently; and how many were registered(a) in 1992 and (b) in 1987. [4595]

  Ms Jowell
  There are no comprehensive data on the number of children with asthma. It is estimated to affect between 4 and 6 per cent. of children in England sufficiently severely to require regular medical supervision.

  According to data collected by the Royal College of General Practitioners, the mean weekly incidence of new general practitioner episodes of asthma in children per 100,000 population in England in selected years was as follows:

  Age group

  0–4

  5–14

  1987

  74.4

  58.9

  1992

  147.8

  84.2

  19961

  104.7

  63.7

  Source:

  Royal College of General Practitioners Weekly Returns Service.

  Note:

  1Most recent year available.

  Cystic Fibrosis
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the conclusions of the review into cystic fibrosis screening commissioned by the NHS Executive Research and Development Health Technology Assessment Programme will be announced. [5000]

  Ms Jowell
  The findings of the research undertaken in the National Health Service Executive Research and Development Health Technology Assessment's project on screening for cystic fibrosis are expected to be available publicly by the end of 1997.

  Prescription Charges
  Ms Hewitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the system of prescription charges for hormone replacement therapy with special reference to the requirement to pay two prescription charges for certain courses of treatment. [5063]

  Mr. Milburn
  We will be examining the whole question of prescription charges, as part of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review. The Government remains committed to the historic principle of the National Health Service that health services will be available to all and access will be based on need, not on ability to pay.

  Sight Testing Scheme
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of administering the NHS sight testing scheme in(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97. [5253]

  Mr. Milburn
  It would involve disproportionate cost to identify this information from within health authorities' overall expenditure on the administration of the family health services.

  Cash Limits
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes will be made to the cash limits of his Department in 1997–98. [5468]

  Mr. Dobson
  The cash limit for Class XI Vote 1 (Hospital, community health, family health and related services, England) will be reduced by £13,000,000 (from £29,362,456,000 to £29,349,456,000). This allows for a transfer to Class IX, Vote 1 (Department for Education and Employment: programmes and central services) as part of the funding for the merger of the Imperial College and the West London Medical School.

  The decrease will be offset by an increase to another Vote and will not therefore change the planned total of Public expenditure.

  Radiotherapy Overdoses (Compensation)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for a compensation plan for those suffering as a result of receiving the wrong dosage of radiotherapy; and if he will make a statement. [4764]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government have every sympathy with women who have suffered adverse side-effects as a consequence of radiotherapy treatment. Where people have been harmed by clinical treatment and negligence can be shown to have caused this, compensation may be sought through the courts. However, it is a longstanding principle that compensation should only be paid by the NHS when there is evidence that negligence has been involved.

  The following action has been taken to help women with damage as a result of radiotherapy for breast cancer:
  In May 1994 the Department issued guidance entitled "Quality Assurance in Radiotherapy—A Quality Management System for Radiotherapy".
  508
  The Royal College of Radiologists at the Department's request, convened a small group of professionals and lay people in Autumn 1994 to consider guidelines for care of women who have suffered tissue damage following radiotherapy for breast cancer. This report was issued to the NHS by the Department in October 1995.
  The Royal College of Radiologists carried out a confidential clinical review of 126 women who had suffered injury following radiotherapy treatment for breast cancer at 15 centres in the period 1980–93. The report makes recommendations on the management of breast cancer, particularly on radiotherapy, and for further research.

  With regard to those suffering adverse effects following pelvic radiotherapy for gynaecological cancers, in 1996, a Working Group, which includes representatives from a number of Royal Colleges, voluntary organisations and the Department, was set up to consider the preparation of patient information leaflets concerning possible adverse effects following pelvic radiotherapy and to raise awareness generally. A sub-group is also considering issuing guidelines for health professionals on the care of women suffering adverse effects as a result of pelvic radiotherapy.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with representatives of those suffering as a result of radiotherapy overdoses; and if he will make a statement. [4763]

  Ms Jowell
  Representatives of those suffering as a result of radiotherapy treatment-both RAGE BREAST and RAGE NATIONAL have asked to meet Ministers to outline their aims and concerns. I am glad to report that my Noble Friend the Minister of State, Baroness Jay has agreed to see a joint representation from both these organisations.

  Occupational Health Services
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to review the guidelines for occupational health services for NHS staff. [3489]

  Mr. Milburn
  Following detailed consultation with professional bodies, Health Service Guidelines for Occupational Health (HSG(94)51) were issued in December 1994. This guidance took into account the recommendations of the "Clothier" report on former nurse Beverley Allitt. In the light of the publication of the "Bullock Report" (the inquiry into the events surrounding the conviction of Amanda Jenkinson) we are considering whether the existing guidance can be further improved.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost to the NHS of the reinstatement of regional health authorities. [3479]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have no plans to reinstate regional health authorities, and no estimates of the cost of doing so have been made.

  Speech Impediments
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on NHS provision for those with stammers or other speech impediments. [3498]
  509
  Mr. Boateng
  We are well aware of the importance of providing speech and language therapy for people where there is evidence that they can benefit from the service. Decisions about the amount of funding available for these services are the responsibility of health commissioners, who have to take account of the resources needed for the other services to the local population for which they are responsible.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Landfill Sites (BSE Waste)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Ministers of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when the Environment Agency investigations into landfill sites which have accommodated BSE waste will be(a) completed (b) published; [2828]
  510
  (2) when the Spongiform Encephalitis Advisory Committee will report on safe ways of disposing of BSE-infected material; and when that report will be published. [2829]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Environment Agency's assessment of landfill sites which took cattle affected, or suspected of being affected, with BSE before sufficient carcase incineration capacity came on stream in 1991 to process the number of cases that were coming forward is now completed.

  The Agency is considering how best to publish the assessment, and related work, and aims to do so shortly. The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) has noted the methodology used by the Environment Agency in assessing the various disposal routes for cattle derived waste and is content with the conclusions of the reports.

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

Lord Molyneaux of Killead
The Right Honourable Sir James Henry Molyneaux, KBE, having been created Baron Molyneaux of Killead, of Killead in the County of Antrim, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Cooke of Islandreagh and the Lord McConnell.

The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells
James Lawton, Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Norwich and the Lord Bishop of Oxford.
The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine—Took the Oath.

Mandatory Life Sentence for Murder
2.54 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there has been recent consultation between the Lord Chancellor and senior members of the judiciary on the abolition of the mandatory life sentence for murder and, if not, when such consultation will take place.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, there has been no such consultation, nor is any planned, nor has any been requested. If any members of the higher judiciary desire to make representations to me on the subject, I will consider them with great care. I will meet them for discussions, if they so wish, and will pass on the outcome of those discussions to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his most helpful and useful Answer. As he as Lord Chancellor first answers at Question Time, perhaps your Lordships will allow a word of congratulation and an expression of goodwill from someone on these Back-Benches who has known him since his earliest days at the Bar as a fair-minded opponent of the highest order of integrity and competence.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, in the wake of the negative response of the Home Office on 11th June, is the noble and learned Lord aware that as long ago as 1965, on the amendment proposed by the then Lord Chief
1462
Justice, the discretionary life sentence was accepted by this House but later withdrawn in exchange for the mandatory sentence with the discretion of the judge if he wished to make recommendations? That was done at the request of the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner.
Is the noble and learned Lord further aware that in 1991, in a debate on the Criminal Justice Bill, a massive majority of this House, which included the then Lord Chief Justice, two former Lord Chancellors and five Law Lords, accepted a similar amendment?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his generous remarks. I do indeed know the history of that debate in 1965. I know that the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker of Waddington, put down an amendment which narrowly passed in your Lordships' House, which would have had the effect of then abolishing—that is, about 30 years ago—the mandatory life sentence for murder. He was persuaded to withdraw it and to have it replaced by another amendment. I am also aware of the vote in your Lordships' House during the passage of the Bill to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord's reply indicate that the Government are not prepared to take any initiative in this matter but are expecting the senior judiciary to seek a consultation? In the light of the representations and the questions which were asked from the Government when they were in opposition, does not this indicate a tempering of their approach?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the arguments on both sides of this very contentious issue are well known. The view that prevailed under our predecessors was that all murder was so heinous that it required to be marked by a mandatory life sentence. There was also the argument that the public have confidence that that is so and that they further have confidence that the Home Secretary of the day must decide on all the information then available to him when it is safe to release a convicted murderer.
The arguments on the other side are very well known to me; that it is said to be wrong that all murders, regardless of the individual circumstances—and all murders vary so infinitely in their circumstances—should always attract the same sentence.
The Government are well aware of the arguments on both sides and I need go no further than to say in direct response to the question put that my door is open. I can also say that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will profit from his experience in dealing with these lifer cases under the powers that Parliament has conferred upon him and, no doubt, as time passes will reflect upon the balance and the wisdom of our current arrangements.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord recall that the star-studded cast who made up the majority of the 98 in the debate to which the noble Lord. Lord Campbell of Alloway, drew attention not only featured the current Leader of this House but also himself? Further does the noble and learned Lord still strongly support the following two propositions? I say,

1463
"still" because he supported those propositions in the debate on 6th November 1989. The propositions were: murder embraces such a multitude of diverse crimes that a single mandatory sentence must be inappropriate. Accordingly, the mandatory life sentence should be abolished by a discretionary life sentence so that the range of penalties for murder is the same as for any other serious crime.
The second proposition that the noble and learned Lord firmly put forward—and I ask whether he still agrees with that proposition—is that the decision of how long a person should spend in prison is a judicial decision to be made by a judge in open court after hearing argument, subject to a right of appeal, and that it should not be this—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor still agree that such a decision should not be made by a politician in secret without any right of appeal?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, by definition, the noble and learned Lord has a longer memory than me; but I, too, have quite a good memory. I did refresh that memory by looking through my own contribution to the debate to which the noble and learned Lord referred. I did think that it was quite well expressed but I was not bowled over by it today. The only difference between my position as expressed then and now is that today I think I have a keener awareness of the arguments on the other side, which I took pains in an earlier answer to express, than I had before and indeed the depth and sincerity with which they are held, to the same degree as the depth of sincerity which the noble and learned Lord adheres to his views.
Lord Waddington: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I have to tell the House that I was cowardly enough not to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, but I fear that I must interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, because we have now spent nine minutes on the first Question.

Law of the Sea Convention
3.3 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to ratify the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention 1982.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we recognise that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is the
1464
most significant maritime convention this century. Its provisions cover virtually every topic of importance to coastal and maritime states, including the protection and preservation of the marine environment. The Government intend to push environmental concerns up the global agenda. Ministers have not yet had the opportunity to consider the UK's accession to the convention. Noble Lords may rest assured that Ministers will be considering this question soon.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that very encouraging Answer. However, does she agree that we are already doing virtually everything which would be enjoined on us by the convention and that the only problem in the past has been the significance of Rockall for the exclusive economic zone? Is not the sole issue whether the fishing industry should share 0.2 per cent of its catch with such foreign boats as occasionally venture into that area? Indeed, for the sake of that, are we not disqualifying ourselves from discussions on the whole new regime? Can my noble friend the Minister go a stage further and promise that, under this Government, we will not be condemned eternally to pay the price of every item on the menu but always miss out on the food?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that I have made it clear that the Government support the UNCLOS. We certainly intend to accede to the convention. However, as I said, Ministers will need first to consider what timing best suits the interests of the United Kingdom.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I tabled exactly the same Question as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, as long ago as November 1994? The Answer then given on behalf of the previous government was that they were working on the procedure to enable the UK to accede to the convention. Can the noble Baroness accelerate that procedure, which has apparently already occupied two-and-a-half years?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his contribution. However, I should like to point out to him that the latest form of the convention was adopted in July 1994. The previous government had 32 months to consider whether or not to accede to the convention, whereas the current government have had less than two months to do so. I have given the House the assurance that it will be done as soon as the timing indicates that it is in the best interests of the United Kingdom.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, can the Minister give the House an assurance that the situation surrounding the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom waters as affected by the dispute over the ownership of Rockall will play a part in the deliberations that Her Majesty's Government will be undertaking when considering the timing of accession?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the UK title to Rockall is not affected by accession to the convention. British sovereignty over Rockall was

1465
proclaimed in 1955 and confirmed by the Island of Rockall Act 1972, which made Rockall a part of Scotland. Indeed, Rockall will remain a part of Scotland.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the convention confers advantages on coastal states not only in environmental terms but also in terms of fishing rights and, more importantly, freedom of the sea? Further, although the Government have not yet had much time to consider the matter, can the Minister give the House an assurance that the examination of procedures will be swift and the outcome positive?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can certainly give the noble Lord the assurance that the examination will be swift. Indeed, I agree with him that there are many benefits to the international community conferred by the convention, not only as regards establishing a clear legal regime on the high seas but also as regards rights of passage of naval and civilian ships and aircraft and promoting international marine conservation.

Combined Heat and Power
3.8 p.m.
Viscount Mersey Viscount Mersey asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they hope to achieve the production of 10 gigawatts of combined heat and power by 2010.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the Government are now making a detailed assessment of combined heat and power potential, and will set the new target in the light of that assessment and the role of CHP in combating climate change. The case for increasing the UK's CHP capacity to 10 gigawatts was set out in the 1994 Labour Party policy document, In Trust for Tomorrow. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister recently wrote to leaders of major industrial companies underlining the benefits of CHP in improving industrial competitiveness and reducing carbon dioxide and other harmful emissions. We are very pleased that the CBI has agreed to endorse the campaign.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. As a former president of the Combined Heat and Power Association, I certainly wish the Government luck in achieving their target. However, is the noble Baroness aware of the actual scale of engineering work required if we are to raise our combined heat and power percentage up to 20 per cent. of total generating capacity? In particular, can the noble Baroness give me an assurance that the present formula rating scheme will not be abolished in 2000 AD? That would actually increase rates on combined heat and power plants—I gather by up to 70 per cent. in some cases. That would certainly not be conducive to this massive and rather welcome planned expansion.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of the noble Viscount for the general thrust of
1466
government policy in this area. We recognise that this is an important issue for those involved in CHP projects, which, as I have said, we are committed to encouraging in the review of the rating system. We are actively considering a range of options to ensure that CHP schemes do not face unnecessary increased costs as a result of the proposed changes to the rating system.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does the noble Baroness realise that when she speaks about detailed assessment she is repeating language which we have heard over and over again in this House from a Tory Government and now from a Labour Government and which has the effect of delaying decisions? I say to the noble Baroness in the nicest possible way that we are getting rather tired of that kind of answer.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am not sure I should like to hear the noble Earl when he is speaking in a nasty way! That comment was a little unfair when one considers that the Deputy Prime Minister has already written to 300 major industrial companies to explain how important the Government consider combined heat and power to be. We have already received an extremely encouraging response to that exercise. Schemes have been announced, such as that announced in today's Financial Times by Heinz. Those schemes show the economic and environmental advantages of combined heat and power. We are making progress in this area and the Government are intent on making further progress.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I declare an interest, in that I am chairman of a company which promotes combined heat and power. My question relates to the recently published government report on the private finance initiative. To what extent will the streamlined PFI be used in support of the Government's proposals? I draw the Minister's attention in that connection to the fact that a new task force should sign off the commercial viability of all significant projects before they go through the normal commercial processes. Many of these combined heat and power projects are fairly small. How will they be dealt with?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful for that question. I talked earlier about the initiative we have taken with industry, but we believe there is enormous scope for these kinds of projects in the public sector. There is already an interesting combined heat and power scheme in Whitehall, in Downing Street. There are vast possibilities for establishing such schemes in the health service, in education and particularly in housing. We are considering how the capital receipts initiative and yesterday's announcement on public/private partnerships could provide new opportunities for combined heat and power schemes in the public sector.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Royal Free Hospital Trust, of which I am chairman, has introduced a combined heat and power scheme which will save the hospital about £1.5 million a year? We hope that it will shortly generate an additional half a million pounds a year from the sale of

1467
surplus power to the National Grid. Does the noble Baroness support similar schemes in the health service, as I believe she said she did?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am certainly aware of the connections of the noble Baroness with the health service, having had the opportunity to work with her in that area. These kinds of scheme have great economic benefits in areas of the public sector such as the health service. However, we should not underestimate the environmental benefits. In this area environmental and economic benefits go together.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the British Wind Energy Association and a director of Enron Renewable Energy Corporation. The Minister will know that government support for CHP is closely tied to government support for renewable energy. Will the Minister confirm therefore that it is the Government's intention to introduce a further round of the non-fossil fuel obligation?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we recognise that if we are to meet the challenging targets that exist with regard to decreasing pollution levels, we shall have to consider a whole range of issues. CHP is the measure that this Question refers to, but we shall also have to address the use of renewable energy sources.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, in six months' time the United Kingdom will have the presidency of the European Union Council of Ministers. Do the Government intend to secure a Europe-wide target for CHP during their presidency?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we believe that our presidency will provide opportunities in this field. We shall certainly wish to encourage other countries to maximise the social, environmental and economic benefits of CHP. We also believe that there are opportunities for British firms and British technologies in an international context.

Road Schemes: Assessment Criteria
3.15 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What criteria will be used in assessing whether major motorway and road schemes will proceed.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the strategic roads review announced last week will be a broadly based exercise and will assess road schemes against the four criteria set out in our manifesto; namely, accessibility, safety, economy and environmental impact.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. Will the Government
1468
take into consideration the criteria of not building roads but encouraging people to use public transport—for example, bus or train—and encouraging freight by rail?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, what we are intent on doing in the White Paper on an integrated transport policy which we are committed to produce next spring is to look broadly at all the options, to look at the problems which have arisen with particular schemes and to consider solutions which might comprise using another form of transport or managing demand rather than building roads.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as the Departments of the Environment and of Transport and their predecessors have not been responsible for roads in Scotland for at least 40 years, does the Answer of the noble Baroness confine itself to England and Wales? Does she accept that different criteria apply in Scotland, where distances between towns are long and where the land in between can be barren heath?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the necessity for considering these issues in a Scottish context was recognised by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who made a parallel announcement of a strategic roads review in Scotland.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in conducting this review, will the Government consult Railtrack about the possibility of building new railway lines and reopening branch lines?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we certainly intend that the review and the White Paper will be an open and consultative exercise. I expect that we shall receive representations from a wide variety of interests. This is an area where there are competing and often conflicting pressures. It is important that we listen to the widest range of views and consider the widest range of possible solutions.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that in Scotland public transport is not available to people living in many of the remote places and that it is often a necessity in their case to improve roads?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, while I accept the failings of public transport in Scotland and in some parts of England and Wales too, we have to bear in mind that the solution may be to improve public transport rather than to assume that the only answer is to provide an alternative to public transport.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the almost uncontrollable excitement which we all feel at the prospect of this new White Paper which is to produce an integrated system of transport? So far, many governments have found this to be a pipe dream.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am delighted that there is such anticipation on Opposition Benches and elsewhere. It would be wrong to suggest that this will be an easy exercise or that there are simple solutions. On the

1469
other hand, it would be equally wrong not to try to find those solutions, because an enormous number of pressures, both economic and environmental, indicate that we have to find some answers.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a great many people are anxious that minor road schemes should proceed? They can be extremely effective in reducing casualties among both motorists and pedestrians.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we accept that fact. The minor safety schemes which were in the Highways Agency's programme were specifically exempted from the review and will go ahead according to the programme.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, however successful the Government are in encouraging both freight and passenger traffic on to rail and other forms of public transport, the vast majority of traffic will still be by road for purely practical reasons? Therefore I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that to freeze the road programme altogether, in particular the construction of bypasses and motorway widening, would be to condemn the country to gridlock.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we have not frozen the roads programme altogether. Roads under construction continue to be constructed. We have recognised that 12 schemes are in urgent need of review. We are having an accelerated review of them and will announce the results before the end of July. However, the noble Lord should not prejudge the results of the White Paper exercise about an integrated transport policy.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, in the light of the contention about the high speed link to the Channel Tunnel, proposals to expand the railway system are likely to prove at least as contentious as the proposals to build new roads, if not more so?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I accept that what the noble Lord says is correct: there are no easy answers to these problems. There are costs to all the alternatives on offer. What is important is that we have a wide-ranging, open and honest public debate about the cost and benefits of various alternative ways of approaching the problems.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, will the review take into account the possibilities arising from road pricing?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, yes.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is high time that there was a continual dual carriageway from the capital city of Scotland, Edinburgh, to the capital of the north of England, Newcastle?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, in view of what I said about the need for careful assessment of
1470
individual schemes, it would be wrong for me to prejudge the results of the review in the case of individual schemes.

Business
3.22 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Denver Summit. I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should not exceed 20 minutes from the end of the Minister's initial reply to the Opposition spokesmen, and contributions in the discussion should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification.

House of Lords' Offices: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 8).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
Appointment of Sub-Committees
The Committee appointed the following Sub-Committees and Panel—

Finance and Staff Sub-Committee
L. Boston of Faversham (Chairman),

L. Colwyn,

V. Cranborne,

L. Gladwin of Clee,

L. Harris of Greenwich,

E. Northesk,

L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn,

L. Richard,

L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank,

L. Sheppard of Didgemere,

L. Weatherill,

L. Williams of Elvel,

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.

Administration and Works Sub-Committee
V. Allenby of Megiddo,

L. Berkeley,

L. Boston of Faversham (Chairman),

L. Carter,

L. Colwyn,

B. David,

E. Gowrie,

L. Harris of Greenwich,

L. Methuen,

B. Rawlings,

L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn,

L. Strathclyde,

L. Weatherill,

with the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.

Library and Computers Sub-Committee
L. Avebury,

L. Freyberg,

L. Hoffmann,

L. Holderness,

B. Lockwood,

L. Lucas,

L. McIntosh of Haringey,

B. Nicol,

B. Platt of Writtle,

L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn (Chairman),

L. St. John of Bletso,

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.

Refreshment Sub-Committee
E. Arran,

L. Carter,

L. Chesham,

L. Colwyn (Chairman),

B. David,

L. Graham of Edmonton,

L. Harris of Greenwich,

L. Howell,

L. Lawrence,

L. Palmer,

V. Thurso,

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.

Advisory Panel on Works of Art
L. Chorley,

L. Cobbold,M

L. Crathorne,

V. Falkland,

E. Gowrie (Chairman),

B. Hilton of Eggardon,

L. Hindlip,

L. Morris of Castle Morris,

L. Palmer,

B. Trumpington,

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education (Schools) Bill
3.24 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Government are determined that all children will be offered a high quality education. There should be no question of a small group of children benefiting at the expense of many others.
More than £1 billion has been spent on the assisted places scheme since it was introduced. That money would have been better spent on the state system. The Bill represents a reordering of our educational priorities. It puts the interests of the 440,000 five, six and seven year-olds ahead of the 40,000 or so who would have benefited under the assisted places scheme. We promised to act quickly on class sizes and we intend to do so. Getting this Bill on to the statute book is a necessary first step. I make no apologies for moving quickly on this key pledge in our manifesto.
Class size is important. As I am sure many in your Lordships' House will agree, it is a key factor in improving standards in those vital early years of formal
1472
education when pupils try to master the basics. That view is supported by research evidence in this country and in the United States.
The Ofsted report on class sizes in 1995 said that,
"small class sizes are of benefit in the early years of primary education. Once pupils have achieved competency in basic learning, particularly in literacy, they are more able to learn effectively in larger classes".
I believe that parents share our wish to see smaller classes. The White Paper, to be published next month, will set out our plans to raise standards across the education system including cutting class sizes. Targets will be introduced progressively based on plans drawn up by the LEAs and schools. We shall consult the LEAs and others about the preparation of detailed plans to reduce class sizes which take into account particular local needs.
Reducing class sizes is just one part of our major programme to raise standards. The new standards and effectiveness unit demonstrates commitment to the basics of literacy and the determination to tackle failing schools. Nearly half of all primary schoolchildren transferring to secondary school are below the standards expected of 11 year-olds in English and mathematics. We really must turn that round. We have set tough targets to raise standards in both literacy and numeracy. The funds released from the assisted places scheme will make a positive contribution.
Ending the assisted places scheme is not just about facilitating smaller classes. We have long made it clear that we object to the principles on which the scheme is founded and the way it has operated in practice. We object in principle to the scheme. It has not met its objectives. Indeed, it has failed on a number of different counts. First, parental choice has not been enhanced. It is the schools which select the pupils who will receive support. Parental choice is a myth. Secondly, it has not been targeted on those the scheme intended to help. Nearly a third of assisted place holders were previously in the independent sector. I question whether pupils who had already been in the independent sector need the help that the scheme provided.
Thirdly, those benefiting do not all come from poor backgrounds. One in five of the children are from families with incomes above the national average. So we are seeing well-off people being subsidised by those poorer than themselves.
Fourthly, the scheme is hardly a ladder of opportunity for children from working-class backgrounds. More than half of assisted pupils come from the upper and middle classes. Only 46 per cent. of pupils come from working-class backgrounds.
Fifthly, the costs of the scheme are simply not justified. The previous government had planned to spend over £200 million in 1999–2000. Over time they would have had to spend double that to meet their commitment to double the size of the scheme. The average cost of a secondary assisted place in 1997–98 in England will be around £4,100. That is 47 per cent. more per pupil than the standard spending assessment for secondary pupils in state schools, which is £2,780 per annum.

1473
Lastly, it fails to add value. That is the most telling criticism of all. Research published last year compared the performance of assisted pupils with that of matched state pupils of similar intelligence and ability. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of results achieved, both in total A-level point scores and average A-level points scores. Assisted pupils did not gain added value.
I now turn to the Bill's provisions in detail. Clause 1 repeals the duty on the Secretary of State to operate an assisted places scheme in England and Wales, and other statutory provisions. Clause 2 makes transitional arrangements for pupils holding assisted places at the beginning of the 1997–98 school year which allow them to continue to hold their places for that and subsequent years, but with a proviso for primary pupils. Clause 3 provides for regulations to prescribe transitional arrangements during the phasing out period. Clause 4 defines the terms used in Clauses 1 to 3 and Clause 5 has the same effect in relation to the operation of the assisted places scheme in Scotland. Clauses 6 and 7 and the schedule provide for consequential amendments, commencement and territorial extent.
The effect of the provisions is that there will be no intakes to assisted places in September 1998 and subsequent years. But we will honour commitments to children on the scheme and to those offered places for September 1997—in the case of pupils under the age of 11 until they have completed their primary education, save in special circumstances. There is a discretionary power so that pupils under the age of 11 can receive continued support for a period when they are of secondary age, and pupils of secondary age will be supported until they complete their education at their current school, usually at the age of 18.
We never said that we would provide for primary age children to hold their places all the way through to age 18. That would mean running the scheme for another 13 years. We said that we would provide for it to be phased out over about seven years.
It is more sensible to provide for primary age pupils to move to the maintained sector at the age of 11. We have made it clear that we will use discretionary power flexibly and in a way that is sympathetic to the needs of individual pupils. We will extend the period of support where there is good reason to do so: for example, in the case of a pupil resident in a part of the country where the normal age of transfer from primary to secondary schooling is later than the age of 11; and in the case of children who take up a 10 year-old place at a secondary school. We will also consider using discretion where the parents of a child in a prep school were given a promise of a place to the age of 13. However, each case will need to be considered on its individual merits.
Places will be available in the maintained sector for children who would otherwise have had assisted places. There is plenty of time for local education authorities to plan how best to accommodate these pupils. Currently, there are over 800,000 spare places within existing LEA provision in England—ample scope to accommodate the 10,000 or so pupils who would otherwise have joined the scheme each year from 1998.
1474
Many assisted places scheme schools predict that they will have no difficulty in filling their places with fee-paying pupils. So, overall, the phasing out of the scheme may not have much net effect on maintained sector provision. We will keep that under review: for the present we do not believe that educating children who may otherwise have had assisted places will result in a significant additional burden on local education authorities.
We intend to make sure that the state sector is equipped to provide a first-rate education for all our children, including the most able and talented. We will be setting out our proposals in the forthcoming education White Paper and consulting on them. The independent sector does not have a monopoly in being able to provide for able and talented pupils. State schools can and do provide for very able children. The scheme represents an unwarranted subsidy to the private sector. Much better value for money will be achieved through transferring that funding to the state system.
The Bill marks the end of the assisted places scheme which has benefited so few at the expense of so many. It represents the beginning of the end of overcrowded infant classes and is another milestone on the road to raising standards. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time— (Baroness Blackstone.)
3.36 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her clear introduction of the Bill. She will not expect me, or for that matter many on these Benches, or, dare I say it, many on the other Benches in this House, to agree with all, or even much, of what she had to say about the Bill. In fact, I believe she is only too well aware that we do not like the Bill at all and do not agree with large parts of it. I particularly disagreed with her allegations that there was no added value and no benefit to the less well off; her implication that it was some sort of middle class "scam"; and her allegation that there was no parental choice. Those are matters to which we shall return in due course.
As my right honourable friend Mrs Shephard, then Shadow Education and Employment Secretary, put it in another place, this is "a mean little Bill". It is a further measure driven purely by dogma. Anyone who thinks that old Labour is dead need look no further than this Bill to see that it is very much alive and still flourishing in the heart of Labour's educational establishment.
Nevertheless, as always, I desire to be constructive and helpful. I shall therefore begin by saying a little about matters on which we can agree, and about the framework that we have left behind for the party opposite, on which, if they are so minded, they can continue to build and raise standards, as we have done over the past 18 years.
As I made clear in the debate on the Address, I believe that we achieved much over those 18 years. Much of it was structural and much related to delegating greater autonomy to the schools themselves. But the theme underlying all that we did was the attempt to

1475
create greater parental choice and greater diversity, and thereby apply the best of all possible pressures to an ever continuing raising of standards.
In the course of that debate, I asked a number of questions pertinent to the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, winding up for the Government, described it as an inordinate number of questions. I have to say that I feel that it was positively "ordinate", in that there were only six questions relating to this Bill. A number of others related to other educational matters.
In the course of her reply the noble Baroness responded to one, possibly two, of those questions. That is fair enough. It must be for the noble Baroness to make her own speech and to decide just how many of the points put during the course of debate can be answered. I do not object to that. However, I feel that the questions I asked, especially those relating to this Bill, ought to be answered in due course by letter. It is now over a month since that debate and I still await a response to the various unanswered questions, in particular those relating to the abolition of the assisted places scheme.
In making that complaint I do not wish to imply any criticism of the officials within the Department for Education and Employment; as one who served there, I know how conscientious they are. However, Ministers should ensure that replies are made within a suitable time and in this case should ensure that the valid points which I and other noble Lords made a month before the Second Reading of this Bill are properly answered. We are now at Second Reading and I imagine that some of my noble friends are in the position—and I certainly am—that many of our legitimate inquiries have not been dealt with. We shall have to explore them in considerable detail at Committee stage and beyond.
I sought an assurance that the Bill would receive proper and correct scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament and that the proper time limits would be observed. I was given an assurance that that would be the case. It seems that that will be the case in this House, and I am grateful for that. But the somewhat indecent haste with which the Bill was rushed through another place was hardly in keeping with the spirit behind the assurance that I was given by the noble Baroness and it means that we shall have to examine the Bill with considerable care at Committee stage and beyond.
As I said, we believe this to be a mean and nasty little Bill, very much in keeping with the egalitarian dogma of old Labour that if not everyone can have something, no one can have it. We recognise though that—sadly, misguidedly—they have a very clear mandate for the Bill and for that reason alone we shall not oppose its Second Reading in this House. However, we have a number of legitimate concerns which we seek to put to the Government and which we believe they must answer before the Bill goes onto the statute book.
Perhaps I may start with the drafting of the Bill. We were told by the noble Baroness during the debate on the Address that the reduction of class sizes for five, six and seven year-olds would be financed by the abolition of the assisted places scheme. That is also stated on the face of the Bill to be its purpose. During
1476
its passage through another place my right honourable and honourable friends were unable to elicit from Her Majesty's Government the details of the mechanisms to ensure that the money saved would be used in that way. I therefore believe that the Bill is skeletal and that, if the policy of reducing class sizes is to succeed, there will necessarily have to be further alterations to legislation surrounding, in particular, admissions procedures—namely, limiting parental choice. I therefore hope that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee will look carefully at this measure and that Her Majesty's Government will, as we did when we were in government, note and act on any comments made by that committee.
My second point relates to the financial implications of abolition. The total cost of the scheme is currently some £134 million. Some 38,000 children benefit, at an average cost of something like £3,600. The noble Baroness seems to be saying that virtually all of that will be saved, ignoring the fact that those 38,000 children will have to be catered for in the maintained sector. In the debate on the Address the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, spoke of £20 million to £50 million being saved by 1998–99 or 1999–2000. In another place Mr. Stephen Byers (Official Report, Commons, 2/6/97; col. 111) gave a figure of some £100 million being "freed up", as he put it, by the year 2000. No doubt other figures will be given on other occasions. But there seems to be a distinct lack of precision about what might be saved and absolutely no recognition of the extra costs of bringing the assisted places scheme children back into the maintained sector. We are simply told that there are 800,000 surplus places, the implication being that there will be no extra costs. But where are those 800,000 surplus places? Are they where the assisted places children are? Are they in popular, successful schools? And are they genuinely surplus or merely notional?
That brings me to my third point, which relates to parental choice and admissions. The Bill removes one aspect of parental choice. The noble Baroness, in suggesting that there will be no extra costs in that the surplus places can be used, implies that she will not allow the good, popular schools to expand. Parents are therefore unlikely even to get their second choice; the choice will be limited to those failing schools burdened with surplus places which the LEA wishes to support artificially, thereby placating their friends among the militants of the teaching unions. Parents who now have their first choice in the assisted places scheme will be denied that choice, will probably not even get their second choice, the popular maintained school, but will be driven to a third or fourth choice.
Fourthly, can we hear a little more about how the savings will lead to smaller class sizes? I believe that the noble Baroness will be aware of the research by the Institute of Public Finance, whose estimates show that:
"Eliminating all classes exceeding 30 for 5, 6 and 7 year-olds would cost about £65 million annually, with an additional estimated £100 million in capital costs—but only if action was taken simultaneously to restrict admissions to primary schools.
Government savings from phasing out the assisted places scheme would amount, after seven years, to no more than £49 million annually (once the cost of educating pupils in state schools instead had been taken into account).

1477
Phasing out assisted places as pupils leave school would only release savings in stages: no savings would be likely before 1998–99, when a mere £13 million would be saved.
Since the annual savings from the assisted places scheme would only reach their maximum levels in 2004/5, the re-allocation of funds to cutting class sizes would have an accumulated deficit of more than £250 million by then".
I therefore ask the noble Baroness whether the Government will go further in restricting the admissions policy of primary schools. That matter is not addressed in the Bill but is implicit in it and must therefore be addressed by the Government during the Bill's passage through this House.
Fifthly, I should like to come on to New Labour's first and clearest broken promise, not alluded to by the noble Baroness—namely, the broken promise to the 11 year-olds. Before the election we had from Mr. Peter Kilfoyle, a Front Bench spokesman on education—though we understand that he has now been sent off to the outer darkness of the Office of Public Service—an absolutely clear assurance that, if a child had an assisted place at a school which takes children to the age of 13, that place would be honoured until the child was 13. After the election, on 22nd May, in a Department for Education and Employment circular, it was stated that in fact children under the age of 11 would only stay on until the end of their primary education, i.e. 11. That was an absolutely clear breach of a pre-election promise. Since then we have had a partial re-think from the Government and we are now told that some children will be allowed to stay on, but only at the Secretary of State's discretion. I hope that during the course of the Bill we can hear from the noble Baroness that, in keeping with the promise made by her honourable friend, all can, as of right, stay on until 13.
Further, would the noble Baroness clarify what is meant by the "end of primary education" in those LEAs with middle schools? Would children be affected at nine or 13? That is another point that we shall wish to explore later on in the passage of the Bill.
I also understand that there will be anomalies facing some 10 and 11 year-olds in Scotland. Those are detailed matters on which I do not seek assurances at the moment, nor do I feel that it would be appropriate to go into such detail at Second Reading. But I can give an assurance to the noble Baroness that we shall want some explanations at Committee stage. She might possibly want to ask her noble friend Lord Sewel for the Scottish Office to attend on some of those occasions, as we believe that his presence will be necessary to deal with the Scottish matters in the Bill, this being a Bill which affects England and Wales and Scotland.
Those are just a few of the points that the Government must answer. There are many more which will be raised by my noble friends in the course of this afternoon and many more that we shall wish to raise at Committee stage and later. I could have said more about the benefits of the scheme to so many individuals over the years. No doubt many of my noble friends who have much more experience of this scheme will address those points in due course. Let me say how grateful I am that so many of my noble friends who have experience of the assisted places scheme and of how it has worked and
1478
benefited children from all areas will take part in the debate this afternoon. I know for a fact that there are many others who wished to speak but could not be present. For example, my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, who was the Secretary of State who introduced the assisted places scheme some 16 years ago, told me that he unfortunately would be unable to be present today, though he hoped to take part in later stages of the Bill. He asked me to make it clear to the House that in his view abolition was a disaster which could only damage the educational prospects of many of our bright children who live in inner-city areas.
As I said, others will make that point forcefully. One can only hope that the Government will listen and show for once that New Labour is genuinely new and not merely the old, envy ridden, class hating, old Socialist dog.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I do not want to follow too closely the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in his sentiments on the Bill. One of the pleasures for me in welcoming the Bill is that I shall not, year after year, have to come to this Chamber and think of new ways of explaining why we oppose the assisted places scheme. The Liberal Democrats have consistently opposed the assisted places scheme. It must therefore logically follow that we support a Bill which, broadly speaking, will phase out such a scheme.
In doing that, let me say very strongly and clearly that we are not in the least driven by dogma and envy, nor are we motivated by any opposition to independent schools—indeed, quite the opposite. I shall quote very briefly from the Liberal Democrat election manifesto—it is the only time that I shall do so—where we said about independent schools:
"We will forge a new partnership with the independent sector and we will encourage independent schools to work with state schools. We will phase out the Assisted Places Schemes and use the money saved to enable LEAs, if they wish, to enter into local partnership schemes. These could include assisting the funding of pupils at independent schools. Pupils currently covered by APS would, however, be protected until they finish their studies".
That is a positive view about a partnership with independent schools. It is not in any sense an opposition to independent schools. I believe that the Government committed themselves to increased partnership between the state sector and the independent sector and I look forward to hearing, either in today's debate or more likely perhaps in the White Paper that we shall shortly receive, exactly what that means.
Our objection is not to independent schools. It is to the assisted places scheme. The reasons for our objections to such schemes were very well described by the Minister in her opening speech. The scheme is centrally administered; it takes no account of local need; and there are large regional variations—if there is any doubt about that, there are the very interesting figures published in the research paper 97/70 which show enormous regional variations, tilted, perhaps not surprisingly, to the South-East of England and particularly I note to the county of Surrey: there are no

1479
less than 1,264 places within that county alone. The scheme takes no account of local need and is not administered locally.
As the Minister said, it is at the very least debatable and it is certainly my view that it does not help those who most need it. As she said, one-third of those people already on the assisted places scheme come to it from within the private sector. I do not wish to make a sweeping judgment of all of those people but it must be true, as the Minister suspects, that many of them probably could afford to be in the private sector. Certainly, they are in a mind set which prefers the private sector to the state sector and I question whether that is a proper use of public funds. Also, it is not usually the best way to help those who are most in need of help from the state. Perhaps that is a point that we shall develop further.
I also question whether the scheme provides value for money. As the Minister explained and as I believe is well known, the costs per pupil in the assisted places scheme are dramatically greater than the money provided for those in the state scheme. I should here perhaps declare an interest as a leader of a council which is a local education authority. I find it iniquitous to have to explain to parents, when occasionally I do, why, as a local education authority, we receive barely half what is given to a pupil who has the good fortune perhaps to attend with an assisted place. Above all, however, the objection to the assisted places scheme is that using taxpayers' money to subsidise independent schools is simply not a proper and best use of public money.
Since the general election and the Labour victory and the very clear commitment to abolishing the assisted places scheme, I have come to realise, as I previously suspected, that maybe the scheme is not necessary either. I note with interest, as will other noble Lords, that since the election a number of independent schools, which genuinely, I believe, have a commitment to helping those whose parents cannot afford to pay the fees, have been making their own arrangements. Most notably, perhaps, the Girls Public Day School Trust has already announced that it will be preserving its 3,000 places to assist pupils to attend its schools without paying the full fees. Other schools are making similar arrangements and similar announcements. I welcome that. Good luck to them. But it seems to me to illustrate that it is not necessary to be using taxpayers' money for those purposes. It is far better that the schools themselves should do it, if that is the measure of their commitment.
I welcome the Bill and support the commitment to phasing out the scheme, as we did in our election manifesto. It is obviously right to honour commitments made to those pupils who are already in the scheme or who will be in the scheme from September this year. At this stage I come to the one point on which I do differ from the Government so far. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, quite rightly referred to it and it is perhaps the only part of his speech with which I agreed—I hope that that does not cause him too much distress—namely, the question of pupils in the scheme at preparatory schools which continue to provide education up to the age of 13.
1480
As the debate started, I was handed a letter, received by one of my noble friends, from which I want to quote just one paragraph. It is from a parent whose son has an assisted place at a preparatory school. He writes:
"My son's name is Joseph. He is seven years old and has an assisted place at [a school in] Swansea. If the new law is passed, I will have to explain to him why he can't stay in a school he has grown to love. He will have to be told that when all his friends move up to year six he will not be joining them. The teachers who have guided him in his academic development will no longer support him. What the government doesn't seem to have considered is that not all independent schools are arranged into two separate entities".
I felt that that letter put the dilemma very well. As has already been said, Mr. Peter Kilfoyle, when he was an education spokesman, on 1st April said very clearly and unequivocally:
"If a child has a place at a school which runs to 13, then that place will be honoured through to 13".
Since that time we have had, I must say, muddle and confusion from the Government as to exactly what they do mean, which has, I am sad to say, been characterised by weasel words about discretion and so on. I had hoped, following the intervention of the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Question Time after the Third Reading of the Bill in another place, that today the Minister might clarify the position more fully. But she said that it is subject to discretion; that people like the author of the letter from which I quoted will have to apply individually; and that the Minister will have to consider each and every case separately. In my view that is simply not good enough. A clear commitment was given specifically for children through to the age of 13, with a more general commitment that we would honour the assisted places scheme for those already in it, and that must include the children about whom we are talking. There are a relatively small number of such children but it is important to them. I hope that the Government, during the course of the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House, will think again about that.
It is stated in the Financial Memorandum that the objective of the Bill is to reduce infant school class sizes in the maintained sector. I understand that the Government have said it is their objective to reduce the numbers to no more than 30 by the end of this Parliament—presumably the year 2002—for infant classes, for children aged five, six and seven. Liberal Democrats too share that objective. Indeed, we would go further; as is well known, we would have done it by the famous penny on tax and would have provided for the reduction of class sizes in all primary schools.
When I made that point in the debate on the Queen's Speech in your Lordships' House, at the end of the debate the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, rounded on me and accused me of being typical old Labour. After the debate I was poached by many on the Government Benches and welcomed with open arms. I was fully expecting to be given an application form at any time. I do not regard that in the least as old Labour and, indeed, as an old Young Liberal I feel that the insult was perhaps well intended. I regard it as common sense. I acknowledge immediately, as I did in that debate, that without doubt the greatest benefit of small classes comes in the earliest years and that

1481
if there has to be a priority, then priority given to five, six and seven year-olds is clearly right. I therefore support that.
My concern is what happens to those children when they are aged seven, eight, nine and so forth. Let me declare two interests. First, I am married to a primary school teacher; secondly, I am a governor of a junior school which takes children from the ages of seven to 11. If the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, or others feel that class sizes do not matter at those ages, then I say to him: ask any teacher. Ask any teacher if they think that class sizes do not matter. Ask any parent if that is their view. The noble Lord will hold a very different view.
Let me say straight away that a smaller class does not immediately convert a bad teacher into a good teacher; of course it does not. But a smaller class enables a good teacher to teach better and to be able to give much closer individual attention to the pupils. That matters at the age of seven onwards nearly as much as it does before the age of seven.
Therefore I welcome the Government's Bill. I welcome the objective of the Bill, even though I feel it is too limited. But I have to say, in conclusion, that I am extremely doubtful as to whether the Government's arithmetic will add up and whether the money to be saved from the assisted places scheme will achieve the objective desired. Indeed, I note the subtle wording that Ministers use as the debate continues which tends to indicate that they too are coming to that conclusion. They are now talking about "contributing to" rather than "achieving". It is a contribution I welcome.
There are hugely different estimates as to what will be the net savings from the assisted places scheme. We shall probably not know that until there are actual figures available. There are also widely-ranging estimates of what the full cost of the reduction in class sizes will be. By that I mean not just the additional teachers, but also all the associated costs. It is all very well to say that there are 800,000 surplus places; but not all of those are in the schools which will need to accommodate additional pupils. Those savings will need to be carefully monitored, as will the progress—if there is progress—towards smaller class sizes, and we will return to that later in the consideration of the Bill.
I speak now, as a leader of a council and a local education authority, with great trepidation that in the first year, perhaps the first two years, we are more likely to go in the opposite direction. The Government's adherence to Tory spending plans and even more so to keeping to the plans not only in total, but within departments, looks as though it will mean a bad settlement for local government this year. If local government this year receives a bad settlement then inevitably schools will suffer.
I fear that the first full year of a Labour Government will not lead to a reduction in class sizes for anyone. It will actually mean even larger class sizes and even fewer teachers. I shall look with considerable interest at how matters develop in the months before the revenue support grant settlement. I do not doubt the Government's commitment to smaller class sizes; I simply doubt their will to put that commitment into practice.
1482
But that is for the future. For now, with the proviso I made, we are pleased with the Bill, and for the first time in your Lordships' House I am able to give an almost unqualified welcome to an education Bill.

The Denver Summit
4.6 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the summit of the Eight held at Denver last weekend. I have placed in the Library of the House the communiqué and the other documents issued following the summit.
The Statement is as follows:
"One of the most stimulating discussions at Denver was on the need for structural reform in all our economies. Different countries face somewhat different problems. But we all face the challenge of how to take advantage of increasing globalisation and provide new job opportunities. In many countries, unemployment—particularly among young people—is far too high. We need to combine greater labour market flexibility with action to improve work incentives, skills and employability, and reduce the risk of marginalisation. There was a welcome for the United Kingdom's plan to take forward work on this at a meeting of G8 finance and social affairs Ministers in London early next year and then at the Birmingham summit.
"We also discussed the problem of transnational organised crime, which is a growing preoccupation for all of us. Crime is becoming increasingly sophisticated and international, and criminals will quickly exploit the newest technologies to evade detection. We must fight them on their own ground, developing greater international co-operation and new techniques to match the threat. Over the coming months we shall work up specific proposals on co-operation against crime, including drug-trafficking and financial crime, which we can consider in detail at next year's summit.
"In Denver, the finance Ministers reported on the progress they had made on measures to increase financial stability. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will lead the follow-up next year on plans to improve further co-operation between financial supervisors.
"The summit focused particular attention on Africa. We agreed on the need to combat poverty through debt relief, improved market access and support for education. The priority is to focus assistance where it is most needed and will reap most benefit—that is, to those countries which are introducing economic reforms and which respect the principles of human rights and good governance. We emphasised the importance of not wasting money on unproductive, especially military, expenditure and of combating corruption. I announced that Britain would, over the

1483
next three years, increase by 50 per cent. our support for primary education, basic health care and clean water in sub-Saharan Africa.
"We discussed UN reform and welcomed the Secretary General's efforts. We encouraged him to undertake a system-wide review of the UN and its agencies. We agreed on the need to develop the UN's ability to prevent and resolve conflicts. And we all recognised the needs to solve the UN's funding crisis as soon as possible.
"The leaders of the Seven also agreed to provide 300 million US dollars towards the cost of restoring the sarcophagus over the Chernobyl reactor to prevent any further leak of radioactive material.
"I was pleased to get the strong support of all other leaders for our views on Hong Kong. The communiqué underlined the G8' s durable interest in Hong Kong's stability and prosperity and looked forward to democratic elections there for a new legislature as soon as possible.
"Foreign Ministers discussed a number of regional and global issues and presented a detailed report to heads. The summit issued a separate statement on Bosnia, reaffirming our commitment to the peace agreement and backed efforts to achieve a lasting settlement in Cyprus. The communiqué also records unanimous support for progress towards a legally binding international agreement to ban anti-personnel landmines.
"I welcome Russia's participation as a major partner in the summit of the Eight. President Yeltsin played a fuller role than ever before and we agreed to continue our efforts to help Russia integrate into the global economic system. Russia will shortly be participating as a creditor in the Paris Club.
"We naturally devoted considerable time in Denver to environmental issues, many of which are being followed up at the UN General Assembly special session which opened yesterday. There is much we need to do to improve the environment we live in. Cleaner air, cleaner water, less congestion and better use of scarce resources are things that matter to all of us. And, in developing countries, alleviating poverty is the key to sustainable development. We are committed over time to reverse the decline in Britain's development assistance that occurred under the previous government.
"Much of the public attention though has focused on efforts to tackle the threat of global warming. We made some progress at Denver, which I hope to see consolidated at the UN session in New York. Everyone accepted that, by the time of the Kyoto conference later this year, we must agree binding targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions beyond the year 2000. As the House will know, the European Union has already put forward proposals for a target reduction of 15 per cent. in greenhouse gases by the year 2010. The British Government have indicated their readiness to go further. We are already likely to achieve a reduction of 10 per cent. in greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2000.
1484
"Such targets are tough but achievable—achievable by the sorts of policies that are sensible in their own right: an integrated transport policy that makes public transport more attractive and gets traffic flowing more smoothly; increasing the use of renewable forms of energy; improving energy efficiency in firms and the public sector up to the standards of the best, and increasing the use of combined heat and power; and improving energy efficiency in homes, for example, through promoting self-financing schemes by the energy suppliers.
"Measures aimed at producing environmental benefits are often seen as burdensome or unachievable when they are first proposed, but experience shows that sensible measures produce sensible results, as we saw with measures to promote the use of unleaded petrol, for example.
"We also discussed a number of other key environmental issues, including the need to work for an international agreement on forests with suitably high standards. We also discussed how to increase access to clean water and sanitation, and how to improve international co-ordination of efforts to protect oceans and to manage fisheries.
"This was my first G8 Summit and I was struck by how much better the discussions were when we had time to focus on the key issues common to all our countries. Next year I want to take that further and concentrate on fewer issues in greater depth. In some senses it will mean a return to the original concept of G7 and G8 summits, using the opportunity for informal but substantive discussions.
"At Birmingham, I want in particular to concentrate on two subjects: the issue of jobs and employability and the challenge posed by organised crime. The first will also be a major theme of our presidency of the European Union in the first half of next year. Both are of central importance in all the G8 countries.
"I am grateful to the President of the United States for his hospitality at the Denver summit this year and to the authorities there. I am also grateful to the people of Birmingham for agreeing to host next year's summit, which I am confident will be an equal success."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.14 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I and the whole House are grateful to the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement. Indeed, I am sure the House will agree that there is a great deal to welcome in the Statement. For instance, it is clear that the involvement of Russia in the G7 context—now the G8—is to be welcomed, and it is something for which the previous Government worked as assiduously as their successors.
We welcome the Statement on organised crime, with which we could not disagree in any material respect. We also welcome the firm line on human rights in Hong Kong. We will watch with sympathy the Government's efforts to make sure that those sentiments are translated into fact.

1485
We also greatly welcome the remarks about improved market access as far as third world products are concerned. Everyone in your Lordships' House will be aware that trade, rather than aid, is a more dignified and effective way of helping third world countries. We will be extremely interested to know to what extent the Prime Minister and the Government are able to make sure that these principles are translated into action as far as our European partners are concerned. I would be grateful for any comment that the Lord Privy Seal could make in that respect.
We also welcome the remarks that the noble Lord has made about UN reform. I am sure it is something which he in particular, with his experience, will welcome.
We welcome, too, the Prime Minister's continued understanding, certainly apparent from his rhetoric, of how to tackle and reduce unemployment, which all of us agree is the principal internal evil affecting the countries of the European Union—other European Union countries at the moment, fortunately, rather than our own. It is striking that the theme of the Denver Summit was the success of what, in shorthand, has come to be known as the Anglo-Saxon economic model of low tax, low regulation and free labour markets, as against the Rhineland model of high taxation and high regulation. It therefore seems to this side of the House all the more extraordinary, in view of the Prime Minister's rhetoric, and in particular the rhetoric he deployed recently to his socialist colleagues in that remarkable speech in Malmö, that he has agreed to the social chapter at the Amsterdam summit.
One thing the Government will need to make clear is whether there is any difference in their approach in government from their approach in opposition. In government we need to see a match between actions and words rather than merely sticking to the rhetoric.
It is all very well to sign the Denver communiqué and its pious declarations about greater deregulation and responsive labour markets, but is it sensible at the same time to plan restrictions on working time, more regulation in the work place and a minimum wage, if the minimum wage is to be at a level to make a significant difference both to the unemployment rate and to the income of the people who will benefit from it? The time will come when that choice has to be made. I hope that the Government will look to the realities with which business has to grapple in the competitive world in which the Government admit we live. We must not merely be addicted to headlines, however Messianic and attractive the rhetoric may be.
If I may pass to environmental matters, perhaps I should declare a commercial interest as a shareholder and a former chairman of a company involved in developing emission control technologies. The reality is that, for all the grandiose speeches, the Denver and New York summits clearly failed to produce agreement, notably between the United States and other countries. This is in interesting contrast to the Rio summit five years ago, when my right honourable friend Mr. John Major played such a distinguished, if less public, role. I hope that we will see more concrete results over the coming five years in the wake of this summit.
1486
Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that the United Kingdom is one of only three countries which have met the Rio targets? That, of course, is entirely the responsibility and achievement of the preceding government. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will give some credit not only to the previous government but also to my right honourable friend Mr. John Gummer for his extraordinary efforts in that regard. I am grateful to the Government Deputy Chief Whip for his multi-partisan approach to this matter.
I am particularly concerned by a statement in a Labour Party document that,
"Labour does not accept that the market mechanism is inherently superior to regulation".
I wonder whether the Lord Privy Seal will accept that there is at least a respectable argument to suggest that in the field of the environment that may be precisely wrong. We can look at the record of the German Government, who were one of the leaders, and much to their credit, in the field of pollution regulation. One of the difficulties of imposing limits is that once the limits have been reached by the people who are concerned with them there is no longer an incentive to spend money on research and development into new technologies in order to make the performance of pollution control more effective still.
Can the Lord Privy Seal give us the Government's view about future regulation regimes both in this country and worldwide? Does he think that there is merit, for instance, in introducing in this country, and encouraging other countries to introduce, such devices as tradeable credits, which introduce flexibility of this kind and which can produce incentives through the regulatory regimes to make sure that there is an incentive to invest in new technologies so that the bare achievement of basic standards can be exceeded rather than merely achieved?
Can the noble Lord also tell the House whether during the course of the Prime Minister's visit to the United States he took the opportunity to have conversations with the World Bank and other institutions providing credit facilities to the third world, where most of the greenhouse gases will be emitted during the course of industrialisation over the coming decades, and whether there might be some possibility of encouraging the World Bank and its allied institutions to make, as part of their loan agreements, conditions for pollution control before money is disbursed?
I have a feeling that the rhetoric coming out of the Government at the moment, not only from the Denver summit but also from the Prime Minister's meetings in New York, is merely softening up this country for an increase in taxes on the back of a desire, above all, to attach that increase in taxes to the motherhood and apple pie of green issues. If that is so, I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will be able to tell us whether he recognises that that really will not do. It is at least possible that higher taxes could have exactly the opposite result of what the Government's rhetoric suggests and that it may well be that the new technologies that are increasingly available to us now can be used as a cheap method of achieving far more effectively what higher taxes can achieve.

1487
If you are Prime Minister you do not have to make casual remarks about issues of such gravity affecting many millions of people, all private motorists and many branches of industry. I hope the House will recognise that there must be a clearly thought out policy. In that context perhaps I may say that there appears to be a measure of confusion between some reports and the Statement that the Lord Privy Seal has so kindly repeated to us today as to what the Government's targets are. For instance, I note that the Prime Minister backed an EU target of reducing CO2 emissions to 15 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010. He was also reported elsewhere as setting a higher unilateral target of a 20 per cent. cut by 2010. Are those reports correct? Is this target purely for CO2 emissions or is it for, as the Statement implies, all greenhouse gases? This, as the House will realise, is important because it is infinitely more difficult to achieve that reduction for CO, emissions rather than for all greenhouse gases. I should be grateful if the Lord Privy Seal could explain that for us.
I hope also that he will be able to explain for us how these emission cuts will be achieved. Will this mean an alteration in the Labour Party's traditional support for coal? Will he be looking at road tolling? Will the use of private cars be restricted, or are the public just being softened up yet again for unjustifiable tax increases in the Budget?
Denver also looked to co-operation on solutions for the costs of ageing populations. Is it not true that, thanks to previous governments, Britain has far better funded private pensions than any other European nation? Against the background of the Denver summit, would it not be astonishing to contemplate changing corporate taxation and reforming ACT in such a way as to cut pension fund income? I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will be able to reassure us today that he will be making clear the danger of tinkering with ACT to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in advance of the Budget and that if he fails in that endeavour he will explain to the pensioners of this country the danger to the size of their pensions that tinkering with ACT represents.
There is much to be welcomed in the Statement but, as so often with the Government's record in their short tenure of office so far, their declarations raise infinitely more questions than they answer.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for repeating this important Statement. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, I should like to associate these Benches with what was said about help to Africa, the statement on Hong Kong, Bosnia and Cyprus, and to welcome the increased participation of Russia.
There are three issues on which I should like to ask questions. Two of them were dealt with by the noble Viscount. The first is the question of unemployment. Fortunately, unemployment is diminishing in this country, although it is still at a very high level in some other EU countries. The Government were quite right to emphasise that greater market flexibility has to be associated with skills training and employability. Those
1488
are crucial to continuing the progress already made. It would be helpful to know whether, in advance of further discussing these matters with their international partners at the Birmingham summit, the Government will be putting forward proposals that we can discuss in this House.
The second issue is financial stability, which is obviously of crucial importance but was dealt with very briefly in the Statement. It merely said that the Finance Ministers had already discussed this and that there would be further discussions between what are described as financial supervisors. That makes it sound rather technical. Is it more substantial than that or is it merely a question of supervisors getting together to see how they would supervise financial flows or the movement of money which has originated from doubtful sources? I should be grateful if this could be expanded on a little because it is an important issue.
Finally, there is the environmental question. I am very pleased that the Prime Minister should have put so much emphasis on this not only in the G8 Conference but also in his remarks yesterday to the United Nations in New York. I am glad that the United Kingdom intends to take a lead in this matter and that in addition to the proposal from the EU for a 15 per cent. emission reduction by the year 2010, we have put forward the proposal for a 20 per cent. reduction. What we should like to know is how this will be achieved. Here again I hope that before this is debated further with the heads of state at the G8 Conference in Birmingham next year we shall have a full opportunity of hearing the Government's views on the two major issues which the Prime Minister identified as leading to this desirable result; namely, a more efficient, integrated transport system and improvements in the efficient use of energy and encouragement for the use of renewables.
These are three issues which have been under consideration for many years and on which a good deal of progress has already been made. But in order to achieve this challenging objective which the Government have rightly set, we have to recognise that although the year 2010 may sound a long way off, it is only another 13 years away. If the structural changes to the environmental scene have to be put in place by then we have to start very soon indeed. If we are going to do that, then we need to know how we are going to set about it.
Therefore, generally speaking, we welcome the Statement. We are very pleased that these issues will be taken up again in Birmingham. However, in view of the importance of the environmental issues, I am not clear why the Prime Minister should have left that subject off the agenda for Birmingham. He stated that the agenda would deal with employment and organised crime. There is a very strong case for the environmental problems to be taken further at that meeting to which the Prime Minister so effectively referred recently.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful for at least some of what the noble Viscount and the noble Lord said. I thought that the noble Viscount was doing rather well in making the first eight or 10 points that I noted,

1489
but he then veered off track and became somewhat carping. Indeed, at one stage I felt that he was a trifle patronising.
Baroness Blatch: Can't take it!
Lord Richard: Oh dear me!
Viscount Cranborne: I would not dare.
Lord Richard: My Lords, whatever the verb is, no doubt to patronise is in the eye of the beholder, as all kinds of other things are.
I was asked a number of detailed questions by the noble Viscount and perhaps I may give some detailed and authorised answers. As regards tradeable credits, we have to look at this matter as part of the Kyoto negotiations. They may well have a part to play, but they cannot be used as an excuse for countries not taking domestic action. I was asked about financial stability. It is a technical subject, which has been discussed in depth by G8 experts. The aim is simple. It is to create co-ordinating supervisors who will monitor financial transactions and prevent irregularities which can remain hidden in increasingly complex international transactions.
I was asked whether the proposed follow up discussions by my right honourable friend the Chancellor will be only with supervisors. No, it is about supervisors and making sure that supervision is better co-ordinated. The schema, if I can put it that way, is that that should take place at the beginning of next year and then obviously the matter will come back to the summit in Birmingham.
The noble Viscount seemed a little afraid that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister did not give the previous government any credit. He asked me whether I would give the previous government some credit for what they had done about the gas emissions target. My right honourable friend said to the UN General Assembly:
"I attacked the last British government for many things. But they did deliver on the greenhouse gas emission targets set at Rio. Some other countries cannot say the same including some of the great industrialised nations. To them I say this: our targets will not be taken seriously by the poorer countries until the richer countries are meeting them".
I hope that the forum of the United Nations General Assembly is sufficiently public to satisfy even the noble Viscount.
I was asked specifically what my right honourable friend said about emissions at the General Assembly. Perhaps I should read what he said, which is the simple way of doing it. He said,
"Perhaps the most worrying problem is climate change. If greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise unabated, by the year 2100 global temperatures will have gone up 1 to 3.5 degrees centigrade and sea levels risen by perhaps as much as a metre. Some small islands are seriously at risk. So the EU has proposed the new and challenging target of reducing carbon dioxide emissions in developed countries to 15% below their 1990 level by the year 2010. In Britain we would he ready to go further to a 20% target".
1490
As the noble Viscount pointed out, Britain's record, I am happy to acknowledge, is good. Compared to 1990 we have reduced emissions by 10 per cent. already. Therefore, we are well on track for the reduction of 15 per cent. by the year 2010, which is the proposal, as the noble Viscount knows, of the European Union as a whole. We believe that we can do better than that. We can reduce the figure by 20 per cent. without engaging in any of the rather drastic measures which the noble Viscount delighted in putting up only to knock down. I have noticed over the years that that is one of the favourite ploys, but an affectionate one, if I may put it that way, used by the noble Viscount. When in trouble he erects an Aunt Sally which he proposes to knock down. As the noble Viscount knows and as my right honourable friend has said on a number of occasions. the way to achieve the target is by the methods set out specifically in the Statement.
My right honourable friend refers in the Statement to four specific matters. One of these is,
"an integrated transport policy that makes public transport more attractive and gets traffic flowing more smoothly".
The noble Viscount will know that a White Paper is in preparation on that matter.
The Statement mentions
"increasing the use of renewable forms of energy".
I do not believe that anyone in the House will question that.
There is reference to,
"improving energy efficiency in firms and the public sector up to the standards of the best, and increasing the use of combined heat and power".
We had a Question about combined heat and power at Question Time today in which the Government expressed support for the concept.
Finally, the Statement mentions,
"improving energy efficiency in homes, for example through promoting self-financing schemes by the energy suppliers".
If those measures are enacted, we believe we can achieve the 20 per cent. reduction by the year 2010.
Any matter concerning taxation is for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am learning quite quickly what a delight that sentence is when standing at the Government Dispatch Box. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Chancellor will read with great interest what has been said in the House today and will take such account of it as he believes appropriate and sensible.
There was considerable discussion at the summit about the ageing population, particularly the idea of active ageing. When I read the communiqué, it seemed to me that in some ways your Lordships' House is a very good example of what was being talked about. The communiqué states:
"We discussed the idea of 'active aging'—the desire and ability of many older people to continue work or other socially productive activities well into their later years, and agreed that old stereotypes of seniors as dependent should be abandoned … We discussed how our nations can promote active aging of our older citizens with due regard to their individual choices and circumstances, including removing disincentives to labor force participation and lowering barriers to flexible and part-time employment that exist in some countries".

1491
It seems to me that your Lordships' House might provide a good case study of active ageing.
To be a little more serious for a moment, we believe that the summit was a success. As the noble Viscount said, we believe it important that Russia was involved. We believe it will be increasingly important that Russia becomes more involved. It is true that environmental targets were not reached at Denver. The important time for targets to be reached and accepted by other countries is at Kyoto. There is a commitment in the communiqué that those targets will have to be expressed in time for the Kyoto summit.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the speeches that followed the Statement were the kind of speeches that could have emanated from any mutual admiration society. For my part, I detect only one positive sentence in the Statement. It is a sentence with which I wholeheartedly agree and it is one that I hope will come to fruition and give satisfaction. But for that sentence, which I will enlarge upon in a moment, the Statement is a series of generalisations tacked together which add up to almost nothing. The positive sentence that is good and should be watched indicates that the Prime Minister has recognised the generality of the remainder of the Statement. He says that at future summits he will try hard to see that the discussions concentrate upon definite points that can be debated in detail and amount to something. That is important, and I approve of it. I hope that he will be successful in bringing that about. Often one is faced with anodyne Statements such as that before us today. It could be nothing else. I do not criticise the Prime Minister for presenting nothing; he did rather well. Too often particularly on matters that emanate from European summits one hears general speeches that tell one nothing, only to find months later that the country has been committed to one detail or another that is antagonistic to the good of the UK. Therefore, if there is one positive sentence saying that there will be detailed discussion, that makes the Statement worth listening to because it means something. That is good. It is a sentence of which I heartily approve.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord is disappointed. However, the mere fact that he cannot disagree with the Statement does not make it of no consequence. If one looks at the Statement and the communiqué one sees a good deal of meat. Of course, one does not find total agreement. One would not expect that. My right honourable friend says that this is the first G8 summit that he has attended and he has recognised that it did best, if I may put it inelegantly, when it had time to concentrate and focus on a particular subject. Therefore, he will try next year in Birmingham to focus on two, which I believe most people agree is a sensible way to proceed.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I hope that he will succeed.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord for clarification on a very
1492
important and welcome point made in the Statement; namely, the 300 million dollars that is to be spent on the sarcophagus at Chernobyl. My understanding of the situation is that there is already some commitment on behalf of the G7 countries to repair the sarcophagus. It would be helpful to know whether that is an additional or new commitment to repair the sarcophagus. If so, is the noble Lord able to give any indication of the contribution of the United Kingdom to the cost of that significant, albeit necessary, improvement because it is still in a very dangerous condition?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I shall try to find the precise page in the communiqué that assists the noble and learned Lord. I thought that I had flagged the page. I do not believe that it was a previously existing commitment. The Government of the Ukraine is grateful that 300 million dollars is to be made available. Help has now arrived. I am informed that G7 and other countries have already given some money to the Chernobyl clean up and the Ukraine energy sector, but this is new money to make the sarcophagus safe.

Education (Schools) Bill
4.45 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, in 1845 when Bishop Samuel Wilberforce took his seat in this House Prince Albert gave him the following advice:
"A Bishop ought to abstain completely from mixing himself up with the politics of the day, and beyond giving a general support to the Queen's government, should take no part in the discussion of state affairs".
That remains sound advice. The Prince, however, went on to say:
" … but he should come forward whenever the interests of humanity are at stake, and give boldly and manfully his advice to House and Country (I mean questions like the education of the people, the health of towns, measures for the recreation of the poor, et cetera)".
In the debate in reply to Her Majesty's most gracious Speech my brother prelate the Bishop of Ripon, who is chairman of the Church of England Board of Education, spoke supportively of the Government's commitment to education. I echo that support in general while disagreeing with the subject matter of this Bill. My right reverend brother, had he been able to attend the House today, would not altogether agree with what I am about to say. However, Christians can legitimately differ on many matters, as we do, and remain friends, as we do. Realistically, with the kind of majority that is at the disposal of the present Government, it would be naïve to hope to persuade them to change their mind about an issue to which they referred specifically in their election manifesto. However, there are certain considerations arising from the Government's proposals which I believe have not been given sufficient weight about which I wish to speak briefly.

1493
The Government's proposal concerning assisted places is inextricably linked to the reduction of class sizes in primary schools. No one doubts the rightness of their aims. It is the method with which I and many others are deeply unhappy. Educationally, the assisted places scheme has nothing whatever to do with primary school class sizes. The only link between them is money. The hope is that the savings made by abolishing the one will supply the needs of the other; in other words, the prime declared motive for the abolition of the assisted places scheme is economic. If there is a positive educational reason for so doing it is hard to discern. Quite apart from the doubts already expressed in many places about whether the sums involved add up, there is a moral as well as economic issue at stake in terms of the rightness of destroying something that on any analysis has benefited the education of many thousands of children.
I speak with some experience of these matters and, I trust, without prejudice. My children were educated, at both primary and secondary levels, at local authority and independent schools. They were well educated in both sectors. Two of them are now senior teachers, one in a comprehensive school and the other in an independent preparatory school. For some years before my translation to Norwich I was the Archbishop's adviser to the Headmasters' Conference, providing a link between the Church and the independent schools. Like many in your Lordships' House, I have been a governor of several schools in both sectors of education.
Many of us have sad memories of the abolition of direct grant schools. It was a decision that did little to improve education generally. On the contrary, frequently there was an adverse result when many such schools became fully independent. That resulted in the narrowing of the social spectrum from which the pupils for those schools came. Entry was not a matter only of academic promise but of the ability to pay. The assisted places scheme had the effect, to some extent, of reversing that unfortunate development. The result of its abolition will undoubtedly be, once again, to limit entry to independent schools to the children of parents who are wealthy enough to pay the fees. That is neither good for independent schools nor for educational standards generally.
To comment upon economic matters is perilous territory for anyone on these Benches, though in the past I crossed swords many times with the previous government on the subject of the iniquitous VAT charges on ancient buildings, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, knows well. At the risk of talking as a fool, I do not understand why the improvement of education in one sector must necessarily be at the cost of destroying another; why budgets are so self-contained within one department that it is impossible to devise some way of finding money from some other source. Furthermore, successive governments have underestimated the willingness of the British people to pay the necessary costs of good education. The success of the Liberal Democrats in the recent election may not have been
1494
due just to tactical voting but to their forthright policy of increasing taxation to raise standards in health and education.
As far as I am aware, the abolition of independent education is not on the Government's agenda. Therefore one may assume that the Government have a concern for the children who are educated in those schools. The independent schools are part of our educational system, and a significant part. There is a tradition, dating back to the earliest days when the Church founded many such institutions, of pioneering experiment and innovation which has benefited the whole field of education. That tradition of experiment and innovation is still very much alive, and still of potential benefit to schools of every kind.
That benefit was explicitly recognised recently by the Secretary of State, because he has enlisted Dulwich College and King Edward's School, Birmingham, to assist the Department for Education in a scheme to promote reading ability in state schools. It is ironic, to say the least, that a Government who acknowledge an important function for independent schools and wish to work in partnership with them, should, at the same time, wish to deprive certain children of the benefits of an education in schools which they clearly value.
There is a further related and final point that I want to make. The abolition of the assisted places scheme will inevitably stifle some aspects of the pioneering educational work of independent schools, because it will limit the intake of children to an ever narrower social spectrum, or, rather, economic spectrum.
Among the proper concerns of all education is not just academic achievement but the development of the whole person, which includes an appreciation of what it means to live in a society that is socially and racially mixed. The limitation of entry to independent schools will undermine that primary purpose. The independent schools will survive and probably thrive, but they will be the poorer, because they will become the exclusive preserve of the wealthy. That, in turn, will increase division in a society which the Government are pledged to unite.
Excellence in education is the Government's declared aim. Excellence consists of developing what is good and eliminating what is bad. What, one might ask, is intrinsically bad about the opening of educational opportunities in independent schools to those who would otherwise not be able to benefit from them? Neither excellence in education nor unity in society is best served by the destruction of that which is good.
4.55 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, this is a short and limited Bill. It represents a small part only of the measures which the new Labour Government, through their election manifesto, are pledged to make to improve our education system. The object of the Bill is simple. It is to phase out the assisted places scheme which the previous government introduced in 1981,

1495
and which was one of the first measures that has led to the present divisive and failing state education system.
It is a controversial Bill, because it reflects a fundamental difference between the philosophies of the present Government and the previous government. It concerns the many rather than the few. The priority of the new Labour Government is to raise standards of education for all our children, while the priority of the previous government was to provide, in their view, a superior provision for a small minority of children.
The purpose behind the Bill is to use the resources to help bring down class sizes for the half a million or so primary schoolchildren aged five to seven years in classes of more than 30. As my noble friend said, it is most important that that be done among the younger age group in the first instance.
Members opposite will no doubt criticise, as did their friends in another place, the move on the basis that it will not provide enough money to meet its objectives and, in any case, reducing class sizes, even in infant schools, will not solve all our education problems. Of course they may be right in some respects. but at least the Bill is a step in the right direction. It is a step in the process of doing just that: improving our education system. It is part of a comprehensive programme many of whose facets are already being put in place.
Questions have been raised about how much will be saved by the scheme. Experts are coming up with different figures as to how much will be saved. I am not going to quote any of those figures selectively. There is no doubt that there will be some savings. Of course, if the previous government had continued in office, they would have increased the number of assisted places, which means, as we project into the future, that an increased amount of money would have been spent on a few, and therefore the amount saved will increase.
Currently there are some 38,000 assisted places in the scheme. The numbers involved, as I said, were set to rise under the new government, and so too was the expenditure: from £117.5 million in the current financial year to something like £180 million in the year 1999–2000.
Members of the party opposite have also criticised the Bill on the basis that it will lead to overcrowding and increases in class sizes and will reduce parental choice. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, made quite a point about parental choice. Those arguments are fallacious, as is the whole concept of any meaningful parental choice for the great majority of parents.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State believes that the children involved in the assisted places scheme can be absorbed into the state system. After all, what are we talking about? Of the 38,000 children currently involved, only 43 per cent. are on free places. For the remainder, there is some parental contribution, and as we have already heard this afternoon, one-third of the children already come from the private education sector. Therefore, one can
1496
assume that those and like-minded parents will attempt to keep their children in the system. In any case, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, many of the schools in the private sector are already seeking to build up funds to help provide bursaries for children. In effect, we are talking about the 10,000 or so pupils who would enter the scheme each year. It would be realistic to assume that approximately 50 per cent. of those pupils will remain in the private sector. Therefore, we are talking about an additional 5,000-odd pupils a year.
If the scheme is as successful as noble Lords opposite claim, those children should be evenly spread over the country, as are the 80,000 empty places within the existing provisions of the LEAs. Therefore, all could be easily accommodated. If the pupils are not so evenly spread, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, indicated and as I suspect, and there are clusters in more prosperous areas, the scheme is flawed on grounds of geographical as well as educational discrimination. According to the Audit Commission report on supply and the allocation of school places published last autumn, one in six schools currently has more than 25 per cent. of places unfilled while one in five is more than 5 per cent. above the MOE capacity; that is the previous government's open enrolment measure of physical capacity.
That position has been getting worse. Between 1994–95. the percentage of secondary schools in which the numbers on roll exceeded the MOE test increased from 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. The secondary school population was projected to rise by 12 per cent. between 1996 and 2004. At primary school level in England, 31.8 per cent. of pupils are in classes of more than 30. The percentage increased in each year during the four years prior to the 1996 audit. However, we must ask by what standard the Opposition criticise the new Labour Government, bearing in mind that they left the state system in such a situation. What plans had they in place to cope with it? So far as I can see, none, except to transfer further money to the private sector through providing more assisted places. That is an expensive and increasingly divisive approach to a problem which, according to the Audit Commission, arose to a considerable extent as a result of the tensions and conflicts in the policy objectives of the previous government.
The Bill seeks to end a mistaken and inequitable use of education resources. It does not attempt to put in place alternative policies. Such policies will be outlined in the anticipated White Paper to which my noble friend referred and in the subsequent Bill, which we shall have in the autumn. I look forward to the introduction of that Bill. In the meantime, I welcome this Bill as an important means of paving the way.
5.4 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Bill comes as no surprise to us. It was well trailed during the general election campaign. Although we knew that it was coming early, it is nevertheless both nasty and

1497
mean-spirited. In that respect, I agree so much with my noble friend Lord Henley. It is extremely difficult to see it as other than a political sop.
It is indeed ironic that the Bill comes from a government led by a Prime Minister who was educated at Fettes—an excellent school, which takes assisted-place pupils—who during the general election campaign asked the British people to trust him and who looked for the support of the whole community. The Government have hardly been in office five minutes before introducing a piece of legislation which breaks a promise that was made quite clearly during the general election campaign. We shall expect during the course of the Bill to have a more satisfactory answer than we have yet received.
The Bill does not take into account the whole community; it leaves out the children in assisted places. The way in which they have been referred to today is in many ways disgraceful. They are real children in real schools; they are not just numbers on a list. I wonder how many of those who are so critical of the scheme have met any of them, have visited the schools and have seen how so many children have had opportunities and have benefited in ways that would not otherwise have been available. I do not believe that such children are being helped, although I for one would include them in "the community". I was interested in the points made by the right reverend Prelate about the fact that the Government have already asked the independent schools to give them help in raising standards.
We should not be surprised by the Bill. After all, it follows traditional Labour Party policy. I well recall the previous Labour Government abolishing the direct grant schools in 1976, when the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, was Secretary of State for Education. It would be difficult to argue that the abolition of the direct grant schools raised standards or helped the education of the people of this country. Undoubtedly, those schools were some of the academically best. Most scientists would agree that they produced a large proportion of this country's scientists and they were damaged by the ending of the direct grants.
Another untrue statement is that the assisted places scheme is a subsidy to the schools. The direct grant scheme was a subsidy to the schools, but those of us who were interested in trying to find a replacement looked to the assisted places scheme, which is a help to the pupils and not to the schools. It is difficult to believe that as a result of the Bill educational standards will rise.
I agree with the Minister on two points. We all want educational standards to rise and we would all like smaller class sizes. However, it is difficult to believe that the Bill will achieve either. There is no real link between the two points and, as my noble friend Lord Henley made clear, the sums do not add up. I shall not repeat the argument, because he made it plain, but I agree with what he said.
We know that independent schools have high academic standards. The figures are there for all to see. In 1995–96, 80 per cent. of 15 year-olds at
1498
independent schools gained five or more passes at grades A to C at GCSE, compared with an overall national average of 43 per cent. Furthermore, 80 per cent. of A-level pupils at independent schools gained three or more passes. The national average, including independent schools, was 58 per cent. No one can consider that that achievement is bad; it is what we want for all schools. It shows that independent schools offer high academic standards and parents would not choose to send their children to them if they did not.
Therefore, what is the point of the legislation? The Minister, in her concluding remarks, said that she objected to the assisted places scheme on principle. First, the argument is that parental choice is not enhanced. I did not follow the Minister's argument on that. It seemed to be that there is no parental choice because the schools determine who attends them. But all parental choice works like that. Indeed, the Prime Minister chose a grant-maintained school for his son, and I have no doubt that that school chooses whether to have the pupils who come to it. Moreover, when the Minister's right honourable friend, Ms Harman, chose to send her son to a grammar school, again such a school will choose whether it will admit the pupils who apply. That is not an absence of freedom of choice; it is the way that freedom of choice works.
We have also been told that assisted places have not been a ladder of opportunity. However, if one looks at the facts, it will be seen that 46 per cent. of assisted-place pupils come from socio-economic groups C2, D and E, with an additional 37 per cent. coming from socio-economic group C1. That means 83 per cent. are coming from what I do not believe anyone would describe as the richest section of society. As 11 per cent. of assisted-place pupils come from ethnic minorities, it seems to me that the scheme is providing a great service. About 42 per cent. of the places are free because the families concerned have an annual income of less than £9,873 and the average annual income of assisted-place families is £10,650. It is a ladder of opportunity, and I am sorry that it is being pulled away and not extended.
Further, we are told that the scheme does not add value. That is simply not true. In 1995–96, Dr. Anne West of the Centre for Educational Research at the London School of Economics, studied the A-level results of a group of assisted-place holders and compared them with the results of academically matched contemporaries who had been offered assisted places but eventually took up places in state schools. She found that the assisted-place pupils achieved results on average between one-and-a-half and three grades higher than their state school counterparts. As everyone knows, such results make an enormous difference when it comes to a choice of university and a course at university.
As I said earlier, the scheme does add value. It is not a subsidy to schools; independent schools will continue when there are no assisted places. Many of them could fill their places over and over again. However, for the reasons clearly spelt out by the right

1499
reverend Prelate, it is not in anyone's best interests for independent schools to become exclusively places only for the rich. Indeed, it would not enhance the reputation of the schools, it would not help children and it would not help the country as a whole.
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said that Conservatives use the scheme simply to provide something for the few. If the noble Baroness reads through the policies that we pursued while in government, she will see that we did a great deal to enhance choice—not only parental choice as laid down by Act of Parliament early on in 1980, but also by the establishment of grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges, specialist schools for languages, and so on. Indeed, there was a great variety of schools, all designed to provide more opportunities for children with different abilities and talents. The assisted places scheme is one part of that whole.
Perhaps I may conclude on the rather heartless argument of saying that there are 800,000 places in the maintained system and they are empty. The first question that one has to ask oneself is: why are they empty? The chances are that those places are in unpopular schools; in other words, people do not want to send their children to those schools and, therefore, there are empty places. Is that the right place to direct assisted-place pupils? In effect, far from being given great benefits, it is quite possible that those children will be callously sent off to schools which are not very good. It is difficult to see how that will raise educational standards for them.
So far as concerns regional variations, independent schools are spread exactly evenly from one end of the country to the other. Therefore, one would expect to have regional variations. However, in so far as it has been possible, those schools which have wished to join the scheme have been spread throughout the country. If there are some areas without any assisted places, it probably means that they are without any independent schools where that would apply.
I believe that the assisted places scheme has given enormous opportunities to the children in it. It is only the children who will be hurt by this legislation. It is very sad that the scheme is now to be wound up. I do not believe that it will make any difference to class sizes because the sums do not add up. Further, the Government will have to find considerably more money than they presently intend to do if they are to achieve what they want. The Government will have to realise that once they say that no class size can rise above 30, popular schools may find that they will have to prevent many parents from having their first choice. I do not use that as an important argument because we would all like to see standards rising and class sizes falling. However, one has to ask oneself: what is the purpose of the Bill? I find it difficult to see that it will achieve any educational objective, despite having listened to arguments this afternoon put forward in support of the legislation. This is a very sad day for education; it is indeed a tragedy for the children concerned.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, there is one thing that I simply do not understand about the speech just made by the noble Baroness. She said that there has been criticism of the children who have assisted places. I do not remember either of my noble friends saying a single word against assisted places; indeed, they did not do so. Those children who now have assisted places will be able to finish their careers in their present schools. I believe that to be both generous and right. Nevertheless, I very much resent the way that we have been attacked for no reason.
It gives me very great pleasure to be taking part today in this Second Reading debate on the Bill which abolishes the assisted places scheme. The reason for my great pleasure is not only my strong dislike of the scheme and my disapproval of it as unprincipled in giving help to the few at the expense of the many, but also that, some 17 years ago, I led the opposition to the 1980 Act. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, then led for the government, and, judging from her speech today, as I would have predicted, her views have not changed at all—
Baroness Young: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness, but I feel I should stress that I thought I was right then and I think that I am right today.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am not surprised.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her clear exposition of the Bill and the principles behind it. The aim to improve the standards of education for the very young by reducing class sizes for five to seven year-olds, to give them a better start in life, surely cannot be disputed. A good early education is recognised today as having a profoundly beneficial effect on the whole of a child's education. No parent wants to see their child in an overcrowded class with an overstretched teacher in charge. Those who query the size of a class making a difference should ask any teacher or, indeed, any parent who opts for a private school.
When shall we learn to trust the teachers and give them back the confidence that they have had taken from them over recent years? The flight from the profession by heads and deputy heads by means of early retirement is evidence enough of the poor treatment that they have had from these Tory governments. Indeed, yesterday we heard that the number of those entering teacher training this year is down by 11 per cent. If noble Lords opposite point to some teachers who have been stroppy—and they sometimes seem to enjoy doing that—they should remember the vast bulk of the profession who are dedicated, do a good job and are just fed up with the way that they have been criticised. They have had to cope with constantly changing policies (for example, changes to the National Curriculum and testing) and a huge increase in paperwork.
I looked back at the Second Reading debate on the 1980 Bill in which Lord Butler of Saffron Walden took an important part. He was not happy with various

1501
parts of the Bill, transport being one area that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will remember well for the defeat that she suffered there. Of the assisted places scheme Lord Butler said:
"I am not very taken by this clause".
He went on to say:
"I therefore believe that this Bill is based upon the idea that a few assisted places may help; but now, when we find that the scheme has been halved—it is not going to cost £50 million in five or six years. it is going to cost only a few million in the next year or two; and in my view it cannot affect more than 5,000, 6,000 or 7,000 pupils"—
of course, the price has now risen to practically £160 million, with 37,000 students involved—
"I really wonder whether the money might not be saved on this and given over to rural transport. I would not regret that at all, partly because I am, as was indicated in an article in the Sunday Times, especially keen to see the sixth-form classes at comprehensive schools improved. They are slowly improving. I have now retired from a great college, but my college is beginning to take sixth-form scholars of comprehensive schools, and I am encouraging them to take more. That means an improvement in the classes. I think that what is really wanted in education is an improvement in the State system".—[Official Report, 25/2/80; cols. 1048–1049.]
Lord Butler was an enlightened Tory, and, apart from some notable exceptions—a good many in this House—they seem a vanishing breed. He really wanted the state system to improve for the benefit of all children.
Over the years, the scheme—made out to be so modest in 1980—has expanded and expanded, as have the costs. In 1981, 220 schools took part, three more in 1983 and three more in 1984. The manifesto pledge that 35,000 places would be available by the mid-nineties meant that another 52 English schools had to be admitted. That was in fact achieved by 1989. But as there was some imbalance in provision in areas such as the Midlands and the North East—the same uneven geographical distribution had been the case with the direct grant schools-17 more schools were admitted to the scheme in 1996. To show what a good thing the independent schools think it is for them, 100 more applied to join.
I was amused to read in my files on the 1980 Bill an article by an education correspondent in November 1980 which ended,
"One thing is clear, the APS schools like the bookies, cannot lose. Apart from creaming off an invaluable proportion of talented youngsters from the maintained sector they are going to be paid handsomely for their trouble. With hundreds of applicants at each school paying registration and examination fees, I estimate in this aspect alone the APS is a £250,000 bonanza for the independent sector. With a bonus, I am sure, of many extra fee paying pupils who do not end up with a win in the APS competition".
That correspondent was from the Daily Mail.
When the scheme started, it was intended for the very high flyers, and the schools to which they were to go were to be the really excellent. Before a school was admitted in those early years, HMI was able to comment on the quality of the school, and say if it deserved to have these special pupils and income from the state. That has not happened recently: and certainly some of the schools now in the scheme cannot compare with the best comprehensives.
1502
Another way in which the scheme has developed is in the age range at which pupils can take up a place—from 11 to 12, 13 and sixth form level. And then at the 1995 Conservative conference Mr. Major announced that the scheme would be doubled in size. So followed the cynical move in the final education Bill of the Tory Government to increase the scope of the scheme to include primary schools this year. That will mean the schools affected will go up from 293 to 355, and from some 5,700 entry places overall to 10,500. A piece of briefing that I received just before the debate states that the number of schools is now 477, but that does not match up with any other figure I have seen. Perhaps the noble Baroness can explain that. Unfortunately, although the 1997 Bill was severely truncated because of the early calling of the election, that clause was not deleted. The regulation that children must spend the two years previous to taking a place in a maintained school could no longer apply.
Regulations are issued each year, primarily to update the financial arrangements for parents' contributions in line with inflation. Not only did they do that very generously, in 1984, for instance, by over 6 per cent. when inflation was 5 per cent., and that at a time when student grants were to be increased by only 4 per cent. Also that year the provision that a child could be eligible for a sixth form place only if the local authority agreed, was revoked. (This had been put in to appease Lord Butler.)
The evidence I have seen seems to show that poorer families were well represented among those gaining places; two out of five households receiving help had incomes below £9,874. But the poll—incidentally it was an ISIS poll, therefore an independent school poll—showed that the proportion of professional and managerial families receiving financial support through the scheme had increased by 8 per cent. since 1991. ISIS suggests that this is through executive unemployment and business crashes. But we must also remember that a well-off household could receive help if more than one child in the family had a place, particularly if the children were at high fee schools. It is argued that the scheme has benefited the artificially poor. The middle classes, always smart at seeing what is to their advantage, have profited much more than the working classes. Professor Freeman of Middlesex University has pointed out that up to two-thirds of students taking up places at 16 are already fee-paying pupils in that school. What has happened to the rule that those taking up places should have spent two years in a maintained school? The original safeguards have slipped and slipped away.
I have emphasised my opposition to the APS as a matter of educational principle. The Government have said they will use the savings that accrue from its abolition to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven year-olds. It is vitally important, therefore, that the savings are as large as possible and occur as rapidly as possible. I know that my noble friend told us something about this in her opening speech but I think it needs to be made absolutely clear. Could she tell

1503
us when expenditure on the scheme will fall from the £160 million mentioned to zero? I understand that the savings are estimated to be only £100 million by the year 2000. Why is the figure as low as that? Is it to do with the extension of the scheme to primary schools in the 1997 Act? Apart from the entry class this year, can my noble friend assure me that the effect of this Bill is to limit the primary school concession to this year only? Am I to understand that we are committed to some of these pupils until they are 13? Other people have asked that. I hope she will answer these questions when she winds up.
The important thing to remember is that this Bill is about improving the state system of education in this country and raising standards. Professor Rutter in his book 15,000 Hours showed how a few bright children in a school could have a very beneficial effect on the whole school. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said:
"We, the profession, teachers and the majority of parents have agreed that class size matters. We must therefore ask, to which children does it matter? Does it matter to only a few, or to all our children in all our schools? The answer is very simple; we have a choice between excellence for a few or high quality education for the many. We have made a choice in favour of the many, because we know that, both for the individuals concerned and for social cohesion and the economy, literacy and numeracy matter to every one of us".
I support the Bill.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, this Bill covers Scotland. There are of course different Ministers and systems north and south of the Border and it is no doubt convenient to deal with the same subject in one Bill. I find I am the only speaker from Scotland in the debate. That is one reason I decided to take part. Another reason was that I was in the chair for four years of the Scottish Council of Independent Schools, since its inception in 1976. The council worked out a system of assisted places for Scotland which was adopted as the basis for the one now operating.
My third reason for taking part today is that I was Secretary of State for Scotland from 1970 to 1974 and so exercised central government's responsibility for schools in Scotland at a time when the future of the grant-aided schools had started to become a political issue. Incidentally, no Secretary of State from any party who has held that appointment before me is still alive. Consequently I feel I am in a good position to rehearse briefly the recent history that has led to the present situation in Scotland. I shall start 34 years ago when, following other roles in government, I was a junior Minister in the Scottish Office in 1963–64.
The grant-aided schools in Scotland were broadly the equivalent to the direct grant schools in England and Wales. Twenty or 30 per cent., or even more, of their costs were being met by government grants. There were scales for fee paying and various selection arrangements. Those schools set out in particular to take pupils with academic abilities. The intention was that
1504
parents of such children did not have to pay more than they could afford in fees. A Labour Government came into office in 1964 and froze the level of those grants. With inflation, the effect was their reduction.
When a Conservative Government returned six years later in 1970, the grant-aided system in Scotland was still in place and the new Government restored the earlier arrangements. I was Secretary of State; and I did so in Scotland. However, when the Labour Government arrived in 1974 they set about abolishing those grants altogether—they did not freeze them—by phasing them out. The schools then had to take decisions about their future. Individually they chose various courses.
In opposition, the Conservative Party studied how the principle could be retained. We were encouraged by many who hoped that bright and able children would still be enabled to benefit from appropriate schooling, although their parents might not be well off and could not afford the full economic fees. There were of course parents who were comfortably off as well.
The grant-aided schools in Scotland have produced leaders and successful professionals in all walks of life. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Steel—who made an outstanding maiden speech a few days ago—and my right honourable friend Mr. Malcolm Rifkind were at George Watson's in Edinburgh. I could give other notable examples. Those schools contained centres of excellence.
The Scottish Council of Independent Schools, realising that grants would be abolished, as they were, set itself the task of formulating a new scheme to continue the principle behind the grant-aided schools. As in England and Wales, we felt that starting again from scratch it would be fairest to attach future grants to pupils rather than schools. It would have been difficult and invidious to make a new selection of schools to receive grants. Some of the previous grant-aided schools had undergone considerable changes.
In those independent schools which joined the scheme, places would be offered subject to conditions. In the event, the large majority of schools joined, including, if my memory serves me right, Fettes College. After the Conservative Government took office in 1979, the assisted places scheme was introduced north and south of the Border. Now this Bill is designed to remove it. Parents of able and academic children—those parents may not be well off—will no longer be able to find appropriate places for the children. The scales of fees to be paid depended on the family circumstances. An efficient and popular system is to be scrapped.
I shall say a few words generally about traditional attitudes in Scotland to education. There has always been co-operation—I speak of a couple of hundred years; I do not refer to my own lifetime, but well before—in Scottish communities to help academic or talented young people to fulfil their potential. I am old enough to remember that in the 1930s both in the Highlands and in Glasgow there was no sense of envy. Combined efforts would be directed to helping a local

1505
child to continue his or her schooling and to reach university when it seemed likely that they would excel there; and very often they did.
In Scotland this value placed on education has been evident over a long period. I shall give examples from two centuries. At the end of the last century, one school, the High School of Glasgow, produced two Prime Ministers: Mr. Campbell-Bannerman and Mr. Bonar Law. In the 18th century, the same school produced two eminent generals: Sir John Moore, who died, still young for his rank, at Coruna, and is renowned still in the British Army for creating and training the first light infantry; and General Sir Colin Campbell, the first Lord Clyde, who was the son of a shoemaker. I could give many more examples from other Scottish schools. I do not suggest that those schools at that time were operating under the modern grant-aided scheme, but they were operating under the same principle.
I look forward to hearing my noble friend Lord Pilkington when he winds up and congratulate him on his position on the Front Bench. I have known him for 30 years since the time when he was a young teacher. He went on to exalted heights as the headmaster of more than one illustrious school.
In conclusion, I would have expected old Labour to do away with grant-aided schools, as they did in the late 1970s. Is it really consistent with the aims of New Labour to be destroying schemes that assist ability in the young where personal parental finance is lacking? Is it too late to have second thoughts? What about a review, ruling nothing in and nothing out? If the Bill goes ahead—I suspect for populist reasons—destroying the schemes will be regarded in the future as academic vandalism.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, it would be hard to argue with the objective of reducing class sizes in junior schools or any other schools. I cannot help wondering whether this Bill does so in the way that I would have chosen. Should we do that by robbing Peter to pay Paul? Would it not have been better perhaps to throw new money at the problem? However, I gain the impression—I do not know from where—that this is a party political issue. It may be more appropriate for me from these Benches to take a more general view of the situation.
When the assisted places scheme has had a decent burial, I plead with the Government and express the hope that they will consider the great contribution which independent schools have made and could make in the future to the education of this country. I was much encouraged by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the Government's policy statement that they hope to work in partnership with the independent system.
I intend to speak today about my personal experience. Therefore I cannot avoid explaining a little of the background. For nearly three decades I have been a governor of Kings School, Canterbury. I attended the last governors' meeting this morning. I was given a very good lunch; I hope that that will not affect my ability
1506
to communicate with your Lordships. For over four decades I have been a governor of Northbourne Park School and a governor of two maintained schools.
I have nothing to declare because I have had no advantages from any of those situations. On the other hand, I and my family have made a commitment to reinvest the rent for the house—it belongs to me—from Northbourne Park School to help individual pupils to attend the school. From my long observation and experience I am convinced that there are young people who can gain enormous benefit from good, caring boarding education, especially when their lives have been torn apart by their experiences in the family. Children to whom that happens are not by any means restricted to those who are able to afford to pay. In our society today there are more and more children who could benefit from boarding education at some stage in their lives. There are parents who work long hours and are often away from home; there are broken homes; there are many fewer grandparents (and extended families) who are able to support their grandchildren.
I recognise the argument that the independent sector can be socially divisive. In so far as that is true, I deplore it. But surely the solution must be to widen the scope and range of those who enjoy the benefits which children in independent education enjoy today, and not to destroy the schools that provide those benefits.
Let no one be under any illusion that, by removing independent schools, what was described by Belloc as the "hoary social curse" will go away. My wife is French and I have the advantage of knowing something of French education and society. In spite of the fact that Frenchmen all call one another "monsieur" and nearly all send their children to the lycée, I assure the House that those who regard themselves as the upper crust in French society are no less arrogant and conceited than their opposite numbers in this country—far from it!
We should be looking at what independent education has to give. The assisted places scheme did not necessarily address that problem very effectively. The major advantages afforded by independent education in this country, which are not available to any considerable extent in the maintained sector, are: first, (in the better schools) good, caring boarding; secondly, high staff ratios and very good pastoral care; and thirdly (apart from the high standard of education) a wide variety of extra-curricular activities and sports which provide opportunities for children to build confidence and gain experience for life. In a perfect world those advantages should be available to all children who need them, both those who can pay and those who cannot, and in particular to those children who lack happy, secure, supportive homes. The cost of a boarding place in an English public school is about half the cost of a place in a special school.
Perhaps I may relate the story of one boy whom I shall call Peter, although it is not his real name. He came to the Stepney Children's Fund camps at the age of 10, about nine years ago. He was deeply disturbed. He had been rejected by both his parents and had had eight foster placements, all of which he had rejected.

1507
The social services department was in despair as to what to do with him and decided that he needed boarding education. A place was found for him in a state boarding school at a cost of £28,000 a year. Quite reasonably, the department decided that it could not afford that. I was able to find a place for him in an independent school in Kent under the assisted places scheme. He was lucky enough to have an extremely intelligent and flexible head of social services who was able to agree to pay the boarding fee. He went to the school and was cared for under the pastoral care system there. He did well at the school. He is now about to pass out of college and already has a management training place with one of the major supermarkets. That is a small success story for the APS. The noble Baroness may well say that one swallow does not make a summer. My reply would be: de mortuis nihil nisi bonum—this story may be a useful epitaph for the assisted places scheme.
When the assisted places scheme has been laid to rest, we should not as a nation demonise the independent sector because of its weaknesses. We should examine its strengths and try to build on them, so as to enrich the total provision that we can make for all children in this country.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on her appointment. We have enjoyed arguing about education for many years and I dare say we shall continue to do so. The noble Baroness and her department will be hard put to compress the rising demand for education within the straitjacket imposed by the Chancellor; however, I wish her well.
The Bill is designed to phase out the assisted places scheme. From the year 1998–99 there will be no new entrants into the scheme. By the year 2004–05 no pupils will be educated under it. The object of the exercise, stated clearly in the explanatory and financial memorandum, is to realise savings,
"which will be spent on reducing infant class sizes in the maintained sector".
I do not want to spend time debating the merits of reducing infant class sizes or how much that will cost. I mention in passing the interesting fact that between 1991 and 1996 the average pupil-teacher ratio in primary schools remained unchanged at about 22, while the percentage of pupils in classes of over 30 increased from 20 to 27. Evidently, it is not the pupil-teacher ratio that is crucial but the way in which schools organise their teaching and the ratio of administration to teaching. I hope the Government will give some consideration to reducing the administrative burdens on schools. That will lower the cost of reducing class sizes.
I should like to concentrate on one point. The Government have claimed, somewhat imprudently, that almost the whole cost of reducing infant classes to 30 can be met by abolishing assisted places. The savings are calculated at £100 million by the year 2000, which will more than pay for the new teachers and classes required. That has been challenged from two sides—the cost of reducing class sizes to 30 will be greater than the Government expect, and savings from abolishing the
1508
assisted places scheme will be less. I want to concentrate on the savings aspect since that is crucial to the whole argument.
The Government's view is that there is a choice between assisting some 40,000 pupils to get a superior education and reducing class sizes for approximately 450,000 infant school pupils—a choice, as the Secretary of State said in another place,
"between excellence for a few or high-quality education for the many".
The Minister echoed that idea today.
My contention is that this is a false choice; and the arithmetic bears me out. Indeed, it is worse than that. If the savings from abolishing the assisted places scheme are non-existent, or negligible, its abolition imposes two costs on society: reduction of choice and the lowering of educational quality for about 40,000 pupils. Those are two costs without any compensating advantages.
Having examined the figures, I believe that the Government's estimate of savings is wildly optimistic. Their calculation is as follows. The Government spend on average £3,900 for an assisted place. There are, or are shortly to be, 40,000 pupils with assisted places. Abolishing the assisted places scheme will therefore eventually save about £160 million a year. The Government expect that the annual saving will reach £100 million a year by the year 2000. That is expected to be the net annual saving, the amount that would be available for reducing infant class sizes in the maintained sector in three years' time.
The Government's view of the savings they will achieve seems to be based on the extraordinary proposition that 30,000 or so pupils who by the year 2000 would have been deprived of an assisted place through the run-down of the scheme will be accommodated almost costlessly within the state system. Why do they believe something so absurd? Apparently the Government believe that these extra pupils will take up spare places in the maintained schools, which will cost the state almost nothing. We have the airy statement by the Minister for school standards in the other place, Mr. Byers, that there are 800,000 empty places within the existing LEA provision, leaving ample scope for absorbing additional pupils. The Minister said today that she expected "no significant additional burden".
Noble Lords should recognise that the figures of vacancies are totally irrelevant to the problem of cost. Schools are funded on a per-pupil basis. If school enrolment increases by 40,000, school budgets rise automatically in line with the standard cost per pupil in the relevant area. There is no mechanism for removing this extra cost. The extra children do not turn up at their school with a placard saying, "I would have had an assisted place, therefore you must take me at no extra cost to yourself". There is no way of identifying the source of extra numbers; schools simply budget for them whether or not they have spare capacity.
The only reputable way of calculating net saving is that adopted by the Institute of Fiscal Studies in its recent analysis. It assumes that the net saving is the difference between the average annual cost of an assisted place, £3,900, and the average annual cost of a

1509
maintained place, £2,700, a difference of £1,200. On that basis, net annual saving by year three of the run-down is not £100 million but £28 million, compared with the cost of restricting infant classes to 30 in that year of £105 million. That leaves a funding gap of £77 million.
Even that may be too rosy a picture. In estimating net saving, what we need to know is not the difference between the average cost of an assisted place and a maintained place but the difference between the average cost of an assisted place and the actual cost of the maintained place equivalent. Many pupils with assisted places would actually cost the state more than £2,700 in the maintained sector. For example, 9,000 of the assisted places are in sixth forms, where the difference in cost between an assisted place and a maintained place is much less than £1,200. In addition, the standard spending assessment per pupil in some areas, particularly urban areas, is much higher than in others. Assisted places pupils drawn from such areas may cost the Government less now than their maintained sector counterparts.
And that is not all. The average cost given for a state school pupil omits capital grants, whereas the fees of independent schools cover most of their capital spending. In 1995 independent schools spent an average of £550 per pupil on new facilities. Per-pupil capital expenditure in the maintained sector may well be less on average—I do not have the figures—but any allowance made under this head would reduce the difference in cost, and thus net saving, even further.
There is, of course, one way in which the Government could squeeze extra savings from abolishing assisted places, and that is by reducing its spending per pupil, and thus increasing class sizes, in its secondary schools. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether that is in fact the Government's intention. If it is, it will certainly come as a great surprise to those who voted for the Labour Party in May.
What are we to conclude from all this? A reasonable view would be that the net savings from abolishing the assisted places scheme would be very low—at most, in the order of £20 million a year over the seven-year run-down—as against the cost of reducing infant class size of £70 million a year over the same period. These savings are chicken-feed to the dragons of rising public spending on education. The financial link between the two projects—the claim that they are alternatives—is largely spurious.
What is left, it seems to me, is simply an old-fashioned piece of class war. Mr. Gerald Kaufman asked in another place why parents in his constituency should subsidise assisted places for a few privileged children, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, made the same point in this debate. The fact is that over the country as a whole the subsidy is massively the other way. Fee-paying parents save the state about £2.5 billion a year, £1.25 billion that would otherwise be spent educating 600,000 children in state schools and an equivalent amount that independent-school parents pay in tax for state education which they do not use. Let us at any rate be clear about who is subsidising whom.
1510
I should like to conclude with a general observation. At present we have in this country a huge state education system which runs side by side with a very small independent sector. On the one side we have the planned provision of a standardised product; on the other side, variety, choice and a great deal of excellence. The Bill, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, raises barriers between the two systems even higher than they are at the moment. But there is really no reason to continue this way. Education does not have to be centrally planned and publicly provided; it is so only because since the war governments have, through heavy taxes, prevented most parents buying the education they want for their children. I should like to see the private sector in education expand. That ought to be the goal of my party, which should also challenge the reformers in the Government. Stopping people getting what they want is a characteristic feature of the old state socialism; it is the reverse of what we on these Benches think about education; and I submit that it should have no place in the thinking of New Labour.
5.57 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, the Bill did not come as any surprise to those on this side of the House; it was indeed among the issues mentioned before the general election and when it came we were expecting it. But the extraordinary pronouncements, conduct and attitude of the Prime Minister which appeared to show that new Labour was not so very far away from the policies and thinking of the Conservative Party certainly do not stretch to this Bill. The Bill has caused us to revert to our opinion of the Labour Party as it was in the 1970s—that is, old Labour. This return to old Labour restores its position to what it was before 1979 by abolishing the assisted places scheme and restores its lack of any clear policy to improve teaching standards in maintained schools.
I agree with what my noble friend Lord Skidelsky said about the way that this so-called policy has not been thought out. We have seen over and over again that school standards are not radically altered by the number of children in a class but by the qualities of the teachers, especially those of the headteacher. While there are some excellent teachers and headteachers whose standing and abilities are effective in their schools, that position is by no means general. There will be little change in the quality of schools unless consideration is given to more than just the numbers in classrooms. From the speeches we have heard from the other side of the House and those made in another place, it seemed as though a magic wand would be waved to reduce the number of children in a class to under 30 and all would be well; the children would become brilliant, would pass their exams and become great academics or whatever one wished them to be. We know perfectly well that none of that is true.
So far there has been no guidance on those issues, no evidence of an intention to improve on inadequate teaching, no information about methods to be used to encourage teachers and headteachers to apply successful methods, leading to improvement. There has been practically no information on the Bill at all, even to

1511
those who are keen and interested to know what the intentions of the Government are. A White Paper has been promised, but when will it be produced? It was going to be in June. It would have been helpful to have had it before debating the Bill, not after. It is to be hoped that in future the Government, when they have got used to being in government, will seek to ensure that a White Paper is published before introducing the relevant Bill. When there is no White Paper, as in the present case, it leads to the belief, regrettably, that the Government are determined to abolish a system that they dislike because it is not in accordance with their principles. It has nothing to do with whether several thousand children have benefited from new opportunities to learn and study at a higher level than might otherwise have been the case. That is not the reason for this particular Bill.
Those children have mainly come from families with very low incomes. Over 40 per cent. of those families have a gross annual income of below £10,000. We have been into all the figures and it has been pointed out that at least 83 per cent. of the families do indeed have low incomes. Yet, over 90 per cent. of those children have achieved high grades in their GCSEs and A-levels, far more than the average of the maintained schools at the same ages. The denial of that opportunity to a broad selection of young children is based on the old Labour policy of central planning and equality at the lowest common level. We have been given no evidence that standards in schools are to be or can be raised, strengthening the abilities and skills of the young. Reduction in numbers will not have positive effects in schools without other improvements and changes as well.
There is also anxiety concerning the financial consequences of the Bill. Other noble Lords have also touched on that matter. It is stated that savings will be around £100 million by the year 2000. But that figure at least is surely controversial. The figures can only be estimated and not known. Consequently, they vary—estimates always vary. A departmental estimate in 1996 forecast that reducing class numbers for five, six and seven year-olds could cost between £120 million and £250 million, those estimated costs being for additional teachers only. So said Robin Squire, speaking in the other place on 28th October 1996. The Institute of Public Finance estimated that to phase out assisted places schemes could cause a deficit of up to £250 million.
I know that those are controversial figures and that they are estimates. But we must recognise that they are estimates which are given by highly reputable organisations. They must be taken into account when planning some particular future policy. As I said, all those figures are only estimates but it is evident that, if class sizes are cut to 30 pupils or below, the choice of school available to a parent will be more limited. By the generally agreed principle of supply and demand, it will be the unpopular school—that is, the less efficient school—which will have places to offer. That will be the problem. As the assisted places are phased out, those children will not have the opportunity to go into schools where the classes are few and smaller but will only have
1512
the opportunity to go to those schools which have been neglected or are not recognised as good schools in the general neighbourhood where the children live.
One important issue affecting about 1,700 children has also been raised. There are 2,000 children at present in assisted places in junior schools, who, under the Government's current proposals, will cease to benefit from that education at the age of 11. It is understood that the Government will use their discretion as to those children who might be allowed to stay on until the age of 13 in those areas where there are not local schools which terminate at 11, when the children go on to the next stage of their education.
But it is no consolation to parents, or indeed to the children, to know what is to happen to them or what discretion will be used by the relevant Minister. It is not a way to treat children who have been working hard at a high level to get on with their studies and with their life just to chuck them out on to a kind of dustheap and to be told. "We are not going to keep you in this kind of school any more. You will have to go back to whatever school is in your area." It will not be the best school—as I said, those are the schools in which numbers are going down—and the children will have a very hard time of it.
The relaxation by the Government, under heavy pressure, to enable 330 children to maintain their assisted places up to the age of 13, so enabling them to go straight on to their next school, is indeed to be welcomed. But it does not solve the problem of the other 1,700 or so children who will have to be removed from their preparatory schools at the age of 11. Some schools have offered assisted places to some of those young school children. It looks as though schools themselves are seeking to raise funding to meet the costs that are now government funded. Those schools will contribute to carrying on in new ways the assisted places schemes which are now being brought to an end. The right reverend Prelate in his speech clearly expressed concern over that particular action. In fact, it is a typical case of the Government withdrawing funds and it being left to individuals to seek out new ways of solving a major problem and dealing with it.
I am sure we shall find that schools will react. Certainly that applies to Manchester Grammar School. The Girls Public Day Schools—there are 25 of them in the south of England—intend to find ways of getting round that problem. That is to be warmly welcomed. The Government should be thankful that there are still people in this country with the courage and initiative to meet these problems and that when the Government make a mess of things there are individuals who can get round the difficulties and find new solutions.
But perhaps the Government may have coherent answers to some of the problems that have been raised so far in today's debate. We shall certainly look forward to the noble Baroness's reply when she comes to wind up the debate. If we do not hear the answers from her, we may perhaps find them in that mythical White Paper which may be published next month.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, in the high summer of 1945, I left the training college where I had been prepared for teaching and went to teach in the public education system. Up to that date my preparation had been at the Neyland Board School, followed by two years at Trinity College, Carmarthen. Then I began to teach.
At that time, education in Britain was a patchwork. The type of education that you received depended on where you lived. It was a patchwork because not enough public money was devoted to it. In fact, only in certain areas were sufficient sums of money available to provide a decent education for those who could not afford to pay for it themselves. That is an issue that has been stated time and again. In this country there are a great many such people. The right reverend Prelate is not in his seat, so I cannot refer to what he said, but he was wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, has put on this education debate an influence which is all his own. It ignores the fact that there are still thousands of families in this country who, even when they want to do so, cannot afford to educate their children. The system has to be rearranged and has to provide for those people.
In the past couple of days I have shown your Lordships the national newspaper of Wales. This debate applies to Wales. The noble Lord who used to be Secretary of State for Scotland, when the Conservative Party had Secretaries of State for Scotland, has told the Chamber that this Bill applies to Scotland, as it does to Wales. The headline in today's national newspaper of Wales is:
"Classrooms in chaos fear as teachers quit".
The text goes on to sketch out the fact that the people who would normally have gone into teaching under the old system no longer see teaching as an attractive profession. There are great difficulties in the education system in Britain, which we forget when we boast of what we have contributed to it. The newspaper isolates the point that I would have made in response to the right reverend Prelate; namely, that if people do not go in for teaching, class sizes will be again radically altered. It is vitally important that the kind of financial contribution that this Bill seeks to make is made available to general education rather than to privileged education.
I am in no sense speaking the politics of envy. In my 32 years as a teacher, in the 20 years that my daughter has been teaching and in the time that my wife was ancillary to the teaching service, we have indeed been into the classrooms and seen the children. We know the advantages and the disadvantages that accrue to so many children in our classrooms in Britain today.
I congratulate my noble friend Lady Blackstone both on her elevation to the Front Bench and on the precise and concise way in which she presented the Bill. Many of the misunderstandings which are alleged to have arisen and many of the challenges that have been made to the Bill ignore the very points that my noble friend systematically made in her presentation. For example, I was astonished to hear the noble Lord, Lord Henley—again not in his place—make the charge that this was a mean-spirited Bill and that it represented only broken promises to the 11 year-olds when my noble friend had specifically outlined the provisions that will be made.
1514
I forgot to say that, as well as being an old teacher, I am also Old Labour. In 1945 I joined the Labour Party. I am amazed that tonight the only references to the Labour councils of the past were so dismissive of everything that was done from 1945 on an impulse generated in radical liberalism which was, incidentally, fought, in Wales at any rate, by the High Church. Then, after the coalition presentation of the 1945 Act, we had a reconstruction of religious education. I wonder how many noble Lords who make the plea for the privatisation of education themselves benefited from the public education system. Certainly there are hundreds and thousands of people in this country who would not have attained the standards that they did if it had not been for Old Labour councillors—under-educated themselves but of brilliant intelligence—devoting their energy and morality to creating a system better than the one under which Labour had grown up. For instance, the University of Wales in Aberystwyth was funded by the pennies of the miners when their wages were derisory.
I was immensely impressed, and am glad I can be positive in this, by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I can support much of what he said. I believe that one of the areas that we have not really looked into in public education is the boarding system. There are great advantages that can be found in education in residential schools properly run. But first we must fund the provision for the general schools. One must make certain that those children who attend them are properly educated, and that comes hack to these simple facts.
Every piece of research that has been conducted into education in my lifetime has proved that the major influences on the education of a child are, first, the attitude of his home to the school in which he is taught; secondly, the quality of the teacher; and, thirdly, the amount of time that the good teacher can devote to the children in his or her care.
When my daughter began teaching in Pembrokeshire—not a bad area—an education system that won plaudits from all around, she found herself in her first years teaching in the school hall that was also the dining hall. She had 32 children—infants in the admission class—to teach under those conditions and every day her day was shortened by the necessity of putting up the tables for lunch. When one sees that type of education, how can one blame teachers? For 22 years in this House, every time someone criticised the teacher and blamed the ills in education on the teacher, I stood here and disavowed it. Far too often the House was turned into a place which challenged the standards of the teachers rather than the system under which those teachers taught.
In the article from which I quoted there is enough evidence to say: let us pass this Bill; let us pass it quickly. We have already been told that it is only one plank in a programme to which my party, new and old, is committed. We are going to drive it through and that is not in any sense out of envy; it is because we want the same opportunities for all the children that some of your Lordships have enjoyed.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I speak from this side of the House but, first, I heartily congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, on her promotion. It is good to find someone who has tertiary education responsibilities having so much influence in educational affairs. I am sure that there will be some fencing, but in general we shall be wearing masks.
I begin by saying that I regret that the opportunity was not taken by the Government in the Bill to build on the assisted places scheme in an upwards direction. The noble Lord, Lord Parry, touched my heart because one of my names is Hughes and I therefore have some Welsh genes. I understand what he says in relation to the differences that exist in different parts of the country. But it does not seem to me that we have given enough attention to the scheme. I understand that 46 per cent. of those on assisted places are from poorer families. I am not sure that that 46 per cent. should be sacrificed, as it seems they are going to be.
I hope it is acceptable if an old educationalist, as I like to believe I am, says that my philosophy is that if the quality of the pastures is different in different parts of the field—education is different in different parts of the country—I am not convinced that the right thing to do is to put up a barrier so that people cannot go where education is good. That is the sort of philosophy that lies behind the Bill we are considering.
I appreciated the speeches made at Second Reading in another place. I was impressed by some of the remarks made by the Secretary of State. All of us must admire him for his courage and fortitude. I have certainly enjoyed entertaining him to lunch in the past to talk over the whole question of trying to help the people's health generally by health promotion. However, I was distressed—bearing in mind my philosophy—when he said that we have a choice between excellence for the few and high quality education for the many. My feeling is that we should be trying to help the many obtain the excellence that is apparently available to the few.
It is important to realise that widening opportunity should be a general feeling in the country. That does not necessarily mean that we should take a few thousand children who are on assisted places schemes and dispose of them in favour of the many because, according to the Secretary of State, it will be a good thing—for individuals, for social cohesion and for the economy—to get rid of those places. I find that a very bitter pill to swallow. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, has dealt with an aspect I wish to address. I am not convinced that it will have an immediate effect on class size. Long ago—not as long ago as the time referred to by the former Secretary of State for Scotland—I was Vice-Chancellor at Nottingham. One of the things we were always considering there, because it mattered to us, was population change. As I understand it, the population of young people is in decline. The number of births over the last five years has fallen by 7 or 8 per cent. If those figures are projected into the future—bearing in mind the concern that we all have regarding births to teenaged children—the chances are that the number of children
1516
coming into primary education will decline. I may be wrong, but that is my interpretation of the tables on population trends I have seen. I am not sure, therefore, that it is such a good argument to put forward at this time.
Mr. Don Foster, speaking for the Liberal Democrats in another place, said he wanted to get rid of the scheme because it was centrally controlled. I understand that. I suppose. But he also felt that it was encouraging independent schools to raise their fees so that they could get more money from the Government through assisted places. I find that a rather tortuous argument.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard said that the Bill was driven by dogma. The dictionary definition of dogma is "a way of thinking not based on or tested by reflection". This debate gives us the opportunity for such reflection. The important thing is that we do not seem to be paying very much attention to the competitive aspects of achieving an assisted place, or indeed to the competitiveness we need in the country and which we need to accept into our educational system. Nor is there any recognition of the confidence that a scholarship gives to those who achieve one, or any appreciation of the satisfaction that a scholarship in the family gives to parents. As chairman of the united medical and dental schools of St. Thomas's and Guy's Hospital, I saw many people of non-British ethnicity who had managed to get their children into those medical schools and see them qualify. It was obvious that involving themselves in competition had given them pleasure.
I have also been busy for the last 12 or 13 years giving scholarships to people from Hong Kong and Tokyo as well as from this country. We should not underestimate the effect on young people of success in a scholarship scheme. I have to declare a bias. When my father's business in Stechford ran into difficulties during the great depression I was very fortunate to be supported by a scholarship at secondary school, at medical school and also in order to go to the US.
I acknowledge all of that, but I remain concerned that only yesterday our Prime Minister drew attention to the need to protect the atmosphere by reducing levels of CO, and other gases, not least, he said, because of the future of our children. I certainly concur with that and admire his courage in standing up for what we heard in the Statement today. But there is another serious threat which we must not neglect. Having grandchildren, I am concerned not only about the environment but about our standard of living as we go into the next century.
I refer to the splendid speeches made in this House only a week ago about competitiveness in British industry. We all realise how important it is to face the competition which is growing in the East. Competitiveness is extremely important to our industry. Standing on the other side of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, conducted a splendid review of what we need in terms of competitiveness in this country. It is not simply productive competitiveness in selling our cars, our shoes, our clothes and so on. Design is very important. I believe that we must add to the case for education the recognition and encouragement, not only of aptitude but of competition, which is definitely a very important spur.

1517
I am coming to the view that competition is an invaluable yardstick for our choice of policies as we move forward. I do not mean bruising competition. I recall, when a professor at Guy's, the nurse tutors saying that the girls who were trying to achieve high marks and win prizes in their examinations were not necessarily the good nurses. The need was for caring nurses. I concede that completely, but I fear that we must face competition.
I am concerned that we in this country are moving into the circle of saying what people like to hear and then giving it to them but not appreciating that we also have to think as well as do service to people's attitudes. I believe that in future consideration of our policies and in the coming century it will be very important to encourage a competitive attitude. That is why I regret the tone of the Bill.
6.28 p.m.
Viscount Hampden: My Lords, I begin with a confession. I hope when I have finished my brief intervention your Lordships will not say, "Thank goodness for that!".
My confession is that I have not spoken in your Lordships' House in an education debate since July 1979, when I supported the noble Baroness, Lady Young, when she introduced her education Bill, which I remember was vehemently opposed by the noble Baroness. Lady David. I remember being saddened that day on hearing so many Peers on the Labour Benches say how grateful they were for their own grammar school education but how determined they were to stop anyone else having a similar education. Having listened to some of the speeches from this side of the House this afternoon, I am not sure that anything much has changed.
It was with some trepidation that I intervened in 1979. I have the same trepidation again. I am not an educationist and I am not involved in local government hut, like the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I have for over 30 years been involved as a governor of a school. The school was founded by my family over 400 years ago and is situated in Battersea. In 1979 we had just changed from being a grammar school, forced out by the then government's education policy, and had become an independent school. We were very much looking forward to involving ourselves with the assisted places which were about to be introduced.
In the past 18 years we have had many assisted places pupils going through our school. In fact we are probably one of the bigger users of the scheme. The idea that it is some kind of middle-class scam where people who have been clever enough kid the headmaster that they depend on the income to get their boys, and now girls, into the school is nonsense. When I said to the headmaster, "It looks as if the Labour Party is going to win the election. Will all our assisted places pupils' parents suddenly find that they have a grandmother who has a little nest egg?", he assured me that that was not so and that every single case was genuine.
Emanuel School is not a high-flying school. It is very much a community school which tries to provide a well rounded education, both academically and sportingly,
1518
and contributes to the community of Battersea. That was no better exemplified than when the terrible train crash outside Clapham Junction eight or nine years ago caused the school to be the centre for the rescue operations. The then government appreciated the efforts the school had made. This was demonstrated by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who was then the Home Office Minister. coming down to a very moving memorial service which was attended by the widow of the train driver who was killed and by the widow of one of the passengers who was killed. The noble Earl expressed appreciation of what the school had done.
This is the kind of school that the Government should be helping, not hindering. I know that it is not the custom in your Lordships' House to oppose a Second Reading. I also appreciate the convention that this was well signalled in the Labour Party's manifesto and the fact that the Official Opposition will not be opposing the Bill. However, I feel that it is a very poor start for this new Government. To be in opposition for 18 years, win an election with a thumping majority and then start off with this mean little Bill is a very bad start.
6.31 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I too should like to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in conducting her first education Bill through the House and to say that in the higher education sector at least there is great rejoicing that we have someone making policy who knows about the sector.
I find it rather difficult to speak against any measure which attempts to find money to help children in the early years. It is quite obvious from what other noble Lords have said that they too have been seduced by the strength of the argument to improve the ratio in class sizes in the early years into feeling supportive towards the Bill. However, I feel it is quite meretricious to present the Bill as something which is about reducing class sizes for the early years when it is not. The Bill is about attacking the assisted places scheme and as such it must be judged.
Of course we all want to see class sizes reduced. Class sizes are very important in the early years, although I think that their importance is very much exaggerated for older children. I have no intention now of repeating the many arguments which have been made for the value and strength of the assisted places scheme itself. However, I must say that I am very sad at the opportunities which some children will lose because of the abolition of the scheme, most particularly those whose older siblings have benefited from the scheme and who themselves hoped and expected that they too would be fortunate enough to follow.
I should like to remind the House that the Minister's arguments about the number of middle-class parents who were involved were for me very unpersuasive. The professional classes of my experience are not particularly wealthy and quite often the professional classes who are supporting two and three children find themselves, particularly where they are in one-parent families because of separation, divorce or widowhood.

1519
extremely strapped for cash. It has made a great difference to them to be able to get assisted places for their children.
I am also sad at the impact that the removal of the scheme will have on some of the independent schools themselves. As other noble Lords have said, it is very good for the independent sector to have a social and financial mix in their pupil populations. I would feel that we had lost something very valuable if the independent sector were to return to the days when only those who could afford to pay were able to send their children to independent schools. I know that the independent schools themselves will make great efforts to continue, through scholarships and so on, to provide opportunities. Nevertheless, there is bound to be a reduction in the number of children, particularly those from lower economic and financial backgrounds and from the very deprived personal backgrounds who have been the main beneficiaries, on anyone's analysis, of the scheme. I think particularly that it will hit some of the very good girls schools, which always find it harder to attract endowment money and therefore may be the most affected by this rather unfortunate measure.
Other noble Lords have made excellent points about the strength of the scheme. Therefore, I should like to make just two or three points which are particularly addressed to the argument relating to the reduction in class sizes for the early years. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will make it clear to anxious parents who have been whipped up by the media that reducing class sizes is not very easy. It is not simply a matter of producing a little money out of a hat and, hey presto, next year all the class sizes will be below 30. That is true for many reasons.
First, the LEAs now make many of the decisions about the way in which money is spent. I note that the Minister said that she intended to hold discussions with the LEAs about how they would reduce class sizes with the rather small sum of money that they are to be given. Nevertheless, I worry very much whether she has in fact from the Department of Education and Employment the authority to tell LEAs what they are to do, particularly as, if we continue the argument, the next stage is that the schools themselves have the final choice as to what they will do with the resources given to them.
As my noble friend Lord Skidelsky made dramatically clear, schools with quite low ratios of pupils to teacher can nevertheless decide whether they teach in large classes or in small classes or whether in fact, as many of them do, they divide the day up into periods of larger-class teaching and then smaller groups working with classroom auxiliaries on particular aspects of the curriculum. In fact there is already a ratio between pupils and teacher which is adequate to allow schools to teach in quite small classes—well below 30—if they so choose. I do not think that one or two extra teachers in a few schools will make a great deal of difference to the way in which schools organise themselves. I should be interested to know from the Minister how she intends to follow through this strange conundrum of intervening at the level of the schools' decisions as to what they do with resources.
1520
The second reason is that five and six year-olds do not come in neat packages of 29, 28 or 27. They come in all kinds of different packages year on year. In the case of a very small infants school in a village which is relatively isolated, I should be interested to know what the Government propose they would do if in one unfortunate year that infants school in the isolated village found itself with a class of 32. Would they then take three children and bus them down the road to the nearest village, which I suggest would be extremely unfortunate for the three who were kicked out, or would they ask the school to invest the huge sum of money needed to bring in an extra teacher and provide an extra classroom in order to divide those 32 children into two classes of 16, so that they could somehow magically deliver their promise of having classes under 30? It is not simple. I hope that that honest truth is conveyed to the parents and the anxious public of this country.
Another matter in the noble Baroness's opening statement worried me even more. I feel very anxious about what she said as regards putting pupils who would putatively be recipients of assisted places into the surplus places of the maintained sector without any additional cost. My noble friend Lord Skidelsky suggested that that would be impossible. Certainly, under existing legislation it would be impossible. My fear is that perhaps there is some proposal to turn back from the principle that the money follows the child and that in future we shall have new legislation which will somehow say that the surplus places are no longer to be funded, but to be filled up to a certain level without any additional money.
That is a very worrying thought. I would hate to be the head of a school which was suddenly made to take five extra children and was told, "After all, we know that you haven't got any surplus places, my love, but down the road there are 25 such places. so I'm afraid that there isn't any funding for them and they are coming to your school now". Somehow they are fitted in, but however it is done and in whatever way those surplus places are distributed for the additional pupils without the assisted places scheme in independent schools, it would mean that in the state sector the overall unit of funding per pupil would have to go down. There would be less money spent per pupil because, just as there is no such thing as a free lunch, there is absolutely no such thing as a free place. Anyone who has ever run a school or an institution can tell you that.
My last point is this. I was very privileged to be one of Her Majesty's Inspectors for 17 years of my life and to share with schools and colleges their daily work. Very often nowadays we hear far too much about a tiny minority of schools and teachers who are failing. In parenthesis, I believe most teachers now feel that although the press in the past chastised them with whips, New Labour appears to be outdoing itself in chastising them with scorpions. Hardly a day goes by without hearing of yet more schools failing and that there are more bad teachers around. That does not do much to make the good teachers feel cheerful.
However, my point is this. In those years I visited many hundreds of schools in both the independent and the state sectors. I can say without any doubt that the

1521
majority of the schools were good and a substantial minority were excellent. Some were poor but there was absolutely no correlation with where the good, bad or excellent schools were to he found. Some were in the state sector and others in the independent sector. Although I have fought throughout my professional career against the idea that independent schools were necessarily always good and state schools were necessarily always inferior, I wish to say very strongly that I hope we shall get away from the idea that somehow independent schools are there to be raided for a bit of extra money if it is needed or they are somehow socially divisive and therefore a bad thing in themselves.
There is excellence in the state sector and also in the independent sector. Some of the excellence in the latter is of world-class quality. It seems to me that any responsible government would wish to ensure that it is excellence which is promoted wherever it is to be found and that bright children should have access to the excellence of the independent sector regardless of their parents' ability to pay.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, several noble Lords have congratulated the noble Baroness Lady Blackstone on her accession to office. On the contrary, I feel obliged to offer her my commiseration. After all, here is someone who has built up a justified reputation in the education world—with a very firm foundation in a grammar school, which is not the kind of school favoured by her party—and the London School of Economics, which, prior to the foundation of the University of Buckingham, was the last university institution to be founded wholly by private enterprise. Yet here is the noble Baroness obliged to begin her tenure of office by introducing this pitiful little Bill.
It could be called an anti-education Bill. But it is not a consolation to be told that it is only the beginning of a whole series of further measures which we are to hear about in the promised White Paper because one wonders if the philosophy which underlies this Bill will be the philosophy of the other measures which we are to expect.
I believe that expectations were raised by Mr. Tony Blair during his election campaign when he constantly stressed this aspect of policy. One may remember him going around repeating the mantra, "Education, education, education". That reminds me very much of something I learnt about his late Majesty, King Charles II. On the ship returning him from exile he was asked by one of his courtiers what would be the watchword of the new reign. "Alistair, my boy," he said, "it is obvious—chastity, chastity, chastity". So mantras do not always tell one a great deal.
But what has impressed me in this debate is something which was most clearly enunciated by the right reverend Prelate—that is to say, that there is a direct connection between the assisted places scheme and the abolition of the direct grant schools and that they in turn rest on a long tradition of founding schools in which the Church of the right reverend Prelate initially played the major role; namely, that independent
1522
education in this country, both for those who were to become the ruling or administrative class and for many others, existed long before there was a state system. The state system is a relatively recent accretion to the British educational system and all proposals for change might well take that into account.
I speak with particular concern on this matter. Although I am not a member of the right reverend Prelate's Church I enjoyed the fruits of the work of one of its great figures in the Renaissance period, Dean Colet. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is not in his place because I could point out that his school in Glasgow might have produced quite good generals: we produced, inter alia, Marlborough and Monty. Those who have appreciated the fact that they are enjoying something which goes back to thinking about education centuries ago must have some concern about what is the apparent philosophy of noble Lords opposite. I believe it was the noble Baroness Lady Lockwood who said that we are engaged in a controversy about the philosophy of education. While agreeing with her, I am not sure that I would define the difference in that way. There is no contradiction in the idea that there is an ineluctable contest between the education of an entire younger population up to their maximum and the selection and training of people of outstanding ability, but the contradiction clearly exists in the minds of Her Majesty's present Ministers as evinced by this Bill.
A good deal has been said about the disappointment of individual children whose careers may be cut off or the disappointment of parents who may suddenly find themselves unable to continue the education of their children in the way that they had hoped. As noble Lords will be aware, I am not a sentimental person. I do not go in for that kind of thing. I look at it entirely cold-bloodedly from the point of view of the national interest. It is in the national interest that wherever outstanding talent exists in any field the use of it for the nation's benefit, whether it be in commerce, administration or on the battlefield, should not be curtailed by the lack of funds in the particular child's family. That seems to me to be essential. But, in order to bring that about, one needs a great variety of schools, because there are different forms of excellence. One needs boarding schools as well as day schools. One needs a whole gamut of educational provision. What depresses me about the philosophy (if I may call it that) of the noble Lords opposite is that it is based on the belief that the nation's interests can be served within a system of only one kind of school. I believe that it cannot be done, and no serious country believes that it can be done or proceeds along those lines.
Since my noble friend Lord Skidelsky and others have demolished any argument that a serious financial contribution to the general education system will be made by this Bill—it appears to me that numeracy standards should be looked at in Her Majesty's Government before they are looked at in the population at large, but that is by the way—it seems to me that there is nothing to this Bill except a gesture against the notion of selection, the notion of differentiated schools, the notion that there is a national interest above the

1523
interest of any child, family or school and that that should be at the heart of education policy. I hope that one day it will be again.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, no Bill can have been more widely expected than this. Since its introduction in 1981 the assisted places scheme has been consistently opposed by the Labour Party. This year's manifesto spelt out the abolition of the assisted places scheme and the intention to use the funds to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year olds. This commitment was one of the five key pledges made by the Prime Minister to the electorate. No doubt it played its part in the victory on 1st May.
The noble Lords, Lord Skidelsky, Lord Henley and Lord Tope, and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, have questioned the financial calculations that make that pledge. I have read the paper to which they referred and listened to the arguments made by my noble friend the Minister. I am not sufficiently expert to be aware of the merits of the argument. However, there are two matters on which I am clear. First, the abolition of this scheme will release substantial sums for the DfEE to spend as it sees fit. Secondly, it was one of the five key pledges that class sizes would be reduced to 30. I have no doubt that that key pledge will be met.
For the record, the argument against the assisted places scheme is one of fairness. We believe it is fairer that 440,000 five, six and seven year-olds should have their class sizes reduced to 30 or less than that just 38,000 schoolchildren should be selected to attend independent schools. Irrespective of the use to which the money is put, no government should subsidise the independent sector at the expense of the children who are directly in their care. I believe that it was a tacit admission of failure by the previous government that they did not believe the state sector could offer high standards to all those for whom it was responsible.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Surely, the point at issue is whether it is at the expense of the 450,000. The noble Lord assumes that it is. I was making a rather strong argument that it is not.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I have understood the arguments of the noble Lord and have read the paper to which he referred. But the Government have been elected on two very clear pledges. Whether or not they are reconcilable, they will be achieved individually. But if this Bill goes through substantial amounts of money will be released and class sizes will be reduced to 30 or less for five, six and seven year-olds. That is the substantive point, and that is the intention of the Government. Of course, this places a grave responsibility at the door of the new Government. Many state schools achieve high standards, but not all. One cannot dismiss the aspirations of many parents to send their children to independent schools as elitist or mere snobbery. There is genuine and widespread concern that standards of discipline and academic achievement are too low in parts of the state sector.
1524
The Government are pursuing various initiatives to ensure that best practice spreads to all schools. I wish them well in that endeavour. However, they must be realistic as to why so many parents aspire to independent schooling for their children. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, laid down a challenge to the Government when he spoke of the benefits to some children of boarding school education. He said that children had to be treated as individuals. I know from experience that some young boys benefit from boarding school education.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said that a reduction in class sizes was not of itself sufficient to increase standards. She is right. However, I have never read an independent school prospectus that did not boast about the small class sizes that it had to offer. The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said that independent schools benefited from the social mix of bright children coming from poorer backgrounds. The contrary argument is equally true. State schools will also benefit from these children and raise standards as a whole.
I have spoken briefly about why I believe the assisted places scheme is wrong in principle. When one looks at practice the argument is stronger still. Last autumn I had the privilege of addressing the Association of Independent School Bursars. My message was not well received. I emerged with only light flesh wounds. Nevertheless, all of the bursars were realistic about the resolve of the Labour Party to abolish the assisted places scheme. During coffee breaks I was regaled with stories about how the assisted places scheme was abused. I heard stories about the money paying for people's divorces and the general ingenuity of parents in accessing these funds. Those stories were told with a ribald humour which spoke volumes about the scheme's lack of success in helping the kind of children that it was meant to help.
However, the point was made that despite widespread abuse of the scheme, there were examples where children had been given life-enhancing opportunities that would never have been received without an independent school education. No doubt that argument was inculcated into the children themselves. I find that argument sad and fundamentally flawed, in that it consigns those who do not receive independent education to the second rank and fails to recognise that many state schools can and do offer a breadth of opportunity and achievement that encourages each child to make the most of his or her talents.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the Bill as nasty and mean spirited. They are wrong on both counts. The Bill puts the many above the few. If they call that old Labour, so be it. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, raged—I put it as highly as that—at the injustice of sending bright children to state schools. The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, spoke of the sacrifice of children. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, spoke of throwing children onto the dust heap. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. called for a huge expansion of the independent sector. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, capped it all by speaking of anti-education. If the party opposite believes that, what an indictment of its education policies over the

1525
past 18 years. Does it believe that sending a child to the state sector will consign it to the dust heap? That is a shameful argument to use.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. My noble friends Lady Elles, Lady Young and Lord Butterfield said nothing of the kind. None of us on this side of the House has anything but admiration for excellent state schools, and clearly more children benefit from them than from the independent sector. The noble Lord has to advance a different argument, if he supports the Bill.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I wrote down the comments at the time they were made, and we can check Hansard. I stand by what I said. They were the arguments used against sending children to state schools when noble Lords opposite were arguing that the independent sector offered the only true opportunities.
I support the Bill because it narrows the gap between the unduly privileged and the underprivileged; it redistributes taxpayers' money from the private sector to the public sector; and, above all, I support it because our five, six and seven year-olds deserve smaller classes and a better start in life.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I reiterate what my noble friend Lord Beloff said. Never did I use such words as those which the noble Lord has attached to me, and nor did my noble friend Lady Young. I therefore totally disregard his speech because he could not have been listening to anything said from this side of the House.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, if I am wrong, I apologise. But, as I said, I wrote down the comments after they were made. We can check in Hansard tomorrow.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, the noble Lord may be as puzzled about that as he was about finance. It is plain that the purpose of the Bill is to release money to improve educational standards. Despite the philosophy of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby: "When I say a thing, it means what I say", which he asks the Government to apply to themselves, I shall be interested in the Minister's reply to the lucid indictment by my noble friend Lord Skidelsky of the financing that lies behind the scheme. If the finance does not stand up, then the Bill is revealed, as suggested by the right reverend Prelate, and my noble friends Lady Young, Lord Beloff, and many others, as the product of an educational ideology—an ideology which has played a large part in reducing standards and limiting opportunity. It is an ideology that destroyed grammar schools and the direct grant schools, and now does this. Naturally, as a child of poor parents and a former pupil of a direct grant school, I feel strongly about it.
The Labour Party, whether in government or in opposition, has always opposed any co-operation between the independent and the maintained sector of
1526
education. The fact that a large proportion of present independent schools, particularly the direct grant schools, maintains selection, when the state established non-selective area comprehensive schools aggravated that opposition to co-operation.
The Prime Minister professes to have learnt a great deal from the Labour Party in Australia. But I am afraid that old Labour prevails in education. In Australia, the Labour Party has never opposed the use of public funds in the independent sector. It is happy to give grants to schools as selective as Sydney Grammar and as exclusive as Geelong. But the Government have no interest in any co-operation.
There are poor parents. I was High Master of St. Paul's for seven years. I ran the assisted places scheme. I must have seen income returns from some hundreds of people. We admitted about 20 pupils a year, but received many more applications. I never saw incomes above £15,000. With regard to middle class children, it is true that some had been in the private sector. They had lost a parent, parents had lost jobs, or a mother had suffered a divorce from a husband who did not have enough money to support two families. Those were the children who came from the independent sector. The myth of subsidy to the middle class is just a myth. It should not be used, because it is dishonest. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hampden. One would find that to be so from the headmasters of many schools.
Let us look at the reason, because it is important. Why did poor parents elect to leave the maintained sector and take up assisted places in independent schools? It was because those schools offered specialist courses which were not available to the children in the maintained schools in the area where they lived. I shall give some examples. Some children have an aptitude for languages. In areas such as Hackney and Stoke Newington, few schools offered more than two modern languages, and many did not offer that. At St. Paul's, as did many other independent schools, we offered four or more modern languages as well as Latin and Greek. Because of our nature as a selective school, we had a fine mathematics department at post-16 level which could offer double mathematics and the whole range of mathematical studies. I can assure the Minister that those courses were not available in the area comprehensives from which those children came. That was especially true of the poorer areas of the city and certain ethnic areas of the city. That is why they came.
Paradoxically, the Government recognise the value of the specialisation that exists in many independent schools. Only last week, in a press statement, the Minister's colleague, the Minister responsible for schools standards, Estelle Morris, said:
"Specialist schools are popular with schools, parents and sponsors alike".
So I am delighted that the Government are continuing the previous government's policy of creating such schools to specialise in languages, technology and a whole series of other areas. I think that the Prime Minister talked about sports, mathematics, and such subjects. They are seeking private finance to assist that development, as did the previous government.

1527
It therefore seems to us—as my noble friends have said—odd and ideologically motivated that a government who are prepared to set up specialist schools are not prepared, as are the Australian Government, to take advantage of the specialisations which already exist in independent schools and are available to poor families through the assisted places scheme.
As a headmaster of 17 years standing, I can assure the Minister and her colleagues that if they believe £100,000 and an extra £100 a pupil can create language departments equivalent to those which exist in independent schools and which are the product of years of work, of choice of staff, and years of investment in satellite dishes, language laboratories, and so forth, and that they will have the equivalent of the language department of St. Paul's available now to poor children, they are mistaken.
Perhaps I may underline a point made by the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords. The main candidates for assisted places are pupils in the former direct grant schools. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was right when he said that this scheme was created to try in some way to continue the tradition of the direct grant schools. Everyone must acknowledge that they were sacrificed on the altar of ideology because they withdrew from the state sector and became independent, sadly and reluctantly, so as to maintain their academic specialisation.
These schools, many in the great northern cities such as the one I attended, have a long history of serving the talented children of poor parents. I very much doubt whether poor parents in Bradford, Manchester and Newcastle will find any even designated maintained schools which will replace the existing excellence of schools such as Bradford Grammar, Manchester Grammar, the Royal Grammar School, Newcastle, King Edward's, Birmingham, and so forth. As one of my noble friends said, they are schools with an international reputation for excellence.
As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and others, the tragedy is that the money released by depriving these able and poor children of access to schools such as those will not achieve the transformation of the education system that the Government claim. I repeat that I shall be delighted if the noble Baroness, with the support of her officials, can shoot down the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, in flames. It will be a great gladiatorial combat, to which I look forward.
However, perhaps I may go further and underline what was said by my noble friend Lord Henley. If class sizes are reduced to 30 the popular schools—those are the best schools which are full—will have to turn away pupils. If a law provides that classes must have no more than 30 pupils anyone with a child at a bad school who wants to move to a popular school which has classes of more than 30 will be told, "No luck, my son. You stay where you are". If I were a parent I should prefer a class of 32 in a good school rather than a class of 30 in a bad school.
1528
I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says about that, but the Government could solve the problem in a simple way. They could spend more money on buildings in the popular schools so that the popular and best schools can take more children. But we return to the mystery of money. Where will the money come from? In that respect I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the Liberal Democrats. If you want to improve things and not force children to go to bad schools just because you limit the class size you must spend money on the good schools. The end result will be to force children to remain in poor schools. Therefore, the result of this sorry little Bill will be to abolish the chance of bright pupils to go to schools such as Manchester Grammar and force others to go into classes of 30 in bad schools.
This country needs both smaller classes and specialised academic courses for academically able pupils. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that a country which does not value its academically able pupils is a country doomed to decline. As I have said often in this House, in every other part of Europe there are post-16 centres of excellence for able pupils; brilliant sixth forms equivalent to that of Manchester Grammar. The assisted places scheme provided some chance for that in our country. I must therefore say that it is a mean, nasty little Bill, as my noble friend said. and many will suffer.
In Committee, I and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will press the Minister about the proposal to force children to leave at 11. I shall be interested to hear how the Secretary of State will offer his appeals system. There are some difficult cases. I know of a dyslexic child aged 10 in an independent school. Will he be able to go to a dyslexic unit? There is another point which the Minister might dismiss but which I believe is important. If at a private school a pupil started to learn French at eight and Latin at nine, is it good for his or her education to have to begin French again at 11 and possibly abandon Latin altogether?
I cannot imagine any other European country depriving poor and clever children of a chance to attend schools which are recognised as excellent and have produced many people who have contributed to the nation. I refer to schools such as Manchester Grammar, St. Paul's and Westminster, but I could extend the catalogue further. The Government are saying that such pupils should not attend those schools, and the end result will be children forced to remain in unpopular schools and in classes of 30 in bad schools. It is a bad Bill and owes a lot to an ideology which desires and believes only in a state monopoly of education. It obstinately refuses to see that co-operation between the independent and state sectors would help to improve education.
When the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, used to stand at this Dispatch Box I constantly reminded him that he was like the Bourbons; he had learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. I am afraid that I must apply the same epithet to the Government. This Bill ought not to have been put forward.
7.16 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have congratulated me on my new post. I am delighted to be in it. I am grateful for the commiserations of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, but I do not need them. I am very happy to be standing at the Dispatch Box introducing this Bill. It is a change which for a long time the Labour Party in opposition signalled that it would wish to introduce. It was part of our general election pledge that we would phase out assisted places.
I hope that noble Lords opposite and on my own Benches will forgive me if I fail to answer all the questions that have been asked today. We have had an informative debate, but how useful it has been I am not sure. However, I am sure that it has set the scene for a lively Committee stage. I hope that in Committee we will be able to go into more detail, which I shall be unable to do in the time available to me tonight.
Lord Henley: My Lords, will the Minister offer to write to me and to other noble Lords who have made points that she cannot answer tonight, and do so before the Committee stage? I am still awaiting answers to a number of questions that I asked during my speech on the humble Address, which was a month ago.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Lord anticipated what I was about to say. Yes, of course, we shall write to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate and who put questions that I do not have time to answer today. I am sorry if during the debate on the Queen's Speech the noble Lord put questions which were not answered. I was not aware that my noble friend who wound up the debate made a commitment to answer any questions that he put. The noble Lord asked many questions and I apologise if they were not answered.
It might be easier for the parliamentary section of my department to answer questions put in this debate if the noble Lord's noble friend Lord Lucas would refrain from tabling so many Written Questions. Of course, we welcome Questions, but perhaps I may inform the House that he has now tabled almost 50 in seven weeks. That reaches an all-time record. We are answering them, but I mention the fact because it is hard work for the civil servants concerned.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I take great exception to what the Minister has just said about my noble friend Lord Lucas. He has been working extremely hard as a parliamentarian—indeed, as parliamentarians should do—to examine the case that the Government are making. It is his right to table Questions. I hope that nothing that the Minister has said implies that he does not have that absolute right. There are rules and procedures in this House about the number of Questions that can be tabled. No doubt the Clerks will advise my noble friend whether he has broken any of those rules. However, it is my understanding that he has not done
1530
so. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to recognise the absolute right that my noble friend has to table such Questions.
Further, if the Minister's civil servants are too tired to answer such questions, then as Minister responsible she ought to consider reorganising her department to ensure that there are enough civil servants to do so. After all, it must surely be one of their most important roles to reply to Questions tabled by Members not just from this House but also from another place. I should add that the point just made by the Minister is not one that she would have got away with if she had made it in another place.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Lord. Lord Strathclyde, has now taken up quite a bit of my time which I would otherwise have used in answering questions which have been put to me in today's debate. Of course I am not denying that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has a right to table Questions. He has the right to do so and they are all being dealt with. I am simply trying to explain that I believe it is a record for 50 Questions to be tabled in a period of seven weeks. It also amounts to a great deal of work for the civil servants concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, also complained about the timing of the Bill. However, the legislation has been introduced right at the start of the Session so as to give notice to the schools involved about the phasing out and to avoid any further uncertainty. It is a short Bill with a limited number of clauses. We made a pledge in this House with respect to the Bill, and any others introduced, that we would abide by the normal timetable. We shall of course do so. The Bill has nothing to do with dogma or envy. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and to my noble friend Lord Parry for their recognition of that fact.
Several speakers referred to "old Labour". I should point out that New Labour was elected on a large mandate—indeed, with a huge mandate—and it defeated divided Conservatism. The electorate endorsed our proposals to phase out the scheme and spend the money saved on reducing class sizes in infant schools. Unfortunately, noble Lords opposite seem to be a little out of touch with the views of the electorate on such matters. However, I am glad that the noble Lords, Lord Henley and Lord Campbell of Croy, accept that we do in fact have a mandate to make such changes. I am sorry to tell the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that, given the fact that we made it absolutely clear in the election campaign and in our manifesto that this was something that we were going to do, we have no intention now of undertaking a review.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, talked about what she called the "mythical White Paper". She asked why it had not been introduced before the Bill. I believe I explained why we needed to introduce the Bill very early in the Session: we want to be fair to the schools concerned. However, we shall be publishing our White Paper early next month. It is a very wide-ranging document and one which covers a huge range of issues, not just matters which might be relevant to the question of class sizes. There will be plenty of opportunity to

1531
debate the White Paper and we shall be consulting widely. I should stress that we took office only on 2nd May and to expect a White Paper of this kind to be introduced in less than three months after taking office is rather a tall order. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that fact.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said that it was in the national interest that outstanding talent should be developed. I entirely endorse that view. It is in the national interest that outstanding talent should be developed. However, what depresses me about the philosophy of some noble Lords opposite is that they seem to think that private schools have some kind of monopoly in relation to developing and sustaining talent. I believe that came out particularly in some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. I see the noble Lord shaking his head, but he did go on and on about a small number of independent schools—
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but I merely pointed out that there were certain independent schools that have centres of excellence, as indeed do certain state schools. I therefore thought that, rather than children being forced to go to their area school, they should be given a chance in both. I never denied that many state schools have centres of excellence. I just wanted to point out that the legislation would deprive certain poor children of the opportunity to attend such centres of excellence. The Minister has misinterpreted what I said.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for intervening and saying that he does not deny that there are many state schools which make excellent provision for children.
However, one of the underlying themes of what was said by noble Lords opposite—and my noble friend Lord Ponsonby commented on this rather eloquently—is that the state system does not somehow match up. I am sorry, we on this side of the House are determined that in this Government we will promote a strong state system that can educate all of our children to the standards that they deserve. If I may say so, to assume anything else is insulting to teachers in our state schools, many of whom are excellent and many of whom are doing a fantastic job in more difficult circumstances than would be true of many teachers in the independent sector who are not coping with the kind of disadvantaged backgrounds which, unfortunately, characterise some of the pupils in the state system.
Finally, by way of introduction, I should like to say that we in the Government believe that the assisted places scheme is also the product of an educational ideology. Of course it is; there are ideological differences between us. It would be surprising if that were not so. Many rather insulting remarks have been made about the ideological basis of our wish to make changes. Yes, of course, our views are different and our priorities are different. I would not expect otherwise.
I should stress that the cost of the scheme simply cannot be justified—£160 million this year for the schemes in Great Britain, rising to £200 million at
1532
the turn of the century under the plans of the previous government. Over time, the previous government would have had to spend double that amount to meet their commitments. Our priority is to reduce class sizes as part of our strategy to raise primary school standards. We never said that we would achieve the class size pledge overnight. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, questioned whether the abolition of the assisted places scheme would in fact lead to the reduction in class sizes to which we are pledged. I should tell them that reductions will be made progressively as the APS savings arise. The resources freed by phasing out the scheme will allow us—and this is our pledge and commitment—by the end of this Parliament to meet our class size pledge. That is the time-scale.
The previous government had started a substantial expansion programme in the scheme so that significant savings will accrue as a result of phasing it out. The noble Lords, Lord Henley and Lord Tope, asked about the savings and queried what they would buy. I believe that was also true of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. We predict that the savings will amount to about £100 million in total by the year 2000. That represents the cost of employing around 4,000 primary teachers for a year. Of course more savings will follow after the year 2000 which will enable us to appoint additional numbers of primary school teachers.
The range of figures quoted during today's debate on the cost of reducing class sizes was considerable. Much depends on the underlying assumptions. I do not want to get too technical in this Second Reading debate and I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I do not do so. Two past pieces of independent research show a cost of around £65 million a year for the reduction of class sizes. That is within the sums that we shall be saving from the assisted places scheme in the next five years. We need, of course, to review the costings with local authorities. I am absolutely ready to concede that a review will have to take place as we go along. As the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said, we intend to talk to local authorities and consider the costs in the light of all the practical issues that they will have to face. Of course, there are practical issues when one makes any change of this kind, but we shall address them.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked about the mechanisms for ensuring that the money saved would be used to reduce class sizes. Available funding will be distributed between authorities on an equitable and transparent basis and in the light of needs. The distribution must reflect past decisions by authorities so that we do not penalise those who have already taken measures to cut class sizes by favouring primary schools in their spending decisions. Initially at least we expect to ring fence the APS savings to be spent on specific measures to reduce infant class sizes. However, as I said, the details of the process will be discussed with local authorities and others in the coming weeks. I do not think noble Lords could expect me at this stage to have every fine detail in place on how that will be achieved. I ask for the understanding of noble Lords in that respect.

1533
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and others, this Bill is about the phasing out of the assisted places scheme to help us to meet our pledge on class sizes. We shall provide full details on the arrangements to achieve smaller class sizes in the White Paper and in the autumn education Bill. However, what is clear is that phasing out the assisted places scheme will lead to significant savings to help us meet that pledge and to reduce infant classes by the end of this Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, said that he has grandchildren. I, too, have grandchildren. I have a five and a half year-old granddaughter in a local authority primary school and she has three year-old twin sisters who are about to start in a nursery school. I want my grandchildren to benefit from this Bill. I want to see excellent primary schools and classes of a size that makes it possible for teachers to achieve that excellence.
I turn now to a number of concerns that were expressed as regards the impact on the maintained sector of abolishing or phasing out this scheme. Various dire predictions were made by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, but I think they were based on a false premise that all the places would be withdrawn with immediate effect. The noble Lord shakes his head. I take it back if that is not what he meant. I reinforce what I have already said; namely, that we are phasing out, not abolishing, this scheme outright. The noble Lords, Lord Skidelsky and Lord Henley, claimed that there would be significant extra cost to the state sector. However, I think I am right in saying that they were assuming average costs when marginal costs are the relevant measure here. Incidentally, I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for his kind words about my appointment. We do not always agree about many aspects of education but debating with him has always been enjoyable and challenging and it is always conducted in a good natured way. His intervention today was rather more good natured than, I am afraid, were the speeches of some noble Lords opposite.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her words and also for giving way. However, I was not of course talking about marginal cost pricing because that is not the way the state sector costs its pupils. We have a clear difference. The Government have predicted £100 million of savings in year three. The Institute of Fiscal Studies says that it will be £28 million. It has used a sophisticated methodology and seems to have relied on realistic assumptions. Which figure does the noble Baroness believe in? If the Institute of Fiscal Studies is correct, how will the gap in funding be met?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have made it absolutely clear that the Government believe that there will be savings of £100 million from the scheme. I have not seen the report of the Institute of Fiscal Studies but I shall certainly look at it to see what it has to say.
Last year there were 815,380 surplus school places in England. There was not a single LEA where the number of entry assisted places exceeded the number of surplus places within that LEA. Therefore every local education
1534
authority has the capacity to absorb the number of pupils no longer entering the assisted places scheme. There are about 10,000 new assisted places available each year. That represents only one-eighth of 1 per cent. of the school population. Most entry places—some 6,000 of them—are available at the age of 11, compared with half a million children transferring from state primary schools. That is fewer than two pupils for every secondary school in England. With over a year's notice, local education authorities have plenty of time to plan and make the appropriate arrangements. The comments that have been made by noble Lords opposite who have suggested that this will be terribly difficult are misconstrued.
Pupil projections underpinning the local government finance settlement for 1998–99 will make assumptions as in previous years about the size of the independent sector as a whole rather than for the assisted places scheme itself. Many assisted places scheme schools are predicting that they will have absolutely no difficulty filling their places with fee paying pupils. This leads us to conclude that overall it is unlikely that the phasing out of the scheme will have any major net effect on maintained sector provision. However, we shall keep the matter under review. For the present we do not believe that educating children who may otherwise have had assisted places will result in a significant additional burden on local education authorities.
Several speakers, including my noble friend Lady David, asked about the position of children in assisted places in primary schools. A number of noble Lords opposite were critical of our decision to cease support at the end of primary schooling. But that is the most sensible age for a child to transfer to the maintained sector. I do not accept that it is unreasonable to expect a child to change schools at the age of 11. Half a million children do so every year. Those who argue for a general extension of support through to the age of 13 do so on the ground that the scheme should provide the bridge until alternative sources of funding are available for them to complete private education through to age 18. I question whether those pupils are genuine candidates for support.
We are honouring commitments made in opposition. We never said that children in integral junior departments would keep their places through to age 13 or 18. Our commitment to those pupils is to the end of the primary phase of their education.
We also made clear that discretionary power to extend support beyond the age of 11 will be used flexibly and in a way that is sympathetic to the needs of individual pupils. For example, we indicated that we propose to exercise discretion in favour of all 10 year-old children who take up entry places at a secondary school. We take the view that although such children may be receiving primary education, they are attending a school which has an age range of 10 to 18, which is essentially a secondary school. Any pupil in a preparatory school going up to the age of 13 who had a clear promise—and I mean a clear promise or understanding—of having a place up to that age will have that place honoured. We shall use the discretionary power already in the Bill to extend places beyond the age of 11.

1535
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, and, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked about promises before the election to preparatory school children. We always made it clear that we would phase out the scheme over a seven-year period, and that is what we shall do. It would be quite wrong to continue to subsidise private education at the taxpayers' expense when no such promise or understanding has been given. I think that we would be letting down the electorate if we were to do so.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, making blanket provision on the face of the Bill for places to continue to 13 is unnecessary. I regret to say that it would also be open to abuse. We intend instead to use the discretionary power which will enable the circumstances of each case to be checked. Each case will be considered carefully on its merits. In due course, we shall let the schools know in detail how that discretion will be exercised. That is the proper way to safeguard the public purse. It ensures that we put the consideration of what is best for the pupil—and that is what we are concerned about—ahead of the school's interest.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, raised the question about middle schools. We have always said that we would exercise discretion in favour of children in areas with a later age of transfer to secondary schools. That we shall do.
A number of noble Lords raised the question of our attitude towards independent schools. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, mentioned the importance of building bridges between state and independent schools. Perhaps I may reassure him, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the right reverend Prelate, that there is no vendetta against the independent sector. Nor is there any intention of destroying the excellence of those schools. Indeed, the Government wish to promote excellence for the many children and not the few, as my noble friend Lady Lockwood pointed out. We already make a substantial contribution to the education of children with special needs in independent schools. We provide specialist provision in music and ballet which is not readily available in the state sector. We shall continue to do both those things.
However, we do not think that the scheme is a sensible way of promoting links. But I welcome proposals from the independent sector to build real bridges and forge substantial collaborative partnerships. We shall say something about that in the White Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, is wrong to say that we have no interest in supporting bridge building of that kind. We most certainly do.
I am running out of time. Many other issues have been raised including questions by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about value added. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that I am afraid we disagree about the facts. I have read closely research undertaken by the London School of Economics. Our interpretation is that it does not bear out what the noble Baroness said. There is little value added for the bright children who transfer from the state schools
1536
to the independent schools under this scheme, These are able and talented pupils who would have done just as well, I am glad to say, in the state sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, raised questions about boarding education. We accept that boarding can be valuable especially for children from very disrupted and disadvantaged homes. Questions were asked about whether abolishing the APS would narrow the intake to independent schools. Again I cannot accept the claims made by noble Lords who suggested that.
A number of my noble friends commented on the fact that the assisted places scheme has not entirely reached those for whom it was intended. I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, that the scheme was not designed for the professional classes to whom she referred. It was designed to help poor children from low income homes. In my introductory speech I made it clear that although some children in that category have benefited more than half the children on the scheme are from higher income families or from middle class families. Some may be from middle class families who have fallen on hard times. Some are the children of divorced or separated parents from middle and upper middle class backgrounds where the income of the father is not taken into account. I do not think that that is an appropriate way of defining eligibility for the scheme.
I do not have time to answer all the questions raised. However, I conclude by picking up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. He made rather much of it. He suggested that there were wonderful modern language departments in independent schools. I have no doubt that he is right about that. But as someone who spent 19 years living in Stoke Newington, about which he made some rather derogatory remarks—
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may finish. We are running out of time and I have given way on a number of occasions. Many schools in Stoke Newington are making a very good stab at teaching modern languages to state school pupils. What the noble Lord said was extremely unfair to teachers of modern languages in state schools. A modern foreign language is a compulsory subject in the national curriculum for secondary schools. The noble Lord should know better than to suggest that some state schools do not teach it. A number of state primary schools also make provision for early years French. I do not accept the central thrust of the noble Lord's argument. The state sector can provide for the able child, and offer the curricular breadth that he or she needs which is both stretching and relevant.
The right reverend Prelate said that there was no educational reason for phasing out the scheme. I beg to differ. This is about educational priorities. After all, that is what politics is often about. It is about defining our priorities. It is about trying to find a more sensible use of scarce resources. There are many calls on the education

1537
budget and many improvements that we want to make. The very limited educational benefits of this scheme simply do not justify the educational expenditure made on it.
I have tried to deal with the main points raised during the course of the debate. I look forward to further debate in Committee and during the remaining stages. The Bill honours a pledge to the electorate. I ask the House to give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Solicitor-General's Salary Order 1997
7.50 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This draft order provides for an increase in the Solicitor-General's salary to the same rate as that of the Lord Advocate.
Following the general election, the Solicitor-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, was appointed a Minister in this House. Previous reports from the Top Salaries Review Body and the Senior Salaries Review Body have supported the traditional arrangement of paying the Solicitor-General the same salary as the Lord Advocate when both have been in the same House. Until 1979 they were both in the House of Commons. As both are now in the House of Lords, the salary of the Solicitor-General should be increased to match that of the Lord Advocate once again.
The order will come into effect on 27th June 1997 and will increase the salary of the Solicitor-General to £78,072 (from the current rate of £52,278). This level of salary was recommended for the Lord Advocate in the 1996 Senior Salaries Review Body report. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committed].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Deputy Chief Whip for the way in which he introduced the order. I shall keep the House for only a few moments. It is an interesting order. It is the first time that we have had an order of this type in this Parliament, which is not surprising. It is also interesting because of the introduction of the Solicitor-General to this House. I might add that I find it a very wonderful thing that after the result of the general election, with the enormous number of new Labour MPs who entered the House of Commons, among that great bulk they could not find their own Solicitor-General and had to come to the unelected House of Lords to fill that particular post. That must say something about the role of this House.
1538
The order is to come into force on 27th June 1997. Does that mean that the poor Solicitor-General will be rather more poverty-stricken up until that date than he otherwise might have been, and that he will not receive any pay between his appointment and 27th June? If so, I admire his selflessness. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to advise me on that point.
I had intended to ask how the figure had been reached. However, the noble Lord explained that by saying that the Solicitor-General was to he paid at the same level as the Lord Advocate. My question then is: how is it that the Solicitor-General for England and Wales is not being paid at the same level as the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who is being paid only £66,811? That strikes me as rather bad luck for the Solicitor-General for Scotland. Considering that the Government says they are a Unionist party, I am sure that this debate should be drawn to the attention of the Solicitor-General, who may have something to say about it.
Both the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General are paid more than the Lord Privy Seal in this House. Some may think that that is fair enough. No doubt the noble Lord the Deputy Chief Whip has a justification for it.
More worrying is the fact that before 1st July 1996 the Lord Advocate, and therefore the Solicitor-General had he been in this House, was paid £57,241. Ministers of State in the House of Lords were paid £50,328, a difference of some £7,000. Ministers of State in he House of Lords are now paid £51,838, and now the Solicitor-General and the Lord Advocate are to be paid £78,000. The House will realise that there is a substantial gap between the two. The party opposite will know more about differentials than I do. However, it strikes me that these figures are more out of kilter than they should be.
I am also aware that Sir Michael Perry has been reviewing the position of the pay of Ministers in the House of Lords. I wonder whether the noble Lord might indicate how that review is going; whether or not Sir Michael Perry has reported; if he has not, when he hopes to report; and what the likely view of the Government would be if he recommended an increase. The Labour Government having bitten the bullet on paying the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General substantially more, I should be sorry if noble Lords who sit on the Front Bench opposite did not also receive a fair crack of the whip.
I am conscious that in saying this I may have an interest to declare. I believe that my own humble salary is somehow tied to that of a Member on the Bench opposite. I am not quite sure which one; and in any case it is very lowly. Having declared that interest, I hope that the noble Lord the Deputy Chief Whip will be able to answer some of the questions that I pose. I have no objection to this order going through in order for the Solicitor-General to be paid.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments and for the constructive way in which he approached the order. I can readily dismiss the argument that there is nobody

1539
in the House of Commons suitable to be Solicitor-General. Nothing in this order, or indeed in the appointment of a Solicitor-General in this House, should give the noble Lord that impression. It may well be merely a matter of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton being eminently well qualified for the post and it is entirely appropriate that he should be in this House.
I am afraid the noble Lord is quite right in saying that my noble and learned friend will have to wait until 27th June—it is only this Friday—to receive his higher salary. I understand that he is bearing this burden with equanimity.
The noble Lord said that the salary for the Solicitor-General for England and Wales should perhaps be consonant with that of the Solicitor-General for Scotland. He may or may not be right. However, that is not what the Top Salaries Review Body and the Senior Salaries Review Body recommended. Their recommendation on more than one occasion has been that the two posts of Solicitor-General for England and Wales and Lord Advocate should be the ones that are made equal.
The noble Lord then turned to the wider issue of ministerial salaries in this House. If he is to declare an interest, then I must declare the same interest, as must all of us on this Front Bench. I do not believe that under our rules it is one that disqualifies us from considering the matter. Indeed, it would be an absurdity if that were the case.
The noble Lord is quite right in saying that the Senior Salaries Review Body in its report of July last year did not consider the position of Lords Ministers. It deferred for further consideration the matter of the salaries of Lords Ministers, describing it as a development recommendation which should be considered by the Prime Minister. It was not considered by the previous Prime Minister, and I believe the noble Lord will agree that the present Prime Minister has had rather a lot of urgent business on his plate during the past seven weeks that would make it quite difficult for the matter to be referred to him.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt at this stage. My understanding is that the Senior Salaries Review Body has considered this subject and has taken evidence. Presumably as a result of that evidence it will make recommendations. My question is: does the noble Lord know whether it has completed that review, when it is likely to report and what the attitude of the Government is likely to be? The noble Lord may have answered the question as to what attitude the Government will take. He indicated that they have accepted its recommendation about the Solicitor-General, and therefore I assume that they would accept any recommendation that came from the Senior Salaries Review Body on ministerial pay in the House of Lords.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord is entitled to make that assumption or to tempt me into making it. As I was
1540
about to continue to say, as he and I know—at least I gave evidence to the board when I was in Opposition—the Senior Salaries Review Body has been considering the issue of salaries in the House of Lords. I do not know when it will report or what its recommendations will be and therefore it is impossible for me to say what the Government's response would be to any recommendations it makes.
The noble Lord said that this would make the Solicitor-General's pay greater than that of the Lord Privy Seal. It is true that the Lord Privy Seal has, in common with other Cabinet Ministers, restricted the salary that he draws to £58,876, but he is entitled to £77,963, which is very much in line with the salary now recommended.
Unless any other noble Lord wishes to intervene, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Stratford Station and Subsidiary Works) Order 1997
8.1 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Perhaps I may, first, welcome the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, to what I believe is his first speech from the Opposition Front Bench on transport, although I am glad to have seen him already active at Question Time this week. I hope that he will enjoy the transport brief as much as I do. It gives me some comfort to see him there because it makes me feel quite well established in the job.
As this is the first time that a Motion tabled under the provisions of Section 9 of the Transport and Works Act has been debated in this House, I should perhaps briefly explain the purpose of this special statutory procedure. Orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992 replaced private Bills as the means by which new railways, tramways and certain other works projects are normally authorised. Section 9 of the Transport and Works Act gave Parliament a continuing and important role in relation to schemes which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, are of national significance by making it a requirement that the approval of each House be obtained before the Transport and Works Act order can be made.
If a resolution approving such proposals is passed in both this House and another place, the application goes forward for more detailed consideration at public inquiry. It would then be for the Secretary of State to decide, in the light of the inspector's report, whether to authorise the proposals in question by making a TWA order. The Secretary of State is not bound to make an order endorsed in principle by Parliament and until he makes his decision he must keep an open mind on the merits of the proposals. Nevertheless he would take careful note of Parliament's view in reaching his decision.

1541
The Section 9 procedure has been used only once before, for the Central Railway project, but, as the resolution approving the project was defeated in another place, this House did not have the opportunity to debate it. This time the resolution to approve the proposed Stratford station and twin-track connection to the North London and West Coast main lines was passed in another place on 12th June.
The use of the Section 9 procedure in this case is rather unusual. It arises because Section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 provides specifically for these proposals, in any application for a TWA order, to be referred to Parliament under the Section 9 procedure. The Secretary of State has not had to form an opinion on whether they are of national significance: the decision to refer this application to Parliament has been taken out of his hands by Section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act. This special provision was inserted in the Act, with all-party support, to give Parliament an opportunity of formally demonstrating its support in principle for the proposed works.
The Government support these proposals in principle and therefore urge the House to pass this Motion. If the House were to reject it, that would in effect be the end of the matter as the order could not be made. If the House passes the Motion, the project will go forward for more detailed examination at public inquiry. My right honourable friend will then decide whether the order should be made, having taken carefully into account Parliament's approval and the inquiry inspector's recommendations.
With the leave of the House, I shall set out the Government's views on the proposals more fully at the end of the debate. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House, pursuant to Section 9(4) of the Transport and Works Act 1992 ("the Act") as applied by Section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996, approves the following proposals, contained in an application for an Order submitted under Section 6 of the Act by Eurostar (UK) Limited on 23rd January 1997 and entitled The Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Stratford Station and Subsidiary Works) Order, for
(1) The construction, maintenance and operation of—

(i) in the London Boroughs of Hackney and Newham, a station at Stratford for international and domestic services on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link with vehicular parking and other facilities in connection therewith; railways comprising down and up lines to serve international and domestic platforms at that station; and a station access road off Waterden Road, including a bridge over the River Lea;

(ii) in the London Borough of Hackney, a realignment and improvement of Waterden Road;

(iii) in the London Borough of Newham, a subway at the existing suburban Stratford station with a pedestrian link to the new station; and

(iv) in the London Boroughs of Camden and Islington, railways near St. Pancras to provide access between the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and the West Coast Main Line by means of a connection to the North London Line.

1542
(2) The authorisation of works ancillary to the above-mentioned works, including the stopping-up of York Way in the London Boroughs of Camden and Islington, the making of a means of access to and from that road and interference with waterways.
(3) The compulsory acquisition or use of land or rights in land for the intended works; compensation for this and for the injurious affection of land; and the compulsory use of subsoil.—(Baroness Hayman.)
8.6 p.m.
Lord Methuen: My Lords, from these Benches we welcome the proposals put forward in the order. I particularly do so as, having been a member of the CTRL Select Committee of this House, I am especially aware of the importance of the proposals to the scheme as a whole. Having sat through 32 days of the Select Committee, I can appreciate the benefits of having a TWA system.
It is essential that the benefits of the Channel Tunnel are made easily available to the whole country and not just to London and the south east. The provision of the double-track direct connection to the West Coast main line is a vital element and will save some 20 minutes of journey time by avoiding reversal at St. Pancras. It is disappointing that it is not practical to have a similar connection to the East Coast main line.
An inherent worry about the proposal is that the North London line will not have adequate capacity to handle both its existing and future Channel Tunnel rail link traffic. I trust that Railtrack can justify, and will carry out, any necessary improvements to avoid such a bottleneck. Reading the report of the debate on the order in another place, one is aware of the serious concerns about the proposals for the new Stratford station. The urban regeneration of the surrounding area is vital and it is essential that the new station and its pedestrian and road links and other facilities are integrated into the redevelopment of that area of east London with consequential benefit for jobs and the local economy. Those are aspects which will be properly left to the public inquiry and the inspector to resolve.
I have further concerns with regard to rail freight. We had a debate in this Chamber recently on the European railway strategy, which emphasised the need for encouraging traffic off the road. One hopes that connections to the West Coast main line will enable the rail freight freeway concept to be extended dramatically and effectively to the north and to the Midlands by the provision of new train paths to the tunnel, using this link.
There is already overloading of the West London line and the railways of the south east have only limited freight capacity. For effective freight use we need to minimise delays in the London area and at Dollands Moor with locomotives and crews working through from the north to the continental destinations and with open access to the French railways. Inspection at Dollands Moor should be automated, using electronic checking of loading gauge, axle weight and hot box detection, all of which should be practicable.

1543
I am glad that the facilities covered by the order can be achieved without the use of public finance. I look forward to being able to make use of the regional Eurostar services and strongly support the order.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Cadman: My Lords, in rising to support this Motion, I declare an interest in that last year, along with the previous speaker, I had the honour to serve on the Select Committee that examined the CTRL Bill, now an Act. I hope that that will enable me more fully to explain this order to your Lordships.
I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which she presented the order. London & Continental, as part of its bid to construct and operate the CTRL, included in its specification an international and domestic station at Stratford and an improved twin-track connection with the existing North London Line across the King's Cross railway lands. Those latter works are one of the subjects of this order and are to enable traffic to and from other parts of the UK to access the CTRL via the North London Line without having to go into St. Pancras. The station at Stratford will enable these trains to serve London, and its establishment there will enable much regeneration and improvement to take place at what will in fact become a transport centre with connections to central London via the Jubilee Line, to the Docklands Railway and to many parts of south-east England, not only by existing lines but also by the CTRL itself.
The CTRL Act provides for an open box section—a sort of trench—across the Stratford railway lines of about 1 kilometre in length, into which the line will rise from its tunnel from King's Cross and from which it will descend into its tunnel to Barking. That box will accommodate four running lines and platforms and a railway access point for maintenance and emergency purposes.
The order in front of us today provides for the construction of a station at that point with all the necessary facilities for processing international and domestic passengers. It will be connected with the existing station at Stratford by a pedestrian walkway, which I understand will have some kind of travelator installed in it. Thus, travellers from the Continent will be able to complete their journey into London and the south east easily. Similarly, joining passengers will find well planned access and connections to the new service.
The station at Stratford should do much to enhance the regeneration of that part of east London without compromising the local environment to any great extent. Access to the site has been the subject of careful and detailed study and, while car parking will be provided, its use will be managed in such a way as to discourage its use for any purpose other than in connection with international travel.
London & Continental attaches considerable importance to the regional services that will use the station. It has been established that some 20 million people will live within a four-hour journey time to Paris.
1544
Birmingham and the Midlands generally are included in that area and Manchester also will be just over five hours distant, using the links provided for in this order.
One of the advantages of the north of London Eurostar trains, as they are called, is the potential for a seamless and uncomplicated journey from the UK provinces to, in due course, many continental destinations. The security and immigration regimes suggested for the operation of these services appear at present to be somewhat lacking in practicality. They involve the total segregation of intending passengers at various provincial stations in circumstances with which those stations are ill equipped to deal. Such procedures are better done on the trains themselves. I hope that in due course, with the approaching completion of a proper facility at Stratford, careful consideration will be given—dare I say it—to instructing the immigration authorities to be a little more positive about how they propose to service these trains.
The King's Cross connection, while achieving a 20-minute saving in journey time, will do much to alleviate fears that the existing North London Line service will be compromised by its increased use by Eurostar services. The provision of a twin track connection in place of the original single line will provide much additional flexibility of pathing over the critical section of the North London Line through Camden Road by permitting parallel working through this section and reducing the likelihood of the North London Line being blocked by a Eurostar awaiting a path through to the CTRL.
We are all aware that major infrastructure projects usually bear an environmental and human price. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that this scheme is something of an exception. More than 90 per cent. of the land involved is railway land already earmarked for the rail link project and some distance from residential areas. Construction will be undertaken as part of the overall rail link works and will not add significantly to the environmental impact. The comprehensive regime for environmental protection put in place for the rail link Act will also apply to this scheme.
I hope, therefore, that your Lordships on all sides will support a scheme which has so many benefits. The support of this House for the Motion today will be consistent with the expressed will of the last Parliament, which strongly supported the principle of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill in both Houses without a division. Approval of the Motion today will enable the scheme to go forward for detailed consideration at a public inquiry in due course.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, in rising to support this order, perhaps I may first declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, about 32 days sitting in Select Committee. I remind him that, if this order is approved in this House, there will be a public inquiry and we shall see whether the total length of time for the passage of the order through both Houses and for the public inquiry is longer or shorter than its

1545
equivalent for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill. That is something that we shall be looking at in a few years' time.
The noble Lord, Lord Methuen, also mentioned rail freight. I hope that I can put his mind at rest somewhat over the capacity for rail freight in the London area. Earlier this week, Railtrack announced that it would develop a kind of freight bypass for London, going round through Redhill and Guildford to Reading, for freight that does not need to go into or out of London. It is to be hoped that to some extent that will mitigate the problem of capacity constraints within the London area.
I have supported the Channel Tunnel rail link for a very long time, beginning long before I arrived in your Lordships' House. But I have always felt that the rail link was wanting without a station at Stratford and without a proper connection linking to the lines going beyond London. It is a credit to the people of Newham and East London generally that they have fought so hard for the station in the face of much opposition from the previous government, for reasons that I fail to understand. As the noble Lord, Lord Cadman, said, Stratford is a most wonderful transport interchange and it is desperately in need of a little economic regeneration. There are many arguments for building an interchange station there and I strongly support the inclusion of that part of the order.
Similarly, doubling the connection to the North London Line has to go in. I remind your Lordships that what is included in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act was originally intended as an emergency line only, so that if a train were stuck in a tunnel and could not get into St. Pancras, it had a way out without going backwards, which is alleged to be difficult. There was never any intention of running through trains north of London. It is a tribute to the present promoters, who have seen the need to avoid reversing in St. Pancras, that they have now come forward with a very sensible scheme. So I support both parts of the order in that respect.
I should like briefly to revisit one or two matters which I raised in various debates in this House on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill. My first point relates to the construction of the Channel Tunnel rail link and specifically to the matters contained in this order. I should then like to move on to the operations.
As regards the construction, there has been a need for as much material as possible to come by rail. There have been ongoing discussions between the promoters and the English, Welsh and Scottish railways over facilities for the transfer of the aggregates and cement to King's Cross. Some rather unpleasant negotiations took place on the night that the English, Welsh and Scottish railways companies were transferred from British Rail, which seemed to have the effect of removing any security of tenure of the aggregate plants from King's Cross, even though they were required to service the construction. I believe that that issue has now been resolved. But there is still the problem of how many tracks are needed to unload the aggregates. It is very sad that that discussion is still going on about a year later.
1546
If there are not sufficient tracks to unload the aggregates, they cannot come by rail. It is as simple as that. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will use her best endeavours to encourage the promoters and the others involved to sort out that problem quickly.
Turning to Stratford, a year ago I raised the question of some of the land being available for a rail freight terminal, because there is nothing in the area left between Tilbury and Cricklewood. I quite accept that on the Stratford box area, that land has to be dedicated to development to help pay for the station. But up in Temple Mills, to the right hand side, there is a very large area of land which I believe could be used for a small rail freight terminal. It is ideally placed to service a fruit and vegetable wholesale market just across the river from there. It does not even have to have a security of tenure so long as it can move from one place to the other. Again, the negotiations have been going on intermittently for a year with no firm commitment or agreement and I hope that that is something else that my noble friend can further by putting pressure on the promoters.
Turning to the construction generally, I looked up some figures for the Channel tunnel construction the other day. On the UK side, 6,500 trains were used over three or four years to bring materials to the construction site. I hope that the promoters will comply with the spirit as well as the letter of the various undertakings given and bring everything that they can in by rail. It will save an enormous amount of environmental damage to local roads in the Stratford and King's Cross area as well as down the line.
I turn now to the operations. The noble Lord, Lord Cadman, raised the question of the through trains north of London and frontier control activities. He is absolutely right to raise that matter; I raised it a year ago. As I understand it, no progress has been made since that time. It is remarkable that in 1997 the promoters are prevented from carrying national passengers on international trains—they are not really international trains; they are inter-Community trains.
I know that frontiers still exist in this country, but it must be possible to come up with a regime which allows the frontier control people to accept as normal custom and practice a system of processing people on the train. If they need advice on that, they should look back to a morning in March when I returned to London from Paris on the first train of the day. There were six British frontier control people on that train. If the train had been full they would only have had to process 40 people each per hour, and the train was not full so they were probably down to around 10 people per hour. I am sure that they spent the night in Paris on business, but one wonders quite what they were doing there.
There is plenty of time to process people on the train. There is plenty of time to do the necessary checks before the train goes into the tunnel. The consequences of not doing that are that the trains going north of London—even those travelling to London, but I shall stick to those going north—cannot carry national passengers. Problems will occur when the north of London Eurostar starts operating later this year. It will start from

1547
Manchester or Glasgow on its way to Paris. One will not be able to get on to the train at Glasgow and get off at Crewe or Stafford; one will not be able to get on to the train at Stafford on the return journey and get off at Glasgow. Consequently, there will be a large number of empty seats on that train as it gets further from the tunnel, yet there is plenty of time for the frontier control people to process people as the train enters the tunnel. Bearing in mind that we recently read that London & Continental has had to delay its financing process because its traffic and revenue numbers are not up to scratch, surely that is something the Government could consider to assist the company in encouraging more people to use the trains when it launches its extremely important service north of London later this year.
The noble Lord, Lord Cadman, mentioned the immigration service on the trains. I should like to put it the other way round and say that the immigration service is a service to the people using the trains and not the other way round. I hope that the Minister will be able to pass on our comments to the Customs and Immigration services and all the other frontier control people so that when London & Continental starts its service north of London later this year, it can start as it ought to continue; that is, with open stations. When the train reaches Ashford or London on the way to the tunnel, the checks should be done on the train.
I conclude by commending the order to the House. I fully support it and wish it a fair wind in the public inquiry.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I begin, unscripted, by echoing the last few paragraphs of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. It is critical—I may have misheard him; he mentioned Stafford but let me concentrate on Stratford—that the trains create a journey opportunity from the west coast main line into East Anglia. The train existed in the old days in a different form—in fact, some of us went on the last trip—but in terms of passenger convenience, journey opportunity and especially in terms of viability, his argument is well made.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, reminded us, this is the first TWA order to reach this House. The only other one that I can remember—that in relation to the Great Central Railway—died in another place last summer. I cannot think of a better way or a better subject with which to start the process in this House tonight, though I would prefer the expression "national benefit"—on which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, also touched—to "national interest". One's interests and one's benefits are not always the same thing. But if I am to say what I find good about the order—and there is a great deal—let me say it briefly.
The order is good for London. It gives us a third Eurostar station by adding Stratford to Waterloo and St. Pancras. That must be good as a matter of consumer choice and will surely be even better in terms of contributing to solving the chronic congestion problems that exist in the city itself. The order is good for
1548
Kent to London commuters because of the benefits of integrating with existing infrastructure at Stratford, as has been mentioned already. I refer to Anglian Railways, Great Eastern Railways, the Docklands Light Railway, the Central Line and the Jubilee Line extension.
I originally thought that this issue was largely a passenger matter. But the other part of the order, the West Coast link, benefits not only passengers, but also potentially the through-freight from the Continent. We have already discussed trans-frontier freight and anything that makes trans-frontier freight easier must be welcomed.
Perhaps I may mention three caveats. So far I have spoken of all the things that I find good in the underlying order. There are three points which I do not say are bad, but which I should not like to see overlooked. The first is the matter of employment. Most noble Lords will have seen the brief. Putting it shortly, potentially 15,000 jobs may be created in an area of the Stratford hinterland where there are 90,000 unemployed. However, we must not overlook the Docklands experience. Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of jobs were either created or safeguarded. Sadly, not many of them seemed relevant to the local unemployment problem. I hope that the Stratford Promotion Group, whose brief is extremely helpful, will not overlook that fact.
I hope also that all parties concerned will remember the needs of a group unmentioned either when the order went through another place, or so far this evening or in the brief. I put it bluntly: I refer to the needs of the disabled. We must make sure that they have the opportunity to enjoy the wonderful benefits that we have been discussing this evening.
I have one final concern: the timetable. It seems to be as long or as short as the public inquiry, and transport infrastructure inquiries have a habit of expanding not only into the time available but well beyond it. I believe the longest on record at the moment is Stansted; but that will soon be overtaken by Terminal 5. Much closer to home and more personally I can remember an infrastructure inquiry in the New Forest which was scheduled for two working days but actually took 30.
This topic was well raised last Thursday when my noble friend Lord Kinnoull asked an Unstarred Question. Of course, I agree that all interests concerned should have the chance to argue their case; to have their day in court, to use our expression; to have their time at bat, to use the Americanism. I hope the inspector's remit will be such, however, that relevance to the works we are discussing overrides irrelevance. A public inquiry can seriously prejudice the viability of a concept such as Stratford and the west coast main line link. I do hope that this will not turn out to be the case.
Yesterday afternoon I travelled from Brussels to Waterloo. The journey was immaculate and it was punctual; it took me almost five hours from Brussels to my own home. If Stratford had been available, I could probably have saved 30 minutes. That is just one more reason among many, albeit a personal one, for welcoming this order.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Crook: My Lords, I too welcome this order. I am sure that we shall all benefit from it. I do not wish to waste time by repeating what has already been said, so I shall be brief.
The Channel Tunnel rail link is a continental railway. It is not clear, however, whether it will be built to take continental-sized trains like the French TGV. Their trains are bigger than ours and they will not fit. If that is to be the case, then we are in trouble. This should be emphasised with reference to the North London link, because immediately there is no prospect of continental trains running along it. The west coast main line will not take them. That link ought nevertheless to be built to a size that can cope with French trains and where, inevitably, our lines are made bigger.
We should also warn that it would be a pity if the Stratford station construction followed the short-sighted approach at Ashford International, where it has been beautifully arranged so that French trains cannot stop at the Ashford terminal station but will bypass it. Goodness knows why!
Finally, I have a question for the noble Baroness. There is a remarkable little phrase in paragraph 12 of the order: "subsoil or under-surface". In the Oxford Dictionary "under-surface" apparently applies to the "under sides of the shafts of a cart". It is also fairly obviously the underside of the wings of an aircraft. Would the noble Baroness please let me know what it is supposed to mean in the context of this order?
Leaving that aside, I strongly support the order.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, my apologies to the next listed speaker. I enter the debate because I find myself in a difficult situation. I thought we were to hear the details of the works before we heard the Government's view, so that we would know what we were talking about.
When the Channel Tunnel Bill came to this House it was opposed. It was opposed because some people wanted a public inquiry into the whole question of the Channel Tunnel in order to assess its consequences for the rest of the country. One of the points, put quite forcefully, was that the present problem in Great Britain was too much development in the south east, thereby creating a barrier between the rest of the country, including Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the Continent, where the large growth that we need will evidently take place.
The argument against a public inquiry was, "We can settle it without that; rest assured that we will be looking very carefully at the prospect of linking the Channel Tunnel, particularly with the West Coast Line". That was accepted, and we all went along with the idea that that was what would happen. It would not be a question of transferring in London passengers from the north to the Channel Tunnel. There would be a direct line from the north west, Northern Ireland and Scotland right through the south east to the
1550
Continent. At the time I thought that was a perfectly reasonable thing to say. On the Order Paper today, however, I see,
"in the London Boroughs of Camden and Islington, railways near St. Pancras to provide access between the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and the West Coast Main Line by means of a connection to the North London Line".
At first I took that to mean that we were to get a physical link by rail between the rest of the country through the Channel Tunnel without any stopping at all or any interference of that progress in London. It now appears, when I look at the schedule of works, that there is no mention of the West Coast main line. It merely talks of a connection to the North London Line. If my reading of the situation is right, once again the movement from the rest of the country will come up against a barrier. I look forward to being told that I am wrong. I had no hesitation in subscribing to my party's view at the time of what was the real solution to the traffic problems and development problems of Great Britain. I have no hesitation in reaffirming that.
I had a word with the Minister beforehand. I thought that by now I would have heard the details of what exactly was to happen. I have not. I hope still to hear them, and I hope that they will be along the lines of the assurances given to us when the public inquiry did not take place. If one thing has been very firmly established—it was, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, who said so—it is that what is proposed is good for east London and the Jubilee Line. Yes, it is very good for east London, and to hell with the rest of the country's development. There are too many developments going on in London.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I said that the link to the West Coast main line opened up all manner of passenger and freight opportunities that were good for the rest of the country. He will see that when he reads my speech tomorrow.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord is proved right when we hear the details of exactly what is the link between the north west main line and the Channel Tunnel—not London, but the Channel Tunnel. I hope I am wrong, but I would be very surprised if that is so.
The problem is that all the developments in this country are too London-oriented. People are looking for developments in London and the south east. In my opinion and that of many people in the provinces, too much development is being ploughed into London. It is time some of it was pushed back where it belongs—among the majority of people in this country.
8.38 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, we on these Benches support and welcome the order which the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Cadman, have explained to us so well. I also thank the Minister for her kind words. I am sure that we shall have many interesting debates; it is certainly "all change" for us.

1551
I am pleased that the Minister is continuing with the previous government's policy on construction of the high speed link, thereby exploiting the advantages of the private sector in a major Private Finance Initiative or, as it is now known, a private-public partnership.
The line will be routed through east London to achieve the regenerative benefits mentioned by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Cadman, and many other noble Lords. The order will allow for the construction of the international and domestic station at Stratford. This will make it much easier to travel to and from France and the rest of the Continent from the regions rather than just from the south east, as many noble Lords have pointed out so well.
Of course there will be some objections to the scheme but, as many noble Lords have said, these will be best handled by the public inquiry. It is to be hoped that the inquiry will not be too protracted. The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, covered that point very well.
In due course the Government may have to make a decision regarding landfill tax and what to do with the spoil from the works. A satisfactory outcome may make it possible to use rail haulage to rail-connected landfill sites rather than use road haulage to landfill sites near London. I do not expect the Minister to respond to this point. It is merely an observation.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to the use to be made of the other Stratford railway lands and Temple Mills. It may be a little late to address the particular issue that the noble Lord raises. However, the planners and indeed the Minister will need to strike a balance between developing derelict railway land on the one hand and not inadvertently constraining future rail developments on the other.
The noble Lord also made some interesting points regarding customs and immigration formalities. The Minister's right honourable friend the Prime Minister is right to maintain the nation's control of immigration. The controls need to be effective but they do not necessarily need to be burdensome. The noble Lord also referred to the upgrading of the twin-track connection between the west coast mainline and the CTRL. With the twin-track facility, any serious problems at St. Pancras Station can be easily overcome. I am pleased that this very wise decision was made.
I have today very briefly studied the plans for the CTRL scheme between Stratford and St. Pancras and I was struck by the opportunities that will be presented to the construction industry. However, it will require large sums of money to build the railway and there will be risks attached to it. I am quite sure the Minister understands that profit is the reward for taking risks. But does she understand the loss of confidence attached to applying windfall taxes to projects that turn out to be successful? The Private Finance Initiative will work, but only if it allows for private profit as well as private risk.
The noble Lord, Lord Cadman, mentioned the "travelator" between the new station and the existing station. Today I detected some doubt as to whether the walkway will be mechanical. I am, I think, much fitter than many of your Lordships. However, I still find long
1552
walks with luggage very tiring. I hope that the developers will rethink this point carefully. It is not, of course, a matter for the Minister to comment on.
This order is part of the process initiated by the previous government. We have in progress the Heathrow Express, ThamesLink 2000, the Docklands Light Railway extension to Lewisham, the Croydon tram link and the Jubilee Line extension, all programmes inherited from the previous government. I am sure that the Minister will want to continue this process. I hope that she receives the resources necessary to carry on. I look forward to hearing what she has to say in reply to the debate.
8.43 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, this has been an extremely useful if short debate in which there has been a large measure of agreement on the merits of Eurostar's proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Cadman, gave a helpful summary of the proposals and set out persuasively the promoters' case for the House passing the resolution. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, conveyed clearly the Opposition's support for the proposals in principle. Further endorsement was given by all the other noble Lords who spoke in the debate. I hope it will also be given by my noble friend Lord Sefton, with the reassurances about the opportunities that we believe the west coast main line connection will give for regional development and regional passenger travel.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley, the noble Lords, Lord Mountevans and Lord Methuen, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, raised their concerns over the issue of immigration controls. Those are technically not transport matters. However, what was clear to me, listening on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, was the strength of feeling on this issue, and I shall certainly take away those representations and put them in front of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Crook, that I hoped to get inspiration or assistance in replying to him in detail about definitions of "subsoil" and "under-surface". I fear that I am not able to do so this evening but I undertake to write to him on the issues.
The application for the order was made in January by Eurostar (UK) Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of London & Continental Railways, which successfully bid for the contract to build the Channel Tunnel rail link. The works contained in the draft order were not included in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act because the decision in principle to proceed with them came too late for inclusion in the Bill without seriously prejudicing its progress.
The proposed station at Stratford will provide a new intermediate stop for international and domestic services using the CTRL. It will enable passengers to make connections with other railway services at Stratford such as the London Underground Central and Jubilee Lines, the Docklands Light Railway, the North London Line and the Great Eastern Line. The station will thus give passengers a wider choice of access to international and domestic services on the CTRL and make an important contribution to the Government's declared aim of establishing a more integrated public transport system.

1553
In addition—reference was made to this point by several speakers in the debate—the development of the station is expected to create sizeable regeneration benefits for the Stratford area, which is a focal point for development at the western end of the Thames Gateway. Taking into account the scope for redevelopment of adjoining lands, including former railway lands, and the wider development opportunities in the Lower Lea Valley and the Royal Docks, the extra employment prospects for the area in the longer term could be substantial.
I listened with care to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, about whether local jobs will be created by the Stratford development. He was right to bring the attention of the House to the fact that that is not always so. At this stage it is difficult to say exactly what types of jobs will eventually be created. However, I can tell the House that LCR is working with the London boroughs of Newham, Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest to produce a development framework plan for the Stratford development lands. The boroughs will naturally wish to ensure that as many jobs as possible are created for local people.
The other main proposal in Eurostar's application, which is closely associated with Stratford station—it is the area to which the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, referred and on which he was looking for reassurance—is for a twin-track connection from the CTRL to the North London Line and the west coast main line. This will enable trains to and from the Channel Tunnel to bypass St. Pancras station and transfer directly to the North London Line and the west coast main line, thereby reducing journey times from Scotland, the north and the Midlands to and from mainland Europe. The regional development possibilities that this opens up are substantial. Stratford station would be used as the London stop on these through trains. The twin-track connection replaces the single track provided for in the CTRL Act and would greatly increase operational flexibility and reliability.
The department has received 59 objections to, or representations about, the proposed works. Copies have been placed in the Library, along with a copy of Eurostar's application and the associated documentation. The objectors have raised a number of issues concerning mainly the perceived adverse local impacts of the scheme on especially traffic levels, the environment and businesses. Reference has been made tonight to the importance of making sure that there are other public transport links, not solely dependence on car links, to the Stratford terminal. These are matters which quite properly need to be considered carefully before the order is determined. I am sure that they will be discussed at the public inquiry.
I know that concerns have been raised tonight about the possible length of the public inquiry. It is not within my powers to say exactly how long it will be. I point out to noble Lords—it was an issue that was raised in our debate the other evening—that although we tend to focus on the very long inquiries over major infrastructure projects, the majority of inquiries
1554
are nothing like that long. We would hope that this inquiry could go through a properly democratic process but not a long drawn out one.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised an issue regarding the impact of the CTRL on rail freight, which is an area that I know is of great concern to him. He particularly asked about the provision of sidings for the discharge of aggregates and cement to the batching plants, which were covered in assurances given in the passage of the CTRL Act.
There will be one siding with facilities for aggregate discharge. The provision of a second siding providing a simultaneous discharge facility for cement depends on whether the physical constraints of the site can be overcome. I understand that discussions between LCR, the batching companies and EWS on this issue are continuing. I also understand the noble Lord's impatience at not getting a resolution to these matters. I certainly hope that it will be possible to get a reasonably swift resolution.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, raised the issue of access for disabled people to Stratford station. The promoters are required to comply with the advice of the rail regulator and the department's disabled persons transport advisory committee on disability matters as if it directly applied to them. I very much hope that state-of-the-art provision for disabled people will be made in this new development.
If the House passes this Resolution the Secretary of State will have a duty to decide whether the order should be made. His mind must remain open on that decision. In making that decision he must in particular have regard to the inspector's report following a detailed consideration of the proposals and of the objections to them at the public inquiry. The issue for the House this evening is whether in principle the proposals are worthy of going forward for this more detailed examination. If your Lordships judge that they are—as indeed the Government do—this Motion should be supported.
It will be open to the Secretary of State to amend provisions in the draft order or to change the planning conditions attaching to any deemed planning permission in the light of any recommendations by the inquiry inspector. The Secretary of State must also consider the environmental statement in determining whether to make the order.
In the Government's view, the objections that have been made do not raise fundamental issues which might dent our confidence in the overall merits of the proposals, which have been well supported this evening. We are satisfied that the grounds of the objections to the application are of a nature which would be best considered at an inquiry. It seems to us that the proposed works are desirable in principle. They have the potential to bring significant transport benefits by encouraging greater use of the railways, especially for travel to Europe. A new station at Stratford would help towards a more integrated public transport system in London. For the local communities in the East Thames Corridor, there is the prospect of substantial benefits. with more jobs and much-needed urban regeneration.

1555
So the Government have no hesitation in inviting the House to pass this Resolution, while obviously reserving our position on whether, after detailed consideration at a public inquiry, the order should be made. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Organophosphates
8.54 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how members of their advisory committees concerned with the licensing and use of organophosphate products are selected for appointment, and whether they are satisfied that the advice they receive is, in every respect, impartial.
The noble Countess said: My Lords, may I say from the start that, by asking this Question, I cast no aspersions on individuals. It is the system with which I am concerned.
There are three main committees which advise the Government on pesticide matters. About 90 per cent. of pesticides are regulated by the Pesticides Safety Directorate, with the remainder being regulated by the Health and Safety Executive. The Veterinary Products Committee, under the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, advises, among other matters, on veterinary medicines which have organophosphates as an active ingredient. The Advisory Committee on Pesticides advises on agricultural pesticides and the Health and Safety Executive advises on non-agricultural pesticides. As far as I can ascertain, it is only the Health and Safety Committee which includes industry and trades unions on its committees.
As well as the main committees there are specialist sub-committees to advise the main committee on safety and licensing aspects. The main committees then report to Ministers with their recommendations. The lead department is the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I am delighted that the Government are now trying to resolve the conflicting interests within MAFF, where the ministry is expected to promote agricultural production and the interests of farmers and growers while it has a duty to promote consumer and worker health and safety and to protect the environment. There is also an urgent need to review the system of regulation, monitoring and enforcement of pesticide licensing and use.
The advisory committees are all described as "independent", the dictionary definition of which is:
"not dependent or relying on anybody".
I do believe that these committees are independent of government, but I am not so certain that they are independent of the industry which they were set up to regulate. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the Pesticides Safety Directorate are both government agencies, dependent for much of their income upon the fees they charge the chemical companies for licensing new products. They rely upon those same companies to carry out safety assessments and to
1556
submit authentic data. There is no independent cross-check of that data, as I have established from Answers to parliamentary Questions. The committees need trained and experienced staff. In many cases these people will have come from the chemical companies and, as so many are now on short-term contracts, some will want to return to the industry. The industry is also expected to report to the regulators any adverse reactions in humans, animals or the environment. Does the noble Lord the Minister find this dependence acceptable?
Members of the advisory committees tend to be distinguished academics with backgrounds in research, administration and teaching. With the exception of the Health and Safety Executive committees, there are no lay members and, perhaps surprisingly, no women on the main committees. Are there no distinguished women working in the fields from which the advisers are drawn? Appointments are made by MAFF and members must sign a declaration of their interests in chemical companies. We do not know how the appointment process operates, but there must be an element of personal recommendation. There is nothing wrong with this, as long as it is not the only means by which members are selected. There seems to be a nucleus of about 25 individuals who advise on a number of committees.
The scientific community is very close-knit and because the numbers of individuals in specialties is small, they will all know one another. They are dependent upon one another for support, guidance, praise and recognition. If they wish to succeed, they must run with the prevailing ethos of their group, department or specialism. History is littered with stories of the establishment refusing to accept new scientific discoveries and of the ostracism of the discoverers. The first I can think of is Galileo. There may be a number of reasons why scientists tend to take this stance. Their prestige, and therefore their position in the scientific hierarchy, depends upon the authority which is accorded to their work by their peers and by the wider public. They may therefore resist any challengers to their established doctrine for fear of losing face. There may be subtle pressures put upon them by the larger chemical companies to the extent that any dissent from current thinking and practice might lead to a loss of financial or other support to themselves or to their university department. The influence may be as crude as a threat to move to a country where the regulatory regime is more amenable.
What were the influences which precipitated the unfortunate circumstances under which Dr. Jamal, a member of the scientific panel of the Veterinary Products Committee, was forced to tender his resignation? He has said publicly that his experience with large numbers of farmers and others who are suffering nervous system damage led him to believe that continued use of OPs should be suspended, and he made his opinion known to the chairman of the Veterinary Products Committee before he was ever appointed to the panel.

1557
Those who believe their health has been damaged by OPs and others who are working with them have the distinct impression that the establishment is demonstrating an unwillingness to accept the evidence of hundreds of published scientific papers and thousands of individuals who are ill after using OP pesticides.
Members of the advisory committees may not have any direct interest in the chemical companies, but they will have earned the status which has got them on to the committees after working for the industry either directly or through research on behalf of their universities. Unless they have retired, they will still be involved with colleagues who are dependent on chemical company research funds for the continuation of their departments, and those who are administrators may even be involved in obtaining industry funding. Is it unreasonable to suggest that, no matter how they try to avoid it, these people may be influenced by the pressures placed upon them by the need to ensure the viability of their faculties? Are there not pressures put upon them from outside by implied threats of relocation and the loss of valuable income to the nation?
Are Her Majesty's Government satisfied that the advice they receive is in every respect impartial? "Impartial" means "not favouring one more than another". Impartial advisers will hear and see all the available evidence, test its validity and weigh it in the balance without fear or favour. If there is a lack of evidence to support one side or the other, no balanced conclusion can be drawn. Remember Toyber's dictum: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
The Veterinary Products Committee in its report on the Suspected Adverse Reaction Scheme has consistently stated that evidence on the health effects of exposure to OP sheep dips is "inconclusive", without seeking further field or clinical evidence. It has based its advice that OP sheep dips should continue to be used upon that lack of evidence of adverse health effects. It continues to assert that, provided the recommended protective clothing is worn, those involved in sheep dipping will be safe. This is in spite of evidence from the Institute of Occupational Medicine that metabolites from OPs were found in the urine of dippers, whether or not they were wearing protective clothing, indicating that the chemicals had been absorbed. It has also asserted that the inhalation of vapour and spray is not a problem, despite evidence from sufferers. The argument is that no measurable quantities have been found in field tests, while it admits that the equipment used is not able to measure minute doses.
The authorisation procedure relies on the "predictive model". This means that a standard is set based upon the expected effect of a dose of a chemical which is extrapolated from laboratory experiments and conformity with which is deemed to satisfy the safety requirements. Humans are not large rats; even less are they the hens which are used to predict chronic neurological damage. Humans do not all come from the same mould either. It is very apparent that some
1558
can tolerate much higher levels of exposure than others. The underlying ethos is that no drug, chemical or medicine can be absolutely safe and that no test method can be devised to ensure that all possible dangers are identified. Against this, unless a very good reason can be given, there is the general imperative that a product must be approved for sale. If the assessment is made on risk/benefit principles, I ask the Minister how many people—men, women and, worst of all, children—must be made ill before a product is seen to constitute a risk?
The existence of a regulatory system has lulled the public into the belief that all products which are licensed as pesticides or medicines have been subjected to rigorous testing and are safe to use provided the recommended safety precautions are heeded. In reality, there are huge gaps in the safety data, particularly for OPs. The public is now beginning to doubt that the system is reliable. Once a licence has been granted for a product it is contrary to human nature to expect that either the licensing authorities or the manufacturers will willingly admit that they have failed to detect effects which subsequently come to light, for to do so is likely to result in huge compensation claims, particularly where the advisers have recommended to government the use of a particular product in order that compulsory treatment or prevention be carried out—for example, the dipping of sheep to control scab or dressing cattle to prevent warble fly infestation. Manufacturers who were forced to withdraw products by the licensing authority without very strong evidence of undesirable effects would not hesitate to sue. This point was made very clear to the all-party group of MPs and me when we met the then Minister, Mr. John Gummer, to ask for a moratorium on OP dips in 1993. Do not these factors have a bearing on the decision-making process of the Government's advisers?
There is no mechanism for an impartial challenge to be made to the fundamental bases upon which the evaluation of a pesticide is conducted. While the regulating authority may take a neutral view, accepting and proposing authorisation criteria, it does not appear to question whether the criteria are adequate. The view that the authority takes may be neutral, but it is not impartial. The developer puts his case but there is no one to put the case against and it does not call for any contrary evidence.
As many have found to their cost, there is a fundamental imbalance between the evidence required prior to the licensing of a product and that required post-release. If damage is alleged to have occurred it must be proven to a very rigorous scientific level, while the scientific evidence required by the regulators need not. Compared with the energy and resources generated prior to licence authorisation, the manpower and funding provided to investigate events which have led to claims of ill-health or environmental damage is minuscule. This results in a procedure which cannot be impartial because the system in which it operates lacks balance.
These expert committees are often required to make decisions upon incomplete evidence, so the only verdict they can give is that of "not proven". This

1559
cannot be an impartial response if the resources allocated to field and clinical investigations are inadequate and the evaluators do not qualify their findings accordingly. They rely upon what may be called "constructive ignorance" by being content to rule on the evidence which is before them and avoid a search for information that may lead them to a different decision. That is not being impartial.
Of course, there is also an inherent bias in that human nature decrees that arbiters tend to favour their own judgment and resist the opposite view. The Cairns Committee in its review of the authority which both licensed aircraft as airworthy and was responsible for investigating aircraft accidents coined the phrase "intellectual corruption". Is there not room for intellectual corruption in the deliberations of these committees?
A short while ago I came upon the following quotation from A Pride of Tigers by Sybil Marshall:
"I fell to wondering why it is that 'experts' so often get things wrong. Once they become experts they know all the answers, so they don't ask questions. They simply reach out and take the most likely ready-made explanation from the peg and use it, whether it fits the case in point or not".
OP victims are tired of, and distressed by, a medical profession which tells them that they should see a psychologist, or that conventional medicine can do nothing for them, simply because the medical profession is confounded by the multitude of symptoms with which their patients present, and there is no easy explanation in the medical literature and no clear lead from the Department of Health.
I ask the Minister whether he will ask his right honourable friend in another place to review the means by which appointments to the Government advisory committees are made; whether he will consider creating a pool of suitable candidates from which he can draw by a method similar to that used for jury service; that these candidates should include young scientists, PhD students for example, as well as senior members of the profession; women, and lay people with field experience in using products similar to those to be licensed. Will he look into ways of reducing the dependence of university departments and other research facilities on the chemical industry for funding of research into their particular field? Will he consider the exercise of the precautionary principle rather than risk analysis as the basis for the issue of a licence for a product, especially when there is a lack of toxicity data available? Will he work towards the separation of licensing procedures from procedures to investigate harm caused to humans, animals and the environment by licensed products? Finally, will he make all these procedures open to scrutiny? Is he aware that I have obtained most of the information I have on OPs not from the UK but from the United States under their Freedom of Information Act?
9.9 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I propose to intervene briefly in the debate to support the noble Countess in yet another aspect of the long
1560
battle to establish the truth about the Gulf War syndrome and the role of OPs and to raise a related concern.
On the first point, much of what the noble Countess had to say about possible constructive ignorance and intellectual corruption, and above all about the need to make procedures open to scrutiny, including the way in which committees are appointed, is equally applicable to some of the committees appointed by the European Commission. On a number of issues, ranging from the quality of bathing water to the protection of birds, I have been struck by the lack of transparency which characterises the agenda, the reporting and even the membership of the committees responsible. It is often difficult, if not impossible, to establish what scientific and technical advice has been given, and only too often legitimate requests for information are refused.
It is all the more important therefore that we should ensure the most open proceedings possible on the issue at a national level, especially when the issue is one of public confidence and morale. The public is much more ready to accept bad news than to encounter all the doubts and anxieties that arise from obfuscation. We have good scientists and conscientious public servants. Let us ensure that they are seen to be open to accept even the most inconvenient facts.
My other concern, though somewhat alleviated by the statement yesterday of the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, that research into OPs is being funded jointly by the Department of Health, MAFF and the HSE, is that the Ministry of Defence should be fully seized of all scientific evidence available to the three main committees listed by the noble Countess and should, in its turn, submit to them whatever scientific, medical or other relevant information on the issue of the effect of OPs may emerge from the inquiry being conducted by the Ministry of Defence in response to the Defence Committee in another place.
An independent co-ordinator, someone who is neither a civil servant in the ministries concerned (the MoD and MAFF) nor a member of any of the existing committees, should be appointed to review all relevant information. Such a co-ordinator should be free to hear evidence given under the equivalent of parliamentary immunity from any present or indeed former member of those ministries who possesses relevant information.
If mistakes were made or information was not considered relevant or sufficiently substantial and was therefore not brought forward, or even suppressed, now is the time to remedy that. That may offer the chance to set the record straight and to ensure that there are no more time-bombs of undisclosed knowledge ticking away. An independent co-ordinator could help to ensure that ministries do not decide that partial evidence is no evidence and therefore take no action. Sufferers from the effects of OPs have been left in limbo for too long. That is not right, and something must be done.
9.13 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I offer my support to the noble Countess and my noble friend and what they have said this evening, and I hope that the Minister will take it seriously. I look back at my time in MAFF, which I enjoyed greatly, and at the great quality of the civil servants there, and of our scientific advisers. I do not wish them to think that what I say is any criticism of them.
I look back and think that we set up those committees and used them in a way which led to many of the problems that we faced towards the end of our term in office, and which led to the breakdown in trust between the people of this country and MAFF and what it said.
Looking back, I can understand how we came to set up and use committees in that way. It is clear that MAFF does not have within it, and politicians do not have within their ranks, the expertise necessary to provide answers to difficult scientific questions. From the point of view of public trust, they need to set up committees which have a measure of independence. From the point of view of making decisions, they need to obtain from those committees a single, clear recommendation.
It then became the practice that the Government relied on and enacted the recommendations of these committees. Indeed, they took them as gospel, not to be quarrelled with. It therefore became necessary that the people on the committees should display a great deal of level-headedness and that they should not represent extremes of opinion; that they should be able to agree together and not produce dissenting opinions. Those committees seemed to be selected by a process of networking, as the noble Countess suggested. Clearly, the politicians did not know who the right people were. I suspect that in many cases the civil servants did not know who the right people were. They were discovered by talking to other people and generally finding out through the scientific community who were the best people for the job.
At the time, that seemed to me to be a very reasonable way of going about things. But, now that I look back at all the difficulties we had, I can see perhaps more clearly the imperfections that were present in the system. As the noble Countess said, scientists are human beings; they are subject to bias, like the rest of us. In science, there always has been a strong pattern of consensus. If you were a believer in the Phlogiston theory, when that was right, you would fight viciously people who proposed that it was wrong. That has always been the way that science has evolved. A consensus has been fought against by a few outsiders until it has been overturned and the rebels become the consensus in their turn. We have been using a system to choose people for these committees which is strongly biased towards consensus, principally because we have demanded that at the end of the day the committees produce a consensus themselves.
1562
Scientists are subject to natural biases in that they wish to continue to have careers and they wish their research to be paid for. The two principal sources for that are either the Government and the committees that they set up, which will tend towards consensus and the consensus view of what research should be done, or industry, which will tend towards research which does not undermine its own business.
That process has also led to committees which tend to exclude people from participation. They exclude the industry from open participation, they exclude users and they exclude consumers. Those groups must then make their impact on decisions covertly. Obviously, industry has ways of doing that, but others must develop their own ways of influencing the committees, as it were, in secret.
That leads to a whole process of dissatisfaction, a feeling of cover up and a lack of trust. That bedeviled us in so many aspects of what we were doing in MAFF. Looking back, we believed that we were doing the right thing. We all believed that we were doing the honest thing, that we were taking the right decisions and that we were treating matters fairly and honestly. But the structures that we were using, the structures we had set up, did not allow the public to believe that too.
I believe that other models could he pursued by the Government which would achieve the same effects without the down side. I suggest that the Government might consider the example of the Court of Appeal, with tribunals and, indeed, this House itself, and in the way in which they operate. If the House of Lords sends down a judicial decision by three votes to two that is accepted as a reasonable decision. No one argues with the decision. It is understood that there may not be an absolute, right answer, that there might be two sides of opinion, but it has been decided. Why cannot we have committees in which that level of dissent can be experienced and expressed, but nonetheless we accept their decisions when they come down—or at least we accept them as being the decisions of the committees?
In court, the experts appear as witnesses and not as arbiters. They can be questioned and other points of view can be brought to bear. Access can be had by interest groups and others who are affected by the decisions. The whole thing can be weighed in public before a decision is reached. If at the end of the day the committee arrives at what may be seen as the wrong decision politicians will feel able to intervene, as they would with the court. We in this House have had some long debates about the Government overruling the House of Lords in a decision that it has reached. Why should we feel differently about a scientific committee on a technical aspect of organophosphates, BSE or whatever? Politicians have a role to play. They have recently shown that most strongly in the case of firearms control, where a serious and well set up committee produced recommendations with which we disagreed and we wanted to act more strongly. The Government wish to go further than that. Politicians have a role. They should not feel cowed and unable to play their role

1563
because they have set up committees which are so totally expert that the Government cannot claim to have a role in the process.
I believe that this is a matter which should attract the Government's serious consideration. If they wish to avoid the kind of problems which we let ourselves in for during the past five years, I hope particularly that they will bear that in mind when constructing the new food safety agency. We do not know a great deal about it so far, but what has been posited makes it sound like a sort of super committee, which will be so inward turned and so bound up with its own way of doing things that it will, perhaps, need another regulator over it to ensure that the public voice can be heard and influence what the committee chooses to do.
It is enormously important that we should take this opportunity of a new government and of their determination to have open government and freedom of information—all of which I agree with—to reform the structures within MAFF which have so held us back from being seen to do what we have always believed to be right and what I believe officials and scientists in the expert committees have always tried to do; namely, do the best for the people in this country as a whole and to make honest and correct decisions.
9.21 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, I want to thank the noble Countess for placing this Question before us and the others who have spoken in the debate. I believe that the quality of the speeches has fully compensated for the fact that they have been few in number.
When, somewhat to my surprise, I took this ministerial position I rapidly realised that it was bound to involve an early encounter with the noble Countess. Given her track record, that was bound to be a daunting prospect. However, I should say that it was also a pleasing prospect. I am grateful to the noble Countess for forcing me to look early on into this important issue. I hope that I and my fellow Ministers will bring a fresh mind to it and that I can encourage the department, as I am sure I can, to take a fresh look at the matter. Some of us have been too long in government, even if it was a long time ago, to assume that fresh looks always mean fresh conclusions, but I can certainly promise a fresh look.
We fully recognise the concerns of the noble Countess about the effects of exposure to organophosphorus products. MAFF Ministers have repeatedly said that there is no scientifically recognised and widely accepted clinical syndrome associated with low level exposure to organophosphate sheep dips. That remains the case so far as concerns our scientific advice. Yet, while this statement so far as it goes may be technically accurate, it does not, I fear, recognise the concerns of the large group of
1564
people who clearly believe that they are suffering from the effects of exposure to organophosphorus products.
Therefore, from the beginning, I want to assure the House that we have every sympathy with those individuals. There can be little doubt that the suffering of this group of people is quite genuine and the cause of it must be fully investigated. We are totally determined to look closely into the issue. We shall take whatever steps are necessary, including the relevant scientific and clinical research, to satisfy ourselves that effective consideration is given to those concerns.
Of course the regulatory systems must be based on sound science. But in practice many of the decisions which regulators take are a matter of balance. The advisory committees and the regulatory agencies face the challenge of weighing benefits against safety concerns guided only by the certainty that their knowledge is incomplete. We therefore intend to examine carefully whether the balance of decision making—much of what the noble Countess was saying was about that balance—lies where we and the public believe it should lie.
Our recent proposal to broaden the membership of the advisory committees to include lay members—I am not sure everyone interested in this area has taken that on board—is one step towards this goal. We shall also be meeting the chairmen of the committees to seek to understand, among other things, how they determine what is an acceptable risk and whether the resulting balance reflects the public's concerns. We want to look again at ways to improve the system. We are ready to consider proposals to achieve this and we aim to get the balance right, or more right. I have never achieved perfection in anything in my life and therefore I have to qualify that.
I am sure noble Lords are aware that members of the advisory committees are appointed by agriculture Ministers with the agreement of health Ministers and, in the case of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, the Secretary of State for the Environment. Members are selected for their scientific expertise relevant to the advice offered to Ministers. The noble Baroness rightly argues that such scientific expertise should be particularly relevant to the health dangers associated with a specific product. That is pertinent and I shall pursue it. I shall also wish to be reassured that sufficient relevant medical expertise is present.
There is full public consultation to seek nominations for membership. Over 80 organisations are consulted and there will shortly be consultation on the replacement and reappointment of members whose term of office expires at the end of 1997. As regards members of the Veterinary Products Committee, recommendations for appointment are subject to the consultation of the Medicines Commission. There is a statutory duty under the Medicines Act to recommend to Ministers persons considered to be well qualified to serve on the Veterinary Products Committee and the other Section 4 committees.

1565
Current membership of the Veterinary Products Committee includes expertise in human as well as veterinary medicine. The committee has a medical and scientific panel set up specifically to look into reports of long-term health effects from the use of organophosphorus sheep dips and advise on research. The chairman of the panel, Dr. Bateman, is also a member of the Veterinary Products Committee. Seven out of the 14 present members of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, including the chairman, have expertise in the medical field, including human toxicology and occupational medicine.
As a result of the medical and scientific panel's recommendations, the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh is to conduct a half a million pound study of long-term, low level exposure to OP sheep dips. The report is expected in 1999. We trust that this will help us further to understand this complex issue. I fully understand the concerns of the noble Countess about the balance of expert advice. My right honourable friend the Minister has already said, as I mentioned, that he is looking at the appointment of consumer or lay representatives on advisory committees in the area of food safety. That will also include committees such as the Veterinary Products Committee.
The noble Countess mentioned women members. I am pleased to inform the House that there are two women, Dr. Gaskell and Miss Gibson, on the VPC and Dr. Carter on the APC. Whether that is enough—whether there are ever enough—to satisfy noble Baronesses in this House remains to be seen. However, I can assure the noble Countess that we are reviewing the system of appointments. Her mention of a panel will be helpful to us when we consider appointing extra people to the committees.
The Veterinary Products Committee discussed Professor James's report on the Food Standards Agency and is submitting comments. The committee had no objection to lay membership or to greater openness and transparency. The Government need to look at the confidentiality provisions of the Medicines Act in order to achieve the maximum openness compatible with the restraints of that Act.
On the difficult question of impartiality, we naturally wish to ensure that the Government receive the best advice from those best qualified to give it. It is inevitable that the expertise of members is valuable to industry too, which will often be looking to the same people. We have to assume that we receive impartial advice. However, if anyone has further considered suggestions—and I include the remarks of the noble Countess and the noble Baroness, Lady Park—on how we can further guarantee impartiality perhaps they will write to me and I shall consider those specific proposals sympathetically.
The noble Countess mentioned financial conflicts. Strict controls exist. For the Veterinary Products Committee, members make an annual declaration of interests. Those are published in the annual report which is part of a composite publication covering the Medicines Commission and other Section 4
1566
committees. The publication also includes the code of practice governing the declaration of interests. As well as that annual declaration, members are required to declare interests at meetings. If interests are declared, the chairman excludes members from discussion or limits their participation, as appropriate.
For the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, there is a statutory requirement that members are appointed only on signature of a declaration to the effect that they have,
"no financial or commercial interest as would be likely to prejudice the proper discharge of their functions".
The appointment of members with some minor connections with industry is not ruled out. Each case is judged against the test of "likely to prejudice".
In addition to the statutory rules, all members are also required to make an annual declaration of all industry interests, however minor, covering both personal interests and those of their employer. This declaration is published in the committee's annual report. So I think I can say to the noble Countess that I am reasonably convinced that financial conflicts of interest concerning members' direct incomes are not of real, practical concern. Whether the financing of research at universities and institutions connected to members is an issue I am not so sure and will investigate further.
I sympathise with the noble Countess's question as to why independent research is not done into the safety of the veterinary and pesticide products that the Government approve. I have asked my officials the very same question. Typically, it takes 10 years to develop and test a product, but the precise formulation will not be settled until the last year or so of development. If government conducted safety tests, these could not begin until very late in the day, delaying availability. It would also mean that work would be duplicated. In an international market different countries could be carrying out the same experiments and achieving the same results. There would be unnecessary experiments on animals and unnecessary suffering.
That said, I am, however, prepared to examine the matter further to see whether there is any sensible and selective way of involving government or some extra independent dimension. Here I think of the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park; namely, to double check those cases where there is particular reason for concern. It would probably involve public expense, and I cannot make a commitment to that. However, public health is one of our top priorities.
The approach used by the regulators is to demand all the information generated; and for veterinary medicines there is a legal requirement, including adverse results. Even early experiments on the active compound can be considered by the advisory committees. That gives a broader understanding of the product's properties and is more reliable than simply a limited range of tests carried out by government.
If significant gaps in the safety data emerge during evaluation, then the product is not authorised or approved. In addition, the data have to be produced

1567
to recognised standards, including OECD guidelines, and good laboratory practice controlled by the Department of Health.
Having described all these magnificent protections, there may still be ways in which the system can be improved. There may be circumstances, for instance, in which an early dialogue between manufacturers and regulators could result in a wider range of experimental data becoming available on which a scientific judgment can be made. I have asked my officials to look at all the suggestions and arguments advanced by the noble Countess, the noble Lord and the noble Baroness and to consider any practical improvements that could be made on current practice.
Finally, perhaps I may turn to one or two specific points that arose. To the noble Countess, I say that I am also aware that expert committees may balance in one direction or another, even with the best of intentions. I sense that that is possible to smell; it is difficult to assess, and extremely difficult to correct. Nevertheless, I promise her that we will try.
1568
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, suggested that the precautionary concept should be given greater priority. I have great sympathy with that approach and have already asked officials to look into how that might be secured. The House should be aware that the present criteria are safety, quality and efficacy. We will consider whether it is possible to qualify that with the precautionary element. MAFF is closely in touch with the Ministry of Defence, but we will certainly pursue the noble Baroness's suggestion of an independent co-ordinator.
I found the reflection of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on his time as spokesman helpful and commendably honest. He aptly described the dilemma of Ministers assessing scientific advice. He described it with painful accuracy and I can assure him that nothing that happened on 1st May has altered that dilemma. He is probably right that the present system is not transparent and open enough. He made helpful suggestions about a better model; we shall look at them in our present review. The one thing that I can promise him is that we are not cowed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before ten o'clock.

  St. Helena: Aid Budget
  St. Helena: Aid Budget
  Baltic States: English Language Textbooks
  Baltic States: English Language Textbooks
  Religious Discrimination
  Religious Discrimination
  Firearms: Penalties for Illegal Possession
  Firearms: Penalties for Illegal Possession
  Passport Agency: Performance against Targets
  Passport Agency: Performance against Targets
  Child Benefit for Over-16s
  Child Benefit for Over-16s
  British Citizens from Sierra Leone: Habitual Residence Test
  British Citizens from Sierra Leone: Habitual Residence Test
  Chemical Manufacture and Export Information
  Chemical Manufacture and Export Information
  Legal Aid: R. v. Kevin Maxwell and Others
  Legal Aid: R. v. Kevin Maxwell and Others
  Dr. Jawad Hashim: Payments to Counsel
  Dr. Jawad Hashim: Payments to Counsel
  "Highway Code": Revision
  "Highway Code": Revision
  "Manifesto for Change"
  "Manifesto for Change"