Sitting of 17 March 1997

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

    Unemployment
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on current trends in the level of unemployment in Wales. [18861]
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about unemployment in Wales. [18836]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): Unemployment is falling fast in Wales. It has fallen by 9,200 in the past three months.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I extend my hearty congratulations on his recent engagement. I know that we all wish him the very best for the future. His announcement coincides with the excellent unemployment figures. Is he aware that, at 7 per cent., unemployment in Wales is far lower than unemployment in the European countries, such as France, Germany and Italy, and in Spain, where it is 22 per cent? That is because those countries have been saddled with the social chapter and the minimum wage. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of Wales would be cruelly cheated if this country should ever support a Labour Government, who would cost them their jobs and their livelihoods?
    Mr. Hague: I am grateful to my hon. Friend: she is correct about unemployment in Wales. The Government have brought new jobs to Wales in record numbers in recent years. Week after week, there have been new announcements of additional employment. This weekend, Optical Fibres—an extremely high-technology company based in north Wales—announced that it has a thriving order book and that it expects its output to quadruple by 2001, and announced 200 new jobs in north Wales. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will no doubt welcome that announcement, but only Conservative Members are prepared to pursue the policies that will keep such announcements coming.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend join me, as a regular visitor to Welsh questions, in welcoming the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) to his first Welsh Question Time? Does my right
    608
    hon. Friend agree that the improvement in the Welsh economy is due to the fact that we have modern industrial relations and low corporate taxes and have not signed the social chapter? Does he also agree that a party that is in hock to the trade unions would destroy our industrial relations, and that a party whose Chief Whip says that it wants to refine the tax system would soon deal with corporate taxes too?
    Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition want to pursue, in Wales and in the rest of the United Kingdom, policies that have thrown millions of people out of work in continental Europe. Unemployment in Wales has fallen by more than 9,000 in the past three months, while unemployment in Germany and France has reached post-war highs. The Opposition propose that other countries should decide our social and labour rules and regulations.
    It would be churlish of me not to welcome the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) to Welsh questions—although heaven knows what the people of Newport, East will think that they are being asked to vote for in the election, or which party the hon. Gentleman will end up in by the end of the next Parliament. Nevertheless, I hope that he will join me in welcoming a 19 per cent. fall in unemployment last year in the constituency that he seeks to represent.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the people of Newport will vote for a Labour Government because they know that a Labour Government will give steady and reliable support to higher and further education. Does he accept that it is crucial to the employment prospects of the people of Newport and to the success of inward investment in Wales that we should have full-hearted support for education? Does he share my grave concern at the closure of the engineering course at the university of Wales institute in Newport?
    Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman is right: education is extremely important to future job creation in Wales. I hope that he will join me in welcoming a newspaper headline of two weeks ago which said that south-east Wales will be the best place in the United Kingdom to get a job for several years to come—perhaps it sent him off in that direction. It is important to invest in education and training. That is why much of the assistance that we are giving to the LG project, which will benefit the Newport area, is in the form of help with training. We shall continue such support.
    Mr. Ron Davies: I also extend my welcome to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) on his first attendance at Question Time on Welsh affairs, and offer him my congratulations on winning the nomination for his new constituency of Newport, East. I am sure that it will be the last for a long time while sitting on the Opposition Benches.
    Any fall in unemployment is obviously to be welcomed, but why does not the Secretary of State present the more rounded picture of the Welsh economy? Will he confirm that we now have 200,000 fewer people in Wales in employment than we did when the present Prime Minister took office? As the low pay unit showed last Friday, in addition to Wales having the highest proportion

    609
    of full-timers earning less than that represented by the European decency threshold, the pay gap between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom is widening.
    Now that the election is upon us, the choice for the people is clear. The Labour party offers hope for the future with plans for the young and long-term unemployed, improvements to training and education, the establishment of the university for industry, investment incentives and infrastructure investment, along with welfare-to-work programmes, partnership with the private sector and a revitalised Welsh Development Agency.
    How proud is the Secretary of State that, after 18 years in office, all that his Government have to offer is a divided party, a weak leader and excuses for past failures?
    Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman says that any fall in unemployment is obviously welcome. That has become a routine comment for Opposition Members because a fall in unemployment has become routine. It would not be a routine thing if we were to follow the Labour party's policies. Adoption of the social chapter and a minimum wage would price tens of thousands out of their jobs along with hundreds of thousands throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.
    The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) asked whether I am proud of what we have done in Wales. I am proud of what we have done in building a stronger economy, investing in infrastructure and delivering the best prospects in the lifetime of my generation in Wales and in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Welsh economy needs the hon. Gentleman presiding over it as it needs a hole in the head.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I, too, extend my felicitations to my right hon. Friend on his engagement.
    Is not one of the reasons for the favourable disparity between the 7 per cent. unemployment rate in Wales and the 12.5 per cent. in Germany, with 12.4 per cent. in France, the fact that we have cut public expenditure as a proportion of gross domestic product? Is it not becoming clear that, were the Labour Opposition to return to government, that policy would be abandoned, causing a devastating rise in unemployment in the longer term?
    Mr. Hague: I thank my right hon. Friend for his personal remarks. As I do not have any briefing on those, I do not think that it falls within my ministerial responsibilities more fully to respond. My right hon. Friend has asked what must be the last question that he will be asking at Welsh Question Time during a long career in the House. I am sure that the entire House would wish to pay tribute to him and to the work that he has done for Wales and his constituents over so many years.
    My right hon. Friend is right about expenditure, and he is right about the Labour party's policies. Labour says that it would not spend any more money in Wales over the next two years than that which is set out in our plans. It says also that it wants to give more money to local authorities and to the Welsh Development Agency. At the same time, it will have to finance a Welsh Assembly. The people know that that does not add up. The Labour party will be rumbled.

    Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
    Mr. Touhig: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the board of Cardiff Bay development corporation. [18828]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): My right hon. Friend and I have regular meetings with the chairman and my right hon. Friend last met the board in May 1996.
    Mr. Touhig: Is the Minister aware of the remarks made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who recently described quangos as being logo manufacturers and gatherers of knighthoods? I cannot think in what context that comment would apply in Cardiff bay. Does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State that decisions are best taken by people elected to office and not by people appointed to quangos who meet in secret behind closed doors?
    Mr. Jones: From his time in the Welsh Office and since, I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and I share similar approaches towards quangos. I find the hon. Gentleman's remarks somewhat odd as he is a Johnny-come-lately into Welsh politics who has been saddled with trying to breathe life into the corpse of a Welsh Assembly. He is the proponent of the arch quango.
    Sir Irvine Patnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that all development corporations have brought investment and work into their areas? Is not the Cardiff Bay development corporation an example of the good things that the Conservatives have done, despite opposition from the Labour party?
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is right; he points to the reality of the situation. We have lame acceptances from Labour Members that any fall in unemployment is welcome. We get equally lame acceptances of any new announcement. The Cardiff bay redevelopment is confidently expected to generate 29,000 jobs in the capital city of Wales and throughout south Wales. Who were the stoutest opponents of the scheme? They were Welsh Members sitting on the Labour Front Bench.

    Manufacturing Skills
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action has recently been taken to raise the level of manufacturing skills in Wales. [18830]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jonathan Evans): A great deal of action is being taken. That includes provision for a further 4,800 young people to start modern apprenticeships in 1997–98; increased funding for adult technician training; and initiatives to meet the need for skills in the electronics and semi-conductor sectors.
    Mr. Fabricant: We take for granted falls in unemployment and we are beginning to take for granted the fact that Wales is becoming the silicon valley of Europe. Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to liquid manufacturers, such as Ty Nant, the water manufacturers

    611
    in Lampeter? Will he also pay tribute to Swy y Mor, the Welsh whisky manufacturer, whose product is available throughout the known world? What would be the effect on those manufacturers of the imposition of European employment law?
    Mr. Evans: I happily respond to my hon. Friend's invitation in relation to the Welsh whisky company because it is based in my constituency. I have noted my hon. Friend's welcome for the great success of Ty Nant water. A number of water companies within the Principality have managed to develop a high international profile. My hon. Friend is right to say that that does not just happen, as Labour Members believe. It is the product of investment in the skills of the people who work in those businesses. The difference between us and Labour Members is that we understand that, whereas they do not.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Is not the true answer to the question that little has been done to raise manufacturing skills in Wales? Is that not the reason why the average wage in Wales is the lowest in the United Kingdom, with some workers getting as little as £1.61 an hour? Is not the low pay unit report a fitting epitaph for this Government? On 1 May, the people of Wales and of Great Britain as a whole will say that enough is enough.
    Mr. Evans: I preface my remarks by saying that I anticipate that that question will be one of the last contributions made by the hon. Gentleman. Whatever political differences there have been between us, he well knows that I very much respect him. I find it rather strange, however, to see him sitting with the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). What an incongruous threesome they make. The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) used to understand that introducing a minimum wage was a way in which to destroy jobs. It is rather sad that he is singing a different tune now.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Would my hon. Friend care to speculate on the effect on jobs in Wales, particularly in the telecommunications industry, were BT to lose £2 billion or £3 billion in a windfall tax and the money that supports those jobs were transferred to make-work schemes and training schemes that have no jobs at the end of them?
    Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the Labour party says so little about the implications of the windfall tax. Many people who work for the privatised utilities in Wales have good cause to take on board the points raised by my hon. Friend and, furthermore, the effect on jobs of the introduction of the social chapter—a matter that has been raised not only by my hon. Friends. I had the opportunity of visiting one of our biggest mid-Wales businesses and the first point raised with me expressed concern about Labour's policy in that respect.
    Mr. Wigley: If this is indeed the hon. Gentleman's last Welsh Question Time, may we wish him well in his future incarnation? May I press him on the point that the most relevant investment in manufacturing industry is often in higher and further education, which provide the necessary
    612
    skills. In that context, is the Minister happy, after receiving representations from the university of Wales and other colleges concerning the reduction in the funding available for education and research? Is he aware that we shall lose considerable input into the Welsh economy unless the shortfall is found? The Secretary of State says that the money is not available for higher education because it has gone into LG, but surely we need to find money for both if we are to invest in the future.
    Mr. Evans: There has been a significant expansion over the years in investment in higher and further education in Wales, as the hon. Gentleman is aware. His point relates to this year's provision in respect of further education, which has increased to some £162.5 million. Against the background of some of the representations from the sector, last year there was clear recognition that the settlement for Wales was higher than that for England.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: The Minister gives a rather belated example of conversion to sensible policies on training when it was a Conservative Government who slaughtered apprenticeship schemes in the 1980s. While we welcome his new conversion to modern apprenticeships and the additional money provided for technicians this year, is it not true that there have been cuts in the budgets of the further and higher education funding councils and in the overall employment and training budget? Manufacturers throughout south Wales remain concerned about the shortage of training skills and the Government's own target for training and skills is still woefully behind what is really needed. Will it not be a real blessing when, in May this year, we have a Government who will truly concentrate on improving skills and education in Wales?
    Mr. Evans: All that I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that the Council of Welsh Training and Enterprise Councils recently published an action plan for manufacturing. The hon. Gentleman tells us that he has read it, so perhaps he will have read the response from a range of agencies—the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales, the Further Education Funding Council for Wales and the Confederation of British Industry—and from their paymasters, the Trades Union Congress. They all welcomed the approach in that document and I urge Opposition Members to do so as well.

    Quangos
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about appointment to quangos in Wales during 1996. [18831]
    Mr. Hague: My Department has received several representations.
    Mr. Jones: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that one of the most miserable and disreputable aspects of the Conservative Government in the past 18 years has been the way in which they have appointed their friends to run quangos in Wales? What could be more damaging to the cause of democracy than for Members of Parliament rejected by the electorate to be appointed to run the health service and represent the interests of consumers in Wales? With one or two notable exceptions,

    613
    does he not realise that all he and his friends have done is further the cause of the Conservative party in Wales? We deserve a far better system of government and we shall vote for it on 1 May.
    Mr. Hague: After the question by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) earlier, I thought that it was impossible to hear more rubbish in one question time. However, we have now heard more from the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) who says that we have filled boards with political friends of the Conservative party. Lord Elis-Thomas does a good job for the Welsh Language Board and he was appointed by the Conservative Government. I have recently appointed to the WDA board Councillor Noel Crowley of Neath and Port Talbot, who is a leading member of the Labour party in Wales. There is also George Wright, who is a leading representative of the trade unions in Wales. Those people sit on those bodies because we select people for them on merit—and that is how it should be.
    Mr. Hanson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the recent group of people that he appointed to monitor appointments to quangos were themselves appointed without any advertisements being placed—on his say-so only? Is it satisfactory to have a quango monitoring appointments to quangos? Would it not be far better to have an elected assembly monitoring the performance of quangos?
    Mr. Hague: What we have under the new arrangements is an independent element in the selection of people for public office. If the hon. Gentleman or anybody else suggests people for those lists, they would of course be considered. The idea that better appointments would be made because there was a room full of people in an assembly arguing about it, and claiming a fat expense account for doing so, is absolutely ludicrous.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I invite my right hon. Friend to reflect on the irony that many Opposition Members who campaigned vigorously against quangos want to hand their country over to the ultimate quango—the European Commission in Brussels.
    Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. It is the Labour party's policy to sign away—no doubt it would do it at the Amsterdam summit if it had the chance—and get rid of the British veto on social policy, regional policy, industrial policy and environmental policy. That is not a policy that will win the support of the British people.

    Job Insecurity
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent assessment he has made of job insecurity in Wales. [18832]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: In spring 1996, according to the labour force survey, 8.3 per cent. of Welsh employees were in temporary employment.
    Mr. Hain: Has the Minister had any discussions with Lucas Industries Ltd. over the closure of its Neath factory and the transfer of 170 jobs to Poland? Why does he keep
    614
    denying that job insecurity in Wales is rife, when the number of temporary workers has increased since the last election by more than a quarter, and in his own backyard in the Welsh Office, it has increased by a half? He will soon understand a great deal more about job insecurity when the voters of Wales sack all the Conservative Members on 1 May.
    Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman would do better not to prejudge the outcome of the election. As he is interested in international comparisons, let me point out that the number of people who are engaged in temporary employment is higher in France, Germany and Spain than in Wales. Furthermore, if he is concerned about the exportation of jobs, it is rather odd that he should be spending his time arguing in favour of a national minimum wage and the social chapter, which will destroy jobs in Wales.
    Dr. Spink: Will my hon. Friend confirm that job insecurity is a function of unemployment—the higher the unemployment, the more insecure people feel about their jobs? The policies that lead to higher unemployment are those that the socialists would introduce, such as the minimum wage and the social chapter; policies that would see the expansion of the Welsh Assembly, which would deter inward investment to Wales, destroy Welsh jobs and increase job insecurity.
    Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Every week, we hear of new inward investment projects in Wales and of jobs going to the Principality. The United Kingdom stands at the top of the tree of performance in Europe in attracting new inward investment, and Wales is taking more than its proportional share of that. Wales has been pursuing that success under a Conservative Government—success that would come to an end if there were to be a change on 1 May.
    Mr. Rowlands: The Secretary of State said a few minutes ago that he was proud of the employment record under his Government. Is he proud of the fact that 40 per cent. of men aged between 50 and 64 are economically inactive? That is the highest percentage of any region or nation in the United Kingdom. Is he proud of the fact that, despite many representations, he and his predecessor have done nothing about one of the most serious social and economic problems that has faced our communities?
    Mr. Evans: The Secretary of State and I are proud of all of the efforts that are being made to attract new job opportunities to Wales and, especially, to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Significant investment has been made in the road network and in new job opportunities in his constituency. His constituents would not have had those opportunities under a Labour Government.
    Mr. Garnier: Would not one of the best ways to increase job insecurity in Wales be to introduce some of the working practices of mainland Europe? For example, is my hon. Friend aware that it is illegal to work more than 80 hours a year overtime in Spain; it is illegal to work any overtime at all in Luxembourg without informing the authorities; and it is illegal to work overtime in Belgium without the express permission of the authorities? Are not those the policies of the European social model that is warmly advocated by the Labour party?
    Mr. Evans: That is why industrialists and those who are running businesses in Wales have expressed their concerns to us about the proposal to sign the social chapter. The Labour party advocates an idea that would destroy jobs in Wales. We must not, and we will not, go down that route.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Secretary of State agree that he could reduce job insecurity in Wales by approving the Eurofreight terminal at Wentlloog between Cardiff and Newport? Unconscionable delays have been caused by his inability to make a decision, and thousands of jobs have been destroyed. Before the Secretary of State leaves Wales in his private plane to join the Tory leadership contest, will he undertake today to announce the decision on the Eurofreight terminal before the end of this Parliament? His uncertainty on the issue makes Prince Hamlet of Denmark look like General Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf.
    Mr. Evans: It is my understanding that the Secretary of State is awaiting a report from the Welsh Development Agency on that matter. [Interruption.] I recall that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), who is making such a noise from a sedentary position, said some months ago that it was the most important decision to be made in south Wales. He made that statement two weeks before the Secretary of State announced the biggest inward investment project in Europe by LG. That shows how in touch the hon. Gentleman is.

    District General Hospitals (Dyfed Powys)
    Mr. Dafis: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about funding for district general hospitals within the Dyfed Powys health authority area. [18833]
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: For 1997–98, we have announced a cash increase of £6 million for Dyfed Powys health authority.
    Mr. Dafis: The Secretary of State has recognised already the need to reconsider funding for health care in Dyfed Powys to take account of rurality. He must know also that some trusts in the area are heading for significant deficits this time next year, because of the present funding arrangements. Does he accept that that will lead to serious problems for some district general hospitals, especially Bronglais hospital, which serves a wide area? To prevent that immediate crisis from developing, additional funding is urgent and necessary. Will the Secretary of State commit himself or his successor to provide that additional funding?
    Mr. Jones: I have already announced additional funding for Dyfed Powys health authority of £6 million. I have the strangest sense of déjà vu, because the first time that the hon. Gentleman raised the matter in the Chamber he started the scaremongering about Bronglais general hospital. Now that the scare over the community hospitals, which was so wickedly whipped up by certain people—not those on the Conservative Benches—has been resolved, scares are being raised about the general hospitals. That is a contemptible way to approach health care in west Wales.
    Mr. Ainger: Given his answer to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), has the
    616
    Minister read the report produced by Dyfed Powys health authority, entitled "Effective Care and Healthy People", in which it offers three options to cope with the financial crisis? The first is to close all community hospitals in the area; the second is to close two out of four of the district general hospitals; and the third is to close some of the community hospitals and cut some of the district general hospitals. Opposition Members are not scaremongering: the health authorities are telling the truth, but the Welsh Office refuses to listen.
    Mr. Jones: The new Dyfed Powys health authority, which has inherited an overspending tendency, is conducting a review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stated his regard for community hospitals during the Welsh affairs debate on 27 February, and added that he wanted them to continue their role. When he considers any proposals, he will have strong regard for local views about local health needs, and will not adopt the scaremongering approach advocated by the Opposition.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Minister give a clear undertaking that there is no risk of closing any of the valuable community hospitals in Powys?
    Mr. Jones: There is no need to say any more because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the position clear on 27 February. I say simply to the hon. and learned Gentleman—before he flits off to pursue his more prosperous legal practices—that neither my right hon. Friend nor I is in the business of closing necessary hospitals anywhere in Wales. We are certainly not in the business of cutting the NHS. We are committed to expanding it—a commitment that the Labour party markedly refuses to match.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Is it not disgraceful that the Under-Secretary seeks to avoid responsibility for this serious matter by claiming that the health authority has "inherited" the relevant responsibilities? I remind him that he created the health authorities and appointed the people to run them. They are directly his creation. Is it not clear that something is fundamentally wrong with the funding of Dyfed Powys health authority? I make it clear that the Labour party supports the campaign now being waged to conduct a fundamental review of the funding formula. Is not the Under-Secretary's opposition to the closure of community hospitals by the health authority both hypocritical and dishonest, as he is directly and personally responsible for that funding crisis? In addition, all his words this afternoon have not changed the fact that that crisis remains. Is that not typical of the Government, who practise deception and evasion and advocate the fraudulent making of policies today which they have no intention of honouring tomorrow? Is it any wonder that they have lost the trust of the people?
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman clearly is not aware of the circumstances. I have moved to assist Dyfed Powys health authority by extending one loan and providing another, and I am ready to assist it with transitional cash flow. It is the hon. Gentleman who is clearly ducking, as he will not make a promise—perhaps because he knows that he cannot honour it—to match our commitment to continue the real increases in spending for the health service each and every year in the next Parliament.

    Relocation (Minimum Wage)
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will establish how many jobs have been relocated from Wales to countries that have the minimum wage in each of the past five years. [18834]
    Mr. Hague: There are no data readily available to perform such an analysis.
    Mr. Flynn: Is not Newport doubly fortunate, as it can look forward to the LG semi-conductor jobs and to being represented in the future, as in the past, by splendid Members of Parliament? Is it not extraordinary that the Government can count the number of incoming jobs and announce the figures again and again, but cannot say how many jobs have left this country to relocate in countries with both the minimum wage and the social chapter? Is it not extraordinary that when LG is up and running, it will be competing for semi-conductor jobs that used to be based in Newport but are now located in France and Germany? Why does a country such as Britain, which has won 74 Nobel prizes for science, have to buy scientific jobs from a country that has never won such a prize?
    Mr. Hague: We all commend the hon. Gentleman on his becoming modesty in describing himself as a splendid Member of Parliament. I certainly hope that Newport will be represented by two splendid Members in the coming Parliament, but not necessarily the current ones. The hon. Gentleman should not presume about the outcome of elections.
    If Labour Members are so in favour of the minimum wage, why cannot they say at what level they would set it? It is because it would be either so low as to be utterly irrelevant or so high that it would price people out of work. They will have to own up to that in the coming weeks.
    Mr. Llew Smith: Is the Secretary of State aware that in Blaenau Gwent we have some of the lowest wages in the United Kingdom? Would he be willing to work for £2 or £3 an hour? What advice would he give to families who have to bring up children on that kind of money?
    Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that wages cannot be raised by Government diktat. Wages and living standards are raised by having an enterprise economy, by the promotion of employment and by businesses doing well and having to compete to employ people. That is happening increasingly in many parts of Wales. We have already made south-east Wales the best place in Britain to get a job, and I want that to be the case in the whole of Wales. That will deliver rising living standards all round.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Is it not a fact that the company referred to by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) is a French nationalised company, Thomson SLG? Is it therefore surprising that it should behave in such an extraordinary way?
    Mr. Hague: My right hon. Friend has a point—apart from having asked another question after I had paid tribute to him on his previous question. He could also have mentioned the fact that unemployment in France
    618
    stands at 12.5 per cent. and has risen in the past year, whereas unemployment in Wales is about 8 per cent.—depending on which definition one uses—and has fallen dramatically in the past year.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Richards: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action has been taken to encourage more inward investment in Wales outside the eastern M4 and A55 corridors. [18835]
    Mr. Hague: I have recently set the Welsh Development Agency new and more demanding targets to encourage more inward investment outside the eastern M4 and A55 corridors. I have also asked it to give more assistance to companies locating in those areas than to equivalent projects elsewhere.
    Mr. Richards: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announcement of new targets for investment outside the M4 and A55 corridors and in rural Wales? What measures does he propose to enhance the quality of life throughout rural Wales following the publication of the rural White Paper last year?
    Mr. Hague: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome for the new targets that have been set for the Welsh Development Agency. The rural White Paper published last year demonstrated the importance that we attach to the future of rural areas of Wales. I shall today publish the 1997 review of the White Paper, which is an important step in the process of building a prosperous countryside and a healthy environment for rural Wales. That will include such matters as a further round of the schools technology initiative, broadening the coverage of the rural transport innovation grant, a new native woodland challenge scheme and new advice on encouraging village shops and other services in rural areas.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Secretary of State recall the constructive meeting that he had with a deputation of south-west Wales Members two months ago? Does he remember that we made it clear that we in no way regret that so much industrial development is going to south-east Wales but that we are living in the shadow of Cardiff and Newport and fear for the fact that little or no development is occurring beyond Bridgend? Does he remember giving us certain assurances in relation to his use of discretionary power? What action has he taken in the intervening two months to implement that agreement?
    Mr. Hague: Yes, I well remember the meeting with the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. As he said—I hope that other hon. Members were listening—a great deal of industrial development has taken place in south-east Wales. It is time to ensure that that success is spread right across Wales, including to the areas that the right hon. Gentleman has represented. That is why I have set the Welsh Development Agency a new target of 50 per cent. of the new investment and jobs that it attracts to Wales in the coming financial year being outside the eastern M4 and A55 corridors. That is a major increase in the targets for those areas. I have also asked the agency

    619
    to pay more for projects going to the areas that have not yet been the principal beneficiaries of inward investment than for equivalent projects elsewhere.
    Mr. Llwyd: I have heard the Secretary of State congratulating himself so many times this afternoon that it is rather disturbing—one wonders whether he is serious about all this. I welcome his difference of emphasis on investment and job creation outside the M4 corridor and north-east Wales. May I ask him a serious question? What is he doing about youth unemployment? Does he know, for example, that north Wales has pockets of youth unemployment as high as 33 per cent? What on earth is being done to tackle that extreme problem?
    Mr. Hague: What I am doing about youth unemployment in Wales is to bring more jobs to Wales than we have seen in modern times. That has an impact on youth unemployment as well as on unemployment generally. Of course, it is important to ensure that the benefits of that are shared throughout Wales. To tackle youth unemployment, in the coming year I am also increasing by £12 million—nearly doubling it—the budget for modern apprenticeships in Wales, so that young people will have the skills to take up those jobs.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Young Offenders
    Mr. Sweeney: To ask the Attorney-General what steps he is taking to reduce delays in dealing with young offenders. [18851]
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The Crown Prosecution Service has well-established teams of specialist prosecutors to handle youth cases, which are working closely with the other agencies to develop methods of speeding up those cases. Those include the introduction of pilot schemes for lawyers in police stations, which enable police officers to obtain immediate advice on the charging of youth offenders.
    Mr. Sweeney: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take on board the fact that there is widespread concern in the Vale of Glamorgan about young offenders who commit fresh offences while waiting to be dealt with by the courts? Those offenders also tend to forget why they are in court if there is any significant delay. Does he agree that the CPS and all the other agencies involved in the criminal justice system have an important role to play in avoiding unnecessary adjournments and speeding up justice?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend has great practical knowledge of both prosecution and defence and he will know from that how important it is to bring offenders promptly before the courts before they continue a spree of offending. The CPS, the Home Office and others are working together closely to tackle the issue.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Attorney-General agree that it is not just the problem of delay that is creating difficulties with youth crime, but the system itself? Does he agree that there is scope for considering, for example,
    620
    the introduction of an equivalent to the Scottish children's panel system, which has proved much more effective than youth courts in preventing young people from committing additional crimes? Does he not think that we should now take a root-and-branch look at the way in which youth crime is dealt with and not merely tinker with issues such as delay?
    The Attorney-General: I agree to the extent that there are a number of ways in which one can approach youth crime. The police and the CPS are already making strides with interesting initiatives, one of which I saw last Thursday in Aylesbury. There is a broad spectrum of possibilities and the problem can be tackled in many effective ways, not only through the courts.
    s Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Home Office and his Department are working vigorously to try to speed up the prosecution of young offenders, but that we are being delayed by Opposition Members, who talk tough on crime and promptly delay the passage of some of our crime laws? Is it not absolutely clear that the only way in which we will tackle the problem properly is to have another five years of Conservative government?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend puts his finger on the curious and muddled policy of the Opposition, which will be tested carefully over the next six weeks and about which they can think further in opposition over the next five years, after which they may come up with something better. My hon. Friend and I realise that there is a small hard core of young offenders who need to be dealt with rapidly and effectively and on whom the Government are targeting their efforts.
    Mr. John Morris: Will the Attorney-General take account of the fact that while youth crime has risen by 35 per cent. in the past decade, the number of young offenders dealt with by the courts has fallen by the same proportion? Reducing delay is important, especially for persistent young offenders, but it is only part of the problem. What consideration has he given to the criticism of youth justice by the Audit Commission and others? Does he not consider it extraordinary that there were no proposals to reform youth courts in the recent Government consultative paper? What are his views, given his remit and drawing on his experience, on responsibility for the Crown Prosecution Service?
    The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not wholly correct. Several proposals put forward recently by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary have particular application to youth courts, as well as to courts generally. However, there are also specialist aspects that deserve further attention, which they will receive. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must remember that the problem with youth crime is the comparatively small number of multiple offenders—also a symptom of adult crime—who must be brought rapidly before the courts and, if necessary, put out of circulation with swift custodial penalties.

    Stephen Lawrence
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Attorney-General what discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions regarding the murder of Stephen Lawrence. [18853]
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): My right hon. and learned Friend and I meet the Director of Public Prosecutions frequently to discuss matters of departmental interest, and I have been kept informed about the case.
    Mr. Winnick: Is this not a case where, so far, evil has triumphed over justice? Is it not a matter of deep regret that no one has yet been brought to justice for a racially motivated crime of murder that was committed nearly four years ago, despite the fact that a newspaper has named the people whom it considers responsible for that terrible crime? What will the authorities do to try to ensure that those who put Stephen Lawrence to death will at long last be brought to justice?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that it is a great injustice that those responsible for the killing have not been brought to justice. However, he might like to bear in mind the words of Mr. Justice Curtis, who heard evidence on the voir dire at the Old Bailey from a person who said that he had witnessed the killing. Having heard the only witness on whom the private prosecution relied, the judge said:
    "Where recognition or identification is concerned, he simply does not know in ordinary parlance whether he is on his head or his heels."
    In directing that the evidence should not go to the jury—and I commend these words to the House—the judge added:
    "To do so would amount to an injustice. Adding one injustice to another does not cure the first injustice done to the Lawrence family."
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it does not impugn the sincerity of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) to remind him that if the qualification to the right to silence had been in operation when the murder occurred, the outcome might have been very different? Perhaps he would remind the House, and the public at large, that Labour voted against that reform.
    The Solicitor-General: As my hon. Friend said, Conservative Members do not find it easy to forget that, in contradistinction to Opposition Members. He knows from his discussions with people who practise in the courts that the modification of the right to silence that we introduced in the teeth of protest and opposition from the Labour party is bringing great benefits. People answer questions more freely in the police station, and they go into the witness box in court.
    Mr. MacShane: Will the Solicitor-General join me in congratulating the Daily Mail on ensuring that the issue does not escape the public gaze? Will he also join me in praising the Prime Minister on the remarkable rebuke that he gave last week at Prime Minister's Question Time to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), who tried to make race an issue? Will he
    622
    condemn the Conservative Members of Parliament in the west midlands who are meeting in a conspiracy to seek, once again, to make race an election issue in British politics—something that British people of all colours will utterly reject?
    Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's question is well away from the substantive question.
    The Solicitor-General: As a former Member of Parliament for Leicester, South, which had about 19,000 Asian constituents, I do not need lessons on the importance of race and the vileness of racial crimes from the hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends. We have been in the vanguard in tightening up the law to ensure that a wider range of incidents involving racial misconduct are treated as criminal offences. As for the Daily Mail, we live in a free society with a free press. The hon. Gentleman might not be quite so supportive of that paper's actions if evidence comes to light relating to those against whom charges were dismissed in the magistrates court and a prosecution is brought against them. I say that because, unfortunately, the likelihood of an abuse-of-process argument succeeding on the grounds of prejudice has been increased by such publicity.

    Information Technology (Serious Fraud Office)
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the use of information technology in the Serious Fraud Office. [18856]
    The Solicitor-General: The Serious Fraud Office makes significant use of information technology, both to support its investigations and to present complex material at court.
    Mr. Marshall: I welcome the publication today of figures recording the fourth annual reduction in crime—an historic first for this country—and congratulate Mrs. Wright on her appointment as head of the SFO. But will my hon. and learned Friend look at Mrs. Wright's comments on the sophistication of juries? Does he not believe that we should revisit the views of the Roskill report and decide that serious fraud is too serious a matter to be considered by unsophisticated jurors?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is quite right about the crime figures. It is a great pity that we have not had more support from the Labour party for our campaign on law and order in the past five years—perhaps we shall hear a little more from it in the next few weeks. I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to join me in congratulating Mrs. Wright on her appointment as the new director. She is experienced in prosecuting and regulation, and I am sure that the House will wish her well. As for my hon. Friend's last point about jury trials, as he knows the Government are considering alternatives to jury trial in serious and complex fraud cases.

    Fraud
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Attorney-General what measures the Serious Fraud Office has recently taken to reduce fraud. [18857]
    The Attorney-General: The Serious Fraud Office continues to enhance its ability to investigate and detect, and thus deter, serious and complex fraud, including by the ever more sophisticated use of information technology, both to marshal and analyse documentation and to present cases to the jury.
    Mr. Banks: How can anyone take seriously a Government who talk about restricting and dealing with serious fraud yet who allowed Asil Nadir to escape from this country? We are still waiting to know what they are going to do to get him back. He gave £400,000 of stolen money to the Conservative party. What about Mr. Octav Botnar, who gave stolen money to the Conservative party? When can we expect to see that money returned? And what about the Greek fascist, Mr. Latsis? How can the Attorney-General talk about serious fraud when all his party is a fraud; the Conservative party is funded by fascists and crooks.
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is, once again, more interested in ranting than in facts. First, he might remember that the SFO stands ready to prosecute Mr. Asil Nadir as soon as he returns to this country from Northern Cyprus, with which we have no extradition
    624
    treaty, and his duty is to return as soon as possible. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman might remember that, during its eight and a half years of existence, the SFO has prosecuted almost 160 very large frauds. It has achieved the conviction of more than 62 per cent. of all defendants, but—even more important—in more than 75 per cent. of cases it has obtained the conviction of at least one person and, when only one person has been convicted, that has almost always been the chief architect of the fraud.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the participation of ordinary members of the public in the criminal justice system through sitting on juries—even on juries in fraud trials—is one of the reasons why the criminal justice system can reassure people about its fairness, and is also the surest protection of the liberty of the individual?
    The Attorney-General: The importance of the jury system has motivated and governed the actions of the Government for more than 18 years. In some recent cases it has proved difficult adequately to prosecute the full ambit of fraud against an individual, which is why the Government have indicated that they will look again at that issue. However, my hon. and learned Friend raises an important point, of which we shall not lose sight.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
In the light of the announcement made earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the business for the rest of this week will be rearranged. The House will also wish to know that Parliament will be prorogued on Friday 21 March.
I shall be tabling a motion later today, which will be set down for the commencement of business tomorrow. That will enable the House to conclude the remainder of its business in an orderly manner, which I trust will be for the convenience of the whole House.
Following discussions through the usual channels, which are already under way, I shall make a business statement later today setting out the detailed business for the remainder of the week.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement—it is good to have my predictions from last Thursday's business questions confirmed as being correct. We are, of course, co-operating through the usual channels to deal with outstanding business as effectively as possible and we look forward to receiving further details from the right hon. Gentleman later.
In the meantime, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Question Time will operate as usual up to and including Thursday this week? So that Members of Parliament are as fully in the picture as possible at this stage, will he confirm that, when the House prorogues on Friday 21 March, it will not meet again and that Dissolution will be through proclamation?
Finally, needless to say, Labour Members are very glad that the campaign has come for real at last.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady will recall that I refrained from announcing any recess dates last Thursday and, indeed, from commenting on her predictions or speculation, which I would not then have been in a position to confirm. I can confirm that it would be my
626
expectation that questions will proceed as normal. Those are probably the only points in her remarks on which I need to comment.
Sir David Steel: Will the Leader of the House confirm that his announcement has two effects: first, that some 28 Bills will have to be either passed through the House in the next few days or dropped altogether, which hardly seems to be the best way of concluding legislation; and, secondly, that, coupled with the press statement from No. 10 Downing street, he has announced the longest election campaign in this century, with three weeks of phoney war before Dissolution and three weeks of real campaigning afterwards? Should he not come to the Dispatch Box and apologise to the House on behalf of the Government for being, in the words of Charles II, such
"an unconscionable time dying"?
Mr. Newton: I see no reason whatever to apologise to the House, either on my own behalf or on that of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It remains to be seen how phoney the war will be. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that my party will be fighting vigorously throughout the period in question.
As for the Bills on which proceedings have not been completed, I can of course confirm that there are a significant number of them. Precisely how they will be dealt with is what is under consideration via the usual channels and will be the subject of the business statement that I hope to make later today.
Sir James Molyneaux: Will the Leader of the House prevail on the usual channels to ensure that the Northern Ireland business set down for Wednesday will not entirely disappear? I assure him that we shall do all in our power to facilitate an easy passage for those vital matters.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I shall certainly try to reciprocate by being as helpful as I can.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Questions have been put to the Leader of the House about his statement, and he has been good enough to say that he will come to the House later today with a substantive statement. This one is very narrow, telling us what many of us already know—but I thank hon. Members for coming in to hear it anyway. Meanwhile, we look forward to hearing from the Leader of the House again later this afternoon.

Orders of the Day

  Building Societies Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  [SIR GEOFFREY LOFTHOUSE in the Chair]
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Building Societies Bill
    Clause 2

      MEMBERSHIP AND LIABILITY OF MEMBERS
      3.36 pm
      Mr. Peter L. Pike: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 20, after second 'member', insert
      'of two years' standing or more.'.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 21, after 'member', insert
      'of two years' standing or more.'.
      Mr. Pike: In view of the announcement made a few moments ago by the Leader of the House, it must be doubtful that the Bill can now make progress. It has not yet been to the other House, and it would be extremely unusual to force through a Bill at this stage and to gain the approval of the other place in such a short time—before proroguing on Friday of this week.
      In last week's Second Reading debate, I mentioned that the Bill was defective, which is why I tabled the amendments, which would require two years' membership before anyone could share in any windfall payments that accrued to the members of a building society as a result of its conversion to plc or bank status.
      I recognise that the amendments are not necessarily the best way of achieving that; indeed, I am sure that the Minister will say that they are defective. The Minister was challenged last week about whether the Bill would be able to make progress. I know that she has been committed to it in good faith from the outset, although there has been some doubt about the Government's commitment. I know that the Minister has done all that she can to ensure that the Bill makes progress. I also know that she shared the disappointment of many when it did not feature in the Queen's Speech last autumn.
      The amendments would stop people deliberately joining societies with only one view in mind: to qualify for payments in the way that I have described. That is not what conversion is about.
      People are entitled to hold differing views as to whether conversion is good or bad. People know that I very much want mutuality to continue. The assets and the value of a society have been built by generations of its investors and borrowing members, over 100 years or so, and on conversion what has been built up on a mutual basis is handed out to those who happen to have become new members. It is wrong for people to choose to become a member only to qualify for a handout on the society's conversion.
      628
      I am sure that the Minister is aware that the amendments are defective. I had hoped that the Government would table an amendment, or that a Labour Front Bencher would see to it, because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) agrees with the principle behind what I am arguing for. However, we all realise that, if we want the Bill to complete its passage, we might have to do some compromising. I now have grave doubts on whether it is feasible or possible for the Bill to be passed, as it has not even gone to the other place, but we shall have to note what the usual channels do and the contents of the business statement. We have no alternative now but to debate the Bill, in the hope that it makes progress.
      I echo what the Nationwide building society said in a letter to several hon. Members last week. It supports the two-year concept, but if that cannot be included in the Bill, it would prefer the Bill to pass rather than to fall because of a flaw. That is also the view of the Building Societies Association.
      If the Bill is to complete its passage, we must compromise and accept that the amendments will not be passed because of the difficulties that they would encounter—I presume that the other place would argue more about this. There would be no progress if there were great issues of debate on this matter and on the other matter of contention, the five-year issue, which we shall debate later. Those were the two main issues. The Government have also tabled some drafting amendments.
      Although I strongly believe that such a move would be in the best interests of the Bill and of the building society movement, if we are told that, without the amendments, the Bill stands a better chance of progressing and receiving Royal Assent before Parliament dissolves, I shall be prepared not to press my amendments to the vote.
      Mr. John Butterfill: I support the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). As you will be aware, Sir Geoffrey, I raised this issue on Second Reading and I have a great deal of sympathy for the sentiments that he expressed.
      We have all found unedifying the spectacle of carpetbaggers moving small sums round the country, from building society to building society, in the hope of making a quick profit on demutualisation, and I believe that there is broad agreement across the Committee that it would be desirable to do something effective to prevent that happening. I, too, appreciate that there are problems in achieving that object, but it seems wrong that short-term speculators can put their money into a building society, build up a head of steam in speculation about how it might be taken over and bring pressure to bear for a takeover to take place, in the expectation that they will make a pile of cash.
      Many of those people have no interest in the community in which, very often, the building society originated. Many have no interest in the building society or in the well-being of other depositors or of borrowers. They are motivated purely by greed, and if it were possible to have a mechanism that prevented such speculation, that would be good.
      My hon. Friend the Minister has examined that in some detail and is of the view that there is no way by which speculation can effectively be prevented, except that

      629
      building societies can make rules as to how depositors may be treated: for example, that they may not immediately acquire rights, and that they may be required to make a larger deposit than usual. However, such rules are unsatisfactory, especially the requirement that investors make a larger deposit, because that would rule out the small depositor, for whom building societies were first set up.
      It is extremely important that there remains a savings vehicle that is appropriate to small investors—where small investors do not carry a lot of risk; where no huge costs are involved when they invest their money and save; and where they can receive an excellent and personal service. Raising the threshold is not the answer to that. Nor would the problem be solved if the building society changed its rules, because no society would be protected from an aggressive, hostile bid by a predator offering shares to building society members and thereby overcoming all the other mechanisms that can be put in place to prevent speculation.
      3.45 pm
      I very much share the views of the hon. Member for Burnley and want the Bill to succeed, as does the Building Societies Association. If there were a mechanism by which we could prevent speculators from engaging in their nefarious activities, I should be the first to support it.
      Mrs. Diana Maddock: I have much sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. Members for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill). Many of us who spoke on Second Reading are concerned about small depositors, the local nature of building societies and the important place that they have in local communities. When societies move to plc status, we have seen people with no particular interest in the society, which has built up its assets over a number of years, rush in, desperate to get money. It is its long-standing members who have provided those assets.
      I have sympathy with the amendments but fear that, as the hon. Member for Burnley said, they do not do exactly what we should all like. I am particularly concerned that if they were passed, some members would be excluded from some of the rights of membership, for example, taking part in annual general meetings, voting for directors, nominating candidates to stand as directors, and so on.
      Mr. Pike: I assure the hon. Lady that that is one reason why I would not wish to press the amendments to a vote; I recognise that they would, as she rightly says, bar people from doing many of the things that we would like them to do.
      Mrs. Maddock: I think that we all agree that, up against the time scale of a general election, and however much we would like to get this right, we shall barely be able to get the Bill on the statute book. Although I agree with the principles behind the amendments, we are not in a position to get them right today. Therefore, I cannot support the amendments as drafted.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: I declare a mild interest, in that a building society in which I am involved is converting and I expect to make a minor gain.
      Mr. Tim Smith: How much?
      Mr. Bottomley: It depends on the price of the shares.
      We should be aware that if the Bill survives the discussions between the usual channels and becomes an Act by the end of this Parliament, it will have to have gone through another place as well. If there is merit in the arguments and if those who advise my hon. Friend the Minister, whom we welcome to the Front Bench for the debate, are able to take a more positive way forward, that would be greatly welcomed.
      There is general agreement that something might be done, although there is not yet agreement on what should or could be done. We should be aware that the amendments are being discussed in the context of the possible raid on the Co-operative Wholesale Society and the co-operative retail societies. The issues that have been developed and the pressures of the people who want to carry out what might appear to be a smash-and-grab operation are worthy of discussion. It should not be a party political issue, and I am glad that this debate has not been conducted in those terms. It may be a good start to the prospective general election campaign.
      We should realise that of the societies that are converting, some will survive as banks and general retailers of financial services, and possibly as wholesalers as well, and some will be taken over. People know that. We must avoid pressures that would not allow people the choice of keeping the mutual building societies going. That is what is behind these amendments and other possible amendments.
      Twenty years ago, the insurance companies came under pressure for many of them to drop their mutual status. Fortunately, some did not drop their mutual status. Companies such as Equitable Life and Norwich Union, which is now converting, and others over the past 20 years have helped to protect the customers of insurance services and to give them a broader choice. They were willing to look to the long-term interest and to go in for long-term investments, rather than always going in for short-term performance.
      Without criticising those that have been receiving attention in the business pages and sometimes the front page of newspapers because of enormous bonuses, I think that the building society movement and the mutual insurance companies in the United Kingdom, including those in Scotland, have done a great deal of good. They have enabled ordinary people to do ordinary things, and they have achieved extraordinary results in terms of building up wealth and home ownership. I believe that their future will not be exactly the same as the present. It is more likely to take in the other end of the life cycle. Many of the elderly, who may be asset rich but housing poor, deserve ways of turning a capital asset into an income and a secure home in good condition, but that is not a subject to be pursued in the debate on the amendments.
      Many societies have converted, and more will. We should recognise that the people whom I perhaps exaggeratedly described as smash-and-grab merchants are taking from the pockets and purses of the long-term savers

      631
      and investors. There will always be a degree of rough justice, because many people who have saved with the building societies—for every borrower, there are between six and 10 genuine savers and investors—have had current accounts, and have been excluded anyway by the terms of conversion. They are willing to accept that, but those who have been long-term investors may not want to share what would become theirs on a conversion with people who have come in for the sole purpose of putting in a relatively small sum, to get a pretty large return from it.
      There could be large sums swilling around the financial system. It is destabilising if a building society suddenly gets a great rush of money that it cannot use, and it is destabilising if those who joined become organised and start applying pressure through votes at members' meetings to change the nature of the society, when most of the existing members do not want that.
      Mr. Butterfill: It has been suggested that one reason why we should not tolerate the amendments is that they would prevent people from voting at annual general meetings. Does my hon. Friend agree that that might not be a bad thing, if people were attending only to vote for demutualisation, to line their pockets?
      Mr. Bottomley: I remember one of our colleagues saying after the elections in what was then Southern Rhodesia that one cannot always predict the result of a vote. We should be careful about saying that people should be allowed to vote only if they vote the way that we want. Developments that have taken place in this country over the past few centuries have resulted in people being allowed to make their own mistakes. I hope that in building society votes and in general elections, they will not do so.
      In summary, we face a dilemma. It is generally agreed that the principle behind the amendments is sensible—although we do not know whether they will achieve precisely the desired objectives. On the presumption that the Bill could become an Act in the next two or three days, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider whether there is some way of fulfilling the purpose of the amendments. If there is not, I suspect that we shall have to do what many in the building society movement have done and say that this Bill is better than none at all.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I support wholeheartedly the comments of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). I apologise for not being here to move the amendment, but I did not expect that the business statement would be so short and that our investment in timetabling next week would disappear. It was a little like "The War of the Worlds", when people climbed the platform of the spacecraft and found that the invader from Mars was dead and that everything had vanished. I was similarly amazed today.
      If we were considering the legislation in the normal manner, I would press the amendments to a vote and seek a statement of principle. It is an important principle, and an important defence of the mutual principle for building societies. However, we are not in a normal situation. I wish I knew exactly what situation we were in—perhaps the Minister will tell us. I hope that we are not wasting time this afternoon finalising legislation that cannot pass through the House of Lords because of the
      632
      way in which the Government have junked their timetable, in their desperate desire to suppress my proposed hairdressing Bill that was due to be considered next week. Obviously, the Government dared not meet the challenge posed by my Bill and the defeat that they would almost certainly suffer, so they have scuttled business and cut and run.
      If the Minister cannot assure us that the legislation will pass through the House of Lords—it has not yet passed through the House of Commons—we are legislating in a messy manner. We do not know whether our actions will have any effect. We must discuss the Bill because it provides a chance to make necessary changes within the building society movement. It is a comprehensive measure, so we should try to make it as good as possible. I resent being told, "Drop this," or "Don't vote on that," or "Let this go," simply in order to ensure that the Bill is passed. It will be a long time before an incoming Government can consider the legislation again. We should not be in that situation in a dying Parliament. That is my dilemma, and I hope that you are as upset as I am, Sir Geoffrey.
      I now move to the substance of the amendments, which are quite simple and straightforward. They seek to erect a defence of the mutual principle. Too many people have learnt their ethics from the privatisation procedures in this country and there has developed a species of what I would call the monetary ram raider. Such people rush to put money in building society accounts on the advice of columnists in the financial pages of newspapers, who urge, "Put your money in the Snurple building society, because it is going to demutualise and you will have a big gain." That causes a rush of new members and of new money. It also creates a brute voting force in favour of demutualisation, which may not be in the interests—I think that it is certainly not in the interests—of the long-term members of the society. The new members wish to get a quick result because, as I said last week, their ethics are the same as those of Wilfred Pickles and the Halifax building society: "Give us the money, Barney." It does not matter about principle or the abdication of 100 years of toil, sweat and endeavour.
      The amendments seek to erect a barrier against such activities. It is right that building societies should have that barrier, because they are driven to all sorts of expediencies in an effort to maintain continuity and to control the rush of new members. Some have said that people may open new accounts only if they invest a minimum of £1,000. Other societies have tried to devise their own rules governing the voting rights of new members. The amendments take care of both issues: the time scale beyond which people may vote on the affairs of the building society, and beyond which they may benefit from the redistributions that they may have joined the building society specifically to receive.
      It is a matter of basic principle. I hope that the Minister will come to the Dispatch Box and tell us that, because of our courtesy, charm and consideration, she will not force further debate and will accept the principle behind the amendments before the legislation goes to another place.
      4 pm
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: Discussions on the progress of the Bill may well be taking place as we speak. There will be a further business statement later

      633
      in the day. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) need not be too despondent. There is reason for hope yet. We, the Opposition, are actively supporting the Bill. I retain the hope that it will become law.
      I declare an interest before speaking to the amendments. I have an account with one of the converting building societies. I would not be surprised if it were the one not too far from the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). It is, in fact, the Woolwich.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said, there are strong arguments for a two-year rule. During consideration of what became the Building Societies Act 1986, the Government were strongly in favour of a two-year rule. Why have the Government changed their mind on that ground given the strong arguments that were advanced by Lord Brabazon of Tara in another place in July 1986? He said:
      "It is important that the conversion provisions work to prevent speculative flows between societies on rumours of an impending conversion. I gather that is what happened in America in certain situations, and that is what we seek to avoid happening in this sort of situation."
      He added:
      "It is clearly important that"
      there should be some legislation in relation to transfers of societies. He explained:
      "Otherwise, for example, a society could tempt investors into it in order to vote in favour of a conversion with the promise of an immediate cash bonus; or just such speculative flows as I just mentioned might be started if it seemed a society might transfer to an existing company."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 July 1986; Vol. 478, c. 539.]
      Those were the reasons why the Government, at that stage, were strongly in favour of a two-year provision whereby those who were members of building societies would not receive benefits unless they had been members for two years.
      The Labour party has said that it sees strong arguments for that. We have, however, discussed the issue of the two-year provision at some length with various mutuals. On balance, the Building Societies Association and other mutuals, although they would prefer a two-year clause, are concerned that nothing should be done to jeopardise the Bill. In the present circumstances it is important that we should press on with the Bill.
      I have been persuaded that the BSA wants to see the Bill through Parliament as a priority. It regards the measure as essential. It has asked that Labour takes no steps that might jeopardise the Bill by way of introducing a substantial amendment. I have listened carefully to those representations and have decided to accept them.
      We want to see the Bill become law as soon as possible. It is right, however, that Parliament should be able to express its views, especially on a two-year clause. Before I ask the Minister some questions about such a provision, I acknowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has agreed to withdraw the amendment. At the same time, my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby has strong concerns. It is right, therefore, briefly to mention technical deficiencies.
      I am concerned that the amendment would not achieve the end that my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley seeks. The intention appears to be to ensure that only
      634
      those who have been members for two years on completion would benefit. That is not precisely the effect of the amendment. It is unsatisfactory, therefore, from a drafting point of view. The amendment states, in effect, that someone can be a member of a society only if he has been a member for two years. Presumably the aim is to deny benefit, but the amendment appears to deny membership itself. Furthermore, the phrase "two years' standing" is rather vague. It presumably means two years from opening an account, but it does not say that. On drafting grounds alone, the amendment is questionable.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is odd to me—I have been here only a short time—to hear hon. Friends on the Front Bench talking about drafting. I should have thought that as we are the Opposition, we would be concerned about the principle. I have listened with great care to my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) saying that we must not accept any substantive change because we would otherwise lose the Bill. I ask him to think seriously about what he is saying. Is he saying that even though there may be substantial difficulties with the legislation, we would prefer it to go ahead?
      Mr. O'Brien: We are saying that the Bill is essential to safeguard the future of mutuals. It may be desirable to have a two-year provision; that is a point that hon. Members are quite properly discussing and I intend to return to the principle in a moment. We have, however, to bear reality in mind in view of the announcement made today.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) will know that as a result of that announcement, there is enormous pressure on the timetable. As we want the Bill to go through, maximum agreement is needed between Opposition Front-Bench Members and Ministers. I hope that the Bill also has the support of the House as a whole. Getting the Bill through is our objective, which has an effect on the way in which we are dealing with the two-year provision and later amendments.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: We are in a negotiating situation. In those circumstances, it seems rather misguided to give away our hand before we are told the Government's position. The Minister may accept the two-year principle; there is still time for her to do that. Whatever deficiencies the best drafting brains in the House of Commons—I refer to the Clerks and not to me—have left in the amendment, the principle is important. If we accepted the amendment this afternoon, the Bill would not be delayed seriously unless the Government chose to make an issue of it and to dredge up their troops, thus wasting the time of the House. We should not think that we have a weak hand.
      Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend's views will be taken on board by those of us who are dealing with the Bill. We want the Bill to go through, however, and the sooner the better for the sake of the mutuals and building societies as a whole.
      I now turn to the issue of principle. In 1986, the Government supported a two-year rule. It was the bad drafting of the 1986 Act, however, with which we are now dealing, that meant that during the Halifax merger with the Leeds, the decision was made that the normal

      635
      two-year qualifying rule could be circumvented if the distribution was made in shares and structured in a certain way.
      It is clear that in 1986, Ministers intended that a two-year rule should be effective, but legal judgments in the early conversions and takeovers widened the interpretation of the statute to allow changes of status based on offering pay-outs to members on a scale and in a manner that were not intended in the 1986 legislation. That has encouraged mere speculators—so-called carpetbaggers—to open many accounts.
      The building societies' response has been to raise the threshold for new accounts, but that has prejudiced, as has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), the interests of many low-income people who want to open an account for a non-speculative, bona fide reason. Do the Government consider that speculation desirable? Will they now explain why they have changed their mind and oppose a two-year clause? Do they intend to allow the queues of speculators and the high thresholds to remain? Do they consider that building societies' assets that were built up over generations belong to the members who have an interest in the long-term future of those building societies? At the moment, they are often expended to those who have little claim to building societies' assets. Do the Government find that satisfactory?
      In other cases, the Government have accepted qualified membership, for example in terms of calling emergency general meetings and, in clause 37, for obtaining particular information. Why was that justified, yet the Government have changed their mind and now say that qualified membership under a two-year rule is no longer right in respect of benefits?
      Speculation is still an enormously serious issue. The head of corporate relations at the Birmingham Midshires building society wrote to me recently as follows:
      "We opened some 80,000 speculator accounts in 1996 and, year-to-date since January, we are opening three times normal levels per week compared to the pre-speculation days of 20 months ago. In addition, to counter those who think it has peaked, it is worth noting that around £145 billion of savers' cash has been locked up with the converters for the past two years or so. This will now become unlocked, creating a new wave of speculators given that distribution plans have now been unveiled by the converting societies."
      There is clearly an issue for the Minister to address.
      Mr. Douglas French: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some building societies, such as the Portman, have found it possible to deal with speculators not by raising the minimum deposits on their account, but by welcoming anyone who wishes to open an account on the basis that the society is firmly committed to mutuality and no speculation will yield any benefit to the speculator?
      Mr. O'Brien: I am aware that a number of building societies are using sometimes ingenious ways of addressing the issue, but the hon. Gentleman makes the point that it is clearly a matter of concern to many building societies, including the Portman. We need to know the Government's view.
      The only real explanation for the absence of the two-year clause that the Minister has offered so far is that building societies themselves can devise a scheme to
      636
      ensure that investors obtain no benefit from conversion. That is possible in theory. However, a conversion or takeover scheme that is influenced by a hostile predator might mean that the society would be unable to enforce such a restriction. A society is not in a position to deter speculative inflows by its own two-year clause, as those contemplating a speculative bet would simply reason that the building society would be unable to uphold the rule when confronted by a hostile bid.
      The Minister also deployed the argument that those expecting a bonus in future should be on the same footing as those who have received a bonus in the past. If defective legislation were passed, as it was in the 1986 Act, and if Parliament's will and intention in the 1986 Act are frustrated because of inadequate drafting, are the Government saying that there should be no attempt to alter the Bill because someone has benefited by frustrating Parliament's will in the past?
      Neither of the arguments deployed so far seems to hold a great deal of weight. However, in her reply to the debate the Minister may supply us with other arguments that address the issue. Obviously, we are anxious for the Bill to become law and we do not want to frustrate its course, but we also want to be sure, as hon. Members have a duty and a responsibility to do, that we discuss the issues fully and ultimately make good law.
      Mr. Tim Smith: I have considerable sympathy with what the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) had to say about the amendment. First, I agree that it is not a satisfactory way in which to legislate. The Bill comprises 47 clauses and nine schedules, all of which are being taken on the Floor of the House and will not receive the detailed consideration that they deserve and would have received in Standing Committee. I understand that the Bill was subject to very wide consultation with interests outside the House, which is obviously welcome, but it is not some substitute for parliamentary consideration. It is right that we should put forward the views of our constituents—many of whom will be members of building societies—on the Bill's detailed provisions. I do not really understand why the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, is in such a hurry to get the Bill through.
      It seems that the Bill is designed to protect mutual building societies, which is good. It is clearly in the public's interest that many such societies should continue because they will offer a better deal to depositors and lenders than commercial banks will ever be able to offer.
      Mr. Butterfill: My hon. Friend is suggesting that the Bill is designed to protect mutual building societies, but sadly, as we have just heard, it fails to do precisely that. It allows them to do rather more than they have been previously permitted to do under the Building Societies Acts 1962 and 1986, but it does not protect them in any realistic way apart from making them a little more financially viable and a more attractive target.
      Mr. Smith: That was what I meant when I used the word "protect". It is because such building societies will have greater commercial freedom that they may be less tempted to go down the public limited company route. I recognise my hon. Friend's point. Against that we must balance the apparent proposal to drop the two-year rule

      637
      that Parliament clearly wanted to impose in 1986—even though it turns out that, as the legislation was defective, the rule did not work properly. What is the balance of arguments concerning such matters and mutuality?
      What worries me is very simple. It is understandable that, when a substantial financial carrot is placed in front of people, they should take it and consume it immediately. I am, however, concerned about the long term. Will people who want to borrow money for house purchase get a better deal in the long term if mutual building societies wither and die? Surely it is very much in the interest of the consumer that there should be as diverse provision as possible. I hope that the Bill will encourage societies to retain their mutual status. The question is: what is the benefit of that compared with the damage that may be done if we do not keep the two-year rule?
      4.15 pm
      The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Angela Knight): I have considerable sympathy with many of the points that have been raised. I know that all hon. Members present have a real concern about mutual building societies, which I share.
      The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) mentioned two points in opening the debate on this amendment. He was concerned about the Bill's further progress. I can confirm that the issue of what happens after we have finished our proceedings today is being discussed at this moment. I sincerely hope that the decisions that are reached elsewhere will result in the Bill becoming law because the mutual building societies want that. His second procedural point was whether it was conceivable that such a Bill could go through very quickly. All stages of the Friendly Societies Act 1992 went through on the nod. There is therefore a precedent—one that we are not trying to emulate since we shall be giving good consideration to the Bill—of such a Bill going through very quickly due to announcements such as the one made today.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) and the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) both said that they were members of a building society. I am not sure whether I am or not. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave me my present job, I was told that one of its requirements was that I am not allowed to touch anything financial whatever. Such affairs are dealt with by a power of attorney. I pay the bill, but have no knowledge about what is happening—and will not have until I no longer hold the job. The important point is that many people, including hon. Members, are involved in a building society in some way. The northern savings ethic means that many people who live in the midlands and the north are involved in building societies.
      Mr. Butterfill: I represent a southern seat—one cannot get much further south than Bournemouth—so I must contradict my hon. Friend. Saving is equally prevalent in the south, and there are more building society branches in Bournemouth than almost anywhere else. We are also honoured to have the headquarters of the Portman building society in the area.
      Mrs. Knight: I had no intention of excluding Bournemouth from the proceedings, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those points.
      The debate has two components. First, there is a technical aspect and, secondly, there is the general concern behind the amendments. I will explain the technical aspects and then deal with the other matters. I understand the concerns that have been raised, especially about speculation, and the belief that the restoration of the two-year rule could deter speculation.
      The amendments would restrict all the long-established rights of membership, as well as the new rights that the Bill will introduce, to those who had been savers and borrowers for two years or more. One effect of that would be to rule out share distributions to anyone who is not a two-year saver, effectively reviving the two-year rule. However, the amendments would go further and, potentially, would damage the building societies' constitutions. All savers are full members with an equal right to a say in the running of their society by voting. The amendment would introduce a category of savers who have no membership rights, but elsewhere in the Bill we try to ensure that members will not be disfranchised. All of us have, no doubt, received letters from constituents who have deposit accounts that they thought made them full members of the society. The amendments would increase that anomaly substantially.
      The link between saving and membership is crucial for mutual societies. Therefore, narrowing the membership would vest control in a privileged subset of longer-established savers and would deny millions of people an equal say, even if only for a set period. Those people, for right and genuine reasons, are members of their society.
      It may help if I give some specific examples. The amendments, as they are drawn, would result in the eligibility to nominate a director being vested in individuals who have been with the society for more than four years. At the moment, people have to have been members for two years. The amendments would also mean that an individual would have to be a member for four years to propose and circulate resolutions at an annual general meeting. That provision would also apply to a special general meeting on members' requisition. The amendments would deny rights to members who, for right and proper reasons, are members of their society.
      Mr. Tim Smith: Is my hon. Friend saying that there are already two classes of saver, in the case of certain resolutions, such as electing directors and calling special general meetings? If there is already a distinction, why cannot we build on it?
      Mrs. Knight: The distinction is that, in many instances, it is up to the society itself to choose, and I believe that it should be up to a society to make as many decisions as possible relating to its own business. One such decision is a society choosing to convert to a bank, as it sees that its future would be better as a plc than as a mutual society. How the society effects that change—especially as far as distribution is concerned—is not something that government should dictate.
      Mr. Butterfill: I remind my hon. Friend of a point that time constraints prevented her from answering during the Second Reading debate. We all accept what she has outlined, but how could a mutual society protect itself against a hostile takeover in which shares were used as the consideration? Until she can answer that question, many of us will not be satisfied.
      Mrs. Knight: I remind my hon. Friend that the only people who can put a resolution to members for a takeover or a conversion are the directors, and they can prevent or propose such a change in status. If he waits a moment, I will return to that point. It is very important to address the other aspect of the debate, which is the spirit behind the amendments. I am sure that we all agree that we do not like speculation and we do not feel that speculators should somehow be able to force a society to take a decision that is not in its best interests.
      We have all read stories in the newspapers, which are correct, in which societies have said that they are suffering from speculation. One aspect of the matter is that people reading an article stating that a society might convert has resulted in speculation. In any event, under normal circumstances a considerable number of new accounts will be opened annually both by savers and by borrowers. About 10 per cent. of all new savings accounts are turned over in an average year. If that is the average, it means that, over a four-year period, something like a third of all savers with a society would be new savers. That is not as a result of speculation, but of natural turnover. Therefore, considerable changes are taking place as part of the normal business of societies.
      Undoubtedly, there will be an influx of new accounts once the converting societies have converted. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said on Second Reading—with complete honesty—that once he received whatever his windfall might be from his converting society, he would take his money and open an account with a mutual down the road. Good for him—that is his choice, and I suspect that it will be the choice of a considerable number of members of those societies. That will result in an increased number of accounts being opened with mutual societies.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I do not wish to promote further the names of the societies being punished and rewarded in this fashion, but I shall be taking my money from the Halifax—as soon as I get the distribution—to the Bradford and Bingley because it is to stay a mutual. I shall be doing that to support the mutual principle. The amendment deals with money that is washing around and undermining the mutual principle by being put into a society to grab a quick profit.
      Mrs. Knight: My point was that there has been a considerable increase in the number of people opening accounts with mutual societies because their sentiments coincide exactly with those of the hon. Gentleman. The articles referred to earlier show that the mutual sector is performing well for its members, in terms of both savings and mortgages. The key point is that not all the new accounts that are being opened are speculators' accounts: a significant number are genuine accounts opened by genuine people for genuine reasons. I do not want those people to be disfranchised because of a small group of speculators. We need to deal with that small group.
      640
      There has been much concern, especially about disabled people but also about the wider issue of underlying beneficiaries who have been disfranchised as a consequence of the current conversion process. The private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) has rectified that problem, and I do not want to accept amendments, or even the sentiment behind amendments, which would result in the exclusion of many more people, because exclusion of a particular group has been a real problem.
      4.30 pm
      It would be extremely difficult if we changed the two-year rule so that no member of less than two years' standing could receive anything if a society converted. At the moment many people receive something, so if we intervened the Government of the day would be inundated with requests for a change back to the situation that existed when the Halifax, the Woolwich, the Alliance and Leicester and the Northern Rock converted.
      The two-year rule exists as a result of court cases brought by the societies. Whatever our views might be on that, to change back would build up a huge pressure for the future.
      Mr. Butterfill: I must take issue with my hon. Friend on that point. If we were to make the amendment, which I support, future investors would know full well when they made their investment that they would not be entitled to windfall profits from a takeover or demutualisation unless they had been members for two years. They would understand that, and they would of course be entitled to receive interest on their money in the normal way. If they understand that clearly when they make their investment, I do not see what the problem is.
      Mrs. Knight: It has been noticeable in the past 18 months or two years that people simply do not understand what their status is with a mutual building society and what the various accounts are. I agree that more people have that knowledge today than 18 months or two years ago, but that is certainly not true of everyone: indeed, I would suggest that more than half do not know. If my hon. Friend saw my mailbag he would realise that there is huge concern among many people who feel that the system has done them down and want the Government to change the rules.
      I believe that we can withstand that pressure at the moment, because although there have been anomalies—my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester sorted out another anomaly in an earlier Bill—the consequence, not far down the road, of making the changes in the substance behind the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Burnley would be that a greater number of people would feel discriminated against by the change in the rules and would blame the Government. Whoever the Government of the day might be, the pressure to change the law back would, I suspect, not be resistible.
      Mr. William O'Brien: I support the two-year rule. Is it not a fact that when the Halifax building society decided to become a public limited company, it took on new investors and borrowers on the understanding that they would be associate members? They were notified at the very beginning that they would

      641
      not qualify for the share-out, whenever it came, because of the two-year rule. The parliamentary all-party group on building societies has been advised by the chief executive of the Halifax building society that no one who has not been a member for two years will receive any bonus. It would appear that it works and it could work if the spirit were there for it to do so.
      Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman has given us a good example of how a building society, when left to its own devices, can use existing law to ensure that it gets an equitable result for its members. I am concerned to leave building societies the ability to do just that—to make their own decisions as they see fit—and for their members to have the opportunity to vote accordingly.
      The object of the amendment is to try to help with speculation and carpet bagging—things with which none of us has any sympathy. At present and under the Bill, only the board of a society can put a conversion or takeover proposal to members for approval. The board also has a fiduciary duty to consider the long-term interests of present and future members of the society. No outside company faced with a board's rejection can put a proposal direct to members, as happens with a public limited company.
      Forcing conversion, or takeover, on a board that opposed it would take a long time. If an initiative came from outside a society, the sequence of events would work as follows. A predator would have to make an offer, which was either confidential or non-confidential, to the building society board, which would consider it. We will presume that it decided that the offer was not in the interests of the society or its members. Under the terms of the Bill, the society would disclose that a non-confidential offer was made and say by whom in time for the next annual general meeting.
      The board is not required to pass on any other information and may take the opportunity to set out why it considers that the proposed takeover is not in the best interests of the society. The bidder could, for example, use the media to make the terms of its offer known to members. It would be a predator and as such would need to persuade enough members to requisition a special general meeting to consider a resolution calling on the board to pursue the proposal. The resolution could not force the directors to put a transfer proposal to a vote. If the members were persistent, they could also seek to nominate a new board of directors who were in favour of the takeover—the new directors would have to meet the fitness and properness requirements of the Building Societies Commission. They could be elected only at an annual general meeting and would need the support of the majority of the other members who voted to achieve that. Directors retire and offer themselves for re-election on a three-yearly basis. As one can see from that list, therefore, it would be a long-winded process for a predator—the initiative coming from outside the society—to try to shift a board of directors to make it put such a proposal to the rest of the society's members. It is difficult to say how long the process would take, but on any reasoned assessment, it would take more than two years.
      642
      The alternative involves the initiative coming from members. In some respects, this matter has caused the most concern. It is perceived as the Trojan horse of speculators who have joined the society and who want to persuade the society's board of directors to get it to convert. The sequence of events would be as follows. First, there would need to be sufficient members to requisition a special general meeting. The members could not table a transfer resolution. The motion at the special general meeting could do no more than recommend that the board considers options for conversion or takeover. The board would have ample opportunity to tell the wider membership precisely what it thought of such activists. The board's consideration would have to be undertaken with regard to its fiduciary duties to members, including potential future members. It could easily conclude that conversion was unwise or that an offer was inadequate. If members did not accept that, they would have to replace the board and negotiate the last two hurdles that I described earlier. Again, it is a long process.
      It beggars belief that a board would sit back and do nothing. While all this was happening, the board would be telling members about the advantages of remaining mutual. Some mutual building societies, I am glad to say, are doing just that in advance, to ensure that their members are well aware that mutual status has considerable benefits for them.
      Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend accept that some mergers and takeovers that have nominally taken place on an agreed basis have in fact been the result of considerable pressure by one society on another? Does she not realise that these things are a little more subtle than she suggests?
      Mrs. Knight: Yes, I am aware of that. That is one reason why the Bill is in its current form. It ensures that building societies, while remaining mutual, can offer more services and so become more competitive in the mutual sector, thereby making them stronger. That will help them to flourish. Secondly, it makes changes relating to other aspects so that converted building societies, about which the mutuals are concerned, cannot become predators on the mutual sector in the way that many people have feared. Undoubtedly, the ability to compete is one key to ensuring that the mutual sector flourishes, as we all want.
      The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) asked whether speculation was advisable; the answer is no. Why have the Government changed their mind since 1986? The world has changed since 1986, and I have explained what is behind our thinking; we cannot turn back the clock on the two-year rule. He asked whether societies belonged to members; of course they do. He suggested that there might be many more speculators after societies have converted. I honestly do not think that there will be more speculators; there will be more account openers looking for a mutual home for their savings. Many mutual societies are making that attractive and targeting that sector to ensure that such people become members.
      We have achieved a compromise that ensures that both societies and their members are treated fairly. On technical grounds, I ask the Committee to reject the amendments. However, I also ask it to reject the spirit behind them, not because I believe that it is wrong but because the proposed changes could bring with them much more hardship to many more people and not deal with speculation, about which we are all concerned and which we do not want to continue.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I confess disappointment with the Minister's reply. That it was so long suggests the depth of her difficulties. So long a reply at this stage of a Bill that, we are told, has to be rushed through, shows a defensive attitude. She never took up the basic issue of whether we want such a defence against speculation. Is it right or wrong? She went through a series of quibbles and excuses for not doing anything but as a Minister in control of drafting and, she told us, in control of the procedures of the House, she has the power to do something if she wants.
      It is disappointing that she has not accepted the view of both Government and Opposition Members. I am disappointed with the positions of both Front-Bench teams but especially with her position because she has the power to enact the principle of the amendments. We have been reduced to Back Benchers, who are deeply interested in the building society movement and especially in the principle of mutuality, being against Front Benchers.
      The Minister told us that the Bill will become law. I am a little doubtful about whether she can guarantee that, but that means that it is all the more important that we should perfect it and make it the best Bill that we can in the time available. It would be simple to introduce the provision, perhaps better written or better defined to get rid of all the quibbles that she raised. It would be a better Bill. If there is time, we should do it.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: I thank the hon. Member for the ghastly tie for giving way. While I basically support the principle of his amendment, my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out that in practice, it would be two years or more before ram raiders could get through. If we are talking about protection for two years, the practical point may be as important as the principle. We need to get a balance between fairness to small savers—and for that matter to not so small savers—and ensure that large numbers of small savers cannot join to try to do what most existing mutual members do not want. I am not sure that we have found a way forward. The Minister's comments are relevant, though the principle is also important.
      Mr. Mitchell: The signals were clear. The Minister rightly said that there is normally a churning, a turnover, of people taking money in and out of building societies. However, when there is a flood of new applications, it is possible to discern what is going on and realise that the flood is part of a speculative bubble that has to be pricked. If the will is there, it is possible to define a basic principle and to make it operate practically. The Minister was making excuses for not doing it rather than mounting a defence against the principle that I advanced.
      If there were a two-year rule, it would be an incentive for people to keep money in societies for longer, rather than for churning it in the way that the Minister described. I wish that she had accepted the principle and said, "While the hon. Members for Burnley and for Great Grimsby are most accommodating and amiable, they are not the best draftsmen in the House. It is inadequate, but my draftsmen will produce a tailor-made amendment to achieve what they want and which can go in even at this late stage." It could have been done. The building societies, Back Benchers and opinion outside want it, but we cannot have it because of the rush.
      644
      That puts me and my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) in a dilemma because, being new Labour, we are honest, moderate chaps and we do not want to make a disturbance or put difficulties in anyone's way; we are amiable—that is the essence of our breed. We want to be accommodating, but there is an issue of principle.
      We have been placed under duress by our Front Bench. If my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) had taken a firmer line he could have coerced concessions from the Government, which would have put the Minister in an embarrassing situation, so that she might well have had to give way to us. That is what we should have done: if someone is negotiating, he plays his hand strongly, he is not diffident and does not say, "That won't work; we can't do that." Instead, we should say, "Go for it and you'll often get it." I hope that that can become the slogan of new Labour in power, but it has not worked in this case. If we had coerced the Minister, we might have got more than we did. I am sorry, but I feel that that puts us under duress.
      The proposed provision is right in principle; Back Benchers and building societies want it, but we cannot have it because the Prime Minister has opted for felo de se as a system of Government. Owing to the Prime Minister's suicidal inclinations and the junking of so much of the legislative timetable because of his terror and his inability to face up to the defeat that my hairdressing Bill next week would inflict on the Government, we are now being asked to rush through the Building Societies Bill in an unacceptable way. I regret that. The Bill would be better if it contained the two-year provision. It would have been better if we had insisted on that—I am sorry that we did not, and there is still time to do so. Under such duress I would have no alternative but to give in.
      Mrs. Maddock: Would the Minister clarify the position a little? She has given many practical reasons why it would be difficult to accept the amendments to introduce the two-year rule. Will she tell us the view of the Building Societies Association when she discussed the matter with it? Although that society is anxious for the Bill to become an Act, it is concerned about the two-year rule and I wonder if she could give us some information.
      Mr. William O'Brien: I want to firm up a point that I made in an intervention about the Halifax building society and its acceptance of the principle of the two-year rule. As the Minister said, that is an indication of how the principle should be left as a matter for the building societies. We are discussing legislation and we have an opportunity to firm up the principle set by those in the business—building societies, the Building Societies Association—and Members of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has outlined the case without forcing a Division, which is commendable of both him and my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike).
      We should not waste this opportunity to try to build something into the legislation that will give the assurance that we seek and underline the principle as set out by those in the business. Before we reject outright the amendments, we should look for a compromise whereby

      645
      we can underline the principle. If one were to question hon. Members who have listened to and participated in the debate, more of them would say that the Bill should include provisions to firm up the two-year rule than would reject that proposal. Therefore, the Minister should reconsider the matter to see whether a compromise can be reached that will satisfy all parties.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: I wish to pick up on one point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill): the difference between the Halifax building society and most of the others. If the Halifax decided that it did not want to recommend conversion or use its ability to change its procedures to stop the two-year rule, there would be few businesses big enough to make a hostile bid for it. In practice, we would have to rely on the directors putting forward a proposal. That would not be the case with middle-sized and smaller societies.
      It would be interesting to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister or from a future Parliament whether we need to help to protect diversity. Existing building society members should have their interests protected: there are many more building society lenders and investors than either borrowers or speculators. Can we have a diversity of financial institutions? We would not have had anything like the same level of home ownership, individual wealth accumulation or ability to move house if the mutual principle, the forefathers of the building society movement and the co-operative societies in insurance, retail and wholesaling had not existed. The question of how to protect the opportunity for diversity is important.
      Mrs. Angela Knight: I am in something of a dilemma. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) accused me of speaking for too long when I tried to answer everyone's points; I have now been asked to speak again, so I am not sure what to do. I found the hon. Gentleman's contribution entertaining, not least because he professed himself to be new Labour. Here we are on the first day of a different order—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister having made his statement—and all of a sudden, Labour Back Benchers do not want to be led by their Front Benchers. I am not sure which of the two—the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, the Back Bencher, or the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), the Front Bencher—had something vibrate in his pocket indicating a message from Mandelson Towers, but there is clearly a big difference opening up between them.
      The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) asked me about the views of the Building Societies Association. I can assure her that I have had many negotiations, not just with the Building Societies Association, but with individual building societies. It is obviously important that their views are known on this subject and on a wide variety of other matters relating to the Bill. The Bill exists because the mutual sector wanted it, not because the Government have decided to introduce it.
      Mrs. Maddock: The Minister told us of the practical details. Did the building societies agree with the Minister?
      Mrs. Knight: If the hon. Lady would hold her horses, I was coming to that point. The latest communication from the Building Societies Association states that
      "the Association's overriding priority is for the Bill to be enacted as soon as possible The Association is more than content for the Bill to go forward unamended (other than in respect of amendments making technical and drafting corrections)"—
      the three amendments to clause 10. Describing amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to clause 2, the association states:
      "These amendments appear to be defective."
      That probably gives at least half the answer. The other half of the answer is that building societies are in two minds over the issue because they believe that changing the two-year rule could be beneficial, but they also accept that there would be a problem if it were changed because they recognise that their sector is a moving one. They recognise that the future is not likely to be the same as the past, which is true of every part of life. They recognise that there would be significant difficulties should such a change be made.
      There is therefore no easy answer to this question. If we make changes—either exactly as set out in the amendments or in the spirit of the amendments—a future conversion by or takeover of a society where that society was willing for those events to take place could lead to several million people finding themselves unable to receive anything as a consequence of those events. We can easily imagine the huge problems that would arise from that.
      A further aspect is that it must be for societies to choose their future, as it is for any other industry or financial institution. It is not for Government to dictate; it is for Government to enable societies to make the future that they want for themselves. The thrust behind the legislation is to move from the existing prescriptive legal framework to one that is permissive—not to dictate, but to enable societies to achieve the future they want.
      5 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) mentioned the Halifax procedures. He is correct in saying that, in its conversion, the Halifax has taken longer than any of the other converting societies, not least because it has undertaken two takeovers en route. The result is that no one in the position that we have just discussed will find themselves disadvantaged because they are short-time members. The question behind his comments was that the Halifax is a big society, but what happens to smaller societies? A big society, like any big company, can weather storms and, indeed, changes rather better than smaller organisations. My answer is that, in mutual societies, the only people who can put a proposal to members are the board. Therefore, unlike companies with other structures, mutual societies have the ability of the board to make decisions on what is or is not put to members.
      Although I have not mentioned specifically the points made by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), I believe that I have answered them and the other points raised. I repeat that it would cause more problems to the future of the movement to make the changes proposed in the amendments or to make changes in accordance with the sentiments behind the amendments than to leave the arrangements as they stand.
      Mr. Pike: I thank the Minister for her comments at the start of her first speech in the debate. I welcome her

      647
      indication that she is hopeful about the outcome of negotiations to enable the Bill to make progress. I am not quite as confident as she is—that does not mean that I disbelieve what she says, but she is more optimistic than I am. Both she and I and all those who support the concept of mutuality will be disappointed if the Bill fails to go through. However, I hope that she is right and I am wrong and that the Bill completes all its stages before the end of the week.
      I should have declared an interest in that I am a member of the Halifax. I shall receive the smallest amount possible, both as a shareholder and as a borrower. I did not, however, choose to be a member of the Halifax—I was a member of the Leeds, but was forced to become a member of the Halifax as a result of the takeover.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: A detainee.
      Mr. Pike: Exactly. We choose which institution to be customers of, but sometimes choices are made for us that we would not make ourselves.
      The Minister was correct in saying that the reason why the Halifax has taken longer to convert than other societies is the takeovers, especially that of the Leeds. It was first announced in November 1994—which is therefore the first of the three qualifying dates to be a borrower or an investor—and the first stage was the takeover of the Leeds. That was followed by the massive task of marrying the two sets of records; there were overlapping memberships and several other problems to be ironed out before the records were in a fit state to enable the society to proceed to the next stage of the conversion process. That is why the two-year rule would not have had an effect in that instance.
      The Minister seems to be in an optimistic mood—I do not know why, because the Conservatives will do badly in the general election. She was also optimistic in respect of predator bids. An example of that—
      Mrs. Angela Knight rose—
      Mr. Pike: I will give way in a moment.
      An example of that was the takeover by the Abbey National of the National and Provincial.
      Mrs. Knight: I was only going to say that I am optimistic because we have got the Bill this far.
      Mr. Pike: I accept that.
      The National and Provincial had stated its commitment to mutuality and had gone through an elaborate exercise of sending to all its members literature emphasising that commitment. The literature outlined how a member who received one thing from the society could go for another and described bonuses and other bits and pieces. The society put in a great deal of work on the promotion and publicised it widely.
      Suddenly, out of the blue, the Abbey National announced publicly that it was making a bid for the National and Provincial. The National and Provincial rejected that bid and after a meeting invited other bids, but, ultimately, the Abbey National took it over. All that happened relatively speedily. There was certainly a considerable change of heart on the part of the directors—they had been solidly committed to the concept of
      648
      mutuality, but they quickly changed their minds. Similarly, no one would have believed a few years ago that the Halifax would convert. This point is also the subject of later amendments. Directors' views can change and a predator can take over an unwilling society simply by convincing the board. They are the people who decide whether to present proposals to the membership who, in turn, vote on them.
      I was slightly disappointed with the Minister's remarks about the principle behind the amendments, although I accept her arguments about the technical nature of the provision. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and I looked at the Bill and tabled an amendment that allowed the issue to be debated because it needed to be debated. We hoped that either the Government or Labour Front Benchers would table an amendment that did the job more effectively and so might be acceptable for inclusion in the Bill, but that was not to be. I accept the Minister's opinion that the amendments are defective, that in some ways they go beyond what we intended and that they are open to misinterpretation.
      Nevertheless, the Minister spent some time addressing the principle of the amendments and I was disappointed by her arguments because they did not really hang together. She said that many people would protest about the change, but each society that has converted has used different rules and regulations. Although people have complained about the disabled or second-named people who have not qualified, no one has written to me saying that it is wrong that the Northern Rock paid a single sum to all its members, as did the Alliance and Leicester, but that the Woolwich and the Halifax are handing out varying amounts. I do know that members of each of those societies felt strongly that things were done in the wrong way. People will always feel aggrieved if some rule goes against them or if they think that they would have done better under another rule—that is only human nature. I for one would have done better if the Halifax had offered a flat rate sum instead of a sliding scale: as it is, I shall receive only the minimum.
      I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that these issues should be debated. Even at this stage I hope that some thought will be given to the principle behind the amendments. All hon. Members, apart from the Minister, who have spoken in the debate have clearly believed that a two-year rule would be fairer. As the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) said, people joining a society would know that, if they did not have two years of membership and conversion suddenly came up, they would not qualify. They would therefore join in the full knowledge of their situation.
      I hope that Ministers and my Front-Bench colleagues will get together and find a way of recognising the view of the overwhelming majority. These amendments may not be the best way of doing that, so let us find another way that offers the necessary protection and stops the carpetbaggers and speculators. They should not be able to join the gravy train and get their hand-outs.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 3 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 10

      RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS
      Amendments made: No. 6, in page 16, line 14, after '(2)', insert 'or (3)'.
      No. 7, in page 16, line 19, after '(2)', insert 'or (3)'.
      No. 8, in page 17, line 11, after '(2)', insert or (3)'.—[Mrs. Angela Knight.]
      Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 11 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 27

      ELECTION OF DIRECTORS: GENERAL
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: Although my amendment to the clause—amendment No. 3—has not been selected, I believe that the clause could still be strengthened by modification. The problem is that directors are being appointed to mutual building societies even though their interests go rather wider than the building society movement. Furthermore, they do not always come from the areas in which the societies are rooted. In effect, building societies are being white-anted by these people.
      With the Halifax, more and more impossibly dignified and important people, mainly from London and the financial sector of the economy, have been appointed directors. These people do not have the interests of mutuality or of the building society at heart; they are much more concerned with the wider financial markets. It would therefore be better to include in the clause—it sets out the qualifications and election procedures for directors—some way of securing these people's testimony to their devotion to the principle of mutuality and to the building society of which they are being appointed director.
      The clause deals purely with the mechanics, whereas our concern is with the principle of mutuality. Thus while defining those mechanics it would have been useful to take the opportunity to require directors to show their commitment to that principle—indeed to show that they are as committed to it as those who make up the society and those who have kept it going.
      I have no desire to stand in the way of the clause, but I thought that the issue should be aired before we proceed.
      5.15 pm
      Mrs. Angela Knight: I rather agree with the hon. Gentleman that directors should be prepared to stand up for mutuality. After all, they will be directors of a mutual society so they need to be committed to the concept. But what concerns me about the hon. Gentleman's sentiments is that if the Bill states that someone standing for director has to commit himself to mutuality, how will we know that that is true? Surely the best way to ensure someone's commitment to mutuality is for him or her to choose of their own volition to state that mutuality is a concept that they believe to be correct. That should be included in the statement that they put to members asking them to vote. If someone does not include that in the statement being
      650
      sent out to members, I suspect that those members will draw their own conclusions. That is why I propose to leave matters as they stand.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 28 to 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 41

      PROTECTIVE PROVISIONS FOR SPECIALLY FORMED SUCCESSORS
      Mr. Butterfill: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 58, line 5, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
      '(a) the company or a subsidiary undertaking of the company acquires the whole or substantially the whole, of the business of a mutual financial institution;'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 5, in page 59, line 5, at end insert—
      '"mutual financial institution" means a financial institution—

      (a) the objects of which do not include the making of profit for any persons other than the members of the institution (however described) on whose behalf the funds of the institution are held or invested; and

      (b) as respects which, on the institution being wound up or otherwise ceasing to exist, any surplus assets, after providing for all liabilities and the costs of liquidation, must be distributed among such members:'.

      Mr. Butterfill: The amendments deal with the principle of what is known as the five-year rule, imposed by the Building Societies Act 1986 to afford some measure of protection to converting societies.
      Before 1986, the activities in which building societies could engage were severely limited. The 1986 Act was the first realistic attempt by the House to allow societies to engage in a greater number of activities. It was envisaged by that Act that, for some societies, the desire to offer an ever greater range of services might ultimately lead to their deciding to demutualise and become banks.
      It was also recognised by the 1986 Act, however, that although a greater range of activities would be permitted under the Act, their number was still severely restricted. So it would not be possible for converting societies to have knowledge and experience of all the activities that banks could undertake. It was therefore felt that converting societies might be more vulnerable to predatory takeovers by the big banks, which might want to prevent competition by taking over the societies immediately they had converted. It was felt by Members on both sides of the House, therefore, that some protection should be given for a period of five years.
      I suggest that, although certain things have changed since 1986—the world has moved on and many societies have become much more sophisticated, engaging in a wider range of activities than hitherto—the position has not changed completely. Societies still cannot engage in very many activities, and even under the Bill some activities will continue to be prohibited to those who call themselves building societies. It is appropriate, therefore, that some transitional protection remains.
      It has been suggested that it would be wrong for converting societies to be protected yet be able to be predators. I have some sympathy with that view because

      651
      we should retain diversity of lending. If we are not careful, mortgage lending in the United Kingdom may be dominated by a handful of major institutions—predominantly banks. That is a grave danger, because it would restrain competition and choice for the consumer and, ultimately, act against the national interest and the interests of depositors and borrowers. I am anxious, therefore, that we have as diverse a range of lending organisations as possible.
      There should be three types of lending and deposit-taking institutions. The first tranche would consist of the big banks, which are very large, are established and are secure in their present activities. The second tranche would consist of several converted societies, competing with the banks. Few hon. Members would disagree that some banks need fresh competition, because for a long time they have had things far too much their own way. A little healthy competition would not go amiss and would improve their service. The converted societies would compete with the banks in their range of activities but retain some of the essential elements of service to the community that they had initially as mutual societies.
      A third tranche would consist of the remaining mutual societies that it would be in the public interest to retain to a large extent. That is the purpose of the amendments tabled in my name and those of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and others. There is widespread agreement in the Committee, at least on the Back Benches, that transitional protection is required for converting societies.
      I accept that it would be wrong if the converting societies were enabled to be untrammelled predators on the mutual building societies. Indeed, my amendments seek to protect not only mutual building societies but all mutual institutions.
      Mutuality is a very important concept. It is an almost uniquely British one. It is extremely valuable, and the Committee would be foolish if it were to enact legislation that would diminish it. I therefore propose effective protection for friendly societies and mutual insurance companies. All mutual financial institutions would be protected because, if a converting society bid for a mutual, it would lose the protection that it enjoyed under the five-year rule.
      I know that the banks would say, "That is unfair because converting societies can bid and they receive some protection from predation, but we don't." I am not sure that I agree that the banks need such protection. They are big, grown-up boys and have been playing the game for a long time. They do not need the protection that the converting societies need and deserve.
      Banks will say that converting societies could do all sorts of other things without losing protection. They could buy mortgage books—I am sure that many of the large banks would like to get rid of some of their duff mortgage books, following unwise lending—or chains of estate agents. All sorts of financial institutions were unwise in their acquisition of chains of estate agents and would dearly like to unload them on some of the converting societies. With respect, however, we want not that type of competition but competition in the key areas of banking and customer service, which the converting societies will seek to offer. Therefore I put it to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary that there is a case for retaining a much greater measure of protection than she proposes under the Bill.
      652
      My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary says that we are giving those societies protection; in fact, we are giving them nothing. The Bill removes the protection that they enjoy under the 1986 Act without giving any reasons for doing so, other than the fact that times have changed. No other reason is given for the draconian removal of almost all the protection that the House—members of the Conservative party and of the Opposition—considered appropriate in 1986.
      I ask my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to think again because it would be tragic if, in pursuing such a course, we diminished the number of organisations that offer a service to the public.
      Mr. Pike: Is not one of the best examples of the workings of competition in the financial sector the fact that the banks have extended their hours as a result of competition from building societies? Almost certainly, banks would still open from 10 o'clock to 3 o'clock and not open on Saturdays, were it not for their fear of competition from building societies.
      Mr. Butterfill: As he so often does, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has hit the nail on the head: only by encouraging such competition have we achieved as great an improvement in service as we have in recent years. I want that improvement to go much further. The big banks have great influence on Treasury officials; they have had a semi-incestuous relationship for decades. The big banks should not get their way on this matter; the Committee should ensure that true competition is retained.
      I understand that it has been suggested in certain quarters that my amendments are defective—that they do not precisely achieve the object that I seek. If that is true, I should be very happy if, by agreement between the two Front-Bench teams, they were amended slightly, perhaps in another place, and brought back for notional approval in this place. However, I believe that what I suggest is desirable and is in the interests of the building society movement, the converting societies and society in general, so I hope that I shall receive a favourable response from my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary.
      Mr. William O'Brien: Clause 41 is entitled "Protective provisions for specially formed successors." The spirit of the amendments is to offer some protection for the successors of takeovers and mergers of mutual societies. During public consultation on the Bill, the five-year protection period was one of the most important subjects of debate. People who were involved in the consultation envisaged that there might be problems if the Bill did not afford protection.
      Under the provisions of the Building Societies Act 1986, societies that convert to banks are protected from external takeover for five years after conversion. That protection was designed to protect those that converted from takeovers during the early years in what people in the business refer to as the stock exchange jungle. The organisations that converted to plc status had that protection. In an increasingly competitive environment, that protection gives a converting society a significant advantage.
      During the Bill's consultation period, a strong body of opinion emerged that organisations that wanted the advantages of a stock market listing should also accept

      653
      the disadvantages, such as the threat of a takeover. It is unacceptable to the continuing mutual societies that a plc bank that was once a building society should be able to mount hostile bids for other institutions—including mutual societies—and yet remain immune from takeover for five years. One can readily see that there is an imbalance: an organisation that converts to plc status is protected but the 70 mutual societies that remain are not.
      The amendments would offer some protection not just to building societies but to mutual societies, and would apply to all mutual organisations. The Government accepted that point. The protection will be removed if a converting building society acquires another financial institution during the five-year period. That is the significant point of the amendments, and they would protect existing mutual building societies.
      As the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) pointed out, there may be anomalies in the drafting of the amendments, but the principle and spirit behind them are correct. I appeal to the Minister and other hon. Members to support them, because they would correct an existing imbalance. There is nothing wrong with the amendments; they are constructive and are designed to add strength to the Bill. I hope that the Minister will appreciate the sincerity and spirit behind the amendments and accept them.
      5.30 pm
      Mrs. Maddock: Most hon. Members will agree with the spirit of the amendments. Many of us recognise that, since the 1986 Act, things have changed and that the societies that converted had a significant advantage over others. That was a key fact during consultation on the Bill. We all agree that organisations that wanted the advantages of a stock market listing should have to take on board other responsibilities as well. We have had most discussion about that requirement—so much so that the Halifax building society has accepted that argument and given up its protection. However, I am advised that the amendments, as drafted, may not do what we would all like them to do.
      I think that every hon. Member in the Chamber nodded in agreement with the spirit of the amendments, but I hope that the Minister will look carefully to see whether there is any way in which she can deal with the problem of unfairness. Although I am with her in spirit in trying to get the Bill through, I pointed out on Second Reading that there would be a problem if we had to consider the Bill in Committee on the Floor of the House and then, without any time in between, had to complete its final stages. I hope that we can reach agreement on how we can deal with this despite the pressure that we are all under to try to ensure that mutual building societies get a fairer deal in the financial world.
      Mr. French: I should like to take this opportunity to declare an interest, in that I have accounts with several building societies.
      I suspect that I may be in a minority in fundamentally disagreeing with the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill). One always feels a little uncomfortable disagreeing with my hon. Friend, because he is normally so sensible, but on this occasion I have great difficulty in accepting the arguments that he put before the Committee.
      654
      Under clause 41 as drafted, a society that converted to a bank would lose its immunity from takeover if it sought to take over any other financial institution. Under my hon. Friend's amendment, as I understand it, the loss of immunity would be triggered only if the takeover was of a mutual institution, thereby leaving the new bank—the newly converted society—able to take over any other type of organisation without triggering the loss of its immunity.
      As I made clear on Second Reading, I am very doubtful about the general principle of protection, because it would create two classes of public limited company: those that enjoyed protection because of the route that they followed—as a building society converting to a bank—and those that did not have the immunity, and could not because they had been a bank or some other institution for a considerable time. Therefore, a seriously uneven playing field would be created: between the newly converted society and the other banks with which it was competing, and also between the new bank that was formerly a society and the society that had not converted. We should not seek to enshrine that unevenness in legislation.
      Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is already an unevenness? The converting societies have been restrained from engaging in a range of activities for the whole of their existence, whereas the organisations for which they may be bidding have not been subject to those constraints. Converting societies start off uneven. The purpose of the transitional relief is to give them a period within which they can come up to speed and be on equal terms with those that are already plcs and engaged in those activities.
      Mr. French: I do not agree with that argument. My hon. Friend is looking at the matter from the perspective of the 1986 Act. He is not taking into account the new powers that the Bill confers on the building societies. In the course of time, the building societies will have been able to avail themselves of the additional powers that the Bill provides. Having done that, they will not be at a disadvantage compared with organisations that have been operating under the Banking Act 1987 for a long time. They will have operated under the new building societies legislation that we are discussing. That will give them the greater powers that they require and, having had those powers for as long as they consider necessary, they will be able to make the decision to convert.
      Mr. Butterfill: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. I am sure that he has read the Bill. Under part I, there will still be considerable constraints on the activities in which the converting societies can engage.
      Mr. French: I do not accept that, either. The restrictions that the Bill still places on building societies relate to activity which it would be best that they did not engage in. I do not believe that there is a popular view, for example, that building societies should engage in the derivatives market, which is known to be extremely risky. If the Bill provides, as it does, that in future building societies should still stay out of the derivatives market, it is showing sound judgment. That is what ought to happen.
      I do not accept the thrust of my hon. Friend's arguments. I believe that a society that decides to convert and to become a bank should do so in the full knowledge that it is moving from the context of the building societies

      655
      legislation into the context of the Banking Act 1987. Before it takes that fundamental step, it must be sure that it can manage in the new world in which it proposes to operate. If it considers that it cannot do that or if, as my hon. Friend would say, it considers that it has not had long enough to gain experience of indulging in the other activities that the 1987 Act permits, it has not yet reached the stage where it should be taking that decision.
      If ever protection were afforded to mutual status, and the advantages and benefits of mutual status were recognised, that argument brings home the fact that such status should not be lightly abandoned.
      My hon. Friend said that it had not been possible for societies to develop the range of activities that they believe they will need in order to be on an equal footing with banks. For that reason, I emphasise again that the Bill will give them the opportunity to develop their expertise in the areas from which they have up to now been excluded. Having developed that expertise, in a few years they will be able to convert to banks if they so choose, and there will be no need for any artificial protection such as that in the Bill or especially that in my hon. Friend's amendment.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Butterfill: My hon. Friend is extremely generous in giving way once more. Can he name a bank that would be subject to the constraints imposed by clause 4, under which it would have to keep 75 per cent. of its total assets secured in loans on residential property? That is what the societies are required to do under the Bill. It is nonsense to suggest that a bank that had experience in loans in a range of commercial activities would be constrained in that way.
      Mr. French: If the society is of the view that the requirement to maintain 75 per cent. of its assets in mortgage lending is unduly inhibiting on its activities, it will have another reason for converting, if it wishes to do so. It is for the society to decide whether that is a condition under which it can operate, in which case it should remain a building society, or whether the condition is unduly onerous, in which case it can break free from the building societies legislation and operate under the Banking Act 1987.
      I do not see why, in the course of the building society making that transition, special provisions should be made to compensate for what in other respects might be regarded as an unsound judgment on its part. Building societies must decide under which legislation they wish to operate.
      I see no justification for special transitional arrangements, for the further reason that the potential loss of immunity from takeover is a matter over which the societies have control. The provisions of the Bill do not stop one of the newly converting societies going on the takeover trail. It may still do so. Building societies are in no way inhibited from expanding their position by acquisition if they want to do it that way. They would do it in the full knowledge that if they chose to take that route, they would trigger the loss of the immunity. The decision is entirely theirs to live with the consequences of their action. That is why I do not believe that transitional arrangements are necessary. The decision is part of an overall judgment as to whether plc status suits a business. If plc status does not suit it, it should not leave the legislative framework applicable to building societies.
      656
      I have the greatest difficulty in understanding the argument of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), who tried to argue that the amendment provided protection for existing mutuals. Exactly the opposite is the case. It does not provide protection for existing mutuals at all. If the hon. Gentleman contributes again to the debate, perhaps he will explain his views.
      There seem to be some drafting defects in the amendments, which the Building Societies Association has clearly identified, particularly in relation to the question of when a mutual financial institution encompasses a company and when it does not. Even if one embraced the principle, which I hope the Committee will not, the amendments would have to be redrafted.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I have listened with interest to the views of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) about the five-year rule.
      I have a great deal of sympathy with building societies such as the Alliance and Leicester and the Woolwich, which undertook conversion in the expectation of a five-year protection. Ten months after the Alliance and Leicester had made public its intention to convert, the Government suddenly announced in November for the first time that there would be a significant change to the five-year rule as a result of the consultation that had taken place. Naturally, the converting building societies were surprised and angry at that announcement, and I fully understand their surprise and anger. The question is whether the wording of the clause is an appropriate response.
      The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West acknowledged that there might be technical problems with the amendment. I shall return to that, but let me say a word about the principle. Converted building societies want some protection to take over others in order to reach a critical mass during the five-year period, so that they will be less susceptible to takeover at the end of it. That is what the clause is about.
      The hon. Gentleman advanced a sensible argument in support of his amendment. He argued that there is a public interest in maintaining a degree of diversity and choice in our financial institutions. He said that we would not want to see a mutual building society sector and a big banking sector, with very little in between, because building societies that had reached the end of their five-year protection period or had launched a takeover during that period and lost their protection had been the victims of takeovers.
      There is an argument for retaining a degree of diversity and choice in the market, and for ensuring that some institutions, which are not big banks or mutual societies, are able to perform the same functions. I am not entirely sure that this is the right way to protect that area of the market. The Minister said—and we agree—that the Government should be neutral regarding whether conversion takes place in a particular building society. However, unamended, does not clause 41 impose an obstacle to conversion? Any converted building society will either already be at critical mass or seek to achieve that critical mass, to enable it to survive at the end of the five-year protection period. Many smaller unconverted societies know that, if they were to convert but failed to reach critical mass within five years, they would probably be taken over.

      657
      Clause 41 says, in effect, that building societies cannot convert and seek to achieve critical mass. Would not building societies that are contemplating converting look at that clause and cease to consider it, because it is unlikely that they would be able to survive a takeover after the cessation of the five-year protected period? Do the Government intend that clause 41 should deter mutuals from converting? That does not square with the Minister's comments. Perhaps she could clarify precisely how the clause would operate.
      Mr. Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is a question not just of critical mass—as I tried to explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French)—but of the nature of the loan book? A converting society will, of necessity—even after the Bill is passed—have a loan book comprising 75 per cent. loans secured on residential property. A high street bank has an entirely different loan book. Institutions require some transitional protection when changing from the loan books that they had as societies to the loan books that they will need as banks.
      Mr. O'Brien: I do not deny that the hon. Gentleman makes a strong argument, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister respond to it. However, I am not convinced that the amendment will deal with that issue in a technical manner. Does he accept that there are technical deficiencies in the amendment, as worded?
      Mr. Butterfill: I am advised of that.
      Mr. O'Brien: In that case, I shall not outline those deficiencies. I certainly cannot support the amendment, as worded. I do not think that it achieves the hon. Gentleman's objectives, and it poses a number of potential threats to mutual societies which I am sure he does not intend.
      However, I believe that there is something to be said for the broad principle that the amendment embodies. I shall be interested to hear the Minister respond to that point, and to whether the operation of clause 41, unamended, would discourage building societies from converting.
      Mrs. Angela Knight: Contributions to the debate have highlighted the differences of opinion on this subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), who moved the amendment, believes that protection for converted building societies is a key issue. I think that the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) was somewhat confused in his remarks. The amendments do nothing for mutual societies: they are about the degree of protection that a converted society may have. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) sought more information, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) agreed with me about the matter.
      At issue is the amount of protection that a converted society has, or needs, once it becomes a new bank. The consultation process produced the universal view that no protection should be necessary. In fact, we have chosen the middle course: if a converted building society requires
      658
      time to stabilise once it becomes a new bank and needs to make the sort of changes to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West referred regarding 75 per cent. of its lending being on residential property, it has five protected years in which to do so. It loses that protection only if it goes on the acquisition trail.
      Both banks and insurers—not just the mutual building society sector or the mutual sector—have expressed concern to us that such protection should not exist. My hon. Friend is a well-known business man who has operated in various fields. If, as a business man, his company was the subject of a hostile takeover bid and he was unable to defend it because the predator company had protection, I think that he would be justifiably angry. Parliament should not confer unfair protection on a particular sector of the financial services industry. It is true that widespread concern has been expressed, and that we have given the converters a concession in another way by allowing the removal of what is known as the priority liquidation distribution rights, which has benefited them to the tune of tens of millions of pounds. We have taken with one hand, and given with the other.
      I should like to dispel three illusions that were created in the debate. The first is that converting societies are small institutions. They are not. The Woolwich and the Alliance and Leicester are of comparable size to the Royal Bank of Scotland and rather larger than that well-known insurer, the Guardian Royal Exchange. They are substantial organisations operating in a vibrant, thriving financial market.
      Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West and others said that converted building societies would not wish to acquire mortgage books and so forth. Yet that is precisely what has occurred. Some of the societies that are remaining mutual are making acquisitions in order to expand their activities as mutual societies.
      My final point relates to the comments of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who said that he has some sympathy with concerns expressed in this area because I suddenly announced the Government's intention to change the five-year rule. Consultation in this area has been going on for some time, and organisations such as the Building Societies Association were concerned that protection should remain. I am informed that the Alliance and Leicester, which has raised hon. Members' awareness in this area, was represented at a meeting of the BSA council in June, when the association's response to our consultation was discussed and finalised. That response called for the removal of five-year protection. We are not talking about something new that represents a sudden change. Instead, we are talking about ensuring fairness in the mutual sector and in the banking sector, be it the new banks, the insurers or the traditional banks. On that basis, I ask the Committee to reject the amendments.
      6 pm
      Mr. Butterfill: I am extremely disappointed by my hon. Friend's response. She said that there would be complaints if we were to give protection, which tells me that she is missing the fundamental point. The bodies concerned have the protection now, and have enjoyed it since 1986. To my knowledge, there have been no complaints of abuse by them of that protection or abuse

      659
      by any of the societies that have already converted. My hon. Friend is raising a false hare when she speaks of abuse. The system has existed since 1986 and it has not been abused.
      We are seeking to give transitional protection and no more. My hon. Friend suggests that the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) is confused, but it would seem that the confusion lies with my hon. Friend. It is inevitable that converting societies that are anxious to change their businesses rapidly will go on the acquisition trail. If the amendments are accepted, they will not go on that trail for mutual building societies, friendly societies or mutual insurance companies. They will confine their activities to businesses that will not lead them to the risk of losing the limited protection that is proposed.
      I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Minister does not accept the amendment. Those in another place may take a different view. In the meantime, as I accept that there may be drafting defects, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 41 agreed to.
      Clauses 42 to 47 agreed to.

    New clause 1

      CONDITIONS FOR TRANSFER OF A SOCIETY'S BUSINESS
      '.—After subsection (4) of section 97 of the 1986 Act (transfer of business to commercial company) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(4A) The Commission shall not confirm the transfer and its terms unless it is satisfied—

      (a) that a period of not less than six months has elapsed between the date of the first notification to the members of the society of the proposal for the transfer and the date when the members of the society were required to vote on the transfer resolutions; and

      (b) that the directors of the society provided reasonable facilities for communicating to the members of the society any statement of reasons, submitted in writing by a member of the society, for opposing the transfer resolutions.".'.—[Mr. Austin Mitchell]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 2—Demutualisation: proceeds for charitable purposes—
      '—After subsection (4) of section 97 of the 1986 Act (transfer of business to commercial company) there shall be inserted the following subsection:

      "(4A) The Commission shall not confirm the transfer and its terms unless the terms include provision for the application of not less than 15 per cent. of the realised capital value of the society to charitable purposes appropriate to the society's existing business and geographical location.".'.

      Amendment No. 9, in schedule 5, schedule 5, page 70, line 42, at end insert—
      '5CC. It shall be the duty of a building society receiving a transfer proposal to appoint independent financial advisers representative of the interests of the members of the society, to obtain from those
      660
      advisers an assessment of the capital value of the society, and to communicate that assessment promptly to the members of the society.'.
      Mr. Mitchell: Given the heavy, serious and prolonged consideration that we are giving to such an important Bill, it is a pleasure to introduce the new clause. I do so while making the usual protest about the pressures that have been put on us to speed the Bill through its parliamentary passage. These pressures are effectively turning the House of Commons from the Mother of Parliaments into an abortion clinic. We are being asked, potentially, to kill infant Bills so that the mother Bill may live.
      Another pressure is being brought to bear on the Committee. The Whips are saying, "Keep it short because we want to get the business statement." Younger Members such as myself have hopes of high office in the incoming Administration, and against that background it is important that Members's names are being taken. I shall, of course, comply with this pressure. At the same time, I congratulate the Minister. I hope that she gets her Bill. She has shown great perseverance, effort and charm in plucking this brand from the Prime Minister's funeral pyre. That is effectively what the hon. Lady is doing. Given the haste with which the Bill is proceeding through Parliament I have only to say, "Sister, this Bill had better be good", as we say in the new Labour party.
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is supposed to be speaking to new clause 1.
      Mr. Mitchell: I am the chair, brother.
      New clause 1 is before us, Mr. Morris, and we know what is happening. We must accept that the Bill is word perfect in a way that no other Bill has been. That reflects the pressure that is upon us.
      The new clause represents an attempt to introduce a greater check on the process of demutualisation. I am speaking of the transfer of mutual societies into other businesses, such as public limited companies. The process has been overhyped, with the result that the mutual principle has been grievously wounded. That is a principle that we must keep alive. It is important that we have variety and pluralism. Mutuality should be maintained as a system of corporate government because it holds out great benefits. It brings important services to both borrowers and lenders, such as better rates of interest to those who lend money to a society. The advantages of demutualisation, as I have said, have been overhyped by an organisation that was desperate to take that course.
      Shareholders have been asked to believe that the money that they have been given in the form of bonus shares comes from nowhere. That is not so. The money comes from the capitalisation of the efforts and investments of previous generations. Shareholders are being asked to believe that demutualisation will revitalise the society but it will not. Instead, it will enable the society to continue in much the same fashion.
      There has been no sudden or dramatic change in any of the societies that have been demutualised. Instead, they have spread into new services and new areas of business, which means meeting new risks. New status equals new risk. That could be the basis of an advertising slogan throughout the country. The process is taking societies away from their core business, which they know well,

      661
      and encouraging delusions of grandeur, which are easily encouraged in building societies on the part of top brass, including directors.
      Effectively, the shareholders have been conned. The real dynamic is the desire of the top brass, including the directors, to enrich themselves by increasing their salaries and returns within the new companies. To do that, they are putting over a story that is enormously exaggerated and distorted.
      It is a story that can fool the shareholders. At the Halifax conversion meeting, the light of greed was glittering in shareholders' eyes. They were being given £1,000—in some cases more—for nothing. It seemed that the money was being plucked from the air. I seek a breathing space through the new clause so that the alternative view might be put more effectively.
      In some respects, new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), is even better than new clause 1. My hon. Friend asks that there be actuarial advice on financial gains and losses, and in this instance it is easy to deceive shareholders.
      When the Halifax conversion took place I received great wodges of documents and financial statements from the society advancing the case for demutualisation. The process was presented as the opening of a glittering future. There was little to represent the alternative argument. There was no opportunity to provide a costed and calculated reply underlining the disadvantages of demutualisation while at the same time stressing the strengths of mutuality. It was not possible to present that argument to the shareholders with the same power and effectiveness as was enabled by illustrated lectures and overhead projection to support the case of demutualisation. The alternative argument should be advanced on an alternative footing.
      Investors are being conned by glittering financial prospects in a series of unsubstantiated claims and statements by the top brass in building societies, including directors—those who will be the principal beneficiaries from the process of demutualisation. We should be suspicious. Even better, information should be provided to support the other side of the argument. Let us impose a delay so that we ensure that financial calculations are properly undertaken. I do not want the mutual principle to be weakened and cut any further by the Gadarene rush of investors in large building societies such as the Halifax. That process of weakening and undermining encourages others to go the same way and get the same rewards.
      My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) will not want to reply at length to this debate. I hope, however, that he will use a tactic different from the one he used earlier. I hope that my hon. Friend will sit and growl, and look as though he supports the new clause, gives it his good will and thinks that it is damned good—it is a damned good new clause. If he does that, we may frighten the Minister into giving us a concession.
      The Minister may then say, "It is a bit late to introduce the proposal in a new clause and it is not as well worded as it would have been if the Government's draftsmen had written it, but I shall see whether we can use regulation to approach the same point and to make the process of demutualisation more difficult." If my hon. Friend the
      662
      Member for North Warwickshire growls a bit, we may be able to frighten the Minister into that concession. I hope that my hon. Friend will do that.
      Mr. Frank Field: As I am older than my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and do not have his aspirations, I will take a few moments to explain new clause 2 and amendment No. 9.
      It was not so long ago that a right hon. Member was reported to have said that there was no such thing as society. If one reads carefully the article in which the then Prime Minister was quoted, one discovers that she said that there was no such thing as society unless there were strong families. I suggest that one can also have no such thing as society unless there are strong feelings of mutual aid in a community. Over the past 20 or 30 years, we have seen a ripping out of what amounts to valuable social capital.
      When housing was in both the public and the private sector, one was able to speak for one's family. If someone wanted to look after his mother or father, that was a good reason for being rehoused near them. Such reasons are now ignored and other reasons have been put in their place. That helps to destroy the sense of society and community, and the operation of mutual aid.
      The Bill deals with the social capital that has been built up in mutual aid societies and which is being ripped out because certain individuals wish to make a small financial gain. I refer to many individuals because, as I should have declared at the beginning, I am a member of a number of building societies. If we take the Economic Secretary's advice, we should join many more to protect their status. I am also a member of Abbey National. I see no difference in the service that that bank now offers compared with the service offered when it was a building society. What we do see is that in all the groups that demutualise, the directors get very generous share options.
      It is to protect the social capital that has been built up through generations of members not demanding their pound of meat, but leaving some of it there for the benefit of future generations that I have tabled new clause 2 and amendment No. 9. In new clause 2, I suggest that if a society demutualises, it should be required to put aside 15 per cent. of the value of the company that results in a charitable trust to further the aims of the former mutual society.
      Under amendment No. 9, when societies contemplated demutualising, the members would have appointed for them financial advisers to tell them whether they thought it was as good a deal as the directors said it was, given that the directors would benefit through large share options.
      The Minister may make points about whether the new clause and the amendment are sound; I will defer to her on that. If we withdraw the new clause, will the Government give us an undertaking that they will seek to put the provisions on the statute book by way of a statutory instrument? I hope very much that that is possible.
      All our debate today—it has been a fine debate—has reflected the idea that we do not get a community by being able to spell the word or by tabling resolutions in the House of Commons, but by working at it. As the previous Prime Minister said, if we do not have strong families, we are unlikely to have a society. Similarly, if

      663
      we do not have strong mutual aid organisations, we shall not have strong communities and strong societies. That is the spirit in which I speak to the new clause. I may have been less brief than my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby, but I am older and without his ambitions.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. French: The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) will have noticed that the Northern Rock building society, in formulating its conversion proposals, has made provision for the setting up of a charitable foundation, the purposes of which will be to meet exactly the good causes that are described in new clause 2. It is open to societies at the moment to meet the spirit of the new clause, although they are not obliged to do so.
      Mr. Frank Field: Everyone in the House applauds Northern Rock. New clause 2 would put its action beyond any dispute in the courts. Much as I admire Northern Rock's proposal, I wonder whether some of its members may move against it in the courts because it has not given the membership all the money that is due. New clause 2 would ensure that Northern Rock's proposal is not only sound for it, but has to become the model of behaviour for all other societies that are converting.
      Mr. French: The hon. Gentleman will also have noticed that a formula not dissimilar to his is likely to be embraced by the Alliance and Leicester building society. Of the societies currently converting, the one that stands out as refusing to meet the spirit of new clause 2 is the Halifax building society.
      Mrs. Angela Knight: The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is nothing if not consistent; he has made similar remarks throughout our discussion of the Bill. New clause 1 would require a delay of not less than six months between the date of the first notification of the proposed transfer to the members and the date on which they were asked to vote on it. The process takes longer than six months already. If we imposed a statutory period of delay in what is essentially a commercial, market-sensitive operation, there would be difficulties.
      Members opposed to the principle of a transfer already have opportunities to make their views known. Many of those opportunities have been strengthened through the accountability package in the Bill. If the commission has evidence that material information in relation to proposals that are being put to the vote has not been given to members, it will take that into account when deciding whether to confirm the transfer.
      The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), in amendment No. 9, would require a society that received a takeover offer, whether confidential or not, to get a valuation of the offer and to pass it to its members. That would cause immense difficulties because proposals made to a society are often confidential. Under the amendment, the society would have to publish the details of the valuation of a confidential offer. That would cause considerable instability for a society. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the regulations operated by the Building Societies Commission ensure that all details in the transfer document, which the society will ultimately give to its members, are full and correct in every respect. The issue of the valuation of an offer that is out in the open is, therefore, covered in that way.
      664
      New clause 2 would ensure that a converting society put a proportion to one side for a charity. We all congratulate Northern Rock on making that decision and I am sure that Northern Rock's members are in favour of it. If we made such a charitable option compulsory, we would be moving away from what we understand to be the necessary requirements for a charity. Although I agree with the sentiments behind the new clause and I would urge other converting societies to follow suit, I have strong reservations about making a voluntary requirement into a compulsory one.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I was disappointed with the Minister's reply. Although it is easy to pick holes in the amendments as we do not have the support of skilled civil servants and draftsmen, I wanted the Minister to express her support for the principle involved—that of making demutualisation more difficult, slowing it down and providing information of a quality, volume and weight comparable with the deluge of that put out by the directors. I am sorry that the hon. Lady did not accept that principle. I understand that she is becoming nervous about the fate of her Bill just as I am getting nervous about my future in seven weeks' time. Because of both those paroxysms of nerves, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 4

      INFORMATION TO BORROWERS
      '.—After section 57 of the 1986 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
      ".—(1) It shall be the duty of the Commission to prescribe in rules the information which must be provided by a building society to its borrowing members.
      (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, rules made by the Commission under that subsection shall prescribe that any notification of a change in the rate of re-payment of a mortgage loan should include notification of any consequential change in the final date of completion of the mortgage.".'.—[Mrs. Dunwoody.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      As the Minister has proceeded with great speed this afternoon, I am sure that she will happily accept new clause 4, which is straightforward. We have heard a great deal about tidying up the 1986 Act. I am asking only that we are fair to the innumerate.
      The new clause requires:
      "It shall be the duty of the Commission to prescribe in rules the information which must be provided"
      and that
      "In particular, and without prejudice… rules made by the Commission under that subsection shall prescribe that any notification of a change in the rate of re-payment … should include notification of any consequential change in the final date of completion".
      The issue arose because an extremely intelligent and sensible lady of my acquaintance had arranged to repay a 15-year mortgage with the final payment just before her retirement. She was considerably upset when she queried a particular rate change to discover that the term of the outstanding mortgage was two and a half years longer

      665
      than she had expected. The banking ombudsman took up her case and only then was it revealed that, because of the miscalculation by Abbey National, she had been underpaying her mortgage for more than 10 years. That would place anyone in a difficult position as it would require continuing to make repayments for a greatly extended period or doubling the repayments.
      Many people would find it extremely difficult to cope with much larger repayments or an extended term. Abbey National contended that its old computer system had not alerted staff to the error. How do Abbey National customers know that the current system is working properly? Would it alert staff to a similar problem? How many others may face the same difficulty in repaying their mortgages with Abbey National or any other lending institution?
      I make no apology for the fact that many borrowers are not particularly numerate. However, they are often clear about the date of the final repayment. Many of them have it engraved on their hearts. Therefore, particularly in view of the fact that all large companies will have to reprogram their computers in 2000, it would be simple to include in the information to borrowers my simple, straightforward proposals. The new clause would be of enormous use and protection to customers and it would be so simple to implement that I am sure the Government would like to do so. I am therefore very happy to give the hon. Lady the chance to accept new clause 4.
      Mrs. Angela Knight: I have a great deal of sympathy for the case that the hon. Lady has made. However, there are three difficulties with new clause 4, so let me suggest another way of achieving its objective.
      First, the new clause would require the commission to have a new statutory function to administer it. Clearly it does not have that statutory function. Secondly, the new clause applies only to building societies and banks also offer mortgages. Thirdly, even if an unfairness arose, the new clause provides no means of redress.
      Shortly, the Council of Mortgage Lenders will be publishing its code of practice, which will cover such matters. In addition, it ties all lending institutions to the
      666
      relevant ombudsman. Therefore, should similar difficulties arise in future, I am sure that they will be covered by the code and there will be redress through the relevant ombudsman. I hope that, with that assurance, the hon. Lady will see fit to withdraw the new clause, although I respect the reason why she moved it.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but I should say that I tabled the new clause precisely because the banking ombudsman, having considered the case and discussed it, was unable to sort it out. I shall withdraw the amendment tonight, but I shall not forget it. I shall return to the issue again and again.
      I am seriously disturbed by the inordinate speed at which the Bill has been rushed through the House. Experience tells me that any Bill, no matter what the subject, taken at such speed ends up having to be done again.
      Mrs. Knight: I assure the hon. Lady that the case to which she referred was considered before the Council of Mortgage Lenders' code of practice, which has not been produced in its final form. I also assure her that I, too, will be looking carefully at these matters to ensure that unfairnesses are properly addressed in future.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      Schedules 1 to 9 agreed to.
      Bill reported, with amendments.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      6.28 pm
      Mrs. Angela Knight: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      Given the quality of debate today and on Second Reading, and given that the Bill has been published in draft form and has been the subject of extensive consultation outside the House, I believe that it would be for the convenience of the House to move its Third Reading formally.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Business of the House
6.28 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I should like to make a further short business statement. Following my announcement earlier today and discussions through the usual channels, the business for tomorrow will now be as follows.
TUESDAY 18 MARCH—Remaining stages of the Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Birds (Registration Charges) Bill.
Motions on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice No. 4) Order and the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Code of Practice) (No. 2) Order.
Motions on the Treasure Act 1996 Draft Code of Practice (England and Wales) and the Treasure Act 1996 Northern Ireland Draft Code of Practice.
Motions on the Legal Aid (Functions) Order and the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations.
I regret that it has not been possible, as I had hoped earlier, to announce the business for the rest of the week. Discussions between the usual channels are continuing and I shall make a further business statement tomorrow.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information and share his regret—although I understand why—that he is not able to announce more than one day's business at the moment. Will he confirm that the other business to be completed later in the week is important and could, indeed, lead to votes in the House? Discussions are continuing and I am sure that further statements will be made shortly.
Is the Leader of the House in a position to say anything about private Member's Bills and the procedure that he suggests we adopt for them? Will he assure the House that Ministers will not in the next few days abuse their position to make statements to the House except on matters of real significance or to provide genuine accountability to the House, which has been rare in this Parliament?
In the earlier business statement, the Leader of the House very unusually forgot to answer one of my questions. Will he take this opportunity to confirm that, when the House is prorogued on Friday, it will not meet again and that the Dissolution of Parliament will be by proclamation?
Mr. Newton: I apologise to the hon. Lady for the fact that I did indeed miss one of her questions earlier. I will take it first now, and the answer is yes. I am grateful to her for acknowledging the difficulties of sorting everything out in time for this statement. I can confirm that some of the other business that we expect to take later in the week, including that currently in another place, could well lead to votes. If she is anxious to underline that, I can certainly confirm what she says. The area of private Member's Bills is one of those in which we are
668
still considering precisely how we should proceed. I hope that I shall be able to make things clearer on that tomorrow. Lastly, I have not the slightest idea what she means in talking about ministerial abuse of statements.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend clarify one point with regard to Friday? Will the House meet for Prorogation only or will there be some business before Prorogation?
Mr. Newton: My expectation, and certainly my hope, is that the House will meet for Prorogation only.
Mr. Harry Barnes: On Thursday, the Leader of the House promised that electoral registration figures for England and Wales would be supplied to the House on 26 March. As the House will prorogue on 21 March, there will be no opportunity to try to use the procedures of the House to discuss those figures if they prove to be inadequate. In those circumstances, will he ensure that the figures are made available to the House tomorrow so that hon. Members who are interested in such matters will still have an opportunity to raise them before the House prorogues?
Mr. Newton: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that promise off the cuff—not least because I am not the Minister who has responsibility for those statistics. I shall however certainly look into his point, and if there is any possibility of achieving what he wants, I will of course be very pleased to please him, and indeed the House. I cannot add to that.
Mr. Barry Legg: Is my right hon. Friend having discussions with the usual channels in this House and the House of Lords concerning the private Member's Bill, the Public Entertainments Licences (Drugs Misuse) Bill, which progressed unanimously—
Madam Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House has made a very limited statement about tomorrow's business only. He is coming to the House tomorrow to make a further statement. Negotiations are going on about things such as the Bill to which the hon. Member referred.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On tomorrow's business, is there any chance of a statement—some kind of comment or action—on the subject that I have now indelicately raised four times with the Leader of the House in business questions: the work of the Standards and Privileges Committee in relation to the outpourings of Mr. Mohammed Al-Fayed and the book "Sleaze"?
Mr. Newton: I have referred the hon. Gentleman on one or two occasions to the fact that a substantial report—the one dealing with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary—on that area has already been published. Beyond that, I am not in a position to make statements from the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Standards and Privileges Committee.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Thank you.

Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill [Lords]
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill [Lords]
  New clause 2

    ASSISTANCE FOR TRAINING
    '. In section 56 of the 1995 Act (financial assistance for training), after subsection (3) there is inserted—

    "(4) In providing assistance in accordance with this section the Secretary of State shall have regard to the maintenance and development of the United Kingdom's merchant fleet and marine related business and for that purpose shall—

    (a) keep under review all aspects of that fleet and business; and

    (b) seek the advice of those who appear to him to have experience of that fleet or business.

    (5) In this section, 'marine related business' means any trade, business or other activity concerned with the manufacture of, or the provision of goods and services for, or the operation or use of ships and includes maritime educational establishments, marine classification societies, marine equipment suppliers, marine surveyors, marine and naval architects, marine insurance companies, protection and indemnity clubs, provides of maritime financial or legal services, the operators of ports and harbours and shipbrokers.".'—[Ms Glenda Jackson.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    6.35 pm
    Ms Glenda Jackson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    The purpose of the new clause is abundantly clear. It underlines the importance that training has always had not only for the safety of lives at sea but for the maintenance and therefore the ensuring of safety of the ships in which people sail. It is of particular importance given the Bill's framework.
    I do not think that it would be an exaggeration to say that this nation has set the benchmark not only for the training of seafarers but for the introduction and maintenance of many of the safety measures that, over the years, have reduced loss of life at sea and been instrumental in steps being taken in this country and in the wider international community on the very serious issue of pollution and its potential risk should such strict safety standards and training measures be eroded. It would however be quite wrong to mislead hon. Members into thinking that what has been is what faces us now.
    In common with all other merchant fleets, the British merchant fleet is undoubtedly operating in a severely competitive climate. Over the past 18 years, we have seen a serious decline in the number of ships flying the red ensign. The number of ships on the United Kingdom register has declined from more than 1,200 of 500 gross tonnes or more in 1980 to only 240 ships of an equivalent tonnage today. At the same time, there has been an even more staggering decline in the number of registered UK seafarers. In 1980, there were 60,000 seafarers, but there are just about 20,000 today. That figure includes some officers who are employed on foreign-flag vessels.
    As this nation has set the benchmark not only for training but for the maintenance of safety standards on our vessels, British-trained crews are undoubtedly much admired and desired by international competitors. In a study commissioned jointly by the Department of
    670
    Transport, the Chamber of Shipping Ltd. and the Marine Society, which was conducted at the University of Wales in Cardiff and published in March 1996, it was, however, identified that the need for trained seafarers is the exclusive preserve neither of shipping companies nor owners but of many land-based related industries.
    It is extremely interesting to see the wide variety of businesses, industries and commercial enterprises that are in a sense dependent on having as part of their personnel people who have obtained sea-going qualifications and are experienced in the area. The obvious ones are surveying and ship inspection companies, cargo surveying firms, classification societies, ports and port services and, of special relevance to the Bill, organisations committed to pollution control. The list is long and runs to many pages, and I do not wish to delay the House. The study by the University of Wales in Cardiff identified approximately 17,000 land-based jobs that employers much prefer to fill with ex-seafarers, but the number of mariners—and the number who present themselves for training, certainly in the cadets—has declined.
    The Government have taken steps, via the DOCS—development of certificated seafarers scheme—and the Government assistance for training—or GAFT—scheme to encourage people to train as mariners. From conversations I have had, I do not believe that young people are any less willing to look to the sea for their future careers than they have ever been. Last year, at one of our much-prized, internationally recognised nautical colleges, some 1,000 young people who wished to dedicate their lives to the sea competed for a limited number of places.
    It is remarkable—and we should take pride in the fact—that 50 per cent. of all ship broking is conducted through the Baltic exchange in the City of London. The City is the primary area for all maritime business, nationally and internationally. People are concerned that if standards of training, and the numbers entering such training, decline, that primacy could be lost.
    The purpose of the new clause, which I hope that the Government will consider favourably, is to ensure the widest possible consultation and discussion in the maritime industry on how we can expand and increase existing training schemes, as well as incorporate individual ideas from a variety of sources. It has been argued that the individual, land-based businesses should take on the exclusive responsibility for training, but such training schemes would be dependent on the size of the company. Many such companies, which make a considerable contribution to the nation's economy, are small, and it would be impossible for them to engage in training schemes. If we had wide-ranging consultation and discussion, companies could present a compilation of their ideas.
    I shall end where I began. We are a proud maritime nation. We have set benchmarks for the international community in training, standards of seamanship, maintenance and safety procedures. I hope that the Government will look kindly on the new clause, because we should expand our activities in this area, not decrease them.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: I speak in support of the new clause. My father was a merchant seaman. He served as a stoker in the merchant

    671
    navy from 1936 until his retirement in the 1960s. He was torpedoed on three occasions during the war. A seaman's occupation affects his family directly. When my father complained about safety at sea, he was disciplined and the family lost wages. A seaman at sea is under maritime regulation and can be disciplined differently from a worker on land, who can complain about health and safety with no repercussions. At sea, it is impractical for a complainant to step off the boat. Seamen who have spoken up about safety have been dismissed and left at the next port.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: In that context, I remind my hon. Friend that, traditionally, if a man was swept overboard from a company-owned trawler, the wages given to his wife or mother were docked from the hour he was knocked overboard.
    6.45 pm
    Mr. Martin: That is true and my hon. Friend may be able to expand on that point. My mother was paid fortnightly through a seaman's allotment. If my father's wages were docked or he was put off the boat in Egypt or Montreal, it might be 14 days before my mother discovered that he had been disciplined. I know that the position has improved, but the point is that good safety training on our sea-going vessels—the few that are left—is a must. Those British men and women who have the honour of serving in our merchant navy are entitled to the best possible training. Those in charge of our able seamen, stokers, stewards and others should also have the best training. I hope that the new clause will improve the situation, and I support it.
    Dr. Godman: I am happy to support the new clause. Will the Minister confirm that fishing vessels fall outwith the United Kingdom's merchant fleet? If that is so, I hope that the Minister—if he is sympathetic, as he often is, to our case—will pay serious attention to the need to emphasise the training of our fellow citizens who are employed in marine-related businesses and the fishing industry, as well as those in the merchant fleet.
    Safety training is especially important. I need hardly remind the Minister about the two terrible losses that we have just suffered. Allegations were made in Scotland over the weekend that the Arbroath, which foundered a few days ago with the loss of its crew, snagged its gear on a pipeline. Whatever the truth of those allegations, it is essential that those who go to sea, on any vessel, should be given the best safety training. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that such training should include training in donning immersion suits. Men may have only a few minutes to put the suits on. They are not easy to put on, especially in the darkness and if the sea is running and the vessel is going down. That is the sort of training that all our seafarers should be given.
    Safety is of the essence, and the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State have agreed with me on this in the past. I would like the measures dealing with the merchant marine to include also the fishing fleet, where safety is also important. If a vessel is going down, but the men and women on board have time to put on survival gear before going into the water, excellent equipment is important. I told the Under-Secretary in Committee about the French fishermen who had to jump
    672
    off their ship west of St. Kilda. Those who had time to put on their survival suits survived, but the other men died quickly. Safety is of the essence, as is safety training.
    Mr. Nick Ainger: I wish to support briefly the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). Many people believe that the reason for the decline in the British merchant fleet has been the far cheaper charters offered by flags of convenience, and that may be true in some sectors. But we must remember that our continental partners—particularly Norway and Denmark—have been able to maintain substantial merchant fleets and, in certain areas, have expanded them.
    The tragedy for the British merchant fleet has occurred in areas where, initially, Britain led the way—I am thinking in particular of the United Kingdom continental shelf, where many of the supply vessels which operated in the late 1960s and early 1970s were owned, operated and crewed by British people. Since then, there has been a significant decline in the proportion of the British merchant fleet operating on the United Kingdom continental shelf. Some of it, admittedly, has gone to flags of convenience with relatively cheap crews, but a significant part of the market has been taken by Norwegian, Danish and German-crewed vessels.
    If, as we well know, the officers and crew of Norwegian, Danish, German and Dutch vessels are paid extremely well, why on earth is the British share of the market so small? The same is true in relation to tanker fleets, where the Norwegians and the Danes have been able to maintain a significant and flourishing sector. Any Government must address the issue of why there has been such a huge decline—as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate—in the British sector of the world merchant fleet. We must find out why countries with high-quality training and well-paid crews—any British seaman would give his right arm for their terms and conditions—have been able to maintain, and improve where necessary, their merchant fleets.
    Other significant areas must be addressed, such as new build and how we support the merchant fleet not just on the United Kingdom continental shelf, but in the world market. The tragedy is that the British merchant fleet has shrunk to such an extent that it will be difficult to build it up to what we knew and appreciated in the 1960s and 1970s.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Bowis): I am grateful to the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. In moving the new clause, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) talked about this country's great maritime traditions, and she was right. Those traditions have been based on a quality of seamanship that has been the envy of the world, and many of those qualities have been the result of the training given to our seamen.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin)—in a moving tribute to his father's experiences—highlighted some of the risks, dangers and problems faced by our seamen. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) reminded us of the most recent tragedies affecting fishing boats and the men who put to sea in them. Our thoughts go to the families of the crews of those two ships which had such a sad end.

    673
    The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow asked whether the fishing fleet was covered by the related section of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. The Act does apply to fishing vessels, although it does not apply to the matters referred to by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate. The hon. Gentleman rightly drew our attention to the need for equipment and clothing, and we have referred him in the past to the guidance that is available on this matter. His points are well taken on board.
    The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) had a wider shopping list than is addressed by the new clause. However, British training benefits British seafarers—no matter what ship they are sailing in. We should bear that in mind as we look at our training record.
    The new clause is unnecessary, but I want to make clear that the Government are very much in favour of consulting those with an interest in seafarer training or those with relevant expertise and experience. We are against imposing needless bureaucracy and superfluous regulation. The Government's record shows clearly that we support well-thought-out and targeted schemes for seafarer training.
    I wish to refer the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate to the implications of the wording of the new clause, which caused me to have some doubts about it. The problem is what the new clause could do in practical terms. As drafted, the new clause could mean—among other things—that when the Government wished to make an adjustment to a seafarer training support programme, the Secretary of State would be obliged to consult all those presently engaged in the merchant fleet and all those engaged in marine-related businesses, as defined. It could also mean that the Secretary of State would be obliged to consult all retired members of the merchant fleet and all retired practitioners in marine-related business.
    There are issues on which it would be valuable to have the advice of harbour operators, naval architects, manufacturers of the specialist equipment used on board ships and ship builders but, at first sight, the new clause would seem to oblige the Secretary of State to consult them all—whether they had relevant experience or not. The hon. Lady developed her point to make clear that she is not looking for something rigid, but for as wide and as sensible consultation as possible.
    The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate referred to two training support schemes by the Government. The GAFT scheme has been running since 1988 and assists cadet officers. Since 1988, it has helped to fund some 4,000 trainees at a cost in excess of £18 million. During that time, no eligible candidate has been refused assistance. Junior officer training is supported by the DOCS scheme, which is in its third year of a pilot exercise that has helped to provide nearly 1,000 junior officer berths.
    The Department of Transport currently spends some £4.3 million a year on these highly successful schemes, and the value and skills of British seafarers are recognised the world over. We estimate that some 5,000 British seafarers work on foreign-owned and flagged tonnage. British seafarers and their training are success stories of which we should be proud. We have kept the operation under review and we have proposals to integrate the
    674
    programmes to make better use of funding. We are consulting the relevant bodies, including training providers, trade unions and ship owners. We do all that already.
    Our assistance for seafarer training also takes account of the need for trained seafarers in shore-based establishments, especially those that constitute what we know as maritime London. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate paid eloquent tribute to the Baltic and others. As she said, the consultation under way on changes to our training support scheme follows the study by the University of Wales that was jointly commissioned by my Department, the Chamber of Shipping and the Marine Society. That underlines the Government's recognition of the importance of the contribution made by British shipping as a whole to the nation's well-being.
    Because we have kept developments in the merchant fleet under review over the years we have been able to take steps to promote the competitiveness of British shipping. Apart from the generous support that we have offered to seafarer training we have, among other things, changed the registration law to allow bareboat charter vessels on the United Kingdom register and introduced roll-over relief on capital allowances to encourage the replacement of aging tonnage.
    We do a great deal already, and to that extent the new clause is not necessary, but in the spirit of co-operation that has prevailed on the Bill in both Houses, and in the spirit of Donaldson, to which we have tried to listen and respond at all stages, I am content to accept the new clause.
    7 pm
    Ms Glenda Jackson: I thank the Minister most sincerely for accepting the new clause and for underlining the spirit of openness and eagerness to ensure that the Bill completes its passage through the House which all of us who had the privilege to serve on the Committee have enjoyed. We all benefited from the great expertise on particular subjects that resided in more than one member of the Committee.
    It was not our intention in tabling the new clause to place an enormous burden on the Secretary of State or his Department, necessitating consultation with absolutely everybody with any association, however remote, with the maritime industry, whether at sea or on land. It is undoubtedly the case that practical experience is usually the greatest teacher, and no classroom is more severe than that of the sea. Much expertise and experience can be brought to bear.
    It is important to note that the Bill will place new requirements on various parts of the maritime industry. Consultation and the sharing of knowledge and experience can bring benefits to all concerned. Information technology is making inroads in what have been the traditional methods of navigation and it is important that training should keep pace with the scientific and technological advances.
    Once again, I am grateful for the Minister's acceptance of the new clause.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New clause 4

    APPOINTMENT BY SECRETARY OF STATE OF ADVISORS ON MARINE SALVAGE, & C.
    '.—In section 137 of the 1995 Act (shipping casualties), after subsection (5), there is inserted the following subsection—
    "(5A) The Secretary of State shall appoint such persons as he thinks fit to advise or assist him in connection with marine salvage and other matters relating to the exercise and performance of his duties under this section.".'.—[Mr. Ainger.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Ainger: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also new clause 5—Duties of the Secretary of State in relation to marine pollution—
    '.—After section 293 of the 1995 Act there is inserted the following section—
    "Duties of the Secretary of State in relation to marine pollution
    293A. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State—

    (a) to carry out regular reviews of emergency salvage capacity in United Kingdom waters, including need, availability and potential funding sources; and

    (b) to ensure that adequate emergency salvage capacity is provided in United Kingdom waters, as identified in reviews carried out in accordance with paragraph (a), above.".'.

    Mr. Ainger: New clause 4 developed from the clause stand part debate in Committee, in which I said that clause 2 was in the Bill because the marine accidents investigation branch made three separate recommendations in its interim report published on 22 November 1996: to give legal status to the marine pollution control unit's national contingency plan; to give the Secretary of State additional powers to direct harbour authorities, harbourmasters and pilots; and to give the Secretary of State or his officials the right to charter vessels, aircraft and equipment in the commercial sector to carry out an anti-pollution operation.
    It is worse than useless to give the Secretary of State those powers if he cannot sensibly exercise them. I am glad that he is here. I remind the House of the meeting that he and I had at 11 o'clock on 20 February, the day after the Sea Empress made her final grounding and spilled about 30,000 tonnes of oil on the falling tide. I asked him why he had not intervened and exercised his considerable powers under the current legislation between 15 February, when the vessel first ran aground, and the day of our meeting.
    I am sure that the Secretary of State will confirm my precis of our conversation. He said that he felt that he could not intervene, because the salvors were acknowledged as being world class and he had no expertise with which to countermand their policy and decisions, and that he was afraid that if he exercised his powers the salvors' tugs, equipment and expertise would be removed.
    That is the key issue. We all want the risk to be reduced wherever possible, and if an accident occurs we need to be able to handle it as best we can, with all the technology
    676
    at our disposal, to reduce the impact on the environment, but if, with the best will in the world, we give the Secretary of State those powers, we must also provide him with the independent expertise that could advise him if a salvage or towing operation were going wrong.
    In Committee, the Minister tried to reassure us that measures had already been taken. He said that the contracted emergency towing vessels based at Dover, Falmouth and Stornoway had salvage experts attached to them. That assurance does not bear close examination. If we need all-year-round expertise, and its source is on the emergency towing vessels, those vessels would have to be on charter all year round, which they are not: they are chartered for only six months of the year; so for six months of any year there is no contracted salvage expertise available to the Secretary of State.
    The three emergency towing vessels cover only the three sectors identified by Lord Donaldson and by Captain Belton, so if a casualty were to occur well up the east coast, in the middle of the North sea, it would be a significant distance from the existing covered sectors and the expertise would not be readily available.
    Perhaps the most important point is how independent and objective any salvage expert who is part of a salvage operation will be. The Minister has told us that salvage experts will be on the vessels. The House will be interested to know that, under the current contract between the salvage or towing companies and the Coastguard agency, 60 per cent. of any proceeds from a successful salvage operation will automatically go to the salvor and only 40 per cent. to the Department of Transport. Again, there is a question mark over the independence of the people who are attached to the emergency towing vessels.
    How do we give the Secretary of State that day-in, day-out, year-in, year-out, objective and independent expertise so that he can exercise the powers that previous Acts have given him and the Bill would give him? The Sea Empress disaster has clearly shown us that he did not have expertise in which he was confident and could place his trust. That is vital. If one lesson has to be learnt from the Sea Empress, it is that the Secretary of State must have independent and objective advice constantly available to him. That is why I tabled the new clause, which would put into the Bill the requirement for the Secretary of State to have such marine salvage expertise.
    The Government were generous on new clause 2. I hope that they will show similar generosity on this important issue.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: I shall speak to new clause 5, which is in my name and would make it a duty for the Secretary of State to carry out regular assessments of the availability of emergency salvage capacity in United Kingdom waters—an issue that I raised in Committee. It would also place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure the provision of adequate salvage capacity based on the information obtained through such a review.
    It is not a question of who funds the capacity—it is likely to be done through the private sector—but of the role of the Secretary of State in ensuring that such provision is available. I want to put an end to the considerable delays in ensuring that emergency salvage tugs are available in areas that are at risk from shipping. In Committee, the Minister argued that the question

    677
    concerns the extent to which the Government should provide or ensure such salvage facilities. Lord Donaldson was in no doubt that the duty of ensuring that adequate cover was available lay with the Government. The fact that he also considered that tug ownership should remain primarily a private sector service was not intended to allow the Government to leave areas exposed to an avoidable pollution incident while they considered funding options.
    In Committee, the Minister was reminded of the relative costs of salvage provision and of an oil spill, not all of which can be recovered from the ship's insurers or oil pollution compensation funds. Oil spills cost tens of millions of pounds, and it is highly desirable that the polluter should be asked to pay for the cost of pollution prevention, but coastal communities should not be left at risk while the issue is resolved.
    When a similar amendment was discussed in Committee, the Minister questioned the meaning of "adequate". The new clause would give the Secretary of State the means of assessing what would constitute adequate emergency salvage tug cover. The Minister may argue that that already happens, but by making it a duty the new clause would ensure that the Secretary of State responded quickly to such assessments—certainly in less time than it has taken to implement some of Lord Donaldson's recommendations.
    The Minister might question the meaning of "regular". He might suggest an interval that he would recommend for such a review and which is current practice, so that should not be a concern. Reviews should not be triggered solely in response to accidents. Under the new clause, the Secretary of State would be charged with ensuring that adequate salvage capacity was available in the period between reviews.
    In Committee, the Minister also argued, in relation to a similar amendment, that a function of the Secretary of State
    "did not impose an obligation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 4 March 1997; c. 116.]
    The new clause has been redrafted to take that comment into account. The Minister's comment raises some concerns, however, about other provisions in schedule 6, which I had understood would place an obligation on the Minister. If his comment is correct, they would not do that.
    7.15 pm
    An interim recommendation of the marine accidents investigation branch into the Sea Empress called for the national contingency plan to be given legal status. The Government have implemented the recommendation by seeking to add, through this Bill, the preparation of a national contingency plan to the functions of the Secretary of State under section 293 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. If the Minister objects to the new clause, perhaps he could clarify, on the basis of his previous comments, whether the preparation of such a plan should be made a duty of the Secretary of State instead of a function. It now seems less than clear whether that is the case.
    678
    The tug in the western approaches was not in place when the Sea Empress ran aground in February 1996. Lord Donaldson highlighted the need for a tug to be placed at that location in May 1994. There was a considerable time gap, and if things had been done as suggested there might have been a very different outcome. It is to be hoped that there will not be another case that so clearly illustrates the cost to the marine environment and the coastal communities that rely on it of delaying the provision of adequate emergency salvage capacity around the UK coast. The new clause would place the necessary obligations on the Secretary of State both to find out what is needed and to act on the conclusions.
    I have one further question for the Minister. In Committee, when we debated the issue, he said that there might be an announcement on the measures to be taken for the winter of 1997–98.I do not think that one has been made, unless I missed it. Can he confirm whether he will be announcing a continuation of the three winter tugs? To date, they are in place only on a trial basis, and it is important that such cover is continued. I know that the Minister agrees in principle, but it would be helpful if an announcement were made.
    Dr. Godman: I have considerable sympathy with both new clauses. I remind the Minister—if he needs a reminder—of what might have happened west of the Western Isles with the Panamanian-registered Soro. Perhaps I may say, in response to a comment my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) made, that we always have a problem when tankers run into difficulties, because the owners place enormous pressure on their captains. We found that with the Exxon Valdez: the captain was reluctant to send for assistance. The same held true for that terrible foundering off the Shetland coast: there seemed to be some reluctance on the part of the captain to call for assistance. That was not the case with the Soro, as I am pleased to say that Captain Jim McFadden, a constituent of mine, acted promptly—as the Minister will agree in his response, I am sure.
    In relation to the measures proposed in the new clauses, I want to know what information the Minister has about the Soro. There could have been a serious incident—that word is not strong enough. That august journal the Greenock Telegraph stated last Wednesday:
    "A Greenock tanker captain has averted what could have been a major maritime oil disaster.
    The Panamanian-registered Soro ran into difficulties after encountering storm force conditions off the coast of Lewis."
    That means the west coast of Lewis—the deep-water route—where the vessel should have been. As the Minister knows, I have always argued that such vessels should not use the Minch in heavy weather.
    The report continues:
    "The severe weather damaged the ship's steering but Captain Jim McFadden of Greenock managed to bring the vessel and her cargo of 284,000 tonnes of crude oil to safety—preventing what could have been an environmental catastrophe.
    Tugs rushed to the aid of the Soro and brought her to the Clyde for repairs. This morning she left the river to continue her voyage to Canada."
    Were Government inspectors involved in inspecting the vessel's seaworthiness before she left the Clyde to continue her voyage to Canada?

    679
    Captain McFadden acted promptly to avert danger by alerting the emergency tug at Stornoway, but there have been cases where captains, even when their ships were in serious trouble, have been reluctant to send for an emergency tug because of the cost. The new clauses deal with the problem of unscrupulous owners who let their captains and crews know their views about the need to avoid what they regard as unnecessary expense. They tell captains to try to effect running repairs and to get their engineers to deal with the faulty steering or whatever and not to call out a tug because of the cost. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will know that some owners put that terrible responsibility on captains. In the case of Captain McFadden, there were no problems because he behaved in the honourable tradition of seafarers and sought to protect both his crew and the marine environment by sending for the tug promptly. He is to be complimented for his actions, but I worry about unscrupulous owners putting intolerable pressure on their captains.
    Mr. James Wallace: I welcome the new clauses as an opportunity to raise important issues relating to salvage tug capacity around the United Kingdom. This gap in our marine pollution prevention measures was identified in the Donaldson report. I echo the request for confirmation that, at the very least, the three tugs that have operated in the winter months recently in Dover, Stornoway and Falmouth will continue.
    My concern relates to the presence of adequate salvage tug capacity in the waters around Orkney and Shetland. The Minister knows that I have taken the matter up often. On 11 December, I was fortunate in being able to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate in the Scottish Grand Committee. I do not propose to repeat the points that I made, which are still relevant.
    In Committee, when my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) spoke of the need for salvage capacity around Orkney and Shetland, he received a reply that has become familiar. The Minister said:
    "Both the Donaldson report and the Belton report on tugs referred to the waters there as being of secondary risk—that is their definition, not mine."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 4 March 1997; c. 116.]
    I must accept that, but the Department of Transport has not addressed the fact that while Captain Belton's emergency towing study team's report, which was commissioned by the Coastguard, found that in general it was a secondary danger area, it also found that there was a particularly high risk during the winter months. That is self-evident to those of us who live there.
    Captain Belton's study team recommended that the area should be provided with emergency towing vessel cover from the beginning of October until the end of March. The debate gives the Minister an opportunity to respond to that and to update the House on what the Minister of State, Scottish Office told me. He said:
    "The Coastguard Agency has been in correspondence with commercial enterprises in Shetland to consider possible joint arrangements in the provision of emergency towing, and how these might be of benefit. The discussion will continue, but without commitment at this stage."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 11 December 1996; c. 47.]
    I would welcome an update on any discussions that have taken place with private commercial enterprises in Shetland. The Minister could also comment on the fact that,
    680
    in its evidence to the Donaldson inquiry, the harbours department of Orkney Islands council displayed a willingness to discuss partnerships to ensure that adequate salvage capacity—not the capacity already there, with tugs doing harbour jobs in both Scapa Flow and Sullom Voe—would be available as a joint venture in Orkney as well.
    Mr. Bowis: I am grateful to the four hon. Members who have spoken. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) introduced the debate on new clause 4, and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) spoke to new clause 5. At the outset, I must say that both new clauses are unnecessary.
    New clause 4 seeks to give the Secretary of State powers that he already has, although it does not use, as the hon. Member for Pembroke suggested it should, the words independent or must. The Secretary of State can already seek the advice and assistance of experts in or outside Government, as he thinks appropriate. We do not need new primary legislation for that. The hon. Gentleman nevertheless raised some important issues. I merely suggest gently that he is being premature with some of them. The review of the national contingency plan will, of course, have regard to the lessons learned from the Sea Empress incident and of any relevant recommendations made by the marine accident investigation branch. Clearly, if there is evidence that a particular sort of expertise has not been sufficiently available in the past, it can and will be addressed.
    The conduct of salvage operations is one of the many aspects of the Sea Empress incident that are being considered by the MAIB. It would not be appropriate for me to guess its conclusions. The chief inspector expects to present his report to the Secretary of State by the end of the month. It will be published as soon as possible thereafter. New clause 4 is unnecessary and I hope that the hon. Member for Pembroke will seek leave to withdraw it.
    The hon. Member for Truro mentioned our debates in Committee, where we debated this issue at some length. In practice, the Secretary of State already does what new clause 5 suggests. To make that a duty seems unnecessarily inflexible. It would impose a duty on the Secretary of State
    "to carry out regular reviews of emergency salvage capacity".
    It does not specify how often that should be done, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged.
    New clause 5 imposes a further duty
    "to ensure that adequate emergency salvage capacity is provided".
    It still does not specify what adequate means. While I take the point of the hon. Member for Truro about having a stab at it, it is still vague. It is a useful new clause for debate, but not for legislation.
    We had a full and useful debate on provision of emergency towing vessels in Committee in response to an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Truro. I can assure the hon. Member for Truro and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that, since then, we have made the announcement—the hon. Gentleman must have missed it. We have announced that tugs have been retained to provide cover for a further winter in the Minches, the Dover strait and the south-west approaches.

    681
    As I said in Committee, we will be undertaking further analysis of the trials to date—we are not waiting for next winter—so that the benefits of the provision of such Government-funded vessels can be fully assessed. It is right that we should carry out a careful evaluation of the costs and benefits of the trials to date; the public expenditure involved, of about £1 million per tug per winter, is not negligible. In the light of the evaluation, which we are now embarked upon as a matter of urgency, we will reach decisions on the longer-term provision of Government-funded tugs, how many there should be, where they should be located and for what period of the year.
    7.30 pm
    I hope that my comments have answered the queries of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. His points, which I have been unable to respond to in detail today, will be taken into account in that review, as will many of the points made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). The hon. Gentleman reminded us of the incident involving the Soro, which was skilfully captained by one of his constituents. In that incident the request was made for support, the tug was available and set out. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, before it reached the ship, the ship was able to get under way on its own and subsequently made its own commercial arrangements for tug support.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the Minches, where it is always a matter of trying to strike the right balance between the protection of the environment and the protection of life—hence the routing in the Minches. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about that issue. It is a matter of using the deep channel whenever it is sensible, and using the protection of the coastline when necessary.
    The hon. Gentleman also referred to cost. We are talking in general terms of the costs being the responsibility of ship owners. The hon. Member for Truro made it clear that he was not looking for wider public funding, but wanted an assurance that we would ensure that adequate provision was made. We shall take account of any comments or recommendations made in the MAIB report into the Sea Empress when it is to hand.
    In the light of the work in hand and the announcement that the Government will fund three tugs for a further winter, I hope that the hon. Member for Truro will be reassured and that the hon. Member for Pembroke will feel able to withdraw his new clause.
    Mr. Ainger: We have had a disappointing, but not unexpected, reply from the Minister.
    I wish to comment on new clause 5 and the Minister's response to it. It is worth reminding ourselves that chapter 20, paragraph 127 of Lord Donaldson's report clearly recommended that there should be all-year-round emergency towing vessel cover in the Dover strait, the western approaches and north-west Scotland. That report led to Captain Belton's report, which was published one year later, in May 1995. He concluded that the primary
    682
    danger areas were Dover, the Hebrides and the south-west approaches. Captain Belton's report recommended that emergency towing cover
    "should be provided throughout the year in the Primary Danger Areas of DOVER, HEBRIDES and the SOUTH WEST APPROACHES; and for the winter only"—
    the point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)—
    "(1 October-31 March) in the Secondary Danger Areas of FAIR ISLE and NORTH CHANNEL."
    The final report commissioned by the Coastguard agency—the emergency towing vessels trial report—stated, in its conclusions at paragraph 46:
    "The two winter trials have taught us a lot about operating emergency towing vessels. We know what they cost and we have seen their potential benefits. Essentially they are an insurance policy and as such only pay off when an accident happens."
    The paragraph concludes:
    "The trials support the broad conclusions reached by the Donaldson Inquiry and Captain Belton's study team."
    I am disappointed. How many more reports shall we have before the recommendations 0made by three objective committees are taken up? They have made it perfectly clear that, in their view, the emergency towing vessels should be in the key areas—the primary danger areas—all year and in the secondary danger areas, which were referred to by hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland, for six months of the winter period. I am worried that, yet again, we shall have a winter-only charter and another report. My great fear is that we shall have a repeat of the Sea Empress disaster, and not necessarily in the winter months.
    I shall now comment briefly on the Minister's reply to new clause 4. He says that it is unnecessary because the powers already exist and the Bill contains additional powers. As I 0explained earlier, the powers already existed but could not be exercised because the Department of Transport did not have the confidence to come up with an option different from that put forward by a salvor who undoubtedly had a world-class reputation.
    My fear is that we are currently dependent on the review of the national contingency plan including in its recommendations that the Secretary of State should have that expertise available to him. My argument is that if the Secretary of State has to exercise powers in relation to a salvage operation, high-quality salvage expertise should be available to him—I think that most people with an objective view would accept that as a sensible argument—but the Minister is saying that unless the national contingency plan review makes that suggestion, and unless the MAIB makes that suggestion, the Government may not implement it. That is why I have argued that the provision should appear on the face of the Bill so that every Secretary of State, whoever he or she may be, must have that expertise available to him or her.
    I am conscious that we should have to await those reviews. I hope that, as they are on-going, the people who are producing them are listening to our debates, or reading the transcripts of them, and taking on board the points that have been made in a purely non-political way. Sensible points are being made by people who have built up a certain amount of experience and expertise. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and I have done so through direct experience of major pollution incidents in our constituencies.

    683
    I hope that those who are producing the reports have listened to what has been said and will seriously consider what is being proposed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 2

    POWERS OF INTERVENTION WHERE SHIPPING ACCIDENT THREATENS POLLUTION
    Mr. Wallace: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 4, leave out lines 1 to 5.
    The amendment would delete references to harbour master and harbour authority from the list of those to whom the Secretary of State could give directions where there was a risk of significant pollution in United Kingdom waters.
    The background to the amendment is that the original Bill—the draft Bill that went out for consultation last year, which exercise probably helped to smooth the passage of the legislation through both Houses—did not include the provision to which the amendment relates. The interim report of the MAIB on the Sea Empress grounding and a powerful intervention from Lord Donaldson on Second Reading in another place led the Department of Transport on 2 December to issue a consultation paper regarding the possible extension of the intervention powers of the Secretary of State. The consultation paper required a response, or at least initial views, by 16 December, so there was little time for consultation. It is therefore important that we examine the reasons for that extension of the Secretary of State's power.
    In his response to clause stand part in Committee, the Minister did not adequately explain the scope of the powers or the circumstances in which they would be used. He said:
    "To some extent we must await the MAIB's report and should not prejudge that."
    He added:
    "The fact that we have announced a review of the national contingency plan is evidence of how seriously the Government take the problem. We are trying to establish whether procedures are adequate and whether the plan needs revision. We are going to make it statutory through this legislation. I hope that that will provide some reassurance for the time being on this important matter.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 25 February 1997; c.28.]
    In other words, there was little scrutiny of the need for this power.
    In its response to the consultation document, Shetland islands council, which is the harbour authority responsible for Sullom Voe, expressed considerable reservations about the extension of the power. I do not have to hand a copy of the submission from Orkney islands council, which is the harbour authority for Scapa Flow and the oil traffic that goes in and out of the Flotta terminal, but I understand that Orkney council shares those reservations and concerns. In its response, Shetland islands council said:
    "Probably the acid test for Central Government in this matter is whether or not the use of such a power would ever be envisaged or contemplated. It is unlikely to be used, it should not exist and, instead, a more effective approach will be to ensure the existence of a comprehensive legal framework for effective control at a local level."
    684
    Later in the submission, it states:
    "Directions given, on-the-hoof, in the heat of an incident are no substitute for a rational and properly thought out plan with all lines of communication, authority and accountability clearly established. Again, this Council believes that the Secretary of State already has sufficient powers available to him and these, together with properly developed plans, will secure actions appropriate to the area and the nature of the incident."
    The amendment seeks an explanation from the Minister of how, and in what circumstances, he envisages the powers being used. I also want an assurance that they really are powers of last resort. They should not, in any way, be seen as a substitute for proper discussions with harbour authorities to ensure that there are well worked-out plans for dealing with emergencies in each harbour authority area. The tone and the considerations that motivated the response by the harbour authorities in my constituency suggested that there is no substitute for dealing with these matters in advance. Of course, some decisions will have to be made in the heat of an emergency, but proper plans will ensure that decisions made under pressure are more likely to be the right ones.
    I conclude by noting the comments of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) in Committee on clause stand part. He questioned what expertise would be available to the Secretary of State in circumstances where he might have to exercise the power. He said:
    "I am sure that the powers will be delegated to the director or the chief executive of the Coastguard or to someone in the Ministry of Defence, but with the best will in the world, they are not salvage experts. They do not have the professionalism, which comes from many years of experience, to countermand an organisation that also claims to be expert in the field."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 25 February 1997; c. 26.]
    Many of those who daily deal with our harbours have built up considerable expertise. I am sure that it is not the intention of the clause to sweep that aside and to enable the Secretary of State to swoop in with such advice as he has available to him. However, the purpose of the amendment is to obtain some information on how the Minister envisages the powers developing and a reassurance that they will not be used as a substitute for adequate local planning.
    Mr. Bowis: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) for raising this issue and for the terms in which he has done so. I hope that I can give him the reassurances that he seeks.
    The amendment would remove the Secretary of State's power to give directions to harbour masters and harbour authorities. That would restrict his ability to monitor and, if necessary, take overall control of counter-pollution operations following a maritime casualty. As the hon. Gentleman correctly said, the widening of the intervention powers to cover harbour masters and harbour authorities was an interim recommendation of the MAIB. That recommendation received widespread support, including that of the noble and learned Lord Donaldson, whose words we listen to with considerable respect, as we do to the MAIB.
    7.45 pm
    The hon. Gentleman may be reassured to hear that we would not expect to use those powers often. When we did, we would seek to minimise the consequences for the commercial operation of ports, but, as Lord Donaldson

    685
    said in another place, where a number of people are involved with a casualty, including a harbour authority, the buck must stop with someone, and that person should be the Secretary of State or his representative on the scene.
    The hon. Gentleman asked me to spell out what the new powers would do. They will not alter our preference for co-operation rather than coercion. That is set out in the national contingency plan and I can assure him that only in cases of extreme urgency would we give a direction. Our intention is that, in general, we would use the powers simply to require salvage plans to be submitted for agreement by the Secretary of State's senior representative. We would not usually invoke the powers to take overall command of an operation, but, where the situation warrants it, we would have the power to intervene directly.
    The United Kingdom's national contingency plan has been developed in conjunction with harbour authorities and others and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that that is the proper way to proceed. Regulations imposing a duty on harbour authorities to have plans are currently being drafted and will shortly be circulated for comment. The plans will deal with the response that a harbour authority might be able to make to an incident. No plan—however good—can cater for all circumstances, which is why a reserve power of direction is needed. That is proposed in the Bill and the amendment would remove that power in respect of harbour authorities.
    The House would be unwise to disagree with the MAIB, which originally proposed this measure, or with the overwhelming support that the measure has received, including that of Lord Donaldson. With those reassurances on how the power would be used and when it would not be used, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
    Mr. Wallace: I welcome the clear terms in which the Minister has set out the way in which he would expect the power to be used or not used. It is the view of his Department—and, I assume, of the responsible agencies of his Department—that the emphasis should be firmly on forward contingency planning. Every encouragement should be given to the development of those plans, over and above that which already exists. With those words from the Minister on the record, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Frank Field: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Later this evening, we are to debate a Pensions Measure and the only contribution that I wished to make to that debate was to thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), for the skilful and graceful way in which he has presented the Commissioners' business to this House. As I have to absent myself from the Chamber for a short time to make a satellite link-up with New Zealand, can you advise me as to whether there is any way in which I can get my comments into the Official Report before leaving, just in case the pensions business is completed before I return?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Even after five years in the Chair, I am unable to help the hon. Gentleman with that problem.

  Clause 4

    POWERS OF FIRE AUTHORITIES
    Dr. Godman: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 5, line 6, leave out 'whether or not'.
    The Minister knows of my concern about the clause. I begin by quoting the excellent notes on clauses provided by his officials, paragraph 3 of which reads:
    "This clause adds a new paragraph (dd) after paragraph (d) enabling fire authorities to employ the fire brigade or use their equipment anywhere at sea, whether or not within the United Kingdom's territorial sea".
    If it were accepted, which I doubt it will be, the amendment would change the clause by leaving out the words "whether or not".
    In response to the Minister's kind and generous invitation to write to him with my reservations, I did so—and I see that he has received my brief letter. In it, I quoted a letter that I received from Firemaster John Jameson of Strathclyde fire brigade. I know of no firefighter who would refuse to go to the assistance of someone caught in an emergency, but the clause creates real problems for firemen and firewomen.
    John Jameson says in his letter, of which the Minister has already seen a couple of paragraphs:
    "The Fire Service in Strathclyde for humanitarian reasons would wish to respond to any life threatening incident, including an incident at sea. The response can only be effective if the fire fighters are well trained, have reliable transportation and are properly equipped for the incident. Section 1 (i)(a) of the 1947 Act states that the Fire Authority shall secure the service of such a Fire Brigade and such equipment as may be necessary to meet efficiently all normal requirements".
    Firemaster Jameson goes on to say:
    "Fire fighting at sea is such a rare event in Scotland that it could not be described as a normal requirement for Fire Authorities to be equipped and trained to meet. It therefore requires special training and specialised equipment to enable fire fighters to deal safely with a deep sea incident."
    My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has mentioned the specialist training facilities at the centre in McDonald road, Edinburgh. I have visited those facilities, where I know many mariners have been trained to fight fires at sea in simulated conditions. I think that John Jameson is right to stress the fact that fighting fires at sea requires special training. He goes on to say in respect of health and safety:
    "The requirements of the Health and Safety legislation, quite properly in my view, place very stringent responsibilities upon the Fire Authority and the personnel of the service to ensure adequate steps have been taken with regard to the health and safety of persons. To meet the requirements of the legislation the Brigade would be required to provide the following: all personnel would require to undergo survival at sea courses and attend revision courses. Survival suits including helmets would be provided for all offshore personnel. Special carriers for firefighting equipment would have to be purchased. Extensive ship firefighting training would require to be carried out covering not just wholetime fire personnel but also the retained members. Helicopter training would be extensive and costly in financial terms. Boat to boat transfer training for the high seas would be costly in time and finance".
    I have quoted this letter at length because it comes from a highly experienced Scottish firemaster, and no one in this place should disregard the serious concerns voiced by such a fine and honourable man.

    687
    There are other problems. Professor Robert Black, professor of Scots law in the faculty of law at Edinburgh university kindly gave me a copy of the opinion that he wrote for the Fire Brigades Union. He had a number of things to say that the Minister and his officials need to "take on board"—perhaps I should say, need to take seriously.
    Professor Black says:
    "The very real likelihood in an offshore firefighting situation that the person whose negligence caused the firefighter's injury, and who is thus the potential defender in any action for damages, is not domiciled in Scotland, presents grave legal and practical obstacles to the successful pursuit of the firefighter's claim".
    We all of course hope that no one will ever be injured in an emergency, but injuries are inflicted on firemen. He goes on to say:
    "These difficulties are exacerbated if the firefighter's injury was sustained outwith United Kingdom territorial waters (generally twelve nautical miles from the coastal low-water line)".
    The professor is saying that the general rule under Scots law is that a person seeking legal redress must apply for it in the courts of the place where the person against whom it is sought is domiciled. He goes on to say that if an injury from an emergency is sustained in our territorial waters, the Scottish courts could then deal with such a claim:
    "It follows that in all cases where the accident to the firefighter did not occur in Scotland (as defined above)", the injured person
    "would have to seek redress against a defender whose domicile was outwith Scotland in the home courts of that defender and not in the courts of Scotland".
    I should like to hear the Minister's response to this key element in the opinion. Professor Black goes on to say:
    "If the delict occurred in the territorial waters adjacent to the coast of Scotland then Scots law alone falls to be applied as both the lex fori and the law of the place of the delict (lex loci delicti): see Private International Law: Choice of Law in Tort and Relict".
    He then quotes his sources, and continues:
    "If the delict occurred on the high seas (and does not fall within … the above) … and is not purely internal to a single ship, then the maritime law of Scotland alone falls to be applied … If the delict occurred on the high seas (and does not fall within sub-para (a) above) and is purely internal to a single ship, the double actionability rule applies and the pursuer must satisfy the court of the entitlement to damages under both the law of the flag (or port of registry) of the ship (as the lex loci delicti) and Scots law (as the lex fori)".
    Those are important warnings; the professor is firing across the Minister's bows.
    The professor talks about a practical difficulty in Scotland. I do not know how the law stands in England, but before cases are heard in Scottish courts precognitions—a statement made before a court hearing—are frequently sought. The professor asks how such precognitions can be obtained when a firefighter has been injured on the high seas tackling an emergency. He claims:
    "More seriously, there is no mechanism whereby witnesses resident outside the UK can be compelled to come to Scotland to give evidence at a proof here. Where a foreign witness is willing to give evidence, but is unwilling to travel to Scotland to do so, it is normally possible for the Scottish court to arrange for that witness's evidence to be taken, before a commissioner appointed by the Scottish court, in his country of residence."
    He refers to paragraph 35.11 of the "Rules of the Court of Session 1994".
    688
    8 pm
    Another means of obtaining evidence from overseas is the letter of request procedure, but it is not very satisfactory because, under the Hague convention on the taking of evidence abroad, dated 18 March 1970,
    "there can be no guarantee that the foreign court will accept the request, or will act upon it timeously or efficiently. The 1970 Hague Convention has not been ratified by such major maritime flag states as Greece, Liberia and Panama."
    There are problems relating to taking firefighters to the scene of the accident by helicopter. If there is an accident, firefighters' families may be unable to claim compensation. Professor Black finishes by saying that
    "it will be appreciated that the process of obtaining damages for an injured firefighter against a person or corporation domiciled outside the UK is likely to be a complex, troublesome and expensive one, even where the Scottish courts have jurisdiction. A fortiori is this so where the Scottish courts do not have jurisdiction."
    Firemaster Jameson says that there are serious practical problems. He claims that, despite the undoubted commitment of all our firemen and firewomen to go to the aid of those in danger, resources and special training are needed. He points out that firefighters are rarely taken offshore, but let us not forget the Piper Alpha disaster—God forbid that there is ever a repeat of that dreadful event—in which the emergency services, not firefighters but others, were found to be lacking in trained personnel and in resources. Most of the stand-by vessels, which should have been able to react promptly, were old side trawlers, which were useless for tackling that type of emergency. As Lord Cullen readily acknowledged, the crews were remarkably brave men, but their resources—the aging side trawlers—should not have been there.
    I know that the Minister will take it seriously when I say that Firemaster Jameson is right to warn of these problems and that the warnings by Professor Black need to be taken on board so that our firefighters can be protected. If they must go to sea to tackle an emergency, they should be able to do so secure in the knowledge that, if they are injured, they will have recourse to adequate compensation—where Scotland is concerned, in our courts.
    Mr. Ainger: I shall add a few comments in what I am sure will be a short debate. Before I was elected to this place, I was a member of Dyfed county council and of its public protection committee. That committee ran the fire service in Dyfed, which, since the mid-1980s, has been one of the few fire brigades that has had a ship firefighting capability and has trained a select few of its full-time and retained men for offshore firefighting. Milford Haven is one of the largest oil ports, so there is a constant risk of fire on board ships in, or entering or leaving, Milford Haven.
    Interestingly, several times firemen from Dyfed fire brigade have fought fires on board tankers within the confines of Milford Haven port authority. The most famous one was on board a ferry, the Naronna, when she was midway between Pembroke dock and Rosslare, slap in the middle of St. George's channel. There was a fire deep in the vessel, producing a great deal of smoke, as a result of which one passenger died. However, the fire crew was able to reach the vessel, using the search-and-rescue helicopters then based in Brawdy in my constituency, and within an hour of the mayday call

    689
    firefighters were on board the Naronna, bringing the fire under control, saving tens, if not hundreds, of passengers' lives.
    The other fire brigade with offshore firefighting capability is Kent fire brigade, which covers not only the usual shipping traffic in the Dover straits but the ferries that sail out of Ramsgate, Dover and other ports on the Kentcoast. I know from my experience with Dyfed fire brigade that whenever a new ferry comes into use, the fire brigade trains on board, getting to know it extremely well internally, in case there is a fire.
    As we were constantly told by the finance committee of the county council, all that extra equipment and training was not paid for by anyone. One hoped that to some extent that it was taken into account when the grant that then in some cases came from the Home Office was calculated. Bearing in mind the specific risks posed by the presence of a large petrochemical complex on the shores of Milford Haven, it may have been so organised or arranged that, over the years, the Home Office took the additional cost into account when calculating the grant of the county council. That is obviously a matter for debate. I am certain that, when calculating grant for many coastal county councils and fire authorities, no account has been taken of offshore firefighting capability or the need for it.
    The Minister needs to understand that we are not talking about a cheap option; the people who fight fires in a house or factory cannot be immediately transferred to an offshore incident. In the brigade, the idea of training firemen to be delivered by lifeboat was once considered. I know from experience that once one is wearing kit to be ready to go into action quickly—perhaps wearing breathing apparatus or almost ready to enter a situation that requires it—on a lifeboat, when the sea is choppy, certain things start to happen, and that is a significant problem. Ideally, training should always be with helicopters and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said, that costs money and needs proper planning. I do not argue against what has been included in the Bill; I ask that the Minister recognises that my hon. Friend has highlighted a real issue in terms of resources, training and equipment that the fire authorities will require.
    My hon. Friend's second point is worrying, because I am sure that the same legal problems, about which he went into great detail, probably apply in England and Wales as well. If there is no recompense in relation to an injury to a firefighter—or even a death—that needs to be clarified very quickly. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising these issues, because they are very serious. An offshore firefighting capability would be another tool in preventing pollution and possible disasters on board ferries. The Scandinavia Star was travelling only a short distance between Denmark and Sweden but suffered a serious fire that resulted in nearly 200 deaths on board. There was no offshore firefighting capability to deal with that.
    This is a very important issue, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow for raising it.
    Mr. Bowis: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), who, in a sense, answered the
    690
    point made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about the need for the ability to fight fires outside territorial waters.
    The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow made important points about equipment, training and so on, and that applies to fighting fires at sea however far out they are. I am sure that his points will have been heard even if they are not totally germane to the amendment. He did me the courtesy of writing to me, as I invited him to do, and I am grateful for his letter, in which he set out some of his concerns. I hope that I can allay them.
    Clause 4 is in the Bill as a result of the fire authorities themselves, which asked us to include it because of the lack of clarity on their power to deploy their services to fight fires anywhere at sea, whether or not they are within the United Kingdom's territorial sea—the 12-mile limit. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's general concerns, I repeat the assurance that I gave him in Committee: decisions on whether to deploy their resources at sea will remain a matter for the fire authorities. There can be no question of anybody directing them. It will be their decision whether to respond to a request for help.
    In this context, there is no reason to draw a distinction between the territorial sea and waters beyond the 12-mile limit. The fire authorities accept that and, in 1995, a sub-committee of the Scottish Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council said,
    "it is illogical and unacceptable that fire brigades should be authorised to provide assistance to HM Coastguard by way of attendance at incidents at sea only if such incidents occur within the 12 mile limit".
    The report recommended that the law be changed; clause 4 does that, and we have drawn it to the attention of officers of the Strathclyde fire authority.
    In his letter to me, the hon. Gentleman raised two points, which he developed this evening: first, that special training and equipment is required. I accept that, but that applies to fires 11 miles offshore or 13 miles offshore. There is no reason to distinguish between fires inside territorial waters and further out. There is a memorandum of understanding between the Coastguard and the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers' Association, which covers operating procedures for fighting fires offshore. If a particular fire authority has concerns about the equipment that it should use in such circumstances, it should discuss it with the Coastguard.
    The hon. Gentleman's second point concerned the legal and practical problems that might arise if a firefighter was injured while fighting a fire outside territorial waters. It is correct to say that, in those circumstances, if the firefighter wished to bring an action against a ship owner who is not domiciled in Scotland, the action would have to be brought in the courts of the state of domicile of that ship owner. That reflects the long-standing position on the allocation of jurisdiction between states.
    In any event, as I have explained, the clause does no more than allow—I stress the word "allow"—fire authorities to fight fires at sea; it does not compel them to do so. No fire authority has suggested to my Department that that possibility would deter it from fighting fires at sea. Indeed, when the Bill was published in draft for consultation last year, all those who commented on the clause were in favour of it.

    691
    I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman raised and am grateful for them, but I hope that in the light of my comments he will feel reassured and will withdraw his amendment.
    Dr. Godman: Whoever is in office over the next few weeks will need to study very carefully what Professor Black said in the learned opinion that he gave to the fire brigades union. I have no wish to divide the House on this matter. I have raised the concerns that people have voiced to me and will continue to campaign on their behalf.
    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 5

    WASTE RECEPTION FACILITIES AT HARBOURS
    Ms Glenda Jackson: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 6, line 24, after 'recovered', insert
    'without creating a disincentive to those who are expected to use them'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 5, in page 6, line 24, at end insert
    '; and

    '(d) measures to ensure the ease of use of waste reception facilities.'.

    8.15 pm
    Ms Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. These amendments would make a valuable addition to an immensely important section of the Bill. As all members of the Committee have acknowledged, the Bill is extremely important, and many of the recommendations of Lord Donaldson's report, "Safer Ships and Cleaner Seas", have been endorsed. We believe, however, that there are still areas within the Bill where improvements can be made. That is why we have tabled the amendments.
    We are concerned that the ease of providing waste facilities at our ports is not such as to encourage ship owners to instruct their masters and crews to use such facilities when they are in place. The possible costs of such waste facilities would be a disincentive.
    I should highlight that competition throughout the whole of the international maritime industry is fierce, and competition is no less fierce in our ports. Not only are British ports in direct competition with other ports within the European Union but there is competition within the ports themselves. It is not our intention—nor, I imagine, is it the intention of any hon. Member—that waste reception facilities should add yet another competitive burden on our ports, but we have to take the necessary steps to ensure that ships do not take the easy option, which has undoubtedly been the case in the past, of dumping unwanted waste at sea.
    There are, of course, well-recorded incidents of waste being dumped more by accident than design, but, as I said in Committee, I well remember that, more than 25 years ago, when I was sailing across the Atlantic and our vessel approached the Sargasso sea—with my limited hydrographic knowledge, I presume that it is about the
    692
    middle of the Atlantic ocean, where one would expect to see little or no waste—I saw that the weed within the wide Sargasso sea was thick with detritus that, clearly, had been thrown over the side of vessels.
    I regret that I did not have the opportunity to inform my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that I intended to refer to one of his speeches, but in the second sitting of our Committee he had occasion to refer to "Beachwatch 1996", in which he and his wife had taken part. The amount of debris that was collected from British beaches during that exercise makes astounding reading. My hon. Friend said:
    "Debris was collected from 237 beaches in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland … A total of 291,228 items were surveyed, weighing an estimated 17,518 kg … and filling 2,438 bags."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 February 1997; c. 34.]
    My hon. Friend went on to detail some of the items that had been lifted from our beaches. They were plastic, glass, metal, polystyrene, rubber, cloth and pottery or ceramic items. He spared the Committee's feelings and did not describe in detail items that could be regarded as having landed on our beaches because of sewage.
    The evidence that my hon. Friend presented to the Committee, and the evidence that I saw with my own eyes, admittedly many years ago, underlines the seriousness of the problem. Unless the facilities provided at our ports are easy to use and do not create a disincentive, the problem could grow worse in the future. As was said this evening and in our earlier deliberations, good shipowners and good masters will welcome such facilities and use them. We are concerned about ships whose owners and masters are less scrupulous, and where the pressures imposed by an owner on a master to make a fast turnround at the port of call could impact on the use of such facilities.
    We have more than 350 ports in these islands, which provide a wide variety of facilities, whether commercial or recreational. No one presupposes that one kind of plan will meet the requirements in every port in these islands, but there must be a requirement on all ports that such facilities as they eventually devise and put in place must not act as a disincentive to vessels that use them, and they must be easy to use.
    Mr. Wallace: I strongly endorse the views advanced by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). With regard to the declaration of the North sea as a special area for oil under MARPOL, the marine pollution convention, can the Minister tell us what progress has been made in establishing special area for oil status, as recommended by Lord Donaldson? As that would virtually ban all discharges of oily waste, is the Minister confident that there are sufficient waste reception facilities in UK ports to meet any resulting increase in demand?
    Mr. Bowis: On the last point, I can confirm that progress has been made. We have reached the stage where that will occur.
    On that happy note, I can pass on to the amendment. We have no difficulty with the aims of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). Harbour authorities in the United Kingdom have for many years been required to ensure the provision of adequate

    693
    reception facilities for ships' waste. We will use the power provided by clause 5 to make regulations on waste management planning. We believe that the planning process will ensure that all ports, harbours and marinas comply with the existing requirement to ensure the provision of adequate facilities.
    We do not need the amendments, because we can and will deal with the matters covered by them, and they were all covered by the merchant shipping notice that the Marine Safety Agency issued last year. The notice requests that all ports, harbours, marinas and oil terminals develop plans on a voluntary basis pending the introduction of legislation, and recommends that in preparing plans consideration should be given to the assessment and monitoring of the types and quantities of waste discharged, the development of effective procedures for informing port users about waste reception facilities, how the charging mechanism might influence the use of facilities, and measures to ensure ease of use.
    Those matters will all be covered by the regulations that we shall make under the power provided by clause 5. The amendments are unnecessary. Clause 5 will shortly be in force, I hope, and we can implement the Bill as an Act for the protection of the seas and seafarers.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: In the light of the Minister's reassurance, which is welcome not only to the Opposition but to everyone who has an interest in the Bill, and in the certainty that, although we would have preferred to see the word "disincentive" in the Bill, the end that we all hope to achieve will be realisable, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent and Prince of Wales's Consent signified.]
    8.26 pm
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    The Bill set sail from another place towards the end of last year and has had a relatively serene passage before docking in the House tonight. A brief return passage will be necessary to deal with new clause 2, but I hope that that will not be too long delayed.
    The Bill demonstrates our commitment to driving up standards of maritime safety and reducing the risk of pollution for our waters and our coastline. We have built on the recommendations in Lord Donaldson's report, "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas".
    Following its introduction, the Bill has benefited from lively, high-quality, informed discussion. I am grateful to my hon. Friends and to Opposition Members for their contributions during the Bill's passage. I am particularly grateful to my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping for his role in guiding the Bill through another place, and for the contributions of their noble Lordships. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, on whose broad shoulders has fallen the responsibility of negotiating the passage of the Bill through the House.
    694
    We shall seek to ensure that these important and widely supported measures to improve safety and protect the environment at sea are put into practice at the earliest opportunity.
    8.27 pm
    Mr. Andrew Smith: The Minister earlier referred to the spirit of Donaldson. That is indeed the spirit in which the Bill has been approached by both sides of the House. I commend the expertise and experience of Back Benchers and Front Benchers on both sides. I am especially grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) and to my other hon. Friends, whose experience in relevant matters has been so evident.
    This is a good Bill, which will strengthen security at sea and improve the protection of our maritime environment. That does not mean that it is a perfect Bill. We were pleased to be able to improve it a little with our new clause on training. There are remaining concerns about the availability of salvage expertise, the provision of standby tugs and the operation of waste facilities.
    The Government's argument on all those matters has been that the powers already exist or that they are acting anyway. I refer particularly to the designation of marine environmental high risk areas. We were assured that it was the Government's intention to get those designated and that that was expected later this year. We are not satisfied with the progress that the Government have made. They say that the powers exist and that matters are in train. I give a pledge that whereas the present Government have so far failed to designate those areas, the next Government will certainly do so.
    The Bill is a step forward. Let us see it passed into law without further delay.
    8.29 pm
    Mr. Wallace: I also commend the passage and Third Reading of the Bill. Subject to some reservations that the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) mentioned—not least the absence of any significant progress in designating marine environmental high risk areas—many of the Bill's provisions implement the recommendations of Lord Donaldson's report, "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas". The report was commissioned following the grounding of the Braer in my constituency in January 1993, and my constituents remain concerned about the absence of salvage tugs, for example. Although many—if not most—of Lord Donaldson's recommendations have been implemented, gaps remain in the area of marine pollution prevention. I am sure that the House will return to those issues regularly.
    The Braer incident gave rise to Lord Donaldson's report and to many compensation claims that have been processed by the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund. Under clause 26 of the Bill, the fund will continue to enjoy the exemptions of the International Organisations Act 1968, although the United Kingdom's membership of the 1971 fund may terminate. I understand that that fund will be superseded by a 1992 fund, which implements British protocols that came into force on 30 May last year—regrettably, too late to increase the amount of compensation available for victims of the Sea Empress or the Braer incidents. As the House is continuing privileges by virtue of that clause, I wish to

    695
    register the continuing unhappiness and dissatisfaction of many of my constituents at the way in which outstanding claims, still unpaid by the 1971 fund, are being protracted.
    In many cases, the claims and the amounts have been agreed, yet the moratorium means that people cannot be paid. In the past fortnight, one constituent told me that his business was threatened as a result of the delay. Another constituent wrote to me last week to say that she cannot reroof her house as the money has not come through, and her property is deteriorating. The Government believe, as all hon. Members do, that the polluter should pay. Unfortunately, in this case, those who have been polluted are paying the penalty.
    While the 1971 IOPCF is operating within its legal rights by enforcing court orders for expenses at interim stages, my experience of the Scottish courts is that that right is not usually exercised. All questions of expenses are usually settled at the end when the case is finally determined. That is proving to be a particular financial burden on many of my constituents. I pay tribute to Viscount Goschen, the Minister for Aviation and Shipping in another place, to his officials and to those at the Scottish Office who have worked co-operatively on those matters. I hope that, when the executive of the 1971 fund meets next month, representatives of Her Majesty's Government will confirm that we intend to continue the privileges, although we may terminate membership of the fund. As we are doing it a favour, the executive might wish to address the continuing concerns of many of my constituents.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

    ARCHITECTS BILL [LORDS]
    Read a Second time.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order, That the Bill be not committed.—[Mr. Carrington.]
    Question agreed to.
    Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

    LIEUTENANCIES BILL [LORDS]
    Read a Second time.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order, That the Bill be not committed.—[Mr. Carrington.]
    Question agreed to.
    Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

    NURSES, MIDWIVES AND HEALTH VISITORS BILL [LORDS]
    Read a Second time.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order, That the Bill be not committed.—[Mr. Carrington.]
    Question agreed to.
    Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

    JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL [LORDS]
    Read a Second time.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Standing Order, That the Bill be not committed.—[Mr. Carrington.]
    Question agreed to.
    Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
    That the Special Grant Report (No. 25) (Metropolitan Railway Passenger Services Grant for 1997–98) (HC 316), which was laid before this House on 18th February, be approved.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (SCOTLAND)
    That the Special Grant Report (Scotland) on Grant in Aid of expenditure on rail services in the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Areas (HC 297), which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.
    SOCIAL SECURITY
    That the draft Social Security (Incapacity for Work and Severe Disablement Allowance) Amendment Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.

    DATA PROTECTION
    That the draft Data Protection (Regulation of Financial Services etc.) (Subject Access Exemption) (Amendment) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 25th February, be approved.—[Mr. Carrington.]
    Question agreed to.

    Church of England (General Synod) (Measures)
    [Relevant document: The Fourth Report from the Social Security Committee of Session 1996–97 (HC 352) on the Church Commissioners.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That the Pensions Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.—[Mr. Alison.]
    8.34 pm
    Mr. Stuart Randall: I am pleased that the Measure has been accepted, and that the Committee is content with it. The link between the commissioners and the Synod through the House has been maintained in a most gracious way by the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) during his term as Second Church Estates Commissioner. I have often thought that the right hon. Gentleman, with his red book, was like a Minister on the Back Benches. It is much more comfortable to operate from the Dispatch Box, as I did for eight and a half years. The right hon. Gentleman has fulfilled his role in a quite extraordinary way. I thank him, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from the bottom of my heart—I know that all hon. Members share those sentiments—for the gracious way in which he has discharged that marvellous responsibility.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am speechless.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Canals
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Carrington.]
    8.36 pm
    Mr. Warren Hawksley: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity of raising a very important issue: the future of British canals. My interest in canals developed when I was a young boy in Shropshire. I suppose that my parents took me along most of the towpaths around the Shropshire Union canal while exercising our dog. I also admit that I fished in the canals on several occasions. I rarely boated on them, although it must be a wonderfully relaxing past time. Canals are a great leisure facility. I would prefer a better climate for regular boating, but those who do indulge thoroughly enjoy themselves.
    As a member of the Shropshire county council in the 1970s, I was involved in supporting the restoration of the Montgomery canal. Later, as Member for The Wrekin, I persuaded the Department of Transport to route the Oswestry bypass at a higher level to allow the restoration work to continue underneath it. One of my constituents, Mr. Bob Clarke, is the news editor of Canal and Riverboat magazine, and he keeps me fully briefed about developments on our waterways. I pay tribute to him for his dedication and to my other constituents who are also canal users and who have expressed their enthusiasm for canals and devote much effort and resources to preserving them.
    About 2,500 miles of navigable waterways in England, Wales and Scotland are owned by the British Waterways Board and the Environment Agency. Some 2,000 miles of canals are the responsibility of British Waterways, of which the vast majority are man made. They have existed for some 225 years and remain a working example of the waterways that fuelled the industrial revolution, particularly in the west midlands. The expansion of manufacturing industry in the midlands led to the black country, of which my constituency is part, becoming known as the workshop of the world and to Birmingham becoming known as the "city of a thousand trades".
    The advent of railways, the takeover of many canals by railway companies to kill off competition by allowing canals slowly to deteriorate, along with the arrival of road transport, led to almost 1,500 miles of that connected network facing closure by the British Transport Commission in the 1950s and the early 1960s. The commission publicly said that there was no future for these waterways even as outlets for leisure and recreation.
    It is worth reminding the House that it was only active campaigning by enthusiasts, including the Inland Waterways Association, with protest cruises and do-it-yourself canal restorations—once in 1962, in my constituency of Stourbridge, even under the threat of prosecution by the British Transport Commission for those who led a particular protest—that led to change.
    The arrival of the British Waterways Board in 1963 saw a significant change and shift in policy. The dogma that had been shown by the British Transport Commission was gone and the new incoming British Waterways acknowledged the future of our canals for leisure and recreation.

    699
    Even in those early days, as custodians of what, in effect, is a living museum of the contribution that the United Kingdom had made to industrial development and manufacturing skills, British Waterways was constantly hamstrung by a lack of funding to enable it to wipe out the decay of more than a century and restore all the nation's waterways to a standard capable of withstanding the increasing growth that we are seeing in leisure pursuits.
    Much the same has befallen those navigations that are the responsibility of the Environment Agency. It is ironic that the United Kingdom, which over the past 200 years has given the world so much in advancing engineering technology on land, in the air and on the sea has seen its river navigations, which linked canals with seaports, fall into a similar state of disrepair. In Europe, however, our competitors have developed many of their waterways to the bulk carriage of raw materials and finished goods. What can be greener than a navigation where one boat or large barge carries up to 20 lorry loads of what would otherwise have gone on the road?
    Only last week, as a Member of this place, I went as a guest of the Port of London Authority with the parliamentary waterways group down the Thames from Westminster to Gravesend. We as members of the group saw the improved use of the riverside, with development, and the return of the river as a means of removing gravel and waste.
    United Kingdom waterways, whether independent of the canal system or part of the integrated network, bring greenery, peace and tranquillity even into our city centres. Leisure and recreation facilities attract 160 million visits a year, either by boaters, anglers, cyclists, towpath walkers, naturalists, wildlife photographers or artists. So large has been the expansion of canal and river-related activities that a huge industry has developed round them.
    Hundreds of people are gainfully employed in boatbuilding, servicing and hire-cruiser bases. There are about 26,000 boat owners on British Waterways waters and thousands more on the Environment Agency's navigations. Scores of tourists use industries that are connected to canal sides, including hotels, restaurants, marinas and retail premises, the construction of which has employed thousands of craftsmen.
    I suppose that I should declare an interest. If the Montgomery canal were ever to open, I think that my wife's hotel could benefit, as many other businesses would in the Welshpool area.
    Also to be considered are the midlands and the investment that has been attracted by waterside locations. The examples are numerous. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has seen the multi-million pound regeneration projects on the canal sides of Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds and Sheffield. There have been equally prestigious developments in the west midlands, at Walsall, Coventry and Brierley Hill. The waterfront at Brierley Hill in the evenings is a hive of activity attracting many of my constituents, who thoroughly enjoy the facilities that it provides.
    The British Marine Industries Federation has kindly provided me with statistics, which show that capital investment within the system runs at about £500 million. Hire and charter on inland waterways amounts to about £29 million. Repairs and mooring account for a further £30 million. I suggest that that is a considerable investment in our economy.
    700
    I know that it cannot have escaped the notice of my hon. Friend the Minister that millions of pounds of millennium and lottery moneys are providing for the restoration of the two canals across the Pennines in the form of the Huddersfield and Rochdale canals. There has been the reopening of the Kennet and Avon canal by Her Majesty the Queen. In addition, there has been the recent announcement of the Forth and Clyde and Union canals, which will give Scotland a second coast-to-coast waterway as well as restoring a waterway link between Edinburgh and Glasgow.
    We must not forget the restoration work that is now proceeding on the link between the Thames and Severn rivers by the hoped-for reopening of the Thames and Severn canal and the Stroudwater navigations. The latter project is still operating very much as a voluntary scheme.
    There also is the Stourbridge navigation trust in my constituency, which is hoping soon to receive lottery money of about £750,000 for the scheme that it has proposed. It is to be hoped that approval will be given in the next few months to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the reopening of the Stourbridge arm of the canal. That would be appropriate as the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Society saved the mile-long arm of the Stourbridge canal and allowed the development of the bonded warehouse and canal company offices that provide tourist attractions, moorings and public meeting places.
    Work starts this spring on the eventual restoration of the Dudley No. 2 canal. The work is being helped by European aid, which is being prepared by the Halesowen Lapal canal trust. Another scheme worthy of mention, which is now almost at a standstill until more funding becomes available—the Montgomery canal, which I have mentioned already—involves English Partnerships, which appears to have withdrawn its support. That is tragic because the scheme would help to relieve the pressures on the Llangollen canal. I believe that the canal and the associated project are examples of the far-sighted visions of canal enthusiasts, who persuaded English and Welsh local authorities of the tremendous tourism potential that such a restored waterway would have. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will assure us that he will do what he can to ensure that the turn of the century will still stand for the restoration of this waterway.
    I acknowledge the demands upon the Exchequer, but I feel that there is a lack of detailed understanding of the infrastructure that is now an integral part of the waterways network which is of importance to an area of activity that even in the depths of the recent recession still shows some growth.
    Our nation still has at least 2,500 miles of waterway that need vast sums spent upon them if they are to survive another 25 years, let alone another century. Within the system a multitude of skilled jobs is required, including construction plant operation, bricklaying, carpentry, metal working, flood control, property restoration and skills in architecture and the environment. In other words, we have a 2,500-mile training ground for the long-term and young unemployed. At the end of such training those involved would be in possession of proof of having been trained and having proficiency in a skill. I urge the Government to examine inland navigations in the long term. It would be a tragedy if all recent developments became worthless

    701
    because of a failure to maintain the main canal structure, which now needs about £100 million spent on it if it is to be safeguarded.
    British Waterways has played its part by doubling its self-generating income. I believe, however, that users should pay. Canals have withstood the ravages of time and deliberate vandalism by previous owners. They still function but their stability, function and safety—indeed their very existence—can no longer be guaranteed by either British Waterways or the Environment Agency. What better place in which to train the unemployed in new skills or to engage craftsmen? It is an area in which skills are badly needed in the restoration of an integral part of the nation's unique heritage.
    It would not be the first time that the nation's inland waterways have been used for getting people back to work, retraining or for finding work for the longer-term unemployed. An example is the Caledonian canal in Scotland, which was built by such people. Other examples are the Grand Union canal between Braunston and Birmingham—the waterway that linked London docks with midland industry, which was widened in the 1930s in the depths of a great depression. The project was used as a method of putting people back to work.
    The Department of Employment and Education is expanding its workfare ideas towards a project works scheme. There are helpful ideas that could give the unemployed skills. These skills are to be obtained through schemes that involve the canal system.
    Only a few who use the waterways—boaters and anglers—pay any appreciable amount for using them. Cyclists and walkers cause considerable erosion to towpaths yet they do not have to pay. Outside the areas that qualify for various types of Government or European aid, British Waterways is faced with having to repair that damage as well as trying to hold together a 200-year-old system, parts of which are literally falling to pieces.
    Will the Government try to show vision in planning the important future of our canals? I accept that the Government tried to protect British Waterways in the Budget by giving it an extra £5 million for three years, which is 11 per cent. over the original provision, but I hope that more can be done. I realise the pressures that the Treasury is under and I am aware of its restrictive attitude on many occasions.
    Why do the Government not free British Waterways from many of its restrictions and bureaucratic controls? Our hospitals are now trusts which can raise money in the marketplace. Why cannot British Waterways be similarly treated so that it can raise money, so that its long-term borrowing can be spread out over many years and so that a rollover of expenditure can take place to safeguard the basic canal structure? The canals have 12 million visitors a year and provide 35,000 jobs in the private, public and voluntary sectors. Only with such freedom will the massive and welcome schemes being funded by Europe, by the millennium fund and by lottery resources be justified, as well as keeping safe our old canals.
    8.50 pm
    The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): I welcome the opportunity to discuss on the Floor of the House the
    702
    future of Britain's canals. This is the first Adjournment debate on waterways matters since 1988 when the Manchester ship canal was discussed, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) on securing the time to discuss this important matter. He has a long history of commitment to the canal network of the United Kingdom and it is good to see that he is able to bring that to our debate tonight. I am also delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) in his place, because he has taken a close interest in the waterways network as it affects London. What a pity it is, however, that this important debate has not been graced by a Labour Member. Labour has demonstrated all too clearly tonight that it simply does not care about the waterways.
    Many people have a strong affinity for the waterways, and I count myself among them. I have been closely involved in the examination of waterway issues in this House, both as a former chairman of the all-party waterways group and as a member of the Environment Committee which examined British Waterways a few years ago. Indeed, after my wedding reception in the House, I and my bride were taken down the Thames by my very good friends Chris and Val Coburn in their narrowboat Progress. I have a strong commitment to canals, and it was a pleasure to me to become the Minister responsible for inland navigation because I have been able to see a good deal more of the canal network, including the Caledonian canal, the Brindley Place and Gas Street basin in Birmingham, the Huddersfield narrow canal and the Sheffield and Tinsley canal.
    I was delighted to visit the inland waterways display just a couple of weeks ago in the Upper Waiting Hall organised by the Association of Waterway Cruising Clubs, the Inland Waterways Association, the Royal Yachting Association and the British Marine Industry Federation. I also met recently a delegation led by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) and the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) to discuss a range of canal issues. As my hon. Friend is retiring from the House at the forthcoming election, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to him for all his work both as my predecessor as chairman of the all-party waterways group and as my successor in the same role. I have little doubt that he will continue his interest even though he will not be a Member of this House.
    There has recently been a rise in public interest in funding for the waterways. My postbag, prompted by the various waterway organisations, has had a significant increase in the number of canal-related letters. It seems, therefore, timely to set out the Government's role.
    There are about 3,100 miles of operational canals and navigable rivers in the UK. The majority are managed by public organisations—British Waterways with 2,000 miles, the Environment Agency with 500 miles and the Broads Authority with 125 miles. That leaves around 475 miles which are managed by various other bodies such as local authorities, private bodies and charitable trusts. The Government sponsor directly BW, the Environment Agency and the Broads Authority. In view of the points made by my hon. Friend, much of what I say will be in relation to British Waterways.
    It is often said that cities such as Birmingham, and perhaps parts of London, were built on the back of the canal system. They made use of the canals not only as a transport link, but as a means of drainage, waste disposal and water supply. It is fair to say that canals continue to

    703
    play an important part in many aspects of modern life. In particular, they are important to leisure and recreation, heritage, tourism and the environment. They have provided the focus for a range of urban and rural regeneration schemes.
    Waterways provide an important catalyst for urban and rural regeneration. One of BW's aims is to promote and accommodate conservation and regeneration. In doing so, it works with a range of partners in the private, public and voluntary sectors. An excellent example of the role of canals in regeneration is the Birmingham waterfront, where more than £300 million of private sector finance has been attracted to developments alongside BW's canals. Another success story is the joint investment of £7 million by BW and Gloucester city council in Gloucester docks, which has attracted more than £30 million in private finance. The shift in the city's focus to the docks has seen the number employed there rise from 100 to 2,000 and tourism visits rise from a few thousand to more than 1 million. In Scotland, the millennium link, aided by £32 million from the Millennium Commission, will create 4,200 permanent jobs and attract £400 million of private investment along the 70 mile waterway corridor.
    One of the most important areas of regeneration involves trying to cope with our housing needs. We are all familiar with the forecasts of an extra 4.4 million households; it will be much better if some of that housing can be provided alongside canals, regenerating disused sites and former industrial sites, rather than going into our green belt. It is a great pity that people such as the mayor of Berkhamsted, Mr. Peter Such, seem to think that it is not Government policy to build alongside the canals, when it clearly is. That policy can do a lot to regenerate our urban areas.
    The profile of inland waterways has also been raised by the publication last April of the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council's consultative report, "Britain's Inland Waterway: An Undervalued Asset". As a former member of IWAAC, I take great pride in the fact that it has produced a report which has provoked an interesting and lively debate. The Government and British Waterways will be required to respond to its conclusions and recommendations in due course.
    The Government's policy is to maximise the benefits of the canals while taking account of the needs of all interests. To be more specific, there are five things I want: first, improved services and amenities for all users and beneficiaries of the canal network; secondly, a more strategic approach to the day-to-day use, planning and future development of navigations; thirdly, the protection and enhancement of the natural environment and the man-made heritage of buildings and structures; fourthly, a balanced approach so as to avoid conflicts between different uses; fifthly, a commercial approach, adopting cost-effective solutions and efficiency improvements to ensure good value for money for the taxpayer and payers of charges.
    I value the considerable commitment and enthusiasm demonstrated by canal restoration societies and others in restoring canals. The Government have provided financial help to a range of projects through the land reclamation programme grant and the environmental action fund. Canal restoration schemes are also eligible for money from the various lottery distribution boards.
    704
    My hon. Friend is aware that there continues to be pressure on public spending, so all expenditure is carefully scrutinised. In recognition of the importance that the Government attach to the waterways, not only have they been cushioned from that pressure more than other spending programmes, but our contribution to the waterways has increased.
    In the last Budget, for example, we announced an extra £5 million for BW in each of the next three years—an increase of almost 11 per cent. above original provision That compares with cuts of 9 per cent., 12 per cent. and 14 per cent. in the DOE's total expenditure over the next three years. In addition, I recently announced an extra £1.233 million for this year to enable BW to carry out additional repairs and maintenance to the network. That will bring the total grant in aid from Government in 1996–97 to more than £51 million. By any standards, that is a significant slice of public money.
    I am fully aware of the survey that BW undertook last year, which identified a £100 million backlog of maintenance. As I have said, I have seen a number of the sites where urgent work is required. The Government recognise the seriousness and urgency of the problems, especially on the Caledonian canal, and have responded by providing immediate funding of £2.8 million. Only last Friday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced a further £3.2 million for BW over the next four financial years to help with future repairs to the Caledonian canal. Taking into account all the extra Government money and BW's own efforts, that should enable BW to make major progress in dealing with the backlog over a realistic time scale.
    As a nationalised industry, BW is responsible for the day-to-day management of its estate. Government objectives for BW require it to act commercially and in a manner which is commensurate with its statutory responsibilities. That includes meeting its costs as far as possible from charges on users and revenue from its property. I recognise that BW licence fee increases have not been well received. Nobody likes paying more, but it was a commercial decision for BW, and one I fully support. If the Government are giving an extra 11 per cent. a year to BW for the next three years, boaters must also play their part in helping BW to continue to invest in the future of the waterways.
    It should be remembered that grant in aid and licence fees are not the only sources of funds available to BW; it generates its own income via its property, commercial and leisure interests, and for 1996–97 it expects income of more than £38 million from such sources and forecasts more for 1997–98.
    In addition, a range of other funding opportunities is available to BW. This year, for example, BW has benefited from £10 million from the Government's single regeneration budget challenge fund for a London-wide canal regeneration programme and £3.6 million for a project on the Calder and Hebble navigation at Sowerby bridge. BW has also been a partner in lottery awards this year of £25 million for a programme of heritage and environmental conservation and visitor improvements on the Kennet and Avon, £2.7 million for the Ribble link—a new waterway linking the Lancaster canal to the Leeds and Liverpool—and £14.8 million for the Huddersfield canal. Two non-BW canals, the Ashby and the Rochdale, have also received £1 million each from the Government's rural challenge fund. BW also received

    705
    more than £1 million from local authorities and expects to receive £1.5 million in grants from Europe in the current year.
    BW has worked hard to attract funding from a wide range of sources. It is a reflection of its enterprise and commercial ability that, over the past seven years, it has increased self-generated income from £21 million to £43million. It certainly deserves credit for its performance.
    My hon. Friend expresses an interest in finding a way to get the whole waterway network designated so that it is eligible for European grant aid. As I have just mentioned, BW already bids for funds from a variety of sources, including Europe. It continues to look at ways in which it might increase revenue, including options that would allow greater flexibility in generating additional income for the canal network.
    A new national designation for the waterway system is one of the conclusions the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council drew from its examination of inland waterways. That is an issue that I will wish to consider as part of the Government's and BW's eventual response to IWAAC's report.
    My hon. Friend is keen to extend the use of casual labour and youth training to help with the maintenance and repair of the waterways. I particularly pay tribute to the waterway recovery group, which provides the opportunity for volunteers to work on all aspects of canal restoration. In his 1995 Budget, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a pilot initiative, project work, to help long-term unemployed people. The project, which has recently been extended due
    706
    to its success, offers a programme of intensive jobsearch help and practical work experience for people aged between 18 and 50 who have been out of work for at least two years. As my hon. Friend said, there is a history of canal projects being used as opportunities for job creation. People on project work carry out work of value to the local community, which certainly includes work on the waterways.
    There is plenty to be positive about. The total amount of money going into the canal network from a wide variety of sources is greater than ever. There is renewed interest in the canal system for a range of different activities—leisure, recreation, tourism, regeneration, conservation, education, and in some areas still for commercial traffic.
    Only a few months ago, I agreed to the upgrade of the Sheffield and Tinsley canal—the first upgrade since 1983—following significant public and private investment in the area, including a commitment from Sheffield city council to meet the costs of the additional work required to maintain the canal to cruising standard for 21 years.
    Of course BW has a significant backlog of work, but as I said it is taking positive action to tackle the problems and invest in the future of the waterways. With all the activity in the public, private and voluntary sectors, we can look forward with confidence to the future of Britain's canals. I congratulate my hon. Friend on this important debate, and wish him and the canal system well for the future.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Nine o 'clock.

TREASURY

  Arms to Iran Affair
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the official inquiry by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise into BMAR has found evidence of knowledge or involvement in illegal arms exports to Iran by the right hon. Member for South Thanet (Mr. Aitken). [17903]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Customs' investigation is not yet complete—the result of some overseas inquiries is still awaited. It is not normally the practice of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to comment on investigations of individuals or companies not yet accused of criminal offences. To do so could risk prejudicing any on-going inquiries or future criminal proceedings. I can, however, say in the particular circumstances of this investigation that inquiries to date have not produced any evidence which would support any criminal proceedings against any person, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) in relation to the exports by BMARC which were alleged to have ended up in Iran.

  Government Receipts (Scotland)
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the estimated Government receipts in Scotland by source for the last year for which figures are available. [19499]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 10 march 1997]: The table shows the figures requested. With the exception of corporation tax receipts, these figures were published by the Scottish Office in table 10 of "Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland 1994–95".

  Estimates of General Government Receipts in Scotland, 1994–95

  £ billion

  Income tax

  5

  Social security contributions

  3.7

  VAT

  3.6

  Council tax and non-domestic rates

  2.1

  Corporation tax

  1.8

  All other receipts1

  5.9

  Total receipts1

  22.1

  1 Excluding North sea revenues.

  Fiscal Deficit (Scotland)
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the fiscal deficit in Scotland in the last year for which figures are available. [19498]

  Mr. Waldergrave
  [holding answer 10 March 1997]: Excluding privatisation proceeds and North sea revenues, the general Government deficit in Scotland is estimated to have been £8.2 billion in 1994–95.
  358

  Government Expenditure (Scotland)
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was general Government expenditure in Scotland in(a) identifiable, (b) non identifiable, (c) programme and (d) other expenditure categories, in the last year for which figures are available. [19553]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 10 March 1997]: Total expenditure on services by country and function for 1994–95 is given in table 7.7 of "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 1996–97" Cm 3201.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the latest available figures for(a) GDP and (b) GDP per head, for the four countries of the United Kingdom, including the continental shelf, in (i)current and (ii)1996–97 prices; what proportion of GDP for the United Kingdom continental shelf is ascribed to each country in these figures; and what would be the equivalent figure for Scottish GDP and Scottish GDP per head if 90 per cent. of the United Kingdom continental shelf were in the Scottish totals. [19406]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 11 March 1997]: The table shows the figures available. Estimates of GDP at factor cost by region are available only in current prices. The continental shelf is treated in the regional accounts as a separate region, and hence its estimated GDP can not be ascribed to England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

  Estimates of GDP and GDP per head at factor cost in England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Continental Shelf, 1995(current prices)

  GDP(£ million)

  GDP per head (£)

  England

  504,893

  10,324

  Scotland

  50,713

  9,872

  Wales

  24,618

  8,440

  Northern Ireland

  13,868

  8,410

  Continental shelf

  10,348

  —

  Notes:

  1. Ninety per cent. of the GDP of the continental shelf is equal to £9,313 million.

  2. Since there is no resident population in the continental shelf region GDP per head for the continental shelf cannot be calculated.

  3. The GDP for the UK continental shelf comprises profits and stock appreciation which cannot be assigned to regions of the UK. The income from employment of continental shelf employees is, however, allocated to the region of residence of the employee and cannot be separately identified within the regional GDP estimates.

  4. Estimates of GDP by region at factor cost are only available in current prices, which means that an increase over time reflects inflation as well as real growth. There are no regional price indices which could be used to remove the effect of inflation from the figures. Constant price estimates could be made using UK price indices, but these would be misleading if prices and price changes had varied significantly between different parts of the UK.

  Source:

  Economic Trends, January and February 1997 edition.

  Personal Pensions
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount which has been paid in compensation to people who were mis-sold personal pensions. [20016]
  359
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Figures published by the Personal Investment Authority, the regulator responsible for most of the firms involved in the review of personal pensions mis-selling, estimates that about £60 million of compensation had been made in the period up to 31 December 1996.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the companies which have mis-sold personal pensions. [19945]

  Mrs. Knight
  It is not possible to compile such a list at this stage.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have been mis-sold personal pensions. [19946]

  Mrs. Knight
  It is not yet possible to provide a reliable estimate of the number of people who have been mis-sold a personal pension.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total cost of compensation likely to be paid to people who were mis-sold personal pensions. [20022]

  Mrs. Knight
  There is no reliable estimate available of the total cost of compensation that is likely to be paid to people who have been mis-sold personal pensions.

  Domestic Fuel (VAT)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of value added tax on domestic fuel. [20107]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 13 March 1997]: VAT was applied to domestic fuel for sound environmental and revenue reasons, which continue to apply. The Government have no plans to change the current rate of 8 per cent. VAT, which applies to domestic fuel. The yield from this measure is about £1.1 billion a year.

  Suicides and Fatal Accidents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what percentage of the population have(a) committed suicide and (b) suffered a fatal accident in each of the last seven years; and if he will make a statement. [20037]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 13 March 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from John Fox to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 17 March 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked the Director of the Office for National Statistics to reply to your recent question asking how many and what percentage of the population have (a) committed suicide and (b) suffered a fatal accident in each of the last seven years. The Director has asked me to reply in his absence.
  360
  The figures for England are provided in the table below.

  Year

  Suicides (ICD91)codes E950–E959 and E980–E989 excl.E988.8)

  Suicides per 100,000 population

  Fatal accidents (ICD91 codes E800–E929)

  Fatal accidents per 100,000 population

  1989

  5046

  10.6

  11111

  23.2

  1990

  5240

  10.9

  10597

  22.1

  1991

  5183

  10.8

  9944

  20.6

  1992

  5126

  10.6

  9516

  19.7

  1993

  4929

  10.2

  9617

  19.8

  1994

  4780

  9.8

  9417

  19.3

  1995

  4816

  9.8

  9369

  19.2

  1 International Classification of Diseases, ninth Revision

  Married Couples (Tax Allowances)
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will commission a report from the Inland Revenue on arrangements for allowing a husband and wife to elect(a) to transfer between them the personal tax allowances to which each is entitled and (b) to set the tax allowances and the amounts chargeable at the lower and basic rates of income tax to which both are entitled against the sum of their total incomes; and if he will ask the Inland Revenue to assess (i) the advantages and disadvantages of these arrangements,(ii) their cost to the Exchequer,(iii) a timetable for their introduction and (iv) the tax treatment of married couples in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. [20377]

  Mr. Jack
  The tax system already provides a special allowance for married couples, and the Government believe that, by rewarding hard work through reducing tax rates, married couples with continue to benefit under their policies. Nearly two thirds of the income tax package in the 1996 Budget will benefit married couples directly. Against that background, I have asked the Inland Revenue to produce a report about the arrangements that my hon. Friend mentions.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 24 February,Official Report, column 76, on the national police management training policy for Indonesia; if he will place a copy of the submission from the head of eastern Asia department in the Library. [20699]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  In my answer of 24 February,Official Report, column 76, I undertook to write to the hon. Member about the release of this document. I did so on 12 March and a copy of my letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Decentralisation Support
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries received support from his Department for financial decentralisation in 1991. [20170]
  361
  Dr. Liam Fox
  The promotion of economic reform and other good government policies in developing countries and in the countries of central and eastern Europe and central Asia is one of the key aims of the UK development assistance programme. ODA funds are commonly used to promote public service reform, which includes delegated management. As a result, support for projects in this area, including for financial decentralisation, is a common feature of almost every bilateral assistance country programme. Precise details of the sort requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Great Lakes
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much of his Department's budget was allocated to the Great Lakes area of Africa in the last year(a) bilaterally and (b) multilaterally; and if he will make a statement. [20103]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) on 27 January,Official Report column 14.

  Trade Union Movements (Aid)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for 1991 those countries whose trade union movements received support from his Department. [20105]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  Under the joint funding scheme, the following countries and regions received support during the funding period 1990–91 to 1991–92:

  Tanzania

  Uganda

  Kenya

  Southern Africa (Regional)

  Caribbean (Regional).

  Under the workers group development scheme, the following countries and regions received support during the funding period 1991–92 to 1993–94:

  South Africa

  Namibia

  Botswana

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe

  Africa (Regional)

  India

  Occupied Territories

  Barbados

  Montserrat

  Guyana

  Caribbean (Regional).

  In 1991, information about support for trade union movements drawing on other funding sources was not recorded centrally. It would involve disproportionate cost to collate such information now.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had 362
  with the Rwandan Government concerning international assistance for returning refugees; and if he will make a statement. [20104]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  HM ambassador in Kigali has regular discussions with the Government of Rwanda, international aid agencies and non-governmental organisations on Rwanda's rehabilitation needs, including assistance for the resettlement of returning refugees. Since 1995 we have committed nearly £20 million bilaterally in support of Rwanda's rehabilitation programme and £18.5 million as our contribution to EU rehabilitation assistance.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Millennium Exhibition
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) of 3 March,Official Report, column 497, on the millennium exhibition, if he will make a statement on the methodology by which the figure of 10 million expected visitors was determined. [19834]

  Mr. Freeman
  A MORI poll conducted by the operating company before Christmas indicated potential visitor numbers of 13.5 million could be achieved if efforts were made to maximise attendance. The original indicative budget produced by Millennium Central Limited was prepared on this basis. As part of the process of refining the indicative budget, the amount to be expended on maximising visitor numbers was reduced and the estimate of visitor numbers was reduced accordingly to 10 million.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what guidance he has issued to non-departmental public bodies following the Cadbury and Greenbury reports; and if the guidance reflects all the recommendations in those reports. [20432]

  Mr. Freeman
  Following the publication of the Cadbury report and its recommended code of best practice, the Treasury prepared a model code of best practice for board members of public bodies, which was issued in June 1994. This applied the Cadbury principles, where appropriate, to members of public bodies such as executive non-departmental public bodies. The model code has recently been revised and replaced by guidance on codes of practice for board members of public bodies, which was published by the Cabinet Office (OPS) in February 1997 in the White Paper "The Governance of Public Bodies: A Progress Report", Cm 3557. New or revised codes, taking account of the guidance and tailored to the particular circumstances of the body, should be in place for all executive NDPBs by 1 June 1997.

  No specific guidance has been issued to NDPBs following the Greenbury report. Responsibility for the pay and conditions of service of chairmen and board members of executive NDPBs is primarily a matter for sponsor Departments. Remuneration of chairman, board member and chief executive appointments to NDPBs is published in "Public Bodies 1996", copies of which are available in the Library of the House.
  363
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to ensure that non-executive directors appointed to non-departmental public bodies do not have previous contractual arrangements with the body concerned. [20431]

  Mr. Freeman
  Previous contractual arrangements with a non-departmental public body should not automatically debar a candidate from subsequent appointment to it. Whether any potential conflicts of interest exist is a matter which should be determined by the selection procedure for the appointment in question, for example by a selection board during an interview of the candidate. The Commissioner for Public Appointments will be considering whether this matter should be covered in his revised guidance, which is due to be published in July 1997. Guidance to NDPBs on handling conflicts of interest has recently been revised as part of the guidance on codes of practice for board members of public bodies, published last month in the White Paper "The Governance of Public Bodies: A Progress Report", Cm 3557.

  Open Government
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the operation of the code of practice on access to Government information during 1996. [20732]

  Mr. Freeman
  I have today announced the publication of the Government's report on the operation of the code of practice during 1996, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Public Record Office
  Sir Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the future of the public record office in Chancery lane. [20745]

  Mr. Freeman
  The public record office in Chancery lane will shortly be vacated.

  Discussions are taking place with the Victoria and Albert museum about the possibility of relocating the national art library and the Victoria and Albert archive of art and design to this building, but it is too early to say whether these will lead to a successful conclusion.

  The Government are aware of the heritage of this building and will make every effort to ensure its preservation.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Dance and Drama School Places
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the new interim scheme to assist young people to take up places at dance and drama schools. [20824]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  On 14 October, I announced plans to help more students take up places at accredited dance and drama training schools in England using funding from the national lottery and the Department of Education and Employment, in partnership with local authorities. I am delighted that the Arts Council of England has now announced the operational details of the 364
  interim scheme, following close consultation with local authority associations and representatives of the dance and drama constituencies. I am sure that the House shares my pleasure that, through the lottery, it has been possible to create an opportunity for more talented students to pursue their training.

  International Sporting Events
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to attract major international sporting events to the United Kingdom. [20753]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government are strongly committed to providing promotional and diplomatic support for the bidding for and staging of major international sporting events in this country. The United Kingdom Sports Council, which was established on 1 January 1997, has, as one of its priority tasks, to help attract to this country major international sporting events. To ensure that there is a clear and co-ordinated UK strategy for all major events, we have asked the United Kingdom Sports Council to take the lead. Additionally the Government have demonstrated their commitment in a number of practical ways.

  My Department chairs a wide-ranging working group to assist Manchester in organising a successful 2002 Commonwealth games, and to ensure that the event has the greatest possible impact, both nationally and internationally, in terms of sporting, tourism, economic and other benefits. The Welsh Office chairs a working group to ensure the success of the 1999 rugby world cup. I am also encouraging the British Tourist Authority to work closely with the organiser of events to ensure synergy, for example between the rugby world cup 1999 and the cricket world cup 1999, with a view to maximising the tourism benefits. Building on the success of Euro 96, the Government are strongly backing the Football Association's bid to host the 2006 world cup. We have already hosted two receptions on behalf of the FA, and I am chairing a co-ordinating group of FA and Government officials to ensure that we are assisting the FA as far as we are able.

  To assist further, the sports councils have recently launched their national revenue grants programmes, one of which is designed to attract and stage those events which are of genuine major significance to the UK. The UK Sports Council advises the four home nation sports councils on the distribution of national lottery funds in support of bids for, and the staging of, major events in this country as well as on the facilities required to stage them.

  All of these initiatives underline the importance which the Government attach to attracting and staging major events in this country.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Court Fees
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the impact of new county court fees to be charged on debtors under the provisions of the County Court Fees (Amendment) order 1996; and if he will make a statement. [19494]
  365
  Mr. Streeter
  Following the judgment in R v. the Lord Chancellor ex parte Witham, the Lord Chancellor has decided that litigants in the county courts and in family proceedings should be placed on the same footing as litigants in non-family proceedings in the Supreme Court. He has therefore made orders restoring the exemption and remission provisions which applied before 15 January 1997. As a result, most debtors on low incomes will not be liable to pay court fees.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the estimated projected annual income the Court Service will receive from levying new charges for(a) fee numbers (1)2C(ii) application by debtor to vary judgment,(iii)2C(2) application to set aside judgment,(3)2C(iv) application to district judge,(4)2C(vi) application to circuit judge,(5)4(i)(c)second or subsequent warrant and (6)4(ix) application to suspend warrant and (b) entering a counter claim against the plaintiff. [19502]

  Mr. Streeter
  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 Michael Huebner to Mr. Bill Etherington, dated 17 March 1997:
  PQ/304: Projected income from new court fees.
  The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the projected annual income the Court Service will receive from new court fees.
  These estimates do not take account of the possible impact of the judgment in R v the Lord Chancellor ex-parte Witham.

  Fee number and type of process

  Projected income £ million

  2C(ii) and (ii) application to vary or set aside judgment1

  0.975

  2C(iv) application to district judge or circuit judge ex-part or by consent

  8.3

  2C(v)(vi) application to district judge and circuit judge1

  2.0

  4(i)(c) request for second or subsequent warrant

  2.3

  4(ix) application to suspend warrant

  0.865

  Entering a counterclaim against the plaintiff2

  No projection has been made

  1 This is a combined projection for the two fees.

  2 The new fee payable on entering a counterclaim is the same as if separate proceedings were being issued for that amount.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review(a) the Supreme Court Court Fees (Amendment) order 1996, (b) the County Court Fees (Amendment) order 1996 and (c) the Family Proceedings Fees (Amendment) order 1996; and if he will make a statement. [20641]

  Mr. Streeter
  The Lord Chancellor is in the process of implementing wide-ranging reforms to the civil justice system following the publication of Lord Woolf's final report. As part of this process, the current fees structure 366
  will be subject to review to ensure that fees are charged at an appropriate level and at appropriate points in the progression of a case.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the expected savings from each element of the(a) Supreme Court Fees (Amendment) order 1996, (b) County Court Fees (Amendment) order 1996 and (c) Family Proceedings Fees (Amendment) order 1996; and if he will make a statement. [20643]

  Mr. Streeter
  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 Michael Huebner to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 17 March 1997:
  PQ 97/318: Expected savings from court fees
  The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question on expected savings from court fees.
  The estimated additional income from the three fees orders is as follows:
  Supreme Court Fees (Amendment) order 1996: £8.8 million
  County Court Fees (Amendment) order 1996: £24.6 million
  Family Proceedings Fees (Amendment) order 1996: £6 million
  These estimates do not take account of the possible impact of the judgment in Regina v the Lord Chancellor ex parte Witham.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received(a) in favour and (b) against the (i)Supreme Court Fees (Amendment) order 1996,(ii)County Court Fees (Amendment) order 1996 and (iii)Family Proceedings Fees (Amendment) order 1996; and if he will make a statement. [20642]

  Mr. Streeter
  According to our records 91 representations have been received by Ministers relating to the Fees (Amendment) orders 1996, three in the form of parliamentary questions and 88 in the form of letters from Members of Parliament. The representations made have expressed concerns about the effect of particular fees rather than views on each order as a whole.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to reverse recent increases in civil justice court fees in accordance with the decision in R v. the Lord Chancellor ex parte Witham; and if he will make a statement. [20640]

  Mr. Streeter
  The judgment in R v. the Lord Chancellor ex parte Witham reinstates the former fee exemptions and remissions in the Supreme Court. It does not relate to the increases in civil court fees. To place county court and family proceedings litigants on the same footing as litigants in the Supreme Court, the Lord Chancellor has made orders reintroducing provisions for fee exemption and remission in these proceedings as well, and has made refunds available to those eligible.

  County Courts
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received on the extent to which decisions of county courts are not implemented; and if he will make a statement. [18852]
  367
  Mr. Streeter
  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 Michael Huebner to Mr. William O'Brien, dated 17 March 1997:

  PQ 97/308: Representations received about county courts decisions that are not implemented The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of representations received about county court decisions that are not implemented.
  I have not received any representations in person but written representations have been received by the Court Service. However the information requested is not collected centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 6 March,Official Report, columns 692–93, what factors led him to revise the expenditure on the Principal Registry Family Division (Central London Accommodation) pFI project to nil. [20411]

  Mr. Streeter
  That project is no longer proceeding via the PFI procurement route.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people have received legal aid in each of the last 10 years to take action against(a) the Labour party, (b) the Conservative party, (c) the Liberal Democrat party and (d) any other political party. [20286]

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

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list by nationality the number of applications for legal aid made by non-British citizens, showing those which have been successful, in each of the last three years. [20624]

  Mr. Streeter
  Information as to an applicant's nationality is not collected and is therefore not available.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what criteria apply to overseas applicants for legal aid; and what are the procedures by which the Legal Aid Board checks the accuracy of applications. [20626]

  Mr. Streeter
  All applications for legal aid, from whatever source, must undergo statutory means and merits tests. A special financial application form must be used by applicants not resident in the UK. The Legal Aid Board makes its decisions based on information supplied by the applicant through their solicitor, and where this is insufficient or inconsistent further investigations will be made. The special investigations unit, set up in 1996, investigates the means of applicants with complex financial affairs, which may include foreign nationals.
  368

  Bus Employees Superannuation Trust
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to the answer from the Secretary of State for Transport to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) of 27 November 1996,Official Report, columns 271–72, what legal action the Official Solicitor plans to take in respect of his duty as trustee of the BEST pension fund; and when he plans to take it. [20505]

  Mr. Streeter
  NBC Pension Trustees Ltd. is trustee of the BEST pension fund of which the Official Solicitor is sole shareholder. The Official Solicitor has appointed two of his staff as directors. I am informed that the trustee, NBC Pension Trustees Ltd., intends to issue proceedings seeking recovery of the pension funds paid to the Secretary of State for Transport. Allen and Overy, who have advised the former directors for several years, were instructed by the present directors when they assumed responsibility. Allen and Overy have now relinquished their retainer as there is a potential conflict of interest. The trustee has recently instructed Taylor Joynson Garret in order to carry forward the matter as quickly as possible.

  Administration Orders
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the financial limit in relation to administration orders; and if he will list the dates on which the working party set up to assess section 13 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 has met to discuss this matter. [20644]

  Mr. Streeter
  An administration order currently provides a mechanism for a debtor who has a county court judgment and not more than £5,000 worth of debts to apply to a county court to take over the management of his or her debts. Section 13 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 would put into effect changes recommended by the civil justice review, including the removal of the £5,000 ceiling. The monitoring group which was set up to identify the implications of section 13 discussed the limit at its meeting on 29 November 1993.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Live Animal Transport
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take to prevent the export of cull ewes from Dover to France on 7 March for the purpose of ritual slaughter near Paris. [19542]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Department's powers to regulate sheep exports are exercisable only in relation to the legal provisions concerned with the welfare of animals during transport. We shall apply the relevant rules thoroughly in the usual way. Enforcement of the rules concerned with welfare at slaughter in France is a matter for the French authorities.

  Salmon
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to review the operation of the Salmon and Freshwater
  369
  Fisheries Act 1975 with particular reference to (a) the increase in the production and import of farmed salmon and (b) the enhanced value of the recreational salmon fishery to the rural economy. [19677]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 13 March 1997]: Any review of current salmon and freshwater fisheries legislation in England and Wales would need to address the issues identified by my hon. Friend. The Government will consider whether to carry out such a review in the light of their legislative plans for the next Parliament.

  Newcastle Disease
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the poultry and egg production sectors to discuss the Government's response to the recent outbreak of Newcastle disease. [20051]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Officials of my Department have met representatives of the British Poultry Meat Federation on three occasions, most recently on 5 March 1997. They also met the British Egg Industry Council on 4 February and the NFU on 5 February. Industry organisations are being kept informed of all developments.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many premises have been affected by the recent outbreak of Newcastle disease. [20052]

  Mr. Hogg
  Between 1 January 1997 and 12 March 1997, Newcastle disease had been confirmed on seven premises in Great Britain.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates he has made of the cost of measures to control the outbreak of Newcastle disease to(a) the Government and (b) industry. [20053]

  Mr. Hogg
  As of 12 March, the Department is considering or has processed compensation claims amounting to some £4 million in respect of outbreaks of Newcastle disease in Great Britain in 1997. However, action to control Newcastle disease is still being taken, and the overall cost of control to both Government and industry will depend upon whether or not further outbreaks occur.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is being taken to(a) eradicate Newcastle disease and (b) prevent any further outbreaks. [20054]

  Mr. Hogg
  Movement restrictions are being imposed within infected areas as required by directive 92/66/EEC which lays down community measures for controlling Newcastle disease. Control measures include the slaughter of all poultry on premises where disease has been confirmed, the supervised disposal of their carcases,. the tracing of all movements of birds, eggs, equipment and people onto and off of an infected premises before and subsequent to disease being confirmed and the thorough cleansing and disinfection of an infected premises and equipment after site depopulation.

  Industry has been advised to vaccinate where this has not taken place and to ensure adequate precautions are in place to avoid the introduction of infection.
  370
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the implications of the recent outbreak of Newcastle disease for(a) public health and (b) consumer protection. [20055]

  Mr. Hogg
  There is no risk to public health from poultry meat which may contain the Newcastle disease virus and, therefore, no consequences for consumer protection.

  Newcastle disease virus can be spread through the air from infected birds and contact with such birds can occasionally cause conjunctivitis, fever and flu-like symptoms in humans. The risk of human infection is low, even when handling birds known to be infected.

  The Department of Health has been kept fully informed of developments.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 25 February 1997,Official Report, columns 194–95, regarding food safety in the canning industry, what assessment his Department made of (a) the level of expertise and (b) the application of good manufacturing practice among small companies, in its recent review; and if he will make a statement. [20311]

  Mrs. Browning
  The results of the Department's survey of UK canneries, including an assessment of the level of expertise and the application of good manufacturing practice amongst small companies, are given in microbiological food safety surveillance report No. 5 on the national study of canneries. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  European Union Surpluses
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the foods currently held in storage in the United Kingdom as European Union surpluses. [20177]

  Mr. Baldry
  Statistics showing stocks of EC and UK agricultural produce in public intervention and assisted private storage are lodged in the Library of the House.

  Meat Hygiene Service (Officials)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many officials of the Meat Hygiene Service(a) have been subject to disciplinary action, (b) have been dismissed, (c) have received formal disciplinary warnings, (d) have received formal written cautions and (e) are still under disciplinary investigation for failure to enforce specified bovine material controls in slaughter houses. [20267]

  Mrs. Browning
  To date, 45 Meat Hygiene Service employees have been subject to disciplinary investigation as a result of failure to ensure full compliance with SBM controls. Four employees have been dismissed—one of whom was reinstated at appeal—18 have received formal disciplinary warnings and 23 have received written cautions, one officer is still under disciplinary investigation. Before any of these staff are allowed to begin their work again they are required to undergo re-training.
  371
  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what retraining officials of the Meat Hygiene Service who have failed to enforce specified bovine material controls in slaughterhouses have to undergo before they are allowed to resume their work. [20269]

  Mrs. Browning
  Staff training matters are the responsibility of the Meat Hygiene Service and I have asked the chief executive to reply to you direct.

  Letter from Johnston McNeill to Mr. Martyn Jones, dated 17 March 1997:
  As Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS)your Parliamentary Question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the re-training undertaken by officials who have failed to ensure compliance with the specified bovine material controls in slaughterhouses before they are allowed to resume work has been passed to me to reply. [20269]
  As you are aware, the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) was established as an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) on 1 April 1995. It took over from some 300 local authorities responsibility for enforcing meat hygiene, inspection and animal welfare at slaughter legislation in licensed fresh meat premises in England, Scotland and Wales.
  The MHS is also responsible for enforcing specified bovine material (SBM)controls in slaughterhouses. It does this most rigorously. A comprehensive SBM training programme has been provided to all inspection staff. The agency's staff are fully aware that they may face disciplinary action as a result of their failure to enforce fully the controls. As you note, staff who have faced disciplinary action undergo a retraining programme prior to resuming work at a plant. Such staff are required to repeat the intensive practical plant based SBM training under the supervision of a Principal Official Veterinary Surgeon. The importance of 100% compliance with SBM controls is reiterated to these staff and they continue to be closely monitored by the plant's Official Veterinary Surgeon to ensure comprehensive and rigorous enforcement of SBM controls.

  Pesticides
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the commercial composts currently marketed in the United Kingdom which incorporate(a) one or more pesticides and (b) imidacloprid; [20356]

  (2) what requests he has received from manufacturers seeking to use imidacloprid in composts (a) used for growing edible plants and (b) available to the public. [20361]

  Mrs. Browning
  Currently there are no commercial composts containing pesticides approved for sale in the United Kingdom. However there are a number of pesticides, including imidacloprid, which have approval for use by professionals by means of incorporation to compost.

  Every application for approvals of pesticides is commercially confidential until a final decision is taken on it.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that plants raised in compost containing pesticides are clearly identified as such. [20360]
  372
  Mrs. Browning
  Approval is given only if scientific evaluation shows that the product can be used without unacceptable risk to people or the environment. There is thus no need for crops produced with the aid of approved pesticides to be labelled as such.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the effects of imidacloprid on human health; and if he will make a statement. [20358]

  Mrs. Browning
  Before approval is given to any pesticide chemical, detailed scientific data on health effects, including both acute and chronic effects for pesticide users and for food consumers, are evaluated by the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides— ACP—on behalf of the Government. The evaluation document for imidacloprid agreed by the ACP has been published and the detailed scientific data, which are protected by rules on commercial confidentiality, may be inspected at the Pesticides Safety Directorate. MAFF does not commission research into the health effects of individual pesticide chemicals.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the extent of the use of imidacloprid in commercial compost. [20357]

  Mrs. Browning
  Monitoring of all agricultural pesticides including imidacloprid is carried out by the working party on pesticide usage surveys in a four-year rolling programme. Imidacloprid is a recently approved chemical and does not yet feature largely in survey results. Such uses as have so far been recorded do not include application via compost.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has received regarding the use of imidacloprid in the product Levington Intercept. [20355]

  Mrs. Browning
  Apart from approaches from the company, the Ministry has received two inquiries regarding the use of imidacloprid in Levington Intercept.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that any composts containing pesticides are clearly identified as such. [20359]

  Mrs. Browning
  A compost containing a pesticide chemical and intended to protect plants grown in it is subject to pesticides legislation and must be labelled as a pesticide. A compost sterilised, disinfected or otherwise treated with a pesticide but not in order to protect plants grown in it is not considered as a pesticide and not required to be so labelled. However, no pesticide may be used to treat compost in this country unless this use has been approved following full scientific evaluation of the potential consequences for people and the environment.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minster of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the results of the second survey of variable pesticides residues are now available; and if he will make a statement. [20825]

  Mrs. Browning
  The results of the second survey of variable pesticide residues were announced on 14 March. A copy of the announcement and of the supporting documents have been placed in the Library of the House.
  373
  The survey results show that levels of residues in the majority of fruit and vegetables fall well below recommended maximum residue levels. However, a small number of apples and peaches, including imports had higher residues than is desirable. We will be reporting these results in full to the Codex Alimentarius Commission so that it can instigate international action further to ensure consumer protection.

  A large safety margin is built into the figures used when setting what can be regarded as an acceptable level. The Deputy Chief Medical Officer and Professor Sir. Colin Berry, chairman of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, have issued statements which make clear that the results of the second survey for variable residues do not change Government advice that fruit and vegetables remain a key component of a healthy diet.

  Fishermen's Association Ltd.
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's policy in respect of meetings between(a) Ministers and (b) officials and the Fishermen's Association Ltd. [20496]

  Mr. Baldry
  We arrange meetings with representatives of fishermen's organisations as and when appropriate. There is no distinctive policy regarding the Fishermen's Association Ltd.

  Surplus Food Scheme
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the charitable organisations to which United Kingdom intervention beef will be distributed under the surplus food scheme in 1997. [20657]

  Mr. Baldry
  A total of 1,059 applications have been received by the Intervention Board from organisations wishing to distribute canned intervention beef under the surplus food scheme in 1997. These include charitable organisations and others such as local authorities. The distribution applications within the United Kingdom is:

  England: 792

  Scotland: 149

  Wales; 85

  Northern Ireland: 33.

  These applications are being examined and the organisations considered acceptable will be formally designated in due course to distribute the canned beef.

  BSE
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the possibility of establishing whether particular herds of cattle are BSE free; and what action is being taken so as to identify cattle which are affected. [18205]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 10 March 1997]: The beef assurance scheme—BAS—and the export certified herds scheme—ECHS—are based on the identification and verification of factors which taken together indicate that the cattle concerned have not been exposed to a risk of BSE. The BAS is already in operation. Proposals for the ECHS were sent to the European Commission in February and will be discussed by the Commission's
  374
  scientific advisory committees and the standing committee as part of the Florence framework for lifting the export ban.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect of recent publicity on the state of British abattoirs on EC officials' consideration of the lifting of the BSE ban on(a) British and (b) Northern Irish beef. [20399]

  Mrs. Browning
  Much of the media coverage of BSE in recent months has been unhelpful to United Kingdom veterinary interests. I hope and expect the Commission and their independent scientific advisers to consider the case on its merits.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the chance and confidence intervals for cattle developing BSE that their dam would have had BSE; and if he will break down the results to indicate the impact of whether the calf was(a) first born, (b) second born, (c) third born and (d) a later birth. [18203]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 10 March 1997]: The chance of BSE offspring cases developing BSE is 1 per cent. Confidence intervals are not appropriate as this is the observed percentage from the epidemic. It is not possible to provide the breakdown of this percentage with any accuracy into first born, second born, third born or a later birth, but there are indications that the risk is greater in calves born closer to the time when a cow develops BSE than in those born earlier.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports he has received on the outcome of tests relating to the destruction of BSE infective material through incineration. [18132]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 10 March 1997]: No tests have been carried out on the destruction of BSE infective material through incineration.

  Advice was sought from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee on the effectiveness of the incinerators used by the Ministry for the disposal of BSE suspect carcases to destroy the BSE infective agent. The committee has advised, on the basis of its knowledge of earlier studies on the inactivation of TSE agents and proteins in general, that provided incineration was completed, the incinerators used by the Ministry were more than adequate to render the BSE agent inactive.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the modal average age of cattle which died of BSE and were born in each year from 1985 to 1993. [18200]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 10 March 1997]: The table shows the modal age at slaughter of confirmed BSE cases with dates of birth between 1985 and 1993:

  Year of birth

  Modal age at slaughter

  1985

  5

  1986

  5

  1987

  5

  1988

  5

  1989

  5

  1990

  5

  1991

  4

  375

  Year of birth

  Modal age at slaughter

  1992

  4

  1993

  3

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pursuant to his answer of 25 February,Official Report, column 194, regarding the level of infectivity in rendered meat and bone meal from cattle slaughtered in the over-30-months scheme, what is the maximum level of infectivity (in IU per gram) that is estimated to be present in the rendered material being considered for incineration. [18972]

  Mr. Baldry
  Very little infective material is likely to enter rendering plants as cattle suspected of showing clinical signs suggestive of BSE are destroyed by incineration. However, some animals may be incubating disease even though they do not show clinical signs of infection. In 1996 the number of such animals, based on independent research, Anderson et al, 1996, is estimated to have been around 4,600, and most of these would, we believe, have been among the 1.1 million animals slaughtered under the over-30-months scheme—0.418 per cent. BSE infectivity is most likely to be in the brain and spinal cord of cattle, which together weigh approximately 1 kg. On the assumption that the average carcase weighs 500kg, this equates to 550,000 tonnes of carcase material arising from the OTMS last year of which 4.6 tonnes— 0.0008 per cent.—could have contained infectivity. In addition, the rendering process itself is expected to reduce any infectivity present fiftyfold.

  The amount of infectivity per gram, if any, remaining in rendered material cannot be reliably established without conducting the tests on mice, referred to in the reply given to the hon. Member on 25 February 1997, Official Report, columns 193–94 which would take two years and would be extremely expensive.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the liability of providers of contaminated feedstuffs to the dairy and beef farming industry for the spread and costs of BSE; and if he will make a statement. [19593]

  Mrs. Browning
  This Department has received a number of letters from individuals and Members of Parliament querying the liability of providers of contaminated feedstuffs to the farming industry in the context of the cause and spread of BSE. To say how many and from whom they were received could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much was paid to Electophoretics International by his Department for work to find a diagnostic test for BSE. [20666]

  Mrs. Browning
  No money was paid to Electrophoretics International as the Ministry had not commissioned any work from it.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evaluation he has made of(a) the work to find a diagnostic test for BSE which was conducted for his Department by Electrophoretics International and (b) the value for money of that work. [20668]
  376
  Mrs. Browning
  Electrophoretics International has not been commissioned to conduct work for MAFF, and no payment has been made to EI by MAFF. It is therefore not appropriate to consider evaluation or value for money.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which companies and research bodies have been commissioned by his Department to undertake work into finding a diagnostic test for BSE. [20663]

  Mrs. Browning
  The following organisations have been funded by MAFF to undertake work into finding a diagnostic test for BSE:

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  Institute for Animal Health

  Birmingham University

  London Hospital Medical College

  Animal Health Trust

  Moredun Research Institute

  University of Edinburgh.

  A further contract with Newcastle University is in preparation.

  An open competition for research funding for development of novel methods for the diagnosis of BSE was announced by MAFF to the international scientific community in August 1996. Proposals were reviewed by independent referees and three proposals from UK research laboratories were taken up for funding in January 1997 these are included in the list above. Two further proposals are being followed up; a joint proposal from two Swiss companies (Paul Scherrer Institute and CSEM, Centre Suisse D'Electronique Etude Microtechnique, SA.) and the California Institute of Technology.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what meetings took place between Ministers and officials of his Department and board members and officials of Electrophoretics International(a) prior to the contract for research into a diagnostic test for BSE being let, (b) during the life of the contract and (c) after the expiration date of the contract. [20667]

  Mrs. Browning
  The agreement was signed on 22 December 1995 and has not expired in respect of all its provisions. MAFF officials attended two meetings with Electrophoretics International representatives prior to the signing of the agreement and two meetings subsequently. This is in addition to contact between scientists from the Central Veterinary Laboratory, Weybridge and EI on research collaboration as provided for in the agreement.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what basis the contract between the Ministry of Agriculture and Electrophoretics International for research into a diagnostic test for BSE was tendered; how many others tenders were received; and what involvement Ministers had in the decision to let the contract to Electrophoretics International. [20665]

  Mrs. Browning
  The nature of the agreement between MAFF and Electrophoretics International was one of collaboration. The Ministry did not commission any work from EI. This was not a contract to develop a diagnostic test and a tendering process was not relevant.
  377
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the contract for research into a diagnostic test for BSE with Electrophoretics International ended; for what reasons it was not renewed; and what plans he has for further contracts with the company. [20669]

  Mrs. Browning
  MAFF has a collaborative agreement with Electrophoretics International which continues to operate. MAFF will continue to treat the company in the same way as all other bodies in relation to research and supply of materials. There are no plans for any further contracts with EI.

  British Beef (Bans)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many states had banned British beef(a) before 1990 and (b) between 1990 and 1995; and how many have withdrawn their bans in the last year. [19755]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 12 March 1997]: One country introduced a ban on British beef before 1990. Thirty-four countries banned imports of British beef between 1990 and 1995. Restrictions were lifted in 14 countries before Commission decision 96/239/EC introduced a worldwide ban on the export of British beef on 27 March 1996.

  Intervention Storage
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the minimum ecu prices per kilo paid to meat plants in(a) Great Britain and (b) Northern Ireland, for beef accepted for intervention storage since 1996. [20275]

  Mr. Baldry
  The minimum prices in ecu per kilo paid for offers of beef tendered since April 1996 are:

  Date of tender

  Great Britain

  Northern Ireland

  Steers

  Young bulls

  Steers

  Young bulls

  9 April 1996

  1.964

  1—

  2.500

  1—

  7 May 1996

  2.365

  2.310

  2.445

  2.3

  28 May 1996

  1.854

  2.080

  2.420

  2.240

  11 June 1996

  2.228

  2.030

  2.405

  2.195

  25 May 1996

  2.225

  2.090

  2.416

  2.208

  9 July 1997

  2.420

  2.110

  2.430

  2.213

  23 July 1997

  2.419

  2.165

  2.390

  2—

  6 August 1996

  2.350

  2.115

  2.245

  2.094

  27 August 1996

  2.218

  2.150

  2.214

  2—

  10 September 1996

  2.218

  2.150

  2.214

  2—

  24 September 1996

  2.299

  2.080

  2.236

  2—

  8 October 1996

  2.325

  2.115

  2.244

  2—

  22 October 1996

  2.340

  2.120

  2.241

  2—

  12 November 1996

  2.490

  2.187

  2.303

  2—

  26 November 1996

  2.658

  2.452

  2.410

  2—

  10 December 1996

  2.620

  2.510

  2.501

  2—

  14 January 1997

  2.556

  2.430

  2.456

  2—

  28 January 1997

  2.629

  2.494

  2.413

  2—

  11 February 1997

  2.652

  2.550

  2.413

  2—

  25 February 1997

  2.650

  2.550

  2.430

  2—

  11 March 1997

  2.525

  2.500

  2.415

  2—

  1 No bids accepted.

  2 No bids submitted.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the ecu prices per kilo achieved by meat plants for beef accepted for intervention storage in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and
  378
  (d) Northern Ireland since 1996; and if he will make a statement on the reason for differential prices regionally for beef going into intervention storage. [18337]

  Mr. Baldry
  [pursuant to his reply, 5 March 1997, column 683]: Differential regional prices for intervention purposes occur only in the areas of Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Northern Ireland is considered a separate region for intervention purchases in recognition of the particular importance of the beef sector there, and the effect of its proximity to the Republic of Ireland market.

  A list of the prices awarded since March 1996 follows:

  Maximum prices awarded in Great Britain

  Maximum prices awarded in Northern Ireland

  Date of tender

  Steers

  Young bulls

  Steers

  Young bulls

  9 April 1996

  2.610

  2.400

  2.410

  2.200

  7 May 1996

  2.450

  2.320

  2.450

  2.320

  28 May 1996

  2.340

  2.190

  2.430

  2.250

  11 June 1996

  2.310

  2.110

  2.410

  2.200

  25 May 1996

  2.474

  2.162

  2.446

  2.236

  9 July 1996

  2.466

  2.175

  2.442

  2.218

  23 July 1996

  2.499

  2.241

  2.429

  1—

  6 August 1996

  2.408

  2.273

  2.301

  2.096

  27 August 1996

  2.322

  2.187

  2.229

  1—

  10 September 1996

  2.287

  2.185

  2.224

  1—

  24 September 1996

  2.362

  2.149

  2.255

  1.940

  8 October 1996

  2.373

  2.150

  2.262

  1.974

  22 October 1996

  2.387

  2.124

  2.261

  1—

  12 November 1996

  2.548

  2.248

  2.321

  1—

  26 November 1996

  2.660

  2.660

  2.660

  1—

  10 December 1996

  2.660

  2.535

  2.660

  1—

  14 January 1997

  2.730

  2.730

  2.730

  1—

  28 January 1997

  2.730

  2.730

  2.730

  1—

  11 February 1997

  2.730

  2.600

  2.730

  1—

  25 February 1997

  2.730

  2.581

  2.730

  1—

  1 No bids submitted.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide figures for his Department's PFI projects in the same form as used by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, in his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 6 March,Official Report, columns 692–93; and if he will list his latest estimates of annual totals for PFI projects, on the same basis as those given in table 5.5 of the Red Book. [20393]

  Mr. Boswell
  As I explained in my answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 10 March 1997,Official Report, column 50, MAFF's entry for 1999–00 in table 5.5 of the Red Book is an outline estimate for non-PFI procurement only which will be subject to change when PFI tenders have been received.

  A breakdown, by project, of the schemes identified in table 5.5 of the Red Book is given in table 1. Current estimates are shown in table 2.

  Table 1: Red book figures

  £ million

  Estimated capital investment

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  Total

  Project:

  Whitehall HQ building (accommodation)

  0

  0

  170

  70

  379

  Table 1: Red book figures

  £ million

  Estimated capital investment

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  Total

  Sea-going research vessel services

  0

  0

  10

  10

  Total

  0

  0

  80

  80

  1 Estimated full project cost.

  Table 2: Current revised figures

  £ million

  Estimated capital investment

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  Total

  Project:

  Whitehall HQ building (accommodation)

  0

  0

  126

  26

  Sea-going research vessel services

  0

  0

  10

  10

  Total

  0

  0

  36

  36

  1 Estimated expenditure in the first year of the project.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons his Department has not replied to three letters from Mr. Comrie, the general secretary of the Association of Meat Inspectors, sent to him between June and December 1996. [20516]

  Mrs. Browning
  Mr. Comrie, general secretary of the Association of Meat Inspectors, wrote to me on 11 February 1997. This followed a meeting I held with the AMI on 16 January 1997 and the subsequent suggestions that the general secretary would write to me. I replied on 12 March 1997.

  Aroparcin
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by livestock species the dates on which the licence for avoparcin's use as a feed antibiotic has been(a) revoked and (b) reinstated; and if he will make a statement. [20645]

  Mrs. Browning
  All licences for the use of avoparcin in animal feeding stuffs for all species will be revoked by 1 April 1997. The question of reinstatement does not arise.

  Fisheries Organisations (Meetings)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the fishing organisations(a) he and (b) his officials have met since 1 July 1996. [20495]

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not held centrally and definitive lists could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. MAFF Ministers and officials have had meetings or other contract with a large number of national, regional and local fishing organisations since 1 July 1996 on a wide variety of matters. These have included:

  Aberdeen Fish Producers Organisation;

  Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation;

  Anglo-Scottish Fish Producers Organisation;

  Association of Sea Fisheries Committees;

  380

  Atlantic Salmon Trust;

  Bideford Fishermen's Association;

  British Trout Association

  Cornish Fish Producers Organisation;

  Cornwall Inshore Fishermen's Association;

  Federation of Highlands and Islands Fishermen;

  Fife Fish Producers Organisation;

  Fish Producers Organisation Limited;

  Fisherman's Association Limited;

  Fishermen's Federation of Northumberland;

  Fleetwood Fish Producers Organisation;

  Fleetwood Fishing Forum;

  Grimsby Fish Producers Organisation;

  Leigh and Southend Fishermen's Association;

  Lowestoft Fish Producers Organisation;

  Mudeford and District Fishermen's Association

  National Federation of Anglers;

  National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations;

  National Federation of Fishing and Angling Consultatives;

  North Atlantic Salmon Fund;

  North East Scotland Fish Producers Organisation;

  North Sea Fishermen's Producer Organisation;

  Northern Ireland Fish Producers Association;

  Northern Producers Organisation;

  Orkney Fishermen's Association;

  Ramsgate Fishermen's Association;

  Rye Fishermen's Association;

  Salmon and Trout Association;

  Scottish Fishermen's Federation;

  Scottish Fishermen's Organisation;

  Scottish Pelagic Fishermen's Association;

  Shellfish Association of Great Britain;

  Shetland Fish Producers Organisation;

  South Devon and Channel Shellfishermen Limited;

  South Western Fish Producers Organisation;

  Southern Commercial Fishermen;

  UK Association of Fish Producers Organisations;

  Wales and West Coast Fish Producers Organisation;

  West Mersea Fishermen's Association;

  West of Scotland Fish Producers Organisation;

  Whitstable Fishermen's Association;

  Yorkshire and Anglia Fish Producers Organisation.

  Animal Genome Mapping
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which is the lead Department for(a) animal genome mapping in the United Kingdom and (b) following up the recommendations of the committee of inquiry on ethics of emerging technologies in breeding of farm animals under the chairmanship of the Rev. Professor Michael Banner. [20421]

  Mr. Boswell
  (a) Whilst there is no one lead Department, research on animal genome mapping is funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Biotechnological and Biological Sciences Research Council. The BBSRC is administered by the

  381
  Office of Science and Technology, which is part of the Department of Trade and Industry. There is close liaison between MAFF and BBSRC.

  (b) The lead Department taking forward the recommendations of the committee to consider the ethical implications of emerging technologies in the breeding of farm animals is MAFF.

DEFENCE

  Trafalgar Class Submarines
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to place a contract for batch 2 Trafalgar class submarines; and if he will make a statement. [20655]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I am pleased to announce that a contract has been placed with GEC-Marconi as prime contractors for the design, build and initial support of three batch 2 Trafalgar class submarines. The new boats will be known as the Astute class, and are expected to enter service early next century. The submarines will be built at GEC-Marconi's VSEL shipyard in Barrow.

  The new vessels will be powered by the Rolls Royce PWR2 nuclear reactor, fitted with the updated weapons system of batch 1 Trafalgar class submarines, and armed with the Spearfish torpedo and Submarine-Harpoon anti-ship missile. They will be able to carry conventionally armed Tomahawk cruise missiles. The Astute class will replace the Royal Navy's existing Swiftsure class boats as these vessels reach the end of their operational lives in the early part of the next century. They will perform a wide range of roles including anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare.

  The order was won in competition with VSEL, before the company was taken over by GEC-Marconi, and the decision was based on what would provide the best value for money for the taxpayer. The contract will be worth nearly £2 billion to GEC-Marconi and its sub-contractors, and will help to sustain around 7,000 jobs. It has been warmly welcomed by the Royal Navy, and is good news for Barrow and the many sub-contractors who will be working on the project across the UK.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 6 March,Official Report, columns 710–11, if he will provide figures for his Department's PFI projects in the same form as used by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, in his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington of 6 March, Official Report, columns 692–93. [20398]

  Mr. Soames
  I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 6 March,Official Report, columns 710–11.
  382

  Eskmeals, Shoeburyness and Pendine Ranges
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will publish the consultative document on the land ranges rationalisation at Eskmeals, Shoeburyness and Pendine; and if he will make a statement. [20190]

  Mr. Soames
  The range at Pendine is not being reviewed as part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency land ranges rationalisation study, which is considering defence requirements at Eskmeals, Cumbria and Shoeburyness, Essex. In the reply my hon. Friend, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, gave my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) on 12 March,Official Report, column 234, he said that he hoped to be in a position to approve the issue of a consultation document on the way ahead within a few weeks, and this remains his intention.

  Works of Art
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes have been made for the care and protection of works of art following the publication of the National Audit Office report in March 1996. [20323]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has responded positively to the NAO's recommendations. A new system of accountability has been introduced whereby the senior staff who borrow works of art are now held personally responsible for them. Staff who move works of art without permission will lose their entitlement to borrow works and may face disciplinary action. Works of art in our London headquarters buildings are now inspected every night by our guard force and these checks will soon be extended to all our works of art.

  The NAO guidance on management of works of art has been circulated throughout the Department and a seminar on this subject will be held during March.

  All works of art owned by the Department or borrowed from public collections will be managed centrally and a photographic record has been compiled.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many of the 190 works of art missing from Defence establishments have been located since the publication of the National Audit Office report in March 1996; [20324]

  (2) what steps he is taking to recover works of art missing from his Department's establishments. [20325]

  Mr. Soames
  The National Audit Office report states that, in November 1995, 184 works of art were missing. Of these, 107 were the property of my Department and the remainder were loans from other institutions. Since the publication of the NAO report, two of those belonging to my Department have been found.

  Every effort is made to recover missing works of art. Details have been circulated to all staff and an inspector in the Ministry of Defence police has been given responsibility for finding missing works. Photographs of these have been published in my Department's staff magazine with a request that they should be notified to the police inspector if they are identified. We continue to make periodic searches of our buildings.
  383
  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many paintings have been sold at auction by his Department in each of the past 10 years; and what were the sums realised. [20326]

  Mr. Soames
  No paintings have been sold at auction by my Department.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the painting of an officer of the 28th Foot on loan from the national army museum has been located. [20327]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department's response to the National Audit Office report stated that, despite a thorough investigation by the Ministry of Defence police, the portrait of an officer of the 28th Foot has not been found. This remains the case.

  Nursery Vouchers (Overseas Personnel)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements his Department is making for those personnel stationed overseas, in respect of the Government's nursery voucher scheme; and if he will make a statement. [20807]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department is committed to making sure there is no educational disadvantage to families who would otherwise be entitled to receive vouchers if serving in the UK, so it intends to provide, wherever practicable, nursery education for four-year-olds overseas.

  The MOD will endeavour to provide the same standard of nursery education as that on offer in the UK, but there will be a difference in the way it is run. In the UK, where there will be open competition between playgroups and schools, parents will potentially have a wide choice of places to use a voucher: overseas, the Service sponsor both schools and playgroups and the choice will inevitably be limited.

  Therefore, rather than adopt the voucher system, the MOD intends to provide direct funding to schools and playgroups and nursery education will be free at source for all four-year olds who attend an accredited provider.

  It is expected that there will be some locations with both schools and playgroups, some where there are only schools and some where there are only suitable playgroups. To reach the standards required by the Department for Education and Employment scheme, schools and playgroups overseas will need additional staff and training and pass inspection of an accredited authority.

  Because the MOD needs to study the various option available to deliver nursery education and obtain funding, it has been necessary to delay introduction overseas from that anticipated in the UK. It is aimed to phase introduction from September 1997 to September 1998.

  There will inevitably be some areas overseas, particularly smaller isolated detachments, where it will not be possible to offer the scheme that will be available in countries such as Germany and Cyprus. The MOD is though looking at ways to provide the best possible provisions wherever practicable and within the resources available—some form of voucher system to cover these locations may be considered. However, in some areas it
  384
  may simply be impossible to provide any facility; parents will be warned of this in advance of being posted to such locations.

  Housing (Privates)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average cost to his Department in the last year for which figures are available of housing(a) a military local service engagement private 1 and (b) a full engagement Regular private 1 band 1. [19730]

  Mr. Soame
  I regret that the information requested is unavailable in the format requested and figures cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost. Furthermore, the Military Provost Guard Service is only now forming.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on low flying by the RAF in the vicinity of Seaham on Monday 3 and Tuesday 4 March between 12 noon and 5 p.m; [19941]

  (2) if the flight paths of low flying exercises by the RAF now incorporate the vicinity of Seaham. [19944]

  Mr. Soames
  The RAF police have been tasked to investigate the activity of 3 and 4 March. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State will write to the hon. Member when these inquiries are complete. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Joint Services Defence College
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate his Department has made of the cost of using the temporary site at Bracknell for the joint services defence college. [19893]

  Mr. Soames
  To enable the joint services command and staff college to use Bracknell as its main interim site, additional capital expenditure estimated of some £10.2 million has been agreed to cover works, including the provision of temporary teaching and living accommodation, IT and relocation costs.

  Pied à Terre (Quartermaster General)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of maintaining the pied a terre in London used by the Quartermaster General; and what paintings are located there. [20328]

  Mr. Soames
  The Quartermaster General does not have a pied a terre in London. He retains a London office on the seventh floor of MOD main building, and the following prints and paintings are hung there:

  Paintings

  Portrait of Princess Royal by Mark McGregor

  Portrait of Duchess of Kent by Mark McGregor

  Prints

  "O The Roast Beef of Old England" by William Hogarth

  "Sustaining Forward" by Terence Cuneo

  "Sleigh Post (Russia 1919)" by Terence Cuneo.

  385

  Departmental Housing
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many homes are(a) currently owned by his Department and (b) vacant by local authority area. [20378]

  Mr. Soames
  There are 69,306 homes owned by the Ministry of Defence in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The information on vacant homes is not held in the form requested and could be only provided at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the likely costs of making the properties at Mansergh close, Woolwich fit for habitation. [20382]

  Mr. Soames
  The properties at Mansergh close, Woolwich were passed as surplus to Annington Homes as part of the sale of the married quarter estate. Refurbishment costs are a matter for Annington Homes.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when construction of MOD homes at Mansergh close, Woolwich, was completed; when the properties were first occupied; for what reasons the properties are vacant; and how long they have been vacant. [20380]

  Mr. Soames
  There are 36 houses at Mansergh close, which were built in the late 1960s and early 1970s and occupied thereafter. The properties were vacated by June 1996, due largely to the reduction in service demand after the closure of the military hospital at Woolwich, and were passed as surplus to Annington Homes as part of the sale of the married quarters.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of Nomura Securities in the disposal of the married quarters estate. [20379]

  Mr. Soames
  The new owners of the married quarter estate are Annington Homes, a British-based company. MOD's continuing relationship on the married quarter estate is with this company. Finance for the transaction was arranged by Nomura International plc, the European arm of Nomura Securities, not the parent company in Tokyo.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the costs of security for the empty properties at Mansergh close, SE18; and if he will make a statement. [20381]

  Mr. Soames
  The properties at Mansergh close, SE18 were passed as surplus to Annington Homes as part of the sale of the married quarters estate. The security of these properties is the responsibility of Annington Homes.

  Infantry
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the strength of front-line infantry for each of the past 10 years. [20363]

  Mr. Soames
  The figures for front-line infantry can be provided only for the past four years and are shown below.

  Year

  Totals

  1994

  28,000

  1995

  26,000

  386

  Year

  Totals

  1996

  25,000

  1997

  24,000

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 March,Official Report, column 185, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the current front-line infantry establishment to meet its responsibilities. [20362]

  Mr. Soames
  The infantry is fully able to meet its responsibilities.

  Gulf War
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many anthrax vaccine injections were given to British soldiers in the Gulf war; and over what period. [20450]

  Mr. Soames
  The programme of vaccination against anthrax which was implemented by the MOD for British troops in the Gulf war commenced at the start of January 1991. It consisted of a course of three vaccinations, which were to be administered at 0, three and seven weeks. Owing to deficiencies in contemporary medical record keeping, the exact number of anthrax inoculations given to British soldiers in the Gulf war is not known.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will next meet the Russian Defence Minister. [20806]

  Mr. Portillo
  At the invitation of Defence Minister Rodionov, I shall be in Moscow on 17–18 March for discussions with him. I also hope to see other members of the Russian Government. We plan to sign a new memorandum of understanding covering bilateral defence co-operation between the United Kingdom and Russia, which will provide a framework for building on the significant bilateral defence relationship established with Russia in recent years.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Mobile Telephone Antennae
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the number of masts and antennae required to meet the projected growth in the use of mobile telephones over the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [19826]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The number of telecommunications masts required by an operator depends largely on the future coverage planned by that operator, the future volume of traffic it expects on its network in any specific area, and technological developments in antenna design. No estimates are made of the number of masts required by operators over future years since these factors are commercial matters for each individual operator.
  387
  The erection of telecommunications masts is regulated by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the licence issued to operators under the Telecommunications Act 1984. The Government regard mast sharing as highly desirable in order to help keep the number of masts to a minimum, and require mobile phone operators to take all reasonable steps to investigate using an existing mast or other structure before seeking to erect a new mast.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidance he has issued on the installation of antennae required for mobile telephones(a) on school buildings and (b) on other locations used by (i)children and (ii) the sick; and if he will make a statement. [19827]

  Mr. Taylor
  We issue no specific guidance on the installation of mobile telecommunications equipment in these locations. The operators of the equipment have a number of recommendations and requirements to follow.

  In March of last year, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales published a code of best practice on the installation of radio masts up to 15 m in height using permitted development rights. Installation of radio masts above 15m in height are governed by normal planning guidance.

  A Wireless Telegraphy Act licence may specify spectrum performance requirements, for example in relation to frequency assignment and power output. All equipment installed in the UK will have been approved to the relevant national or European—European Telecommunications Standards Institute—standards on performance, and must comply with provisions of the electromagnetic compatibility directive. The operators also follow guidance from the National Radiological Protection Board on exposure to non-ionising radiation.

  Precautionary advice concerning possible interference with medical equipment from mobile telecommunications devices used by the public has also been issued by the Department of Health.

  Radioactive Materials (Transport)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the civil police provide escorts for type B containers of civil radioactive materials transported by road at the request of the material's owners; and if he will make a statement. [19937]

  Mr. Page
  The civil police do not escort type B containers of radioactive materials transported by road. The UK Atomic Energy Authority constabulary escorts these containers when necessary.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the tasks of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority police include escorting type B containers of civil radioactive materials transported by road in the ownership of(a) the UKAEA and (b) other owners; and if he will make a statement. [19936]

  Mr. Page
  The UK Atomic Energy Authority constabulary provides escorts for road transport of type B containers holding certain civil radioactive materials owned by or under the control of BNFL, UKAEA and 388
  URENCO. The security standards laid down for the physical protection of nuclear material and the need for the material to be escorted are dependent on the type, form and quantity of the material, not the type of container holding it. The standards followed are in accord with international guidelines.

  Atomic Energy Authority Police
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the annual cost of the UK Atomic Energy Authority police in the past five years; and what has been its establishment in each of the past five years. [19934]

  Mr. Page
  The annual costs of the UK Atomic Energy Authority constabulary for the past five years are as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1991–92

  18.1

  1992–93

  18.8

  1993–94

  17.3

  1994–95

  17.5

  1995–96

  17.6

  Detailed information on the establishment of the AEAC is published in the AEAC chief constable's annual report. Copies of the 1991–92 and 1992–93 annual reports are available in the Library of the House, and I am arranging for copies of the 1993–94, 1994–95, and 1995–96 annual reports to be placed there. The 1996–97 report will also be placed in the Library of the House when it is published later this year.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his most recent communication with the private sector to draw attention to the problem of the millennium compliance of computer systems. [20122]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  This month I am writing to 120,000 chief executives of British businesses to impress upon them the urgency and seriousness of the century date change problem. To help them focus on the main issues, I will set out a check list of seven vital questions which they should ask about the ability of their systems to handle the problem and I will explain how they can get further information.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his most recent discussions with his EU counterparts on the millennium compliance of computer systems. [20123]

  Mr. Taylor
  At the Telecommunications Council on 6 March, I again raised the problem of the century date change for computer systems. I have also written to Commissioner Bangemann suggesting that the Commission should draw the attention of European industry to the problem and should consider voluntary means of avoiding disruption from the failure of companies to act quickly. I also suggested that the
  389
  "Definition of Year 2000 Conformity Requirement" developed by the British Standards Institution should be considered by the International Standards Organisation.

  Minimum Wage
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimates he has made of the effect of a minimum wage of £4.26 per hour with 50 per cent. restoration of wage differentials on the number of jobs in the United Kingdom. [20318]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In December 1995, my officials estimated that a minimum wage set at £4.26, as advocated by last year's Trades Union Congress, would lead to the loss of more than 1 million jobs with only half restoration of wage differentials.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 6 March,Official Report, column 703, if he will provide figures for his Department's PFI projects in the same form as used by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, in his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington of 6 March, Official Report, columns 692–93. [20386]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No. Figures for my Department's PFI projects cannot be provided in the same form as used by the Parliamentary Sectary, Lord Chancellor's Department as contracts for the projects referred to in my answer to hon. Member for Darlington, on 6 March 1997,Official Report, column 703, have not yet been signed, except for the Coal Authority's IT system for mining and surface damage reports, and our estimates of the level of private sector investment are therefore commercially sensitive.

  Radio Spectrum
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who has been awarded the contract for the management and licensing of the radio spectrum used for making programmes and similar activities. [20989]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I announced on 13 June 1996,Official Report, column 269 my intention to appoint a single spectrum management organisation with responsibility for licensing all programme making spectrum.

  JFMG Ltd., has been awarded the contract for managing the radio spectrum used for programme making. The award followed competitive tender which the Radiocommunications Agency conducted.

  The new contract runs for three years from 1 April, with the option of a two-year extension. JFMG Ltd. is authorised under the Contracting Out (Functions relating to Wireless Telegraphy) order 1996 to grant, on the Secretary of State's behalf, licences to programme makers. These include programme production companies, broadcaster, outside broadcast companies, film companies, theatres and conference centres, and participants in sporting events.

  The new contract will give all programme makers access to the available spectrum on equal terms. It will also allow the more efficient and flexible use of the spectrum in a rapidly developing industry.
  390
  The contract replaces arrangements that have operated since 1990. Under them, the spectrum available for programme making has been divided into two distinct pools. Each pool has been managed separately by ASP Frequency Management Ltd. and the Broadcasters' JFMG Ltd. Their contracts terminate on 31 March.

  Telecommunications Council
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EC Telecommunications Council on 6 March. [20990]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I represented the UK at the Telecommunications Council held in Brussels on 6 March.

  The Council adopted a directive on licensing in telecommunications. Greece and Germany voted against. Additionally, a decision for EU action on the introduction of satellite personal communication services was adopted without discussion.

  There was political agreement to adopting shortly of a common position on a directive concerning the application of open network provision to voice telephony in a competitive environment.

  Additionally, the presidency gave a progress report on co-decision procedures under way with the European Parliament and the European Commission made presentations on: a forthcoming Commission communication on universal mobile telecommunications systems; a Commission action plan in the field of satellite communications and on implementation by member states of Community legislation in the telecommunications sector.

  I again raised the problem of the century date change for computer systems, having written to Commissioner Bangemann suggesting that the Commission draw European industry's attention to the problem and consider non-legislative means of avoiding disruption within the single market by failure of companies to act quickly.

  Scientific Advice
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the use of scientific advice in policy making. [20991]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Scientific advice plays an essential part in policy making. We are today publishing guidelines for good practice in this area, which I am placing in the Library of the House. The guidelines, drawn up by the chief scientific adviser, Sir Robert May, will help Government Departments to maintain the highest standards of integrity and openness in their use of scientific advice. Their publication reinforces our commitment to open government.

  The guidelines set out key principles on the use and presentation of scientific advice in policy making. They emphasise the need to identify potentially sensitive issues as early as possible, to draw on a wide range of expert advice and to have a presumption to openness in explaining the interpretation of scientific advice. The guidelines have been drafted in consultation with Government Departments and with the main science academies and the Council for Science and Technology.
  391

  Child Labour
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussions have taken place within the World Trade Organisation concerning the use of child labour within member countries. [19607]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 12 March 1997]: The issue of abusive labour practices, including abuse of child labour, was discussed in the context of trade liberalisation objectives at the WTO ministerial conference in Singapore in December 1996. There is, however, no substantive work programme to eliminate abuse of child labour or current discussion taking place within WTO since, as it was agreed in Singapore, this is the proper preserve of the International Labour Organisation.

  Unigate
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what industrial development grants(a) have been made and (b) are under consideration, and for what purposes, to Unigate for its St. Ivel operation in Liverpool. [20126]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 13 March 1997]: I cannot comment on discussion between individual companies and the Department, as they are commercially confidential.

  Business Breakfast Tour
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade with whom he consulted as to the propriety of spending public money on the business breakfast tour; and if he will make a statement. [19247]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 10 March 1997]: The business breakfast initiative aims to develop a dialogue between Government and business at a local level. I took advice on this initiative from my accounting officer and other officials. I have been careful to ensure that all the breakfasts have been strictly confined to presentations of Government policy and providing business representatives the opportunity to express their views.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EU Information Offices
  Mr. Lamont
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 28 February,Official Report, column 425, if he will list the types of offices the EU has worldwide to disseminate information, indicating (a) the number of each type of office and (b) what each type costs in pounds sterling. [20061]

  Mr. David Davis
  Except as noted below, European Commission offices in third countries take the form either of delegations, in countries outside the EU, or representations, in the member states. There are 128 delegations and 23 representations. Most of these 151 posts have some capacity for information activity, though the proportion of this activity to other elements of the posts' work varies, but only in Washington, New York and Tokyo do the delegations' information sections have the title information offices.
  392
  In addition, there are 32 EU business centres in Asia and Latin America, whose purpose is to promote trade between the EU and the country concerned; and 250 Euro-Info correspondence centres in the European Economic Area, central and eastern Europe and the Mediterranean area, whose purpose is to act as a link between small and medium-size businesses in the EU and third countries. EBCs and EICCs are not freestanding offices, and are normally run as part of local trade promotion organisations such as chambers of commerce, with which they are generally co-located.

  There is no figure readily available showing the disaggregated running costs of the Commission's information activities overseas, but in 1996 the total budget for the running costs of Commission delegations outside the EU was £152 million. Running costs for the four Commission representation offices in the UK were £1.3 million

  I gave my right hon. Friend details of the overall budget for all EU information and communication activities in 1997 in my separate answer of 3 March, Official Report, column 484.

  In Council discussions of the Commission's budget, we always underline the need for the utmost rigour in all expenditure, including information activity. In recent years, the Council has regularly reduced the relevant budget allocation, but the European Parliament has restored it.

  EU-British Constitutional Relationship(Referendum)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is the Government's policy to hold a referendum before a major change in Britain's constitutional relationship with the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [20011]

  Mr. David Davis
  We have made it clear that we would not accept in the current intergovernmental conference significant constitutional change that would justify a referendum.

  However, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 3 April 1996, if the Government decided to apply to join a single European currency during the next Parliament, that decision would be subject to confirmation in a referendum.

  Prisoner Swaps
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on prisoner swaps between the United Kingdom and other countries. [20155]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  We believe that, on humanitarian grounds, prisoners should be able to serve their sentences in their own country.

  The UK is party to the Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons and the Commonwealth scheme for the transfer of convicted offenders. In addition, we have bilateral agreements with Thailand and Egypt, and are working to conclude similar arrangements with other countries.
  393

  Venezuela (Detainees)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with the families of Stephen Miles and Paul Loseby, currently detained in Venezuela. [20156]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The families of both men met Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials on 26 November, and Mr. Miles's father met embassy officials in Caracas on 28 November. Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials are in close contact with the families.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to secure the release of Stephen Miles and Paul Loseby, detained in Venezuela; what assessment he has made of the conditions in which they are detained; what representations he has(a) made and (b) received from the Venezuelan authorities on this matter, indicating the dates of all correspondence; and when he next expects to take measures to secure their release. [20189]

  Dr. Fox
  The release of James Miles and Paul Loseby is a matter for the Venezuelan authorities.

  Following written representations by the British ambassador on 19 November 1996, the two men are being held in La Vega police cells, where conditions are better than in the prison where they would otherwise be held.

  That was the last correspondence we have sent to the Venezuelan authorities, from whom we have received no representations.

  Overseas Press Service
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with commercial organisations concerning the future of the overseas press service of the Central Office of Information. [20280]

  Mr. Hanley
  This Department advertised the tender for the future provision of the overseas press service in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 16 August 1996. Eleven companies—all British— responded. Following evaluation, six were shortlisted and were visited for on-site presentations and discussions on how they proposed to provide the service if their bid was successful. Negotiations with the preferred bidder are close to finalisation.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to privatise the overseas press service of the Central Office of Information. [20281]

  Mr. Hanley
  This Department has been working towards privatisation of the overseas press service on 1 April 1997. Negotiations with the preferred bidder are close to finalisation.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has 394
  received regarding British dependent territory citizenship from the Legislative Council of St. Helena. [20349]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The Legislative Councillors of St. Helena have addressed a petition to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on citizenship. We are considering with other Departments what might be done beyond existing arrangements to increase employment opportunities in the UK for St. Helenians. We are replying to the petition accordingly.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the reasons for the Governor of St. Helena not renewing the residence permit of Mr. Mikael Olsson to enable him to extend his stay on St. Helena. [20427]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Mr. Mikael Olsson was a visitor to St. Helena. He did not have a residence permit. After almost a year on the island, his leave to remain as a visitor expired on 8 March. This is a matter between Mr. Olsson and the immigration officer on St. Helena.

  Former Yugoslavia (War Crimes)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the individuals indicted as war criminals by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia who have not been arrested; if he will indicate the jurisdiction in which each of these is believed to reside; what actions are being taken by the national Governments responsible for these jurisdictions to carry out UN resolutions regarding the enforcement of tribunal orders; and what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to enforce the tribunal orders through the international peace force in Bosnia-Herzegovina. [20351]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Details of individuals indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and their last known whereabouts have been place in the Libraries of the House.

  Those indicated by the tribunal who are still at large are believed to reside in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Bosnia-Herzegovina has executed two arrest warrants. It has not arrested any indictees resident in the Republika Srpksa and the Croat part of the federation on the grounds that it lacks control over these areas. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has transferred two witnesses in detention for other reasons to the tribunal. It has not arrested any of the indictees believed to be at large in its territory. The Republic of Croatia has arrested one indictee on its territory, but he has not yet been transferred to the tribunal. Croatia negotiated the voluntary surrender of another indictee to the tribunal. Other indictees in Croatia remain at large.

  NATO has decided that the stabilisation force will detain and transfer to the tribunal any indicted individuals with whom they come into contact in the course of their duties and if the situation permits.
  395

  Know-how Funds
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the funding being made available from the know-how funds during 1997 and the countries and the type of project such funding is being used for. [20179]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Planned expenditure by the know-how fund in the financial year 1996–97 is as follows:

  For projects in:

  £000

  Central Europe

  Albania/Macedonia/Slovenia

  2,400

  Baltic States

  2,200

  Bosnia/Croatia/FRY

  1,750

  Bulgaria

  2,700

  Czech Republic

  2,300

  Hungary

  4,500

  Poland

  10,600

  Romania

  5,000

  Slovakia

  2,500

  Regional (multi-country), including Environment KHF

  4,600

  Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA)

  Kazakhstan

  2,000

  Russia

  28,000

  Ukraine

  9,000

  Other EECA countries

  4,600

  Regional (including Chancellor's Scheme and Environment KHF)

  2,630

  Investment schemes (Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia)

  2,500

  Expenditure is planned at similar levels in 1997–98. The KHF funds projects in a range of sectors, focusing on certain priorities. In the whole region, priorities include financial services, privatisation, small and medium enterprise development, good government and civil society. In central Europe, priorities are also management training, public administration and employment services. In Russia and elsewhere in eastern Europe and central Asia, other priorities are energy, agriculture reform and health management.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the EU social protocols apply to Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement. [19961]

  Mr. David Davis
  As the EC treaty applies to Gibraltar by virtue of the UK's membership, the agreement of the 14 on social policy annexed to protocol 14 to the EC treaty does not apply there.

  Adriactic Section
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those individuals who are not officials of his Department who advise his Department's Adriatic section. [20330]
  396
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Officials from eastern Adriatic department consult widely with colleagues in other Government Departments. We do not employ outside advisers in this area.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr Milburn) of 6 March,Official Report, column 703, if he will provide figures for his Department's PFI projects in the same form as used by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, in his answer tot he hon. Member for Darlington of 6 March, Official Report, columns 692–93. [20387]

  Mr. Hanley
  I regret that publication in the form requested would not be appropriate in the case of projects involving this Department since it could prejudice the nature of the competition within the PFI process.

  EU Logo
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what EU instrument a decision was made empowering EU institutions to insist on the use of the EU logo by recipients of EU grants; if it was decided by majority voting; and what was Her Majesty's Government's position at the time. [20439]

  Mr. David Davis
  Council regulation 2082/93 requires that member states ensure adequate publicity is given to measures carried out with financial assistance from the structural funds. Commission decision 94/342/EC sets out the detailed arrangements, including use of the EU logo, in accordance with the Council regulation.

  The Council regulation was adopted unanimously as one of a package of six regulations concerning the structural funds.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Castle Buildings Talks
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will specify the powers under which he paid the income tax liabilities of delegates to the Castle Buildings talks; how much was involved; what budget the money came from; and if this facility has been made available to staff. [19929]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  [holding answer 13 March 1997]: Allowances to delegates are paid under the authority of section 6 of the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) act 1996. For the current financial year, allowances to them for which tax is due will be paid at a grossed-up rate, so that individuals receive sums equivalent to the allowances untaxed. The cost for the current year in respect of the talks will be approximately £109,000. The cost falls under subhead A2 of the Northern Ireland Office vote 1. Staff employed by parties and Governments participating in the talks are not subject to the same regime of allowances, and are not therefore subject to the arrangements above.
  397

  Northern Ireland Grand Committee
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy to permit the relevant policy-making civil servants to be questioned at Northern Ireland Grand Committee meetings called to discuss draft Orders in Council; and if he will make a statement about the advantages of introducing a process to amend such orders. [18753]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  No. Since it is Ministers, not civil servants, who make policy, it is for Ministers, not civil servants, to account to Parliament for the Government's legislative proposals.

  Orders in council are, by their nature, unamendable once laid before the House, but in respect of Northern Ireland there are already consultation procedures, including discussion in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, which give ample opportunity to those who wish to register their views on legislative provisions while they are still in draft form, and for Ministers to take due note of such views.

  Hip Joint Operations
  Mr. A Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what age criteria apply to the allocation of hip joint operations. [20364]

  Mr. Moss
  There are no age criteria for those seeking hip joint operations.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 6 March,Official Report, columns 721–22, if he will provide figures for this Department's PFI projects in the same form as used by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, in his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington of 6 March, Official Report, columns 692–93. [20392]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The table gives an update to the figures included in my answer to the hon. Member for Darlington on 6 March,Official Report, columns 721–22. The figures show the current estimate of what NI Departments expect to be agreed. The list is subject to variation as project time scales may change, new projects may arise and some of those listed may not be taken forward if they fail the value for money test:

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  Bangor and Kinnegar sewage treatment works

  7

  6

  7

  Hydro electric project

  1

  0

  0

  Sewage treatment works tranche 2

  0

  0

  19

  Westlink urban motorway

  0

  0

  10

  Motorway emergency telephone system

  0

  4

  2

  Strangford ferry replacement

  0

  2

  1

  Accommodation Holywood road, social security office

  0

  3

  0

  Accommodation Hydebank

  0

  4

  5

  DVTA vehicle testing project

  0

  4

  0

  Land Registry IT system

  0

  2

  0

  Planning service IT system

  1

  0

  0

  Antrim bus station/library

  0

  1

  1

  Ulsterbus/Citybus bus replacement

  0

  0

  10

  Northern Ireland railways class 80 rolling stock replacement

  0

  0

  0

  398

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  Ulster folk and transport museum visitors centre

  3

  0

  0

  North-west institute of further and higher education

  3

  4

  0

  Belfast institute of further and higher education

  0

  5

  5

  St. Genevieve's high school

  0

  3

  4

  Drumglass high school

  0

  3

  2

  Wellington college

  0

  3

  2

  Balmoral high school

  0

  3

  0

  Other education projects not yet confirmed

  0

  0

  12

  Refurbishment/replacement schemes at the Altnagelvin, Downe, Royal and Causeway hospitals

  3

  9

  13

  Belfast city hospital renal unit

  3

  0

  0

  Belfast city hospital car parking facilities

  2

  0

  0

  Miscellaneous equipment leases

  1

  2

  2

  Clinical waste disposal

  3

  0

  0

  Royal group of hospitals theatres and intensive care equipment

  2

  0

  0

  Total

  29

  58

  95

PRIME MINISTER

  Refuge Projects (Funding)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) which Departments have funded children and homeless charities central London refuge projects providing temporary havens for children in the last 15 years; [20406]

  (2) if he will estimate the central Government share of the average costs of providing four days refuge in a safe supervised haven project for a child aged under 16 years in central London; [20408]

  (3) when Ministers last discussed the need for and possible means of funding temporary safe havens for runaway children below the age of 16 years in central London; [20407]

  (4) if he will review the practicality of instigating a central London children's refuge empowered to negotiate a cost contribution with individual social services departments in order to admit a child on the first day of need. [20409]

  The Prime Minister
  The Department of Health has funded children and homeless charities in London on projects providing a refuge for children as defined in the Children Act 1989. Figures are not available to estimate the central Government share of the average cost of providing four days' refuge, but the Department of Health has provided £300,000 over four years in respect of the London-based Centrepoint Glaxo refuge. Department of Health Ministers have met and discussed funding arrangements with voluntary organisations running the London refuge on several occasions; the last meeting was in September 1996. The Government have introduced legislation that enables the establishment of refuges that provide safe havens for children who appear to be at risk of harm. It is for local authorities and other agencies to work together to provide strategic solutions to the provision and funding of services for children in need— including young runaways. The Department of the
  399
  Environment, as part of the rough sleepers initiative in central London, has funded Centrepoint in providing accommodation for young people, usually 18 to 25-year-olds, at a hostel in Vauxhall and for its "Off the Streets" project in Soho. DOE funding for the Vauxhall hostel is £165,000 in 1996–97. In addition, Centrepoint receives funding to provide emergency shelters for young people aged 25 years and under between December and March as part of the annual winter shelter programme under the RSI. In 1996–97, the DOE is funding Centrepoint to run a winter shelter in King's Cross, providing up to 48 bedspaces.

  Roisin McAliskey
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations Her Majesty's Government have recently received from the German Government concerning the imprisonment in Holloway prison of Ms Roisin McAliskey; and if he will make a statement. [20426]

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware, none.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Birthing Partner (Definition)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the definition of a birthing partner within the Home Office prison regulations. [19715]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 13 March 1997]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 17 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the definition of a birthing partner within the Home Office Prison Regulations.
  The Prison Service has not sought to define a birthing partner outside of any definition used elsewhere. The Prison Service interprets the term birthing partner as referring to someone who will be present during the whole period of labour to provide emotional support to the mother.

  Roisin McAliskey
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on whose authority a label was attached to newspapers sent to Ms Roisin McAliskey stating that they were not to be issued to her until she complained or a parliamentary question was tabled. [19716]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 13 March 1997]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 17 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about a label attached to newspapers sent to Ms Roisin McAliskey.
  Ms McAliskey, like all prisoners, may receive any newspapers she requires from a local newsagent. She is not allowed to receive newspapers direct through the post. On one occasion newspapers
  400
  were received in the post. They were not issued but kept so that they could be handed to her family when they visited. Again, this is standard practice with items received for prisoners which they may not have.
  A sticker had been attached to the newspapers stating that the papers should not be issued until a complaint was received or a Question asked.
  As soon as this was brought to the governor's attention he ordered an immediate investigation under the terms of the Prison Service Code of Discipline. The member of staff responsible for this extremely ill judged and wholly unacceptable behaviour has been orally reprimanded and warned about future behaviour.
  I apologise unreservedly for this woeful episode. I am satisfied that swift and appropriate action was taken to deal with the incident.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 26 February,Official Report, column 214, what decisions have been made concerning arrangements for the care of Roisin McAliskey's baby should she give birth while still in prison; and if those decisions were an operational or policy matter. [20072]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 17 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the decision as to whether Roisin McAliskey may keep her baby with her at Holloway prison.
  Roisin McAliskey applied on 14 February to be located on the Mother and Baby Unit at Holloway with her baby after it is born. Her application was considered, following the normal processes which apply to all expectant mothers, by the Admissions Board at Holloway, who considered the views of independent experts in the development needs of babies, as well as logistical issues.
  The Assessment Board has now advised the Governor that Roisin McAliskey's application should be approved, the Governor has recommended approval and this recommendation has been accepted by the Operational Director responsible for Holloway. Ms McAliskey has been told that she may keep her baby with her after the birth. She will, as do all other mothers, have to sign a compact agreeing to be of reasonable behaviour and to co-operate with the ethos and regime of the Unit. Babies in the Unit normally remain with their mothers until the age of nine months.
  The decision to allow Roisin McAliskey to keep her baby has followed the standard procedures and processes that would apply to any other prisoner.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the alterations in the prison regime and rules governing the treatment of Roisin McAliskey subsequent to her recategorisation. [20019]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 17 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the alterations to the treatment of Roisin McAliskey following her recategorisation.

  401
  Following a routine review of her security status Roisin McAliskey remains a Category A prisoner but has been downgraded from high risk to standard risk within that category. As a result some of the security arrangements which have been in operation have been relaxed.
  The number of strip searches to which Roisin McAliskey had been subject has been reduced and she is no longer being strip searched before and after every open visit within the prison. She is now only being strip searched on the same basis as all other prisoners at Holloway. This means before leaving the prison for court appearances and on return to the prison; as part of a cell search and drug testing procedures; on a random basis; or if there were reasonable suspicion she had secreted something about her person. These arrangements took effect on 7 March.
  Further relaxations as a consequence of the security review will take effect from 13 March. As a result, she will be able to attend chapel, to use the gym and the swimming pool, and to attend ante-natal classes with other prisoners. The number of overnight security checks will be reduced so that the light in her cell can be extinguished for most of the night.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 28 February,Official Report, column 430, if he will support the request of Roisin McAliskey to be accompanied by two close relatives during her confinement should she remain remanded in custody. [20020]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 17 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the request of Roisin McAliskey to be accompanied by two close relatives during her confinement.
  As I stated in my reply to your previous question, we have already agreed to Ms McAliskey's request. She will be allowed to have the birthing partners she has requested unless the hospital staff raise any objection on medical grounds.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the security categorisation given to Roisin McAliskey; and if the determination of such categorisation is an operational or policy matter. [20018]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 17 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the security categorisation of Roisin McAliskey.
  Both Ministers and the Prison Service have received numerous representations on Ms McAliskey's behalf, and many of these refer to the conditions in which she is being held. These conditions stem, in part from her status as a category A prisoner.
  The decision as to the appropriate security category for an individual prisoner is an operational one. Ms McAliskey's security category was set after consideration of the reason for her detention and the risk she would pose should she escape from custody. Her security category is kept under regular review and was recently changed from category A (high risk) to category A (standard risk).
  402

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers, or other prison staff, have been disciplined or dismissed as a result of being involved in the supply of drugs in prisons, for such recent years as figures are available; and whether criminal prosecutions were brought in such cases. [19760]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 13 March 1997]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Sir Ivan Lawrence, dated 17 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about how many prison officers, or other prison staff, have been disciplined or dismissed as a result of being involved in the supply of drugs in prisons, for such recent years as figures are available; and whether criminal prosecutions were brought in such cases.
  Since the introduction of the new Prison Service Code of Conduct and Discipline in July 1993(which required that the outcome of all disciplinary cases should be reported to Headquarters), centrally-held records show that no members of staff have been disciplined for involvement in the supply of drugs in prisons.
  However, in one case a member of staff was dismissed after he was found to be in possession of cannabis in the prison club. Three members of staff were dismissed as a result of criminal convictions involving possession of drugs, but these concerned incidents away from the prison. And, in a further two cases, members of staff resigned before any disciplinary action could be taken over allegations of illegal possession of drugs, again away from the prison.

  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many investigations have been carried out by the Prison Service Agency, since its inception, into allegations of the involvement of prison officers in the supply of drugs in prisons. [19762]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 13 March 1997]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Sir Ivan lawrence, dated 17 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the number of investigations which have been carried out by the Prison Service Agency, since its inception, into allegations of the involvement of prison officers in the supply of drugs in prison.
  I regret that this information is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. However, any such allegations would be fully investigated and the appropriate action taken, including referral to the police.

  Prisoners (Purposeful Activity)
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 January to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth),Official Report, column 352–66, on the levels of purposeful activity in individual prisons, for what reason the figures for privately managed prisons for 1995–96 were not included; and if he will make a statement on his policy towards the release of information relating to privately managed prisons. [19043]
  403
  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 11 March 1997]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Sir Ivan Lawrence, dated 17 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking about purposeful activity at privately managed prisons in 1995–96 and about what information is released about these prisons.
  The figures for 1995–96 are not available on a monthly basis. The average hours per prisoner per week spent on purposeful activity in each contracted prison in 1995–96 were:

  Prison1

  Average hours per week purposeful activity2

  Blakenhurst

  25

  Doncaster

  24

  Wolds

  29

  1 Figures are not available for Buckley Hall as it was not fully operational during 1995–96.

  2 These figures were published in October 1996 in the Home Office Economics Unit's review of comparative costs and performance of privately and publicly operated prisons in 1995–96.

  All four contracted prisons have been providing figures for purposeful activity on a monthly basis from April 1996.
  The Prison Service releases all available information about contracted prisons that is not confidential. Information may be confidential for different reasons. It may be because the information is commercially confidential or because of reasons that apply equally to all prisons such as information about security.

  Holloway Prison
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what occasions(a) remand and (b) convicted prisoners in HMP Holloway are required to be strip searched; if he will place in the Library the regulations concerning how such body searches should be carried out; what training is given to officers to ensure such searches are conducted in accordance with the law; if prisoners who are pregnant are exempt from such body searches; and if he will make a statement. [19739]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 11 March 1997]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Max Madden, dated 17 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about strip searching of prisoners.
  Both remand and convicted prisoners at Holloway are strip searched on first reception, before leaving the prison on any escort, and on their subsequent return; when their cells are searched in accordance with the local searching strategy (roughly once a month); and if they are received into the segregation unit. In addition, prisoners are liable to random strip searches after visits. The governor may also require a strip search on any occasion when this is necessary for security.
  The regulations covering strip searches are contained in Prison Rule 39, and in the Prison Service Manual on Security, copies of which are in the Library of the House.
  Prison officers are trained in the authorised procedures for strip searching on their initial training course and receive refresher training as required.
  Pregnant women are not exempt from strip searches.
  404
  Strip searching is a routine and necessary security measure to which all prisoners are subject. It enables prison officers to detect items of contraband, such as drugs or a weapon, which may be concealed about the person. It is not possible to detect some illicit items by use of X-ray portals or hand-held metal detectors.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) remand and (b) convicted prisoners, detained at Her Majesty's prison Holloway over the last year have been required to authorise the destruction of flowers sent to them; and what arrangements exist for prisoners to request that flowers which they have received are placed in other parts of the prison. [19741]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 11 March 1997]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Max Madden, dated 17 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the requirement for prisoners to authorise the destruction of flowers sent to them at Holloway prison and the arrangements for prisoners to request that flowers are placed in other parts of the prison.
  No prisoners have been required to authorise the destruction of flowers at Holloway prison. There are no established arrangements for prisoners to request that flowers they have received are placed in other parts of the prison.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the education programmes at HMP Holloway in 1997; what assessment he has made of the impact of those plans on prisoners, with particular reference to the amount of time spent confined to cells; and if he will make a statement. [19745]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 11 March 1997]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Max Madden, dated 17 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about education programmes at Holloway prison.
  There are no plans to make any changes to the level of educational provision at Holloway prison during 1997. There is currently an average of 80 prisoners on the daytime programme, studying for 21 hours a week. There is an average of 18 prisoners on evening classes for 6 hours a week.
  The average time a prisoner at Holloway prison is unlocked is currently 10.5 hours per weekday.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances(a) remand and (b) convicted prisoners, detained at HMP Holloway, are required to accept deductions from income in respect of board and lodging charges; and if he will make a statement. [19742]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 11 March 1997]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  405
  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Max Madden, dated 17 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about deductions of income at Holloway prison in respect of board and lodging charges.
  Deductions are made from prisoners in jobs where they are paid 'real wages'. These prisoners contribute 25 per cent of their earnings to the prison—up to a maximum of £24 a week.
  There are currently six prisoners employed full-time in such positions, each earning an average of approximately £75 a week. In addition, up to 40 prisoners are employed on a casual basis earning on average approximately £20 a week.
  With the exception of one of the full-time positions—which involves working outside the prison and is therefore restricted to convicted prisoners—these jobs are open to both convicted and unconvicted prisoners.

  Table 1: Red Book figures

  £ million

  Estimated capital investment

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Total

  Bridgend Prison

  37.0

  0

  0

  37.0

  Fazakerley Prison

  37.0

  0

  0

  37.0

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND)caseworking information technology system

  21.0

  0

  0

  21.0

  Lowdham Grange Prison

  24.0

  0

  0

  24.0

  Home Office Large Major Enquiry System II (information technology system)

  0.5

  0

  0

  0.5

  Cookham Wood, Secure Training Centre (STC)

  6.0

  0

  0

  6.0

  Gringley (STC)

  10.0

  0

  0

  10.0

  Medomsley (STC)

  5.0

  5.0

  10.0

  10.0

  Onley (STC)

  5.0

  5.0

  0

  10.0

  STC 5

  5.0

  5.0

  0

  10.0

  Design, Construct, Manage and Finance (DCMF)3(Prison)

  6.0

  37.0

  37.0

  80.0

  DCMF 4 (Prison)

  0

  6.0

  37.0

  43.0

  IND Detention Accommodation (South East District)

  1.0

  0

  0

  1.0

  IND Detention Accommodation (Heathrow)

  0

  14.0

  0

  14.0

  Home Office SW1 estate

  10.0

  30.0

  10.0

  50.0

  Prisons/boilerhouses

  9.0

  3.0

  0

  12.0

  Prisons/kitchens

  8.0

  0

  0

  8.0

  Prisons/heath centres

  3.0

  0

  0

  3.0

  Prisons major refurbishments

  12.0

  12.0

  0

  24.0

  Prisons/other

  2.0

  0

  0

  2.0

  Prisons/health information technology

  0

  6.0

  0

  6.0

  Public Safety Radio Communications Project

  0

  10.0

  40.0

  50.0

  Total

  201.5

  133.0

  124.0

  458.5

  Table 2: Current revised figures

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1990–00

  Total

  Bridgend prison

  35.0

  0

  0

  35.0

  Fazakerley prison

  41.0

  0

  0

  41.0

  Immigration and nationality directorate (IND)caseworking information technology system

  21.0

  0

  0

  21.0

  Lowdham grange prison

  24.0

  0

  0

  24.0

  Home office large major enquiry system II (information technology system)

  0.5

  0

  0

  0.5

  Cookham wood, secure training centre (STC)

  7.0

  0

  0

  7.0

  Gringley (STC)

  10.0

  0

  0

  10.0

  Medomsley (STC)

  3.0

  7.0

  0

  10.0

  Onley (STC)

  10.0

  0

  0

  10.0

  STC 5

  2.0

  8.0

  0

  10.0

  Design, Construct, Manage and Finance (DCMF)3(Prison)

  6.0

  35.0

  35.0

  76.0

  DCMF 4(Prison)

  6.0

  35.0

  35.0

  76.0

  IND detention accommodation (South East District)

  1.0

  0

  0

  1.0

  IND detention accommodation (Heathrow)

  0

  14.0

  0

  14.0

  Home Office SW1 estate

  10.0

  30.0

  10.0

  50.0

  Prisons/boilerhouses

  12.0

  9.0

  9.0

  30.0

  Prisons/kitchens

  10.0

  6.0

  6.0

  22.0

  Prisons/health centres

  0

  1.0

  1.0

  2.0

  Prisons/other

  2.0

  2.0

  2.0

  6.0

  Prisons/health information technology

  0

  6.0

  0

  6.0

  Public safety radio communications project

  0

  10

  40

  50

  Total

  200.5

  163

  138

  501.5

  406

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 6 March,Official Report, column 699, if he will provide figures for his Department's PFI projects in the same form as used by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, in his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington of 6 March, Official Report, columns 692–93. [20388]

  Mr. Howard
  A breakdown by project of the Home Office's private finance initiative schemes, as identified in table 5.5 of the Red Book, is given in table 1. Current estimates for the projects are shown in table 2.
  407

  Special Secure Units
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 27 February,Official Report, columns 289–90, if he will list those recommendations which have been implemented through amendments to the SSU operating standards; if he will introduce a system of open visits which incorporates measures to prevent the smuggling of unauthorised items to prisoners; and if he will make a statement. [20365]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 17 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the implementation of the recommendations of the Acheson Report.
  The following recommendations have been implemented through amendments to the special secure unit (SSU) operating Standards:
  Recommendation 1
  Given the short duration of the present regime it is premature to come to a firm conclusion on its impact on prisoners health. We therefore advised that the general health of prisoners contained in SSUs be reviewed at regular intervals, taking into account their degree of susceptibility to psychological symptoms.
  Response
  The Operating Standards have been amended to require that in future medical officers should undertake formal reviews of the health of prisoners detained in the SSU every three months.
  Recommendation 2
  A standard set of procedures applicable to all SSUs should be devised, circulated to all parties and enforced to ensure the most expeditious transfer of prisoners requiring emergency treatment to NHS hospitals.
  Response
  The Operating Standards have been amended to emphasise the importance of prompt action.
  Recommendation 6
  Sentence planning should be introduced as with other long term prisoners.
  Response
  The overriding consideration in determining the length of time a prisoner spends in the Unit must be security. However, the Operating Standards have been amended to provide that regular formal review of SSU prisoners should be introduced (linked to Recommendation 1 above) to cover health, behaviour and attitude, etc.
  The following recommendation has not been implemented:
  Recommendation 8
  It is the unanimous view of the group that in the interests of health prisoners in the SSUs should have access to open visits with members of immediate family.
  Response
  The Prison Service has considered Sir Donald Acheson's recommendation that prisoners in SSUs should have access to open visits with members of their immediate family. The Service has made numerous improvements to the security of SSUs but closed visits represent the only guaranteed means of preventing the passage of unauthorised items between prisoner and visitors. Closed visits therefore remain a necessary security measure.
  The remaining recommendations endorsed existing policy.
  408
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place(a) the 1989 Home Office research and planning unit report into special secure units and (b) the 1990 report of the board of visitors of HMP Leicester on the special secure unit in the Library. [20058]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 17 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the 1989 Home Office Research and Planning Unit Report on special secure units and the 1990 Board of Visitors report on the special secure unit at Leicester.
  A copy of the 1989 Research and Planning Unit report was sent to the Library at the time of publication. The 1990 Leicester Board of Visitors report was not published. The decision on whether to publish a report from a local board of visitors to the Home Secretary rests with the board itself.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if provision of a minimum period of undisturbed rest within a reasonably dark environment for the purpose of sleep is a right or a privilege within a special secure unit; and what opportunities are available to a prisoner to complain about frequent or unnecessary interruptions of their pattern of sleep. [19940]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 17 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the provision of a minimum period of sleep for prisoners in a special secure unit.
  Exceptional risk Category A prisoners in SSUs (and other Category A prisoners elsewhere) are observed at hourly intervals throughout the night for security reasons. Observation takes place from outside the cell to avoid disturbing the prisoner by opening the cell door or switching on the main cell lights.
  Prisoners in SSUs have access to the same grievance procedures as other prisoners. Complaints may be made orally to prison staff or in writing in accordance with the Prison Service request and complaints procedure. Prisoners may also refer complaints and grievances to the Board of Visitors or the Prisons Ombudsman. Complaints may also be lodged via members of parliament, legal representatives, embassies (where appropriate) and others.

  Prisons (Open Visits)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances a prison governor may exercise his discretion in granting an open visit to a prisoner normally on a closed visit regime. [20059]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  409
  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 17 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the circumstances under which a prison governor may exercise discretion in granting an open visit to a prisoner normally on a closed visit regime.
  In general, governors have discretion under Prison Standing Order 5 to impose closed visits in respect of any prisoner where security or control considerations so require. The imposition and removal of this class of closed visit restriction, for prisoners who are not categorised as Exceptional Escape risk, is entirely at the discretion of the prison governor.
  All visits to Exceptional Escape risk prisoners will normally take place under closed conditions. An open visit may be authorised in exceptional circumstances by an operational Director of the Prison Service. In doing so he will seek advice from the prison governor.

  Court Welfare Service
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what rules exist concerning the use of probation service staff to act as the family court welfare service; what alternative sources of court welfare officers exist; and what guidance exists concerning the way in which such officers operate. [20076]

  Mr. Sackville
  Rule 20 of the Probation Rules 1984— Statutory Instrument 1984 No. 647—as amended, requires probation committees to assign probation officers to act as court welfare officers; and rule 35 sets out the duties which officers so assigned should undertake at the request of a court. Under section 7 of the Children Act 1989, a court may ask either a probation officer or a local authority for a welfare report. Parties to proceedings under the Act may also obtain their own reports. The principal guidance on the probation service's family court welfare work which the Home Office has issued is contained in "National Standards"—a copy of which is in the Library—which was published in 1994 and to which were annexed a number of High court family division practice directions.

  Prison Medical Examinations (Video-recording)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 28 February,Official Report, column 428, if he will take steps to ensure that video-recording equipment is positioned in such a way as to demonstrate that it is not being used. [19939]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 17 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question on the use of video recording equipment.
  It is not anticipated that equipment of the kind that could potentially be used for video recording medical consultations with prisoners would ever be a permanent feature of a room within a prison. As noted in the Answer given on 28 February, permission
  410
  to video record prisoners undergoing medical consultation would only exceptionally be given, and then only with the consent and knowledge of the individual prisoners concerned and awareness that a video recorder was in use.

  Category A Prisoners
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on which occasions a category A prisoner has been patriated to(a) Ireland and (b) other countries to complete sentences in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [20366]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Since the Republic of Ireland brought into effect the Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons on 1 November 1995, six category A prisoners have been repatriated there. The repatriations took place on the following dates:

  One on 14 May 1996:

  One on 21 May 1996:

  Three on 13 November 1996:

  One on 19 December 1996.

  Within the last five years, two category A prisoners have been repatriated to Italy. These repatriations took place on 11 November 1992 and 13 June 1996.

  Colchester Young Offenders' Institute
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many inmates are currently resident at Her Majesty's young offenders' institute Colchester; [19917]

  (2) what are the weekly running costs at Her Majesty's young offenders institute Colchester; [19918]

  (3) what are the estimated running costs for the first full year at Her Majesty's young offenders institute Colchester. [19919]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. George Howarth, dated 17 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your three recent Questions about inmate numbers and costs at Her Majesty's Young Offender Institution Colchester.
  On Tuesday 11 March there were 11 young offenders at Colchester, all of whom were members of the first intake which arrived at the young offender institution on the day it opened, 20 February. Further intakes will bring the population to 32.
  The current estimated running costs for the financial year 1 April 1997 to 30 March 1998 are £1,006,000 which is equivalent to an average weekly rate of £19,293. These figures exclude an estimated charge of £114,292 made by the Ministry of Defence for rental of the accommodation and a contribution in lieu of rates.
  411

  Scientific Procedures (Dogs)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the suppliers of the dogs from non-designated sources in the United Kingdom supplied to establishments licensed to carry out scientific procedures during 1995. [20661]

  Mr. Sackville
  Disclosure is prohibited under section 24(1) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) act 1986.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are taken to ensure that dogs supplied from non-designated sources in the United Kingdom during 1995 to establishments licensed to carry out scientific procedures were purpose bred. [20660]

  Mr. Sackville
  Non-designated sources in the United Kingdom do not supply dogs purpose bred for research use.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many establishments licensed to carry out procedures under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) act 1968 were granted exemptions under article 10(3) to allow the use of non-purpose bred dogs in 1995. [20662]

  Mr. Sackville
  One establishment was granted permission to use non-purpose bred dogs.

  Civil Protection Exercises
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current schedule of European civil protection exercises; how many members of his Department are or will be involved in each such exercise; what is the cost to his Department of each such exercise; what are the scenarios of such exercises; and if he will make a statement about the purpose of such exercises. [20457]

  Mr. Sackville
  There are no European civil protection exercises currently planned.

  Immigration Status Inquiry Unit
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the immigration status inquiry unit was set up; how many staff it has; how many (i)local authorities and (ii) other bodies have now registered with it; how many people suspected of immigration offences have been notified to it in each month since it was set up; in how many such cases(a) enforcement action has been taken and (b) the suspicion proved to be unfounded; and what was the average length of time taken to provide the information requested. [20628]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The immigration status inquiry unit dates from the late 1970s, although it was known as the overstayer tracing and information section until 1994.

  The unit currently has a complement of 42 administrative staff. A total of 251 local authorities, principally housing authorities, have registered with it. Other bodies do not register as such but may receive information from immigration and nationality directorate records only where they have an entitlement within established disclosure policy. The remainder of the information requested is not available.
  412

  Emergency Planning College Group
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the members of the emergency planning college liaison group, (b) the dates of meetings of the group since April 1992 and (c) the dates of future scheduled meetings of the group; and if he will make a statement about the purpose and remit of the group. [20458]

  Mr. Sackville
  The emergency planning college liaison group exists to provide a forum for discussion between the emergency planning unit of the Home Office, and representatives of the Home departments, and representatives of organisations drawing upon the services and facilities of the Home Office emergency planning college, on the college's approach and programme. Details of the membership of the group, as currently notified to the Home Office, and the dates of meetings of the group since April 1992 are as follows. I understand that no date has yet been fixed for the next meeting of the group.

  Members of the emergency planning college liaison group

  Name

  Mrs. S. Street

  Director, Fire and Emergency Planning Directorate

  Miss S. Paul

  Head, Emergency Planning Division

  Mr. A. Blackley

  Principal, Emergency Planning College

  Mr. D. Bawtree

  Civil Emergencies Advisor

  Mr. A. Lawrence

  Emergency Planning Unit

  Dr. M. Rooke

  Emergency Planning College

  Commander D. Morris

  Cabinet Office

  Mrs. M. Gunn

  Scottish Office

  Mr. W. Clements

  Northern Ireland Office

  Councillor R. Binnie

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA)

  Councillor L. Byron

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Mr. M. Brangwin

  Association of London Government

  Mr. G. Essery

  Society of Industrial Emergency Services Officers (SIESO)

  Ms S. Green

  Association of County Councils

  Mr. J. Herrick

  Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers' Association (CACFOA)

  Chief Inspector N.

  Association of Chief Police Officers

  Johnstone

  (ACPO)

  Major Gen. R. Keightley

  Health Authorities

  Mr. D. Larkin

  Ambulance Services Association

  Miss C. Pointer

  Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE)

  Councillor E. Robertson

  Association of District Councils

  Mr. S. Turney

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities (AMA)

  Mr. J. Williams

  Emergency Planning Society

  Emergency Planning College Liaison Group Meetings since April 1992:

  Tuesday 12 January 1993

  Thursday 25 March 1993

  Tuesday 9 November 1993

  Tuesday 8 November 1994

  Thursday 15 June 1995

  Thursday 29 February 1996.

  Prisons (Operational Emergencies)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions since 1 April
  413
  1996 operational emergencies have been declared in prisons under bulletin 8, paragraph 7; if he will list the prisons concerned; and what were the reasons. [20462]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 17 March 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to answer your recent Question about operational emergencies declared in prisons.
  Fresh Start Bulletin 8 paragraph 17 refers to an operational emergency as being one reason among others for asking staff to work longer than the sum of their conditioned hours.
  No central record is kept of the occasions where this happens nor is there a requirement for local records to be kept of additional staff attendance required by such emergencies.
  This information therefore, could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Metropolitan Police Manpower
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 28 February,Official Report, columns 429–30, how many Metropolitan police officers were on court duty and excluded from the figure for 1 April 1992. [19483]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 10 March 1997]: The commissioner informs me that on 1 April 1992 there were approximately 530 officers on court duty who were recorded on divisional strength.

  Data Collection (Postcodes)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report, column 322, what adjustments are made to account for postcode boundaries cutting across the boundaries of county police forces in police funding formulas in using ACORN—a classification of residential neighbourhoods—and what adjustments have been made in the S12 and S31 post code areas. [19611]

  Mr. Howard
  I regret that my earlier answer suggested wrongly that the ACORN—a classification of residential neighbourhoods—classifications used in the police funding formula were based on post code areas. The ACORN data provided to my Department by CACI Ltd. for use in the police funding formula is constructed from census information collected at the level of enumeration districts. No adjustments are, therefore, necessary in respect of post code boundaries cutting across the boundaries of county police forces.

  Fire Authorities (PFI Projects)
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which schemes submitted by fire authorities have been selected as private finance initiative pathfinder projects. [20743]
  414
  Mr. Sackville
  I am delighted to announce that the following eight projects have been selected as pathfinders:

  Fire Stations:

  Cornwall County Fire Brigade

  Lancashire County Fire Brigade

  Greater Manchester County Fire Service

  North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service

  Training:

  Avon Fire Brigade, Gloucestershire

  Fire and Rescue Service and Somerset Fire Brigade (joint project)

  South Wales Fire Service

  Vehicles:

  London Fire Brigade

  Communications:

  Northumberland Fire and Rescue Service

  Each of these projects will receive up to £70,000 in financial assistance in 1997–98 towards consultancy costs incurred by the brigades in taking them forward. The experience of these pathfinder projects will also assist the fire service generally to take full advantage of the potential of the private finance initiative to help meet brigades' capital requirements.

  A total of 21 projects were submitted by fire authorities for consideration for financial assistance as pathfinders. This was an excellent response and clearly demonstrates the willingness of the fire service to consider positively and imaginatively how private finance can help meet its needs. We shall continue to provide advice and assistance to all brigades in exploiting the initiative.

  Unrepresented Defendants (Personal Cross-examinations)
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to protect victims of rape and other offences from being personally cross-examined by unrepresented defendants; and if he will make a statement. [20741]

  Mr. Howard
  The Government wish to take steps to prevent the ordeal experienced by some victims of rape and other offences who have been personally cross-examined in court by unrepresented defendants. Therefore, we have undertaken a review into whether the prohibition on the cross-examination of child witnesses by unrepresented defendants in cases of sexual offences, violence and cruelty, which was introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 1991, should be extended to other cases.

  In light of that review, I have concluded that it would be right for a discretionary scheme prohibiting unrepresented defendants from cross-examining vulnerable victims to be available to the courts for use in appropriate circumstances. Where a prohibition was imposed, cross-examination could be conducted only by a legal representative of the defendant.

  Details of how the scheme would work, including the offences to which it should apply, will be considered further as part of the wide-ranging review of court procedures for vulnerable witnesses which was announced

  415
  by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, on 23 January. This will enable the scheme to be developed in a co-ordinated way, alongside other issues covered by that review.

  It is vital to encourage witnesses to come forward to give evidence against offenders and the Government have continually introduced measures to improve the treatment of victims and witnesses by the criminal justice system. A discretionary scheme to prevent cross-examianton by unrepresented defendants in appropriate cases is consistent with the Government's approach and will
  416
  provide a valuable addition to existing witness protection measures.

  Radioactive Material
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if the owners of radioactive materials in transit are responsible for the cost of civil police escorts; and if he will make a statement. [19938]

  Mr. Page
  I have been asked to reply.

  The civil police are not involved in the escort of radioactive materials and therefore no costs are incurred.
  417

TRANSPORT

  Bray's Detective Agency
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department has paid to date to Bray's detective agency for monitoring road protests. [19226]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 17 March 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question asking how much has been paid to Bray's Detective Agency for monitoring road protests.
  Bray's Detective Agency are employed as evidence gatherers by Treasury Solicitors on behalf of the Department. To date they have been paid £2,263,314.60(including VAT, where applicable).

  M6 Flyover (Walsall)
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will instruct his staff to inspect the M6 flyover crossing the Darlaston road in Walsall for leakage of rainwater on to the gardens of the houses below or near the structure. [19920]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Bruce George, dated 17 March 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent question about the leakage of rainwater onto the gardens of the houses below or near the M6 fly-over crossing the Darlaston Road in Walsall.
  I am arranging for a representative from our Agent Authority, Staffordshire County Council, to inspect the structure.

  Motor Cycle Safety
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will extend the testing of road construction products in respect of the safety of cars to cover the safety of motorcyclists. [20087]

  Mr. Watts
  No. Many construction products are already tested for their suitability in terms of safety and other requirements in a general way that covers all classes of vehicle.

  In the case of construction products which aim to restrain or redirect errant vehicles, testing is not undertaken specifically in respect of motor cycles as it has not been possible to devise a test that is both appropriate and repeatable because of the instability of motor cycles under such conditions. The development of tests in the UK and Europe has concentrated, therefore, on the performance of such products when impacted by cars and heavier vehicles.

  London Transport (Customer Satisfaction Surveys)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the customer satisfaction surveys carried out on behalf of(a) London Buses Ltd. and (b) London Underground Ltd. [20429]
  418
  Mr. Bowis
  The Department receives regular reports from London Transport concerning customer perceptions of service performance for both Buses and Underground. I understand that London Buses is considering whether to replace its current household survey with an interview survey of passengers alighting from buses. This new methodology would be similar to the one which London Underground has been using since 1990.

  Rail Services (Nomura Securities)
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what involvement Nomura Securities has in Angel Trains Contracts; and if he will make a statement; [20412]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the role of Nomura Securities in respect of railway services in the United Kingdom. [20413]

  Mr. Watts
  Nomura International plc, the UK-based wholly owned subsidiary of Nomura Securities Company Ltd., arranged, underwrote and participated in the funding of the consortium called GRS Holding Company Ltd., who contracted to acquire Angel Trains Contracts in November 1995.

  Bus Working Group
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish all the reports from the service provision and quality sub-group of the bus working group. [20430]

  Mr. Watts
  The work of the service provision and quality sub-group contributes to the on-going discussions of the bus working group. The remit of the sub-group does not include the production of reports for publication.

  PFI Projects
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 6 March,Official Report, column 713, if he will provide figures for his Department's PFI projects in the same form as used by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, in his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington of 6 March, Official Report, columns 692–93. [20385]

  Mr. Watts
  No.

  Terminal 5 Inquiry
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his Department's evidence to the Heathrow terminal 5 inquiry with particular reference to the advantages of the M25 being widened to dual 5–6 between junctions 12 and 15. [20293]

  Mr. Watts
  The Department has not provided, and does not intend to provide, evidence to the terminal 5 inquiry on the justification for the proposed widening of the M25 between junctions 12 and 15.
  419

  Spofforth Bypass
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made towards constructing the Spofforth bypass in North Yorkshire using the private finance initiative. [20680]

  Mr. Watts
  I understand that the Spofforth bypass is being progressed as part of a package of three design, build, finance and operate road schemes by North Yorkshire county council.

  The public private partnerships programme—4Ps— believes that this package of road schemes have a good chance of being developed successfully and replicated within the new PFI framework, and has therefore given the scheme pathfinder status.

  If a satisfactory business case is proposed by North Yorkshire, the Department of Transport will seek Treasury agreement to the notional credit approvals which may be required.

  Al
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the outturn cost of the upgrading of the Al between Walshford and Boroughbridge in North Yorkshire to motorway standards; and what was the estimated cost at the commencement of the work. [20683]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Robert Banks, dated 17 March 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about the costs of upgrading the Al between Walshford and Boroughbridge in North Yorkshire.
  The outturn costs will not be known until the final account for the works has been settled, which may not be for sometime.
  The total tender cost for the main works was £54.35m excluding VAT.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the improvements to passenger and station services implemented by(a) Great Western Trains, (b) South West Trains and (c) LTS Rail, referred to in his answer of 9 January 1996, Official Report, column 27. [18678]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 4 March 1997]: Improvements to passenger and station services implemented by Great Western Trains, South West Trains and LTS Rail since commencing operations, are as follows:
  Great Western Trains
  GWT has introduced a large number of product enhancements including family carriage and business standard services, improved first class facilities, increased capacity for the carriage of bicycles, expanded catering services, and special offers and promotions to all rail passengers.
  Weekday train services have been increased and some long-distance journey times have been reduced by up to 20 minutes. By the summer, GWT will be running an additional 11 services per weekday above the summer 1995 timetable.
  420
  A £50 million rolling stock upgrading programme is under way and the first five completely refurbished and re-liveried high-speed trains are now in service. A further seven trains will be available by May.
  GWT has established a new telephone inquiry bureau and six telesales offices creating 180 full and part-time jobs.
  GWT has completed the refurbishment of customer waiting lounges at Swindon, Newton Abbott and Bristol Parkway. Buffet facilities at Swindon have been refurbished and a customer service desk introduced. Self-service ticket machines have been installed at seven main line stations. New customer welcome teams have been introduced at Paddington. Porters have also been re-introduced at Paddington.
  Security cover is now provided at all GWT car parks through combinations of trained security guards and closed circuit television.
  South West Trains
  SWT has introduced two new bus links from Bordon-Liphook and Winchester-Romsey. It has also introduced more bus service information into the SWT's timetable.
  More than 2,000 extra sets a day have been introduced to help ease overcrowding. Two additional morning peak services serve Teddington-Waterloo via Kingston and several trains have been lengthened. SWT also has standby trains at London Waterloo and other key locations during the peaks which can be brought into use if needed.
  SWT has invested over £1 million in improving train reliability— treating traction motors on class 442s to prevent problems with snow, and solving air conditioning problems on class 159s.
  SWT will shortly be placing an order for 30 new four-car electrical multiple units worth approximately £90 million.
  SWT has invested £200,000 in new technology and telephone lines at Southampton telephone inquiry bureau, where there are now 25 lines available. In addition SWT is providing extra staff— Bluecoats—at Waterloo, Guildford and Southampton offering help and information to travellers.
  SWT has spent or committed the appropriate expenditure on its station refurbishment programme. The first stations to benefit from this work will be Brentford, Norbiton, Twickenham and Surbiton.
  Work is now under way to redevelop station buildings at Southampton Airport (Parkway)station. The existing buildings are being transformed in a project which will include new upgraded station facilities and provide an additional 53 car parking spaces to the current 530.
  SWT is also carrying out work on car park extensions at Grateley, Eastleigh and Haslemere. Car park resurfacing is also being carried out at 30 SWT stations.
  There is a further £130,000 project to install CCTV cameras, improve lighting and cut vegetation at 10 stations. Since the programme of CCTV installation by BR in SWT car parks began in 1993, car crime had dropped by more than 30 per cent.; 70 per cent. of SWT car park capacity is now covered by CCTV.
  SWT increased its passengers charter punctuality standards by two points from February 1997.
  LTS Rail
  LTS Rail has introduced additional late evening trains running from Monday to Friday serving all major stations to Southend.
  Passenger safety has been improved by the introduction of security guards on LTS Rail trains and at stations. In total, an extra 3,000 security guard hours per week have been deployed across the franchise.
  LTS Rail has launched an experimental low-cost fare called "Early Bird" for early morning Pitsea commuters into London. An Early Bird fare to London from Chafford Hundred will be introduced in April and similar fares are being considered for other stations. LTS has also introduced minicom facilities for the hard of hearing at the Southend telephone inquiry bureau.

  421
  LTS Rail introduced its first two class 317 sliding-door trains into regular service on 9 December, operating on the Basildon and Tilbury lines in the morning and evening peaks. Since then, LTS Rail has taken delivery of five further 317s and a further two are due to be delivered on 17 March.
  LTS Rail is well advanced with ordering 44 four-car EMUs. The trains will include full air conditioning, wider seats and more spacious interiors, information in every carriage and public phones.
  The passengers charter performance target for punctuality will be raised from 88 per cent. to 90 per cent. from 1 April 1997 and a further two points from 1 April 1998. Similarly, the reliability target will be increased by 0.5 points on 1 April 1997 and a further 0.5 points in 1998.
  LTS Rail, in partnership with Thamesway, has introduced a joint rail/bus ticketing arrangement. From 2 March, commuters from Benfleet station have been able to buy one ticket valid on Thamesway buses, LTS Rail services and London Underground.
  LTS Rail has improved the cleanliness of stations through increased overnight cleaning.

  Traffic Congestion
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 5 March,Official Report, columns 607–609, what are the lengths of road classified as (a) orange and (b) red for traffic congestion according to the maps produced by the national roads network assessment systems for (i)1995,(ii)2005 and (iii)2015 in (1)London,(2)Southern,(3)Midland and (4)Northern regions. [20135]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 13 March 1997]: The table indicates the lengths of road (miles)classified as orange or red according to the stress maps produced by the national roads assessment system. The figures are given by region for 1995 and forecast years 2005 and 2015 for low and high traffic growth forecasts.

  Year and traffic forecast

  1995

  2005

  2015

  Region

  Low

  High

  Low

  High

  London

  Orange

  24

  70

  67

  38

  30

  Red

  57

  75

  83

  117

  150

  Southern

  Orange

  212

  224

  235

  250

  285

  Red

  83

  211

  294

  341

  519

  Midland

  Orange

  171

  301

  385

  395

  485

  Red

  115

  213

  324

  407

  685

  Northern

  Orange

  159

  273

  316

  353

  360

  Red

  61

  142

  258

  309

  573

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Examination Results
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and what percentage of children(a) sat and (b) achieved grade A to C in (i) history,(ii)geography and (iii)Latin (1)GCSEs and (2) a-levels in 1996; and if she will make a statement. [19885]
  422
  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 11 March 1997]: The information is not available in the precise form requested. However, the following table shows the number and percentage of pupils who (a) attempted and (b) achieved grades A to C in (i) history,(ii)geography and (iii)Latin GCSE and GCE A/AS level in England in 1994–95, the latest year for which data are available. The figures for GCSEs relate to 15-year-old pupils in schools and those for GCE A/AS level to 17-year-old pupils in schools.

  GCSE achievements of 15-year-old pupils in schools

  Number attempted

  Percentage

  Number achieved A*-C

  Percentage

  GCSE history

  223,357

  38.6

  119,448

  20.7

  GCSE geography

  259,291

  44.8

  130,295

  22.5

  GCSE Latin

  11,790

  2.0

  10,817

  1.9

  GCE A/AS level achievements of 17-year-old pupils in schools

  Number attempted

  Percentage

  Number achieved A-C

  Percentage

  GCE A/AS history

  24,292

  17.2

  13,850

  9.8

  GCE A/AS geography

  26,373

  18.7

  13,683

  9.7

  GCE A/AS Latin

  1,314

  0.9

  1,088

  0.8

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and what percentage of children(a) sat and (b) achieved a grade A to C in (i) one,(ii) two and (iii) three or more live foreign language A-levels in 1996; and if she will make a statement. [19884]

  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 11 March 1997]: The information is not available in the precise form requested. However, the following table shows the number and percentage of 17-year-old pupils who attempted GCE A/AS modern foreign languages and achieved grades A to C in (i) one,(ii) two and (iii) three or more modern foreign languages in England in 1994–95, the latest year for which data are available.

  Number of17-year-oldpupils

  As a percentage of 17-year-old pupils

  Attempted GCE A/AS language

  22,233

  15.8

  Achieved 1 grade A-C

  10,676

  7.6

  Achieved 2 grades A-C

  2,765

  2.0

  Achieved 3 or more grades A-C

  45

  0.0

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and what percentage of children(a) sat and (b) achieved a grade A to C in (i) one,(ii) two and (iii) three or more science A-levels in 1996; and if she will make a statement. [19882]

  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 11 March 1997]: The information is not available in the precise form requested. However, the following table shows the number and percentage of 17-year-old pupils who attempted a GCE A/AS level in any science subject and achieved grades A to C in (i) one,(ii) two and (iii) three or more science subjects in England in 1994–95, the latest year for which data are available.
  423

  Number of 17-year-old pupils

  As a percentage of 17-year-old pupils

  Attempted GCE A/AS science

  54,344

  38.6

  Achieved 1 grade A-C

  17,201

  12.2

  Achieved 2 grades A-C

  11,514

  8.2

  Achieved 3 or more grades A-C

  1,825

  1.3

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and what percentage of children(a) sat and (b) achieved a grade A to C in (i) one and (ii) two or more live foreign language GCSEs in 1996; and if she will make a statement. [19883]

  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 11 March 1997]: The information is not available in the precise form requested. However, the following table shows the number and percentage of 15-year-old pupils who attempted a GCSE in any modern foreign language and achieved grades A to C in (i) one and (ii) two or more modern foreign languages in England in 1994–95, the latest year for which data are available.

  Number of 15-year-old pupils

  As a percentage of 15-year-old pupils

  Attempted at least one GCSE language

  427,808

  74.0

  Achieved one grade A*-C

  153,675

  26.6

  Achieved 2 or more A*-C grades

  43,561

  7.5

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and what percentage of children(a) sat and (b) achieved a grade A to C in (i) one and (ii) two or more science GCSEs in 1996; and if she will make a statement. [19881]

  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 11 March 1997]: The information is not available in the precise form requested. However, the following table shows the number and percentage of 15-year-old pupils who attempted a GCSE in any science subject and achieved grades A* to C in (i) one and (ii) two or more GCSE science subjects in England in 1994–95, the latest year for which data are available.

  Number of 15-year-old pupils

  As a percentage of 15-year-old pupils

  Attempted at least one GCSE science

  523,189

  90.5

  Achieved one grade A*-C

  14,288

  2.5

  Achieved 2 or more A*-C grades

  232,884

  40.3

  Teaching Qualifications
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students on completion of a postgraduate certificate of education or equivalent qualification gained qualified teacher status in(a) mathematics and (b) physics in each year from 1990 to 1996. [19902]

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 11 March 1997]: The number of successful initial teacher training completers1, trained for secondary education, whose first or second
  424
  subject of ITT was either mathematics of science2 from 1990 to 1995 are shown in the following table. Information for 1996 is not yet available.

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Mathematics

  890

  950

  1,250

  1,450

  1,640

  1,660

  Science

  1,250

  1,270

  1,620

  1,780

  2,030

  2,200

  1 Students who have successfully completed a course of initial teacher training leading to qualified teacher status (QTS).

  2 Students who have been trained to teach both maths and science have been recorded once only and assigned to their first subject.

  Teachers' Superannuation
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in what respect the terms and conditions of the teachers' superannuation arrangements for fee-paying schools differ from those for the state sector. [20159]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Teachers at maintained schools become members of the teachers' superannuation scheme unless they elect not to do so. Those at independent schools become scheme members if the establishment is an accepted school under regulation B4 of the Teachers Superannuation (Consolidation) regulations 1988(as amended). There are no other appreciable differences between the provisions for maintained and independent schools.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what additional financial provision has been made for the teachers' superannuation regime for fee-paying schools. [20160]

  Mrs. Gillan
  In common with other employers of teachers, fee paying schools will benefit from the reduction in the employers' contribution rate from 8.05 per cent. to 7.2 per cent. with effect from 1 July 1997. In the independent sector, the reduction will save £9 million in a full year. That money can be used to fund premature retirements, if independent schools wish to use it for that purpose.

  Teachers (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers are currently employed in the London borough of Wandsworth; and how many were employed in each of the past three years. [20178]

  Mr. Forth
  The information is as shown.

  Full-time equivalent (fte)numbers of teachers in the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special education sector in the London borough of Wandsworth

  January

  Full time equivalent

  1993

  1,880

  1994

  1,800

  1995

  1,720

  1996

  1,750

  Excludes sixth form colleges throughout.

  Environmental Auditing
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 20 November 1996,Official Report, column 553, if she will make a statement on the impact of the schools

  425
  environmental assessment method on the work of schools in respect of their evaluation of their environmental impact. [20308]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The schools environmental assessment method—SEAM—was published in October. SEAM is being used by local authorities in environmental education and energy conservation outreach to schools. The 480 eco-schools participating in the green flag award scheme run by the Tidy Britain Group and sponsored by the Department of the Environment have been sent copies of SEAM so that they can take their environmental assessment further. Having carried out an initial SEAM assessment schools are encouraged to continue environmental monitoring. The Building Research Establishment is at present sending all schools a free copy of its software "The School Toolkit" which enables easy environmental monitoring by pupils or staff. These initiatives together with the work of groups like Learning Through Landscapes and Groundwork provide a framework for schools to evaluate, monitor and improve their environmental impacts.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 20 November 1996,Official Report, column 553, what percentage of schools met the revised energy targets for new school buildings included in the schools environmental assessment method; and if she will make a statement. [20309]

  Mr. Squire
  The information requested is not collected centrally for all schools.

  However, of a recent sample of schools in five LEA areas 78 per cent. were below the highest band of energy consumption recommended for existing schools, and 58 per cent. were below the highest band recommended for new schools.

  It is hoped that schools whose energy consumption is above the maximum recommended bands will be encouraged by SEAM to adopt no-cost good housekeeping measures or low-cost energy saving measures to reduce their energy consumption.

  Teachers
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was(a) the average age of teachers entering the state and maintained sector, (b) the average age of teachers in that sector and (c) the youngest and oldest teachers who took voluntary redundancy or early retirement (i) in the latest year for which figures are available and (ii) in 1989–90. [20215]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The average age of new entrants and the average age of all teachers in the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special sector is as follows. The youngest age at which a teacher may be granted premature retirement is 50, and the oldest 64, and those are the ages of the youngest and oldest teachers granted premature retirement in the two years in question. The Department does not collect information on voluntary redundancies.

  1989–90

  1994–95

  Average age of new entrants

  28

  28

  Average age of all teachers

  41

  42

  426

  Departmental Expenditure Plans
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what changes have been made to her Department's expenditure plans in consequence of the initial claim for additional grant in aid submitted by the Further Education Funding Council in respect of demand-led element enrolments. [20164]

  Mr. Paice
  The initial claim from the Further Education Funding Council, of £82 million in this financial year has been met in full by the Department. This has been managed by drawing on existing underspends across a range of DfEE budgets. The underspends which have been used to meet the initial claim would otherwise have been returned to the Exchequer at the end of this financial year.

  Internet
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance her Department is providing to schools regarding the supervision of access to the Internet by pupils. [20196]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  At the Department's request the National Council for Educational Technology has published guidance for teachers and parents on the use of the Internet. Through its network of curriculum IT support projects, the Department has also funded the development of materials to support teachers in the use of technologies such as the Internet in the delivery of national curriculum subjects.

  The Government are also supporting the evaluation of the educational potential of new technologies and models of implementation through their piloting programme, the Education Department's superhighways initiative. Several of these projects are piloting the use of the Internet, including Internet services designed specifically for schools. The outcomes of these evaluations will be made available later this year, accompanied by guidance for schools on purchasing and good practice in the use of new technologies.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 6 March,Official Report, column 706, if she will provide figures for her Department's PFT projects in the same form as used by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, in his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington of 6 March, Official Report, columns 692–93. [20384]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 6 March,Official Report, column 706. The estimate in table 5.5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1997–98" is based on the aggregate potential for PFI in the Department's and Employment Service's own estates and infrastructure; it is not yet directly attributable to specific projects, other than the two

  427
  which have already been concluded. These projects are not yet fully operational and their details therefore remain commercially sensitive.

  Pupil-Teacher Ratio
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list in rank order

  Pupil:teacher ratios (PTRs) and GCSE results1 by local education authority area in England

  LEA area

  Percentage of pupils aged 15 achieving five or more GCSE grades A*-C

  Pupil: teacher ratios

  1995–96

  January 1996

  Primary

  Secondary

  Percentage

  Rank

  PTR

  Rank

  PTR

  Rank

  Isles of Scilly

  73.1

  1

  15.0

  2

  8.1

  1

  Kingston upon Thames

  59.9

  2

  23.8

  82

  16.2

  35

  Sutton

  56.4

  3

  23.3

  59

  16.6

  62

  Harrow

  53.5

  4

  20.8

  12

  15.6

  13

  Barnet

  53.4

  5

  20.9

  13

  14.8

  6

  North Yorkshire

  53.0

  6

  23.4

  66

  16.3

  43

  North Somerset

  52.5

  7

  23.7

  77

  16.3

  43

  Richmond upon Thames

  52.2

  8

  21.3

  17

  16.5

  53

  Redbridge

  50.8

  9

  22.7

  38

  16.2

  35

  West Sussex

  50.6

  10

  22.5

  33

  16.6

  62

  Buckinghamshire

  50.5

  11

  23.6

  73

  17.1

  94

  Surrey

  50.5

  11

  22.0

  23

  16.6

  62

  Bromley

  50.3

  13

  24.6

  109

  15.7

  18

  Gloucestershire

  50.2

  14

  23.4

  66

  17.6

  107

  Somerset

  50.0

  15

  23.2

  51

  18.0

  117

  Solihull

  49.6

  16

  24.1

  99

  16.6

  62

  Cheshire

  49.3

  17

  24.0

  93

  17.0

  87

  Dorset

  49.3

  17

  23.9

  87

  17.5

  102

  Hertfordshire

  49.3

  17

  22.3

  25

  15.7

  18

  Stockport

  49.0

  20

  23.8

  82

  16.6

  62

  Berkshire

  48.8

  21

  23.3

  59

  16.3

  43

  Bury

  48.6

  22

  24.0

  93

  17.2

  99

  Trafford

  48.6

  22

  24.7

  111

  16.6

  62

  Wiltshire

  48.3

  24

  23.4

  66

  16.8

  75

  Shropshire

  48.0

  25

  24.3

  102

  16.5

  53

  York

  47.7

  26

  24.2

  101

  16.2

  35

  Bath and North-east Somerset

  47.4

  27

  22.8

  43

  16.4

  48

  Suffolk

  47.0

  28

  22.3

  25

  16.5

  53

  Bexley

  46.8

  29

  24.8

  113

  16.6

  62

  Cambridge

  46.7

  30

  23.9

  87

  17.2

  99

  Cornwall

  46.7

  30

  23.7

  77

  17.5

  102

  Kensington and Chelsea

  46.7

  30

  17.8

  3

  13.3

  2

  Hampshire

  46.5

  33

  22.8

  43

  16.6

  62

  Northumberland

  46.1

  34

  24.6

  109

  18.5

  119

  Oxfordshire

  45.8

  35

  23.3

  59

  17.9

  114

  Dudley

  44.9

  36

  22.4

  31

  16.5

  53

  South Gloucestershire

  44.7

  37

  24.3

  102

  16.9

  81

  Hereford and Worcester

  44.6

  38

  23.2

  51

  17.7

  110

  Isle of Wight

  44.5

  39

  23.2

  51

  18.1

  118

  Lincolnshire

  44.5

  39

  23.6

  73

  15.9

  23

  Wirral

  44.4

  41

  23.2

  51

  16.2

  35

  Cumbria

  44.2

  42

  23.2

  51

  16.9

  81

  Devon

  44.2

  43

  24.0

  93

  17.0

  87

  Havering

  44.1

  44

  23.7

  77

  16.2

  35

  Sefton

  44.0

  45

  23.2

  51

  16.4

  48

  Wigan

  43.9

  46

  22.9

  46

  16.0

  28

  Kent

  43.7

  47

  23.9

  87

  16.4

  48

  Warwickshire

  43.7

  47

  23.6

  73

  16.8

  75

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  43.6

  49

  24.8

  113

  16.6

  62

  Northamptonshire

  43.5

  50

  23.4

  66

  17.0

  87

  East Sussex

  43.3

  51

  22.7

  38

  16.0

  28

  Essex

  43.1

  52

  22.6

  35

  16.7

  73

  Camden

  43.0

  53

  20.3

  9

  14.9

  7

  Bedfordshire

  42.7

  54

  23.0

  49

  17.8

  112

  Lancashire

  42.6

  55

  24.1

  99

  17.0

  87

  Hounslow

  42.3

  56

  21.6

  20

  15.8

  21

  Derbyshire

  42.0

  57

  25.3

  120

  17.0

  87

  Bolton

  41.9

  58

  22.8

  43

  16.5

  53

  428
  the pupil-teacher ratio for (a) secondary and (b) primary schools of each local education authority and their ranking in respect of number of GCSE grades A to C. [20533]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is shown in the following table.
  429

  Pupil:teacher ratios (PTRs) and GCSE results1 by local education authority area in England

  LEA area

  Percentage of pupils aged 15 achieving five or more GCSE grades A*-C

  Pupil: teacher ratios

  1995–96

  January 1996

  Primary

  Secondary

  Percentage

  Rank

  PTR

  Rank

  PTR

  Rank

  Norfolk

  41.9

  58

  22.3

  25

  15.6

  13

  North Tyneside

  41.1

  60

  23.9

  87

  17.1

  94

  Enfield

  41.0

  61

  22.6

  35

  16.3

  43

  Hillingdon

  40.9

  62

  22.3

  25

  16.4

  48

  St. Helens

  40.9

  62

  22.9

  46

  15.6

  13

  Staffordshire

  40.9

  62

  24.9

  117

  17.6

  107

  Calderdale

  39.7

  65

  24.0

  93

  16.9

  81

  Leicestershire

  39.7

  65

  23.3

  59

  17.1

  94

  Croydon

  38.8

  67

  22.2

  24

  16.3

  43

  Kirklees

  38.4

  68

  23.3

  59

  16.8

  75

  Merton

  38.3

  69

  21.5

  19

  17.2

  99

  Coventry

  38.0

  70

  23.3

  59

  16.1

  30

  North Lincolnshire

  37.6

  71

  24.5

  107

  17.1

  94

  Redcar and Cleveland

  37.6

  71

  24.5

  107

  17.1

  94

  Sheffield

  37.2

  73

  22.9

  46

  17.5

  102

  Stockton on Tees

  37.2

  73

  23.8

  82

  16.9

  81

  Gateshead

  36.6

  75

  22.3

  25

  15.9

  23

  Leeds

  36.6

  75

  23.9

  87

  16.6

  62

  Nottinghamshire

  36.4

  77

  24.3

  102

  16.7

  73

  Durham

  36.2

  78

  24.0

  93

  17.5

  102

  Rotherham

  36.2

  78

  23.2

  51

  17.0

  87

  Rochdale

  35.4

  80

  24.4

  106

  16.9

  81

  Tameside

  35.4

  80

  25.1

  119

  17.8

  112

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  35.3

  82

  20.3

  9

  16.8

  75

  Wakefield

  35.3

  82

  24.0

  93

  16.4

  48

  South Tyneside

  35.2

  84

  23.3

  59

  16.8

  75

  Brent

  35.1

  85

  21.7

  21

  15.4

  11

  Ealing

  34.6

  86

  22.7

  38

  16.5

  53

  Doncaster

  33.5

  87

  24.3

  102

  16.8

  75

  Waltham Forest

  33.4

  88

  21.4

  18

  15.8

  21

  Oldham

  33.3

  89

  23.7

  77

  15.9

  23

  Westminster

  33.0

  90

  18.4

  4

  15.2

  8

  Birmingham

  32.9

  91

  22.7

  38

  15.9

  23

  Wandsworth

  32.8

  92

  20.5

  11

  15.9

  23

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  32.7

  93

  23.8

  82

  16.9

  81

  North East Lincolnshire

  32.4

  94

  24.8

  113

  17.9

  114

  Walsall

  32.2

  95

  23.4

  66

  16.2

  35

  Hartlepool

  31.9

  96

  24.8

  113

  17.0

  87

  Sunderland

  31.7

  97

  22.6

  35

  16.1

  30

  City of Bristol

  30.9

  98

  22.7

  38

  15.6

  13

  Wolverhampton

  30.2

  99

  22.5

  33

  16.1

  30

  Salford

  30.1

  100

  23.8

  82

  16.5

  53

  Lewisham

  30.0

  101

  20.1

  8

  15.2

  8

  Greenwich

  29.1

  102

  20.9

  13

  15.6

  13

  Bradford

  28.9

  103

  22.3

  25

  17.7

  110

  Haringey

  28.5

  104

  21.0

  16

  14.6

  4

  Barnsley

  28.2

  105

  25.0

  118

  17.9

  114

  Newham

  27.9

  106

  23.9

  87

  16.5

  53

  Liverpool

  27.6

  107

  23.5

  71

  16.2

  35

  Barking and Dagenham

  27.1

  108

  22.4

  31

  16.1

  30

  Manchester

  27.0

  109

  23.0

  49

  15.5

  12

  Middlesbrough

  26.9

  110

  23.6

  73

  16.1

  30

  Sandwell

  26.5

  111

  23.7

  77

  16.5

  53

  Hackney

  25.7

  112

  19.7

  7

  14.7

  5

  Lambeth

  25.1

  113

  18.6

  5

  14.4

  3

  Southwark

  24.6

  114

  21.7

  21

  16.2

  35

  Tower Hamlets

  23.9

  115

  19.5

  6

  15.2

  8

  Knowsley

  23.6

  116

  23.5

  71

  16.6

  62

  City of Kingston upon Hull

  22.8

  117

  24.7

  111

  17.6

  107

  Islington

  22.4

  118

  20.9

  13

  15.7

  18

  Corporation of London

  n/a

  n/a

  13.9

  1

  n/a

  n/a

  England

  44.5

  23.2

  16.6

  1 Includes grant-maintained, special schools and City Technology Colleges; excludes independent schools.

  n/a = not applicable.

  430 431
  Mr. Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the pupil-teacher ratio for(a) primary, (b) special and (c) secondary schools in (i) 1979,(ii) 1990 and (iii) the latest available date for each English local education authority. [20532]

  Pupil:teacher ratios in maintained primary, secondary and special schools by local education authority area in England

  Position at January 1979, 1990 and 1996

  1979

  1990

  1996

  Primary

  Secondary1

  Special

  Primary

  Secondary1

  Special

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  Corporation of London

  2—

  2—

  2—

  17.4

  3—

  3—

  13.9

  3—

  3—

  Camden

  2—

  2—

  2—

  19.2

  14.9

  3.8

  20.3

  14.9

  3.7

  Greenwich

  2—

  2—

  2—

  19.7

  15.8

  6.0

  20.9

  15.6

  6.5

  Hackney

  2—

  2—

  2—

  18.3

  14.2

  6.1

  19.7

  14.7

  5.7

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2—

  2—

  2—

  18.3

  14.3

  4.9

  20.3

  16.8

  5.6

  Islington

  2—

  2—

  2—

  18.5

  16.4

  5.8

  20.9

  15.7

  5.0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2—

  2—

  2—

  18.5

  13.7

  5.8

  17.8

  13.3

  3.3

  Lambeth

  2—

  2—

  2—

  19.2

  14.2

  5.6

  18.6

  14.4

  5.2

  Lewisham

  2—

  2—

  2—

  19.6

  14.7

  5.9

  20.1

  15.2

  6.3

  Southwark

  2—

  2—

  2—

  20.0

  15.6

  5.0

  21.7

  16.2

  5.0

  Tower Hamlets

  2—

  2—

  2—

  18.1

  14.1

  6.0

  19.5

  15.2

  5.8

  Wandsworth

  2—

  2—

  2—

  17.9

  14.5

  4.9

  20.5

  15.9

  6.3

  Westminster

  2—

  2—

  2—

  17.2

  14.2

  6.1

  18.4

  15.2

  5.4

  Inner London Education Authority

  18.7

  14.9

  6.9

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Barking and Dagenham

  22.3

  15.5

  7.6

  22.3

  14.7

  5.7

  22.4

  16.1

  5.6

  Barnet

  21.5

  15.5

  7.2

  20.1

  14.9

  4.8

  20.9

  14.8

  5.7

  Bexley

  25.1

  17.2

  9.6

  22.9

  16.0

  6.5

  24.8

  16.6

  7.0

  Brent

  18.7

  13.9

  6.5

  20.8

  13.7

  4.7

  21.7

  15.4

  5.2

  Bromley

  24.5

  16.7

  9.1

  23.1

  15.7

  5.8

  24.6

  15.7

  6.4

  Croydon

  23.1

  16.3

  7.5

  21.3

  16.3

  5.2

  22.2

  16.3

  5.8

  Ealing

  20.4

  15.6

  6.8

  20.2

  14.0

  5.0

  22.7

  16.5

  5.6

  Enfield

  24.0

  16.8

  8.7

  21.2

  15.3

  5.3

  22.6

  16.3

  5.9

  Haringey

  20.9

  16.0

  5.7

  21.8

  12.9

  4.5

  21.0

  14.6

  4.7

  Harrow

  22.1

  16.1

  6.5

  22.0

  15.4

  5.7

  20.8

  15.6

  5.0

  Havering

  23.6

  17.0

  8.3

  22.6

  15.4

  6.4

  23.7

  16.2

  6.0

  Hillingdon

  23.0

  16.5

  7.4

  22.1

  15.3

  6.7

  22.3

  16.4

  7.3

  Hounslow

  21.9

  15.9

  6.3

  20.2

  15.2

  5.7

  21.6

  15.8

  6.3

  Kingston upon Thames

  22.1

  16.1

  9.2

  21.8

  14.1

  6.5

  23.8

  16.2

  6.9

  Merton

  22.2

  17.6

  7.5

  20.8

  15.4

  5.0

  21.5

  17.2

  6.0

  Newham

  21.4

  16.1

  7.4

  23.1

  14.1

  5.3

  23.9

  16.5

  2.4

  Redbridge

  24.1

  17.1

  7.2

  23.4

  15.9

  6.4

  22.7

  16.2

  4.3

  Richmond upon Thames

  22.2

  17.0

  5.9

  20.9

  15.9

  5.5

  21.3

  16.5

  5.5

  Sutton

  24.0

  17.3

  9.2

  22.0

  15.8

  6.4

  23.3

  16.6

  6.8

  Waltham Forest

  22.4

  14.7

  5.7

  22.2

  13.6

  3.5

  21.4

  15.8

  4.2

  Birmingham

  24.0

  16.5

  7.4

  23.6

  16.3

  6.3

  22.7

  15.9

  6.4

  Coventry

  22.7

  16.0

  8.0

  22.4

  13.9

  5.7

  23.3

  16.1

  6.3

  Dudley

  25.5

  18.0

  9.9

  21.5

  13.9

  8.6

  22.4

  16.5

  8.1

  Sandwell

  24.4

  16.4

  9.6

  22.2

  14.1

  6.7

  23.7

  16.5

  7.5

  Solihull

  23.5

  16.4

  8.2

  22.6

  15.4

  5.6

  24.1

  16.6

  7.1

  Walsall

  22.6

  15.8

  7.5

  20.8

  13.9

  5.5

  23.4

  16.2

  6.1

  Wolverhampton

  21.1

  15.8

  6.5

  19.8

  13.5

  5.9

  22.5

  16.1

  7.2

  Knowsley

  23.4

  16.3

  7.4

  21.4

  14.5

  6.8

  23.5

  16.6

  5.2

  Liverpool

  21.1

  16.1

  7.6

  21.7

  14.2

  6.5

  23.5

  16.2

  6.0

  St. Helens

  23.8

  16.2

  9.3

  22.4

  13.6

  7.7

  22.9

  15.6

  6.8

  Sefton

  23.6

  17.3

  9.0

  23.2

  16.1

  6.9

  23.2

  16.4

  6.6

  Wirral

  24.2

  17.1

  8.0

  20.6

  14.9

  6.3

  23.2

  16.2

  6.7

  Bolton

  25.2

  16.5

  7.9

  21.7

  14.8

  6.1

  22.8

  16.5

  6.6

  Bury

  23.5

  16.5

  8.0

  22.3

  15.2

  5.6

  24.0

  17.2

  5.0

  Manchester

  21.9

  15.1

  6.7

  21.8

  13.7

  5.4

  23.0

  15.5

  4.8

  Oldham

  25.2

  17.6

  7.7

  22.4

  14.5

  5.3

  23.7

  15.9

  5.6

  Rochdale

  22.9

  15.4

  7.8

  21.9

  13.8

  6.6

  24.4

  16.9

  7.3

  Salford

  23.5

  16.2

  8.9

  22.0

  13.5

  6.5

  23.8

  16.5

  5.2

  Stockport

  26.3

  17.3

  9.8

  23.4

  15.2

  6.5

  23.8

  16.6

  6.3

  Thameside

  24.1

  16.5

  6.9

  22.7

  15.5

  5.3

  25.1

  17.8

  7.3

  Trafford

  22.2

  16.5

  8.2

  22.4

  14.2

  6.6

  24.7

  16.6

  6.8

  Wigan

  22.6

  16.1

  8.2

  21.4

  13.7

  5.9

  22.9

  16.0

  6.5

  Barnsley

  23.6

  16.8

  7.8

  22.7

  15.5

  6.1

  25.0

  17.9

  6.6

  Doncaster

  22.2

  16.6

  8.5

  21.6

  15.1

  8.1

  24.3

  16.8

  9.1

  Rotherham

  24.0

  17.4

  7.8

  21.3

  14.5

  6.7

  23.2

  17.0

  7.6

  Sheffield

  21.8

  16.4

  6.1

  21.0

  14.2

  4.4

  22.9

  17.5

  5.2

  Bradford

  20.9

  17.6

  7.5

  19.7

  14.9

  3.8

  22.3

  17.7

  5.6

  Calderdale

  23.8

  17.6

  7.1

  22.3

  14.9

  4.8

  24.0

  16.9

  5.2

  Kirklees

  23.6

  18.3

  7.3

  21.0

  14.7

  6.9

  23.3

  16.8

  6.5

  Leeds

  24.6

  17.8

  7.7

  19.4

  14.9

  5.9

  23.9

  16.6

  6.3

  Wakefield

  23.3

  18.0

  8.4

  22.0

  15.3

  6.3

  24.0

  16.4

  6.1

  Gateshead

  21.2

  16.5

  9.3

  20.9

  13.9

  5.6

  22.3

  15.9

  5.9

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  18.7

  14.7

  7.4

  21.0

  14.2

  5.9

  23.8

  16.9

  6.8

  North Tyneside

  21.1

  16.2

  8.3

  20.9

  14.3

  6.0

  23.9

  17.1

  6.4

  South Tyneside

  20.3

  16.0

  7.9

  20.9

  14.3

  6.6

  23.3

  16.8

  8.2

  Sunderland

  23.5

  16.7

  8.9

  22.0

  14.7

  5.9

  22.6

  16.1

  7.4

  Isles of Scilly

  15.3

  11.3

  3—

  14.2

  8.2

  3—

  15.0

  8.1

  3—

  432
  Mr. Squire
  The information requested is shown in the following table.
  433

  Pupil.teacher ratios in maintained primary, secondary and special schools by local education authority area in England

  Position at January 1979, 1990 and 1996

  1979

  1990

  1996

  Primary

  Secondary1

  Special

  Primary

  Secondary1

  Special

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  Avon

  24.2

  17.0

  7.6

  22.4

  16.2

  6.0

  23.3

  16.3

  5.9

  Bedfordshire

  21.6

  17.3

  6.5

  21.5

  17.2

  6.1

  23.0

  17.8

  7.1

  Berkshire

  23.9

  16.8

  8.9

  23.5

  15.5

  6.6

  23.3

  16.3

  7.1

  Buckinghamshire

  24.2

  16.8

  8.2

  22.9

  15.8

  6.6

  23.6

  17.1

  7.2

  Cambridgeshire

  23.3

  16.7

  8.8

  22.6

  16.0

  5.7

  23.9

  17.2

  6.9

  Cheshire

  23.5

  17.0

  7.9

  24.3

  16.3

  6.7

  24.0

  17.0

  7.2

  Cleveland

  23.4

  18.4

  8.5

  22.5

  15.2

  5.0

  24.1

  16.8

  7.1

  Cornwall

  24.2

  16.9

  8.0

  23.2

  16.1

  7.3

  23.7

  17.5

  7.3

  Cumbria

  23.1

  16.5

  8.5

  21.8

  14.7

  5.6

  23.2

  16.9

  7.0

  Derbyshire

  23.8

  17.5

  8.3

  21.6

  14.0

  4.8

  25.3

  17.0

  7.2

  Devon

  24.3

  17.9

  8.9

  22.3

  16.1

  7.5

  24.0

  17.0

  7.9

  Dorset

  23.7

  17.5

  9.1

  23.1

  16.1

  7.6

  23.9

  17.5

  7.5

  Durham

  21.5

  16.9

  7.9

  22.2

  16.0

  6.4

  24.0

  17.5

  7.5

  East Sussex

  23.4

  17.5

  8.0

  22.3

  15.9

  6.8

  22.7

  16.0

  6.5

  Essex

  24.8

  17.8

  9.1

  22.4

  16.4

  6.2

  22.6

  16.7

  6.9

  Gloucestershire

  23.4

  17.4

  8.3

  22.1

  15.7

  6.7

  23.4

  17.6

  6.9

  Hampshire

  24.6

  17.4

  9.1

  22.1

  16.2

  7.6

  22.8

  16.6

  7.6

  Hereford and Worcester

  24.2

  17.7

  8.1

  23.2

  16.7

  7.1

  23.2

  17.7

  7.6

  Hertfordshire

  22.5

  15.9

  8.0

  21.6

  15.1

  5.0

  22.3

  15.7

  5.7

  Humberside

  22.1

  16.8

  8.9

  22.1

  15.6

  6.4

  24.7

  17.2

  7.4

  Isle of Wight

  23.9

  18.6

  10.4

  22.9

  16.8

  7.8

  23.2

  18.1

  7.7

  Kent

  24.3

  17.7

  9.2

  23.5

  16.1

  7.9

  23.9

  16.4

  7.5

  Lancashire

  24.7

  16.6

  8.0

  23.3

  15.7

  5.6

  24.1

  17.0

  4.8

  Leicestershire

  23.3

  16.4

  8.1

  22.7

  14.9

  5.4

  23.3

  17.1

  6.2

  Lincolnshire

  23.7

  17.0

  9.4

  23.3

  16.3

  7.4

  23.6

  15.9

  6.8

  Norfolk

  22.8

  17.6

  8.6

  22.0

  15.3

  6.8

  22.3

  15.6

  7.3

  North Yorkshire

  22.5

  17.1

  8.6

  22.1

  15.3

  6.5

  23.6

  16.3

  6.5

  Northamptonshire

  24.4

  17.0

  8.3

  22.5

  15.9

  6.2

  23.4

  17.0

  6.5

  Northumberland

  23.4

  17.5

  7.5

  22.9

  16.3

  6.1

  24.6

  18.5

  8.0

  Nottinghamshire

  24.7

  17.0

  9.0

  21.3

  14.5

  6.1

  24.3

  16.7

  4.7

  Oxfordshire

  24.2

  18.0

  7.5

  22.7

  16.2

  5.4

  23.3

  17.9

  5.6

  Shropshire

  23.8

  17.0

  9.0

  21.2

  15.2

  7.0

  24.3

  16.5

  7.4

  Somerset

  24.6

  18.6

  10.2

  22.2

  15.6

  6.3

  23.2

  18.0

  8.1

  Staffordshire

  23.2

  16.8

  8.1

  23.3

  15.8

  6.6

  24.9

  17.6

  8.0

  Suffolk

  23.4

  18.1

  8.8

  22.0

  16.6

  6.1

  22.3

  16.5

  6.8

  Surrey

  21.9

  16.8

  8.4

  20.8

  15.6

  6.3

  22.0

  16.6

  6.8

  Warwickshire

  23.1

  17.0

  9.0

  21.8

  15.6

  6.6

  23.6

  16.8

  7.1

  West Sussex

  24.3

  18.5

  8.3

  21.8

  16.4

  7.5

  22.5

  16.6

  7.4

  Wiltshire

  23.9

  17.7

  8.3

  22.5

  15.5

  5.9

  23.4

  16.8

  6.4

  England

  23.1

  16.8

  8.0

  22.0

  15.4

  6.1

  23.2

  16.6

  6.4

  1 Figures exclude sixth form colleges which ceased to be classified as schools from April 1993.

  2 Not available.

  3 Not applicable.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list in rank order the amount and percentage of the nursery voucher withheld by each local education authority from nursery schools in its control and indicate in each case whether the schemes have received her Department's approval. [20531]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on the amounts of nursery grant, if any, which local education authorities plan to hold back from their schools is not supplied to the Department. Proposals for variations to schemes for local management of schools are still being processed; decisions on all of these will be made by 31 March 1997.

  Key Stage 2
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for what reasons she has calculated average results for each local education authority's primary schools in key stage 2 on the basis of unweighted averages of individual schools' performance; and if she will publish weighted averages for authorities based on the numbers of pupils in each school. [20685]
  434
  Mrs. Gillan
  The primary school performance tables published on 11 March show how many pupils reached level 4 or above in the 1996 key stage 2 tests and teacher assessments, as percentages of the number of eligible pupils at each school.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Intestacy
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Attorney-General how many people died intestate with no known kin in the last year for which figures are available; how much in money and belongings was left by them; and if he will make a statement. [18858]

  The Solicitor-General
  For England and Wales, excluding the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, some 2,400 cases were referred to the Treasury Solicitor in 1996 which appeared to concern the estates of persons dying intestate with no known kin. The total of balances on estates, after setting liabilities, accounted for in 1996 following completion of their administration by the Treasury Solicitor was £8,603,204.
  435

  Lenient Sentences
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases referred to the Appeal Court on grounds of undue leniency have resulted in higher sentencing tariffs, in the last year for which figures are available. [18860]

  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Attorney-General how many unduly lenient sentences he has referred to the Court of Appeal in the last year; and what was the rate of success. [18859]

  The Attorney-General
  During 1996, 70 sentences were referred to the Court of Appeal on grounds of undue leniency; 62 have been heard, and an increased sentence resulted in 46, or 74 per cent. of them.

  Right-wing Groups
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General how many prosecutions are pending arising out of alleged threats against individuals by neo-Nazi, fascist or other extreme right-wing bodies or persons. [18854]

  The Attorney-General
  Proceedings are pending against three defendants for alleged offences of publishing and possessing racially inflammatory written material with a view to distribution, contrary to part III of the Public Order Act 1986. The written material contains extreme right-wing ideology and contains threats against, and advocates the harassment of, named individuals.

  Disclosure Procedures
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to review the guidelines on disclosure of unused material and on the handling of identification in criminal cases when statutory provisions relating to prosecution disclosure and modified committals are implemented. [20812]

  The Attorney-General
  On 27 May 1976,Official Report, columns 287–88, the then Attorney-General outlined guidance, in the light of the Devlin report on identification, on the handling of criminal cases where it appeared likely that identification would be an issue. That guidance has largely been overtaken by developments in the common law and statutory provisions, including the amendment to the general nature of committal proceedings provided for by section 47 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 which takes effect on 1 April 1997.

  On 18 December 1981, Official Report columns 251–52, the then Attorney-General announced guidelines on disclosure of unused material by prosecutors. Those guidelines have also now been largely superseded and the law relating to prosecution disclosure will be placed on a statutory footing when part 1 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 is implemented, also with effect from 1 April 1997. I have therefore revoked both sets of the guidelines with effect from that date.
  436

WALES

  Unemployment Rates
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the unemployment rates for(a) Wales and (b) the Republic of Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [18837]

  Mr. Hague
  The labour force survey provides data on unemployment which are comparable across the European Union. In autumn 1996, the International Labour Organisation unemployment rate for Wales from this source was 8.2 per cent. This compares with ILO unemployment rate of 11.9 per cent. for the Republic of Ireland in October 1996. These figures are not seasonally adjusted.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the unemployment rates for Wales relative to those of Catalonia. [18840]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest available figures for Wales and Catalonia, on a comparable basis published by Eurostat, are for April 1995 when the ILO unemployment rate for Wales was 8.7 per cent. and that for Catalonia was 19.9 per cent. These figures are not seasonally adjusted.

  Teachers (Supply)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the supply of teachers to schools. [18838]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I am confident that schools in Wales have a sufficient number of qualified teachers to meet their needs.

  Bathing Beaches (Standards)
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many bathing beaches in Wales comply with European standards; and how many did so at the time of water privatisation. [18839]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Last year, 52 Welsh bathing waters met mandatory European standards compared with 40 in 1989.

  Inward Investment (North Wales)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has recently been made in attracting more inward investment to north Wales. [18841]

  Mr. Hague
  Significant progress has been made as demonstrated by the almost 1,000 jobs and £130 million of capital investment promised by the announcements by Toyo Seal; Baumeister and Ostler; JCB Transmissions; Toyota; British Aerospace; Hoya Lens; Shotton Paper; and Eastern Group.

  Patient Statistics
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) in-patients and (b) out-patients were treated in NHS hospitals in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what were the figures in 1979. [18842]
  437
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of in-patients and day cases treated in Welsh hospitals has more than doubled between 1979 and 1995–96 from 381,000 to 774,000. The number of out-patients rose by over 40 per cent. in the same period from 1,803,000 to 2,569,000.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the level of manufacturing output in Wales. [18843]

  Mr. Hague
  Over the past three years, manufacturing output in Wales has grown by 13.9 per cent., compared to 7.2 per cent. in the UK as a whole.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the introduction of the nursery voucher scheme in Wales; and what plans he has for extending the scheme to primary education. [18844]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  In addition to ministerial correspondence, the Welsh Office has received some 6,000 letters and some 60 petitions about the nursery voucher scheme. There are no plans currently to extend the scheme beyond four-year-olds.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the social services departments which have agreed to apply for nursery vouchers for children in foster care; and what assessment he has made of the reasons why some departments have not applied. [20287]

  Mr. Evans
  The social services departments that have said that they will apply for nursery vouchers for foster children are Blaenau Gwent, Flintshire, Merthyr Tydfil, Monmouth, Neath Port Talbot, Newport, Swansea, Torfaen and Wrexham. The majority of the remainder have not said whether they will be applying.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many classes in Wales for five, six and seven-year-olds have over 30 pupils. [18845]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Information on class sizes is published in "Statistics of Education and Training in Wales; Schools 1996". It is not collected by age range.

  A494
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the budget for the road improvement scheme of Drws-Y-Nant on the A494 Dolgellau to Bala road; when will work begin on the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [18846]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In the light of other, higher priorities, it is not expected that funds will be available for a start of works in 1997.

  Hospital Closures (Dyfed Powys)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of Dyfed Powys health authority to discuss hospital closures. [18847]
  438
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The chairmen of Dyfed Powys health authority met my right hon. Friend on 10 March to tell him about the authority's consultation document on the future provision of health services in Dyfed Powys.

  School Standards
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action has recently been taken to improve school standards in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [18848]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The latest phase of the bright future programme is set out in "Beating The Previous Best" published in February.

  Fishing Restrictions (Milford Haven)
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in lifting fishing restrictions in Milford Haven. [18849]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The majority of restrictions on commercial fisheries, put in place following the Sea Empress oil spill, have been lifted. The only commercial fishery still affected is the oyster fishery in the Milford Haven estuary.

  Restrictions are also being maintained as a protective measure for casual pickers of shellfish (excluding crustaceans), and on edible seaweed and samphire in the intertidal area between St. David's head and Port Eynon point. Monitoring and sampling work is continuing so that these remaining restrictions can be lifted as soon as possible.

  The Economy
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the economy in Wales. [18850]

  Mr. Hague
  The Welsh economy is doing very well. Unemployment is falling fast. Manufacturing output is rising faster than in the UK generally. Manufacturing productivity is well above the UK average. Industrial disputes are low. Wales is a favoured location for inward investment. Business confidence is rising faster in Wales than in almost every other UK region, and independent forecasters say that the Welsh economy will grow faster than that of the UK in the future.

  GP Services
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the development of GP services(a) in Rhymney and (b) in Wales. [18862]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Health authorities have responsibility for developing GP services in their area and the National Health Service (Primary Care)Bill, which is currently before Parliament, will give authorities more flexibility for developing GP health care provision.

  Special Needs Schools
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by local education authority area the total expenditure per pupil at maintained special schools for each of the last five years. [15706]
  439
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 14 February 1997]: The latest available information is for 1994–95 and 1993–94 and is given in the following table. Expenditure for special schools is not separately identifiable for earlier years as it is combined with expenditure on special education in hospitals, social services establishments and at home.

  Total expenditure per pupil at LEA maintained special schools1

  £

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Clwyd

  10,534

  9,158

  Dyfed

  12,727

  13,476

  Gwent

  17,406

  19,252

  Gwynedd

  10,533

  11,329

  Mid Glamorgan

  9,786

  9,502

  Powys

  13,920

  14,770

  South Glamorgan

  9,597

  9,564

  West Glamorgan

  14,972

  14,694

  Wales

  11,401

  11,201

  1 Figures shown are for net current expenditure and gross capital expenditure divided by the full-time equivalent pupil numbers in maintained special schools at January in each year. Total expenditure figures exclude special education in special education units attached to primary and secondary schools, hospitals, social services establishments and at home.

  School Administration Costs
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each local education authority in Wales the expenditure per pupil of the school's budget on administration in 1995–96 and estimated to be so spent in 1996–97. [15938]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 14 February 1997]: The information requested is given in the following table.

  The details for 1995–96 are:

  £

  Clwyd

  47.73

  Dyfed

  46.90

  Gwent

  30.87

  Gwynedd

  40.89

  Mid Glamorgan

  19.92

  Powys1

  2.86

  South Glamorgan

  44.88

  West Glamorgan

  27.04

  The figures for Clwyd, Dyfed and West Glamorgan LEAs are based on section 42 budget statements as the outturn statements for 1995–96 have yet to be submitted to the Secretary of State.

  1 Costs relating to the management and administration of general schools budget expenditure have been included with the budgets of those services that the authority has chosen to retain centrally. Details of these costs are not available.

  The provisional details for 1996–97 are:

  £

  Isle of Anglesey

  35.49

  Blaenau Gwent

  37.69

  Bridgend

  32.95

  Caerphilly

  35.52

  City and County of Cardiff

  18.70

  Carmarthenshire

  48.82

  Ceredigion

  62.09

  440

  £

  Conwy

  60.77

  Denbighshire

  62.65

  Flintshire

  43.28

  Merthyr Tydfil

  35.24

  Monmouthshire

  38.88

  Neath Port Talbot

  21.48

  Newport

  49.61

  Pembrokeshire

  60.03

  Powys1

  0.00

  Rhondda-Cynon-Taff

  18.33

  City and County of Swansea

  20.79

  Torfaen

  49.18

  Vale of Glamorgan

  43.24

  Wrexham

  49.39

  1 Costs relating to the management and administration of general schools budget expenditure have been included with the budgets of those services that the authority has chosen to retain centrally. Details of these costs are not available.

  Rented Housing Starts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many new rented housing starts he estimates will be made by(a) local authorities and (b) housing associations in 1997–98. [19214]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Housing associations are the main providers of new subsidised housing. Housing for Wales expects to start 1,850 dwellings in its 1997–98 programme, of which up to 1,300 will be for rent. The remainder will be for low-cost home ownership. The number of starts will be increased by transfers to housing associations by those local authorities which will have bids approved under the £5.5 million home ownership, efficiency and rural housing challenge fund. No estimate is available for new rented housing starts by local authorities in 1997–98.

  Departmental Web Site
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when his Department established its Internet site; what representations he has received and what data he has collated on the use and utility of the site; and what steps he is taking to increase the amount of information available via the site. [19151]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department established Internet pages on the CCTA server in May 1995. This site now contains hospital performance information. A pilot site for the Welsh Office Industry and Training Department was set up in September 1995 and this contains mainly industry related information. Information on the number of accesses is collected weekly for both sites. A study is currently being carried out to establish how my Department can make best use of the Internet to disseminate information in the future.

  National Health Service Resources
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional resources have been given to the national health service in Wales since 1992. [18829]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Since 1992–93, an additional £455 million has been provided for the national health service in Wales, including provision for 1997–98. This represents a cash increase over the period of 23.8 per cent. and 10.3 per cent. in real terms.
  441

  Planning Guidance (Agricultural Land)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice he gives to local authorities on giving planning permission for building housing estates on grade 2 agricultural land. [20289]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Advice on the development of grade 2 agricultural land is contained in planning guidance (Wales): planning policy (May 1996), technical advice note (Wales)6: development of agricultural land (November)1996 and annex A to planning policy guidance note 7, "The Countryside and the Rural Economy"(January 1992). In development control decisions, considerable weight should be given to protecting grades 1, 2 and 3a land from development because of its special importance. Within these grades, where there is a choice between sites of different grades, development should be directed to land of lower quality.

  Trunk Road Programme (Property Purchases)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ensure that private companies carrying out negotiations relating to compensation for property purchased by compulsory purchase order for trunk road improvements in Wales will have a detailed knowledge of the north Wales property market. [20322]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Yes.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ensure that private companies carrying out negotiations relating to compensation for property purchased by compulsory purchase order for trunk road improvements in Wales will be able to provide a full Welsh language service where it is required. [20321]

  Mr. Jones
  Yes. In line with the requirements of the Welsh Office Welsh language scheme, which came into effect on 13 January, contractors are bound by the terms of their contract to communicate appropriately in the medium of Welsh where it is relevant to the services they are providing for the Department.

  Annual Departmental Report
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to publish the annual departmental report. [20218]

  Mr. Hague
  I expect to publish the Welsh Office departmental report for 1997 on Thursday 20 March.

  NHS Trusts (Mergers)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date his Department was first told of the proposed merger between Derwen and Pembrokeshire trusts; if his Department participated in meetings of the trusts to develop the merger proposals; and if he will list the dates of such meetings and the levels of participation. [20222]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department was first informed of the proposed merger on 1 July 1996. From that date, Welsh Office officials maintained links with senior trust staff by telephone, correspondence and meetings to advise them on the processes necessary to complete the merger.
  442
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what merger proposals for trusts other than Derwen and Pembrokeshire trust have been notified to his Department; what merger-related meetings have taken place(a) on his Department's premises and (b) at other locations with departmental participation; and if he will list the dates and attendance at such meetings. [20223]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department has not received any other proposals for NHS trusts to merge. Trust configuration is on occasion raised in discussions between my Department and the NHS about service improvements and financial performance. A review is being undertaken by the Welsh ambulance policy and advisory group which might, in due course, produce a formal expression of interest to reconfigure the ambulance NHS trusts in Wales.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received(a) in support of and (b) against the merger of Derwen NHS trust with Pembrokeshire NHS trust; and if he will list the (i) organisations and (ii) individuals from whom he has received representations. [20290]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A list of those organisations and individuals that responded to the public consultation on the application to merge the Pembrokeshire and Derwen NHS trusts, detailing their preferences, has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Highway Works
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice he gives to local authorities undertaking highway works as to the desirability of not closing to traffic highways affected. [20288]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Advice on procedures to be used when undertaking highway works is contained in the traffic signs manual, chapter 8 "Traffic Safety Measures and Signs for Road Works and Temporary Situations".

  School Classes
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by local education authority(a) the number of classes with mixed aged groups and (b) the number of children taught in them in each of the last five years, and in 1979, 1983 and 1987. [20625]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Primary Schools (League Tables)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for what reasons he has not published the league tables for Welsh primary schools. [20545]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Teacher union action disrupted the assessments in Wales during 1995; data collection and validation arrangements were then subject to comprehensive test in 1996. Extensive information on key stage 2 results, by local authority area, was published on 24 February. Now that the assessment arrangements are firmly established, performance tables giving key stage 2 results by named schools will be published after this year's round.
  443

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 6 March Official Report, column 725, if he will provide figures for his Department's PFI projects in the same form as used by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, in his answer to the hon. member for Darlington of 6 March, Official Report, columns 692–93. [20391]

  Mr. Hague
  No.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing and Land
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the link between housing land shortages and the house price increase of the late 1980s; and if he will make a statement. [19023]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In 1990, my Department commissioned Gerald Eve, chartered surveyors in association with the department of land economy, University of Cambridge to undertake research on the relationship between house prices and land supply.

  The study concluded that it would require significant additional land release, on a national scale and over a considerable period of time, to have a measurable effect on reducing average house prices.

  Further research will be commissioned in the coming financial year to examine whether the links between planning and land and property prices can be further clarified.

  Ponds and Lakes
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Landscape Foundation to discuss the improvement of ponds and lakes in(a) parks and (b) nature reserves. [19654]

  Mr. Clappison
  As far as I am aware the Secretary of State has not met the Landscape Foundation.

  Hereditaments (Local Taxation)
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the average(a) domestic rates (b) community charge (c) council tax per household and (d) non-domestic rates payment per hereditament for each year since 1989–90 [20013]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is not available on a completed consistent basis across all years. The available information for England is as follows. All figures are net of benefit, transitional relief and non-domestic rate relief.
  444

  Local domestic taxes per hereditament£

  Non-domestic rates per hereditament£

  1989–90

  1454

  42,647

  1990–91

  2524

  55,603

  1991–92

  2331

  5,66,408

  1992–93

  2368

  5,76,029

  1993–94

  3376

  86,082

  1994–95

  3393

  86,173

  1995–96

  3416

  86,382

  1996–97

  3445

  86,918

  1 Calculated as net domestic rate yield (i.e. net of non-collection), divided by the number of domestic hereditaments. No information is available about the domestic rate debit (i.e. gross of non-collection) raised in the year.

  2 Calculated as estimated net community charge yield (net of non-payment), divided by the estimated number of chargeable dwellings. The 1991–92 figures is net of £140 per adult community charge reduction grant. No information is available on the amount of community charge debit (i.e gross of non-collection) raised in each year.

  3 Calculated as the estimated council tax debit (i.e. gross of non-payment), divided by the number of chargeable dwellings on valuation lists.

  4 Calculated as non-domestic rate yield (i.e. net of non-collection), including crown contributions in lieu, divided by the number of non-domestic hereditatments. The definition of a non-domestic hereditament was changed on 1 April following the introduction of the national non-domestic rate. There were a number of changes to the definition of a non-domestic hereditament at this time, for example lock up garages were taken out of rating. No information is available about the non-domestic rate debit (i.e. gross of non-collection) raised in the year.

  5 Calculated as the rateable value on local rating lists for the year, multiplied by the non-domestic rates multiplier, less estimated rate reliefs, divided by the number of hereditaments on local rating lists. This figure is gross of non-collection, and taken no account of the effect of subsequent appeals on the rates payable for the year.

  6 The average rates payable in 1991–92 increased partly as a result of NHS properties transferring to local rating lists on 1 April 1991.

  7 The average rate payable decreased in 1992–93 because successful appeals resulted in a lower average rateable value for the year.

  8 Calculated as non-domestic rate debit for the local rating list for the year, divided by the number of hereditaments on local rating lists.

  Drains and Sewers (Maintenance Responsibility)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which bodies have a duty to ensure that the structure and operation of all drains and sewers, hitherto in public ownership, are maintained to a standard that minimises the risks to public and environmental health; who issues standards for those operations; how they are monitored; and which bodies are charged with monitoring the contents of sewage effluent with particular reference to changes in the volumes of bacteria or viruses prejudicial to human and animal health. [20021]

  Mr. Clappison
  All sewerage undertakers have a statutory responsibility, enforceable by the Secretary of State or the Director General of Water Services, to maintain all public sewers to ensure their area is effectually drained. No trade effluent may be discharged to a public sewer without the consent of the sewerage undertaker who may impose strict conditions on the discharge. It is an offence if such a discharge is made to the sewer without consent or any other matter
  445
  is discharged which may be dangerous, a nuisance or likely to cause injury to health. Responsibility for any public health matters arising from sewers initially rests with the environmental health department of the local authority.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the bidding guidance for round 4 of the single regeneration budget challenge fund will be published. [20310]

  Mr. Curry
  The guidance will be published in due course.

  Tree Preservation Orders
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many tree preservation orders have been served throughout the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [20187]

  Mr. Clappison
  The information requested is not held centrally. Responsibility for making tree preservation orders rests with local planning authorities.

  Cryptosporidium
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many incidents relating to Cryptosporidium in drinking water are awaiting assessment and report by the drinking water inspectorate; [20088]

  (2) if he will list the incidents by water company and date relating to Cryptosporidium in drinking water reported to the drinking water inspectorate since 1 January 1993. [20089]

  Mr. Clappison
  Water companies in England and Wales are required to report all incidents in which drinking water quality might be affected. All incidents are investigated by the drinking water inspectorate. Most incidents are relatively minor happenings.

  The most significant risk to drinking water quality is the presence of Cryptosporidium oocysts. On Cryptosporidium, the notification to the inspectorate can relate either to the detection of Cryptosporidium oocysts in treated water, or to an increase of the illness cryptosporidiosis in the community, or both. The transmission of the illness occurs in a number of ways and often through contact with animals. One recent outbreak of cryptosporidiosis was found to be associated with the failure of a milk pasteurisation plant. The source of any outbreak has to be established through epidemiology.

  A case of South West Water Services Ltd. allegedly supplying water unfit for human consumption during 1995 because of Cryptosporidium is currently before the courts.
  446
  Notifications of events involving Cryptosporidium since 1 January 1993 are listed under three headings together with the status of the investigation. It should be noted that not all notifications become confirmed as incidents.

  Cryptosporidium oocysts detected in treated water but no reported increase of cryptosporidiosis in the community

  Water company area

  Date

  Location

  Status

  Yorkshire Water

  5 January 1995

  Huby WTW

  concluded

  Yorkshire Water

  16 March 1995

  Fixby WTW

  concluded

  Essex and Suffolk

  30 March 1995

  Ormsby WTW

  concluded

  Yorkshire Water

  31 August 1995

  Cottingham adit

  concluded

  Yorkshire Water

  13 September 1995

  Kepwick Springs WTW(in raw water)

  concluded

  South West Water

  13 September 1995

  Parracombe WTW

  concluded

  Yorkshire Water

  5 January 1996

  Elvington WTW

  concluded

  Yorkshire Water

  10 January 1996

  Elvington WTW

  concluded

  Yorkshire Water

  15 January 1996

  Kepwick Springs WTW

  concluded

  South West Water

  29 May 1996

  Littlehempston

  concluded

  Cambridge Water

  30 May 1996

  Duxford/Linton

  concluded

  South West Water

  27 June 1996

  Crown Hill WTW

  concluded

  Mid Kent Water

  3 July 1996

  Burham WTW

  concluded

  Southern Water

  Yorkshire Water

  17 October 1996

  Elvington WTW(raw water only)

  under investigation

  Northumbrian Water

  22 October 1996

  Lumley WTW

  under investigation

  Yorkshire Water

  21 February 1997

  Pateley Bridge

  under investigation

  Cambridge

  12 March 1997

  St. Ives

  under investigation

  Cambridge

  12 March 1997

  Horse Heath

  under investigation

  An increase in cryptosporidiosis in the community by oocysts not detected in treated water

  Water company area

  Date

  Location

  Status

  Wessex Water

  April 1993

  Poole

  under investigation

  Yorkshire Water

  11 June 1993

  Gilstead (Shipley/Bingley)

  under investigation

  Northumbria

  15 June 1993

  Sherburn

  Concluded

  North West

  April 1994

  Chorley

  Concluded

  North East

  25 January 1996

  Sunderland

  under investigation

  Yorkshire Water

  21 March 1996

  Tophill Low

  under investigation

  Anglian Water

  12 February 1997

  Bedford area

  under investigation

  Three Valleys Water

  26 February 1997

  Luton/Dunstable

  under investigation

  Both oocysts detected in treated water and an increase of cryptosporidiosis in the community

  Water company area

  Date

  Location

  Status

  South West Water

  12 August 1995

  Torbay/Littlehempston

  being prosecuted

  North West Water

  29 April 1996

  The Wirral

  under investigation

  Portsmouth Water

  18 November 1996

  Itchen WTW

  under investigation

  Three Valleys Water

  2 March 1997

  Clay Lane WTW

  under investigation

  Three Valleys Water

  2 March 1997

  Welwyn

  under investigation

  No incidents relating to Cryptosporidium other than those listed are awaiting assessment or report.
  447
  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the drinking water inspectorate will report on the Shipley/Bingley incident of Cryptosporidium in drinking water on 11 June 1993. [20090]

  Mr. Clappison
  The investigation by the drinking water inspectorate of this incident is continuing. As is standard practice, as part of its investigations, the inspectorate is considering whether there is a case for prosecuting Yorkshire Water plc, under section 70 of the Water Industry Act 1991, for the alleged offence of supplying water unfit for human consumption.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the Office of Water Supply regarding compensation to be paid to the customers affected by the Cryptosporidium incident in the area of the Three Valleys Water Company. [20094]

  Mr. Clappison
  None. The drinking water inspectorate has commenced a full investigation to establish whether the recent outbreak of cryptosporidiosis is linked to the water supply. After this investigation is completed, the Director General of Water Services will consider whether there is any case for compensation.

  Water Meters
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of the cost of the free installation of water meters was paid for by(a) increased domestic customer charges and (b) shareholders in 1996. [20091]

  Mr. Clappison
  This is a matter for the Director General of Water Services who informs me that in setting price limits at the 1994 periodic review he allowed for the costs of metering to be met by metered customers, other than the costs of excavation for meter boxes. This did not have a significant effect on price limits. Price limits have not been increased to allow for the subsequent introduction by some companies of a free meter space and these costs are therefore met by the shareholders, at least until new price limits are set.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultation the Office of Water Supply has held with non-metered householders about the costs to them of free meter installation. [20093]

  Mr. Clappison
  Since price limits were set by the Director General of Water Services in 1994, he informs me that there have been no costs to unmeasured household customers associated with companies' subsequent introduction of free meter installation. The director has not therefore specifically consulted about this. Ofwat liaises on a day to day basis with its 10 customer service committees about matters affecting customers.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was spent by water companies in 1996 on(a) the installation of and (b) the administrative costs of household metering. [20092]
  448
  Mr. Clappison
  This is a matter for the Director General of Water Services, who informs me that this information is not available in the form requested.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are being taken by his Department to promote the decontamination of contaminated land and its development in preference to green field sites; and if he will make a statement. [20319]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department's contaminated land policies, funding of research, technical guidance on topics such as techniques for site investigation, risk assessment of sites, take-up of new technologies and potential environmental liabilities and support under the single regeneration budget and through English Partnerships are all designed to enable the use of brown field sites in preference to green field sites.

  Property Disposals (Residuary Body)
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many properties the residuary body, established under section 22 of the Local Government Act 1992, has dealt with or disposed of to date; and if he will list those properties. [20291]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Secretary of State has no role in deciding which particular properties vest in the residuary body. This is a matter for the body and the local authorities concerned. I understand from the residuary body that it is dealing with the archives owned by the former Humberside county council and has disposed of an interest in Carlisle House, Goole, an office building formerly owned by Boothferry district council. The residuary body has put forward recommendations to the Secretary of State for the disposal of the Humberside archives.

  English House Condition Survey
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide for the combined regions of the north (northern, Yorkshire and Humberside and north-west), Greater London (inner London and outer London) and the rest of England (east midlands, west midlands, south-west, east anglia and rest of south-east)from the 1991 English house condition survey the figures for(a) construction date by tenure, (b) unfitness by tenure,(c) worst or best condition by tenure, (d) unfit vacants by tenure, (e) unfitness by dwelling type and tenure, (f) reason for vacancy by tenure and (g) variation of general comprehensive and urgent repair costs by tenure. [20217]

  Mr. Clappison
  Tables(a), (b), (c) and (g) are presented as requested. The information requested in (d) is part of table (b). The sample of dwellings surveyed in the 1991 English house condition survey is too small to provide (e) and (f).
  449

  Table A: Construction date by tenure by three broad regions

  Thousand (per cent.) dwellings

  Construction date by broad region

  Owner-occupied

  Private rented

  Local authority

  Housing association

  Vacant

  Total

  Northern

  Pre 1919

  1,106(71.5)29.6

  276(17.8)66.2

  33(2.1)2.5

  57(3.7)26.1

  75(4.8)38.9

  1,547(100)26.2

  1919–44

  816(64.2)21.8

  62(4.9)14.9

  344(27.1)25.6

  21(1.7)9.6

  28(2.2)14.5

  1,271(100)21.5

  1945–64

  673(52.1)18.0

  40(3.1)9.6

  529(40.9)39.4

  14(1.1)6.4

  36(2.8)18.7

  1,292(100)21.9

  Post 1964

  1,140(63.4)30.5

  39(2.2)9.4

  438(24.4)32.6

  126(7.0)57.8

  54(3.0)28.0

  1,797(100)30.4

  Regional total

  3,735(63.2)100

  417(7.1)100

  1,344(22.8)100

  218(3.7)100

  193(3.3)100

  5,904(100)100

  Greater London

  Pre 1919

  661(59.2)38.8

  197(17.6)63.1

  83(7.4)12.4

  83(7.4)54.2

  93(8.3)62.0

  1,117(100)37.4

  1919–44

  610(70.8)35.8

  64(7.4)20.5

  134(15.6)19.9

  18(2.1)11.8

  35(4.1)23.3

  861(100)28.8

  1945–64

  183(43.7)10.7

  22(5.3)7.1

  204(48.7)30.4

  2(0.5)1.3

  8(1.9)5.3

  419(100)14.0

  Post 1964

  249(42.0)14.6

  29(4.9)9.3

  251(42.3)37.4

  50(8.4)32.7

  14(2.4)9.3

  593(100)19.8

  Regional total

  1,703(57.0)100

  312(10.4)100

  672(22.5)100

  153(5.1)100

  150(5.0)100

  2,990(100)100

  Rest of England

  Pre 1919

  1,831(71.7)24.2

  492(19.3)54.9

  51(2.0)2.8

  38(1.5)16.1

  141(15.5)47.3

  2,553(100)23.6

  1919–44

  1,250(70.0)16.5

  127(7.1)14.2

  354(19.8)19.2

  22(1.2)9.3

  32(1.8)10.7

  1,785(100)16.5

  1945–64

  1,550(61.1)20.5

  104(4.1)11.6

  797(31.4)43.2

  35(1.4)14.8

  52(2.0)17.4

  2,538(100)23.4

  Post 1964

  2,925(74.0)38.7

  173(4.4)19.3

  643(16.3)34.9

  141(3.6)59.7

  73(1.8)24.5

  3,955(100)36.5

  Regional total

  7,556(69.8)100

  896(8.3)100

  1,845(17.0)100

  236(2.2)100

  298(2.8)100

  10,831(100)100

  Table B: Unfitness by tenure by 3 broad regions

  Thousand (per cent.) dwellings

  Unfitness by broad region

  Owner-occupied

  Private rented

  Local authority

  Housing association

  Vacant

  Total

  Northern

  Fit

  3,487(654.7)93.4

  310(5.8)74.3

  1,249(23.2)93.0

  207(3.8)95.8

  135(2.5)70.7

  5,388(100)91.3

  Unfit

  248(48.2)6.6

  107(20.8)25.7

  94(18.3)7.0

  1—

  56(10.9)29.3

  514(100)8.7

  Regional total

  3,735(63.33)100

  417(7.1)100

  1,342(22.8)100

  216(3.7)100

  191(3.2)100

  5,904(100)100

  Greater London

  Fit

  1,576(58.6)92.5

  257(9.6)82.1

  601(22.4)89.7

  130(4.8)84.4

  125(4.6)83.3

  2,689(100)89.9

  Unfit

  127(42.2)7.5

  56(18.6)17.9

  69(22.9)10.3

  1—

  25(8.3)16.7

  301(100)10.1

  Regional total

  1,703(57.0)100

  313(10.5)100

  670(22.4)100

  154(5.2)100

  150(5.0)100

  2,990(100)100

  Rest of England

  Fit

  7,217(71.1)95.5

  726(7.2)81.0

  1,744(17.2)94.5

  229(2.3)96.6

  235(2.3)78.9

  10,151(100)93.7

  Unfit

  339(49.7)4.5

  170(24.9)19.0

  102(15.0)5.5

  1—

  63(9.2)21.1

  682(100)6.3

  Regional total

  7,556(69.7)100

  896(89.3)100

  1,846(17.0)100

  237(2.2)100

  298(2.8)100

  10,833(100)100

  1 Sample sizes too small to provide statistically significant data.

  Table C: Worst/best condition by tenure by 3 broad regions

  Thousand (per cent.) dwellings

  Worst/best condition by broad region

  Owner-occupied

  Private rented

  Local authority

  Housing association

  Vacant

  Total

  Northern

  Best 30 per cent.

  1,271(71.6)34.0

  44(2.5)10.6

  320(18.0)23.8

  114(6.4)52.8

  25(1.4)13.1

  1,774(100)30.1

  Rest (60 per cent.)

  2,117(61.4)56.7

  234(6.8)56.1

  905(26.2)67.4

  90(2.6)41.7

  103(3.0)53.9

  3,449(100)58.4

  Worst 10 per cent.

  348(51.2)9.3

  139(20.4)33.3

  118(17.4)8.8

  12(1.8)5.6

  63(9.3)33.0

  680(100)11.5

  Regional total

  3,736(63.3)100

  417(7.1)100

  1,343(22.8)100

  216(3.7)100

  191(3.2)100

  5,904(100)100

  Greater London

  Best 30 per cent.

  392(62.0)23.0

  49(7.8)15.7

  110(17.4)16.4

  41(6.5)26.6

  40(6.3)26.7

  632(100)21.1

  Rest (60 per cent.)

  1,162(58.3)68.3

  174(8.7)55.6

  475(23.8)70.8

  97(4.9)63.0

  85(4.3)56.7

  1,993(100)66.7

  Worst 10 per cent.

  148(40.5)8.7

  90(24.7)28.8

  86(23.6)12.8

  16(4.4)10.4

  25(6.8)16.7

  365(100)12.2

  Regional total

  1,702(56.9)100

  313(10.5)100

  671(22.4)100

  154(5.2)100

  150(5.0)100

  2,990(100)100

  Rest of England

  Best 30 per cent.

  2,758(78.6)36.5

  104(3.0)11.6

  479(13.7)25.9

  116(3.3)49.2

  51(1.5)17.1

  3,508(100)32.4

  Rest (60 per cent.)

  4,325(67.6)57.2

  556(8.7)62.1

  1,242(19.4)67.3

  103(1.6)43.6

  171(2.7)57.4

  6,397(100)59.1

  Worst 10 per cent.

  473(51.1)6.3

  235(25.4)26.3

  125(13.5)6.8

  17(1.8)7.2

  76(8.2)25.5

  926(100)8.5

  Regional total

  7,556(69.8)100

  895(8.3)100

  1,846(17.0)100

  236(2.2)100

  298(2.8)100

  10,831(100)100

  450 451

  Table G: Variation of urgent, general and comprehensive repair costs by tenure by 3 broad regions

  Estimated cost of remedial work(£)

  Urgent repairs

  General repairs

  Comprehensive repairs

  Tenure by region

  Mean

  Median

  Mean

  Median

  Mean

  Median

  Northern

  Owner-occupied

  685

  137

  1,160

  415

  2,053

  776

  Private rented

  1,855

  884

  2,617

  1,798

  4,549

  2,872

  Local authority

  762

  252

  1,091

  474

  2,002

  969

  Housing association

  377

  26

  561

  65

  1,035

  122

  All tenures

  797

  190

  1,252

  473

  2,227

  903

  Greater London

  Owner-occupied

  697

  261

  1,341

  649

  2,597

  1,437

  Private rented

  1,465

  464

  2,002

  854

  3,488

  1,708

  Local authority

  723

  300

  1,042

  452

  2,000

  947

  Housing association

  736

  193

  981

  373

  1,674

  681

  All tenures

  817

  292

  1,349

  602

  2,539

  1,282

  Rest of England

  Owner-occupied

  538

  97

  1,027

  342

  1,966

  593

  Private rented

  1,705

  525

  2,535

  1,181

  4,233

  2,111

  Local authority

  497

  182

  863

  374

  1,726

  730

  Housing association

  350

  40

  699

  80

  1,356

  128

  All tenures

  653

  134

  1,154

  370

  2,155

  701

  1 Vacant dwellings have been included in the relevant tenure group. Assumptions have been made regarding the distribution of private sector vacants between the owner-occupied and private rented sectors.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 6 March,Official Report, columns 730–31, if he will provide figures for his Department's PFI projects in the same form as used by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, in his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington of 6 March, Official Report, columns 692–93. [20383]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My answer of 6 March to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) provides the maximum possible information on capital investment in individual projects, without releasing commercially sensitive details, particularly for those projects still in procurement.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide figures for local authority PFI projects in the same form as used by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, in his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 6 March,Official Report, columns 692–93; and if he will list his latest estimates of annual totals for local authority PFI projects, on the same basis as those given in table 5.5 of the Red Book. [20397]

  Mr. Jones
  The Red Book gives estimates for total capital spend by contractors on PFI projects. Information in this form for individual projects is not held centrally. We have announced support for up to £250 million of PFI investment to the end of 1997–98. The public private partnerships programme has recently announced a series of PFI patherfinder projects which are expected to be signed in the forthcoming months.

  Salisbury Bypass (Report)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library(a) the draft report and (b) the final report by English Nature to the Highways Agency on the crossing of the River Avon south of Salisbury by the proposed Salisbury bypass. [20294]
  452
  Mr. Clappison
  I have today placed in the Library of the House(a) a copy of English Nature's final working draft advice on the proposed Salisbury bypass and (b) a copy of its formal advice to the Highways Agency, as endorsed by English Nature's council.

  Isles of Scilly (Homelessness Legislation)
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make special provision for the Isles of Scilly under the homelessness legislation; and if he will make a statement. [20515]

  Mr. Curry
  In view of the unique situation of the Isles of Scilly—its small scale and limited resources—the Secretary of State has made an order under section 225 of the Housing Act 1996 which relieves the Council of the Isles of Scilly of an obligation to rehouse persons applying for assistance under part VII of the Housing Act 1996 who have not resided in that authority's area for at least two-and-a-half years of the last three years.

  Accidents (Dangerous Substances)
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the major accidents notified to the Health and Safety Executive under the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazard Regulations 1984 since January 1993, indicating in respect of each such accident(a) the dangerous substances involved, (b) the number of casualties, (c) the emergency measures taken to protect lives and property, (d) the extent of consequential restrictions placed on the consumption of food or drinking water and (e) details of any damage to the environment. [20456]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The list of major accidents that have occurred at sites subject to the Control of Industrial Regulations Major Accident Hazards 1984 since January
  453
  1983 and notified to HSE is as follows. The table lists where the off-site emergency plan was activated. HSE has no information on any restrictions placed on the consumption of food or drinking water as a result of these incidents.

  Date

  Company

  Dangerous substance

  Casualties

  Emergency measures

  Environment damage

  1997(1)

  7 February 1997

  Van Ommeren West Thurrock, Essex

  Ethanol

  None

  No need to activate the off-site emergency plan

  None

  (2)

  24 January 1997

  British Gas Romford

  Liquified natural gas

  None

  No need to activate the off-site emergency plan

  None.

  1996(3)

  3 October 1996

  Albright and Wilson Ltd Birmingham.

  Epichlorohydrin, Sodium chlorate and mixed chemicals.

  Injuries to 6 firemen and other employees, some members of the public reported eye/respiratory irritation.

  Off-site emergency plain activated (no information of food/drinking water restriction).

  None

  (4)

  17 July 1996

  Synthetic Chemicals (Northern)Ltd. Knottingley, West Yorkshire

  Sulphur Trioxide

  Injury to plant manager.

  Off-site plan activated (no information of food/drinking water restriction).

  None

  (5)

  4 February 1996

  British Gas Bromley

  Natural gas

  None

  Off-site plan not activated.

  None

  1995(6)

  22 October 1993

  British Gas Runcorn

  Natural gas

  None

  Off-site plan activated (no information re: food/water restriction).

  None

  (7)

  20 July 1995

  Continental Can Co. Ltd. Rugby

  Liquified petroleum gas

  1(minor)casualty.

  Off-site plan not activated.

  None

  (8)

  17 January 1995

  GATX Terminals Ltd. Bristol

  Petroleum spirit

  None

  Off-site plan not activated.

  None

  1994(9)

  3 September 1994

  Coalite Chemicals Ltd. Bolsover

  Chlorine

  On-site casualties (5).

  Off-site plan not activated.

  None

  (10)

  4 August 1994

  GATX Terminals Ltd. Bristol

  Petroleum spirit

  1 Fatality

  Off-site plan not activated.

  None

  (11)

  24 July 1994

  Pembroke Cracking Co. Ltd. Pembroke

  Flammable gases-liquids

  On-site casualties.

  Off-site plan not activated

  None

  (12)

  6 July 1994

  ICI C&P Ltd. Runcorn

  Vinyl chloride

  None

  Off-site plan not activated

  None

  (13)

  22 May 1994

  Esso Petroleum Ltd. Southampton

  Refinery treated gas (hydrogen and hydrocarbons)

  None

  Off-site plan not activated

  None

  (14)

  11 April 1994

  Powell Duffryn Terminals Ltd.

  Ethanol

  None

  Off-site plan not activated

  None

  (15)

  9 February 1994

  Phillips Petroleum Ltd. Bacton

  Natural gas

  None

  Off-site plan not activated

  None

  (16)

  1 February 1994

  Associated Octel Ltd. Ellesmere Port

  Ethyl chloride

  None

  Off-site plan activated (no information re: food/water restrictions)

  None

  1993(17)

  1 November 1993

  British Gas Beckton

  Natural gas

  None

  Off-site plan not activated

  None

  (18)

  5 October 1993

  British Gas Partington

  Liqueified Natural Gas

  None

  Off-site plan not activated

  None

  (19)

  5 July 1993

  Simon Storage Immingham

  LPG

  None

  Off-site plan not activated

  None

  Albino Frogs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effect on other life forms and the environment of the reported increase in the number of albino frogs. [20546]

  Mr. Clappison
  English Nature, the Government's scientific advisers on nature conservation issues, advises that albinism is highly unlikely to have any impact whatsoever on other life forms or the environment. The only effect that it may have is that for a short while predators on frogs may have an easier time in locating their prey. I am satisfied that, at this time, this issue is not of any conservation significance.

  Building Research Establishment
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what indications have been given to the
  454
  The taking of emergency measures to protect lives and property is the responsibility of the local authority emergency services and therefore HSE has only limited information on the emergency measures taken to protect lives and property.

  in-house bid team seeking to acquire the Building Research Establishment about the level of Government support for the Building Research Establishment in the immediate future and the type of work which would be covered by Government contracts. [20636]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Information memorandum sent to all pre-qualified bidders contained information about the work the Department intended to commission from BRE post privatisation, comprising both on-going contracts and new work to be let on a single tender basis to BRE. Detailed information about this work was placed in the data room for the benefit of shortlisted bidders, and updated as appropriate. In addition, both shortlisted bidders were given the opportunity to talk to DOE customers about future opportunities.

  It will be for other Government Departments to decide for themselves what work they might wish to commission from BRE in the future.
  455
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if the Government plan to accept any liability for redundancy costs arising from the proposed privatisation of the Building Research Establishment; [20637]

  (2) what discussions have been held between his Department and the two bidders for the Building Research Department about provision for redundancy among existing Building Research Establishment employees and the liability for redundancy payments. [20639]

  Mr. Jones
  It was made clear to all bidders that decisions on, and funding of, any redundancies post privatisation was a matter for the future owners of BRE. However, the calculation of expected restructuring costs—including redundancies—has been an important aspect of valuing BRE and, for prospective purchasers, for deciding how much to bid. Therefore in order to maintain a level playing field, all pre-qualified bidders were provided with assumptions regarding redundancy costs for different categories of staff, which they were requested to use in preparing their indicative bids.

  The two shortlisted bidders were given access to the data room which contained:
  a note by the Government Actuary's Department on redundancy entitlement in the Civil Service;
  the civil service compensation scheme report and explanatory booklet "PCSPS Early Retirement and Redundancy";
  information from the Government Actuary's Department relating to estimated redundancy costs by category of staff.

  At both stages, subsequent discussions were held with those bidders who requested them—including both short-listed bidders at stage 2—in order to clarify where necessary the figures and the basis on which bids were to be submitted.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff are currently employed at the Building Research Establishment; and how many redundancies are forecast in the in-house bid team's proposals. [20638]

  Mr. Jones
  At close of play on 14 March 1997 there were 660 people employed at BRE, 633.2 full-time equivalent staff.

  Information given to the staff and trade unions by the management bid team indicates that they expect there to be in the order of 115 job losses following transfer to the private sector.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will be in a position to make a statement about the Building Research Establishment. [20826]

  Mr. Jones
  On 15 March my Deaprtment entered into a contract to sell the Building Research Establishment to the preferred purchaser, the management bid team. The consideration is £1.7 million, plus an adjustment based on the balance sheet at completion. The sale agreements include provision for the Department to benefit from any windfall gain the purchaser may receive in respect of property, intellectual property, or reduced business rates. We hope to complete this transaction shortly.
  456

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) on what date he received the formal request from the Environment Directorate of the European Commission for his observations on the complaint in respect of the Cardiff bay barrage; when he expects to make his response; and if he will place a copy of his response in the Library; [20521]

  (2) what information he proposes to supply to the Environment Directorate of the European Commission in response to the request for United Kingdom Government observations on the complaint regarding the Cardiff bay barrage; if he will include details of the Treasury's cost-benefit analysis of the barrage in his response; and if he will make a statement; [20522]

  (3) what information the Environment Directorate of the European Commission has requested concerning progress on the Gwent levels bird reserve project as part of the United Kingdom Government's observations on the complaint regarding the Cardiff bay barrage. [20520]

  Mr. Clappison
  The European Commission decided not to proceed with the complaint in respect of the Cardiff bay barrage in February 1996. It confirmed that they were satisfied with the compensatory measures put forward by the Government. Since then we have kept the Commission closely informed of progress on these measures, both in correspondence and in a series of discussions between the relevant officials. The Government have received no formal request for information from the Commission pursuant to any further complaint.

  Environment Agency (Charging Schemes)
  Sir Jim Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the Environment Agency charging schemes for Integrated Pollution Control and Radioactive Substances Act Regulation for 1997–98. [20823]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Environment Act 1995 requires the Environment Agency to make charging schemes to recover the cost of carrying out its regulatory functions.

  With the consent of Treasury, and of the charging schemes for Radioactive Substances Act Regulation, the consent of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and following consultation with those likely to be affected by the schemes, the Environment Agency has now made charging schemes for Integrated Pollution Control and Radioactive Substances Act Regulation for 1997–98. The schemes will take effect from 1 April 1997.I have placed copies of them in the Library.

  The subsistence charge for integrated pollution control has been set at £1,755 to effect full cost recovery. This is a reduction of £50 on the charge in 1996–97. There are some minor changes to the charging schemes. Copies of the schemes will be sent to relevant operators and to other interested bodies shortly.

  Planning Inspectorate
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what performance targets he has set for the Planning Inspectorate agency for the financial year 1997–98. [20804]
  457
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I have today set key targets for the Planning Inspectorate in England in furtherance of the dual objectives of securing improved efficiency, and safeguarding the impartiality and quality of the agency's work. These targets form part of the phased programme of performance which I initiated last year. The targets for 1997–98 are:

  Timeliness

  (a) 80 per cent. of all planning appeals decided by written representations to be determined in 20 weeks, reducing to 18 weeks by 1998–99;

  (b) 80 per cent. of all planning appeals decided by hearings to be determined in 33 weeks, reducing to 24 weeks by 1998–99;

  (c) 80 per cent. of all planning appeals decided by inquiries to be determined in 44 weeks, reducing to 36 weeks by 1998–99;

  (d) to provide an inspector for 80 per cent. of local plan inquiries on request within 26 weeks of the end of the objection period, and to deliver 90 per cent. of inspectors' reports to local authorities by the dates agreed in service agreements;

  Financial

  (a) unit costs of planning appeals decided by written representations not to exceed £690;

  (b) recover 90 per cent. of receipts within eight weeks of invoice date;

  Efficiency

  generate a 3 per cent. efficiency improvement in the use of running costs compared with 1996–97;

  Quality

  to satisfy the Advisory Panel on Standards, and thus the Secretary of State, annually and following rigorous monitoring, that the quality of the inspectorate's work is being maintained at a high standard with 99 per cent. of its casework free from justified complaint;

  Information and guidance

  to carry out a customer satisfaction survey of the quality of Inspectors' reasoning in decision letters.

  Council Leaseholders (Service Charges)
  Sir Jim Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further plans he has to assist council leaseholders facing difficulties with service charges. [20822]

  Mr. Clappison
  We issued the Social Landlords Discretionary Reduction of Service Charges (England) directions 1997 and the Social Landlords Mandatory Reduction of Service Charges (England) directions 1997 on 4 February. We issued a further direction on 13 March giving Wandsworth borough council discretion to waive or reduce service charges for works in respect of defects on the Ackroydon and Queensmere estates. We have no plans at present to issue further directions, but we shall consider carefully any requests that are put to us.

  Greening Government Initiative
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the greening government initiative. [20821]

  Mr. Gummer
  Green Ministers have taken stock of the Government's approach to the environmental appraisal of its policies and to green housekeeping.
  458
  The Government's commitment to assess the potential environmental impact of new policy proposals has been restated in successive White Paper annual reports on sustainable development, and "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" requires all Departments to ensure that papers for Cabinet and ministerial committees should, where appropriate, cover any significant costs or benefits to the environment. Green Ministers have specifically reaffirmed that their Departments will carry out environmental appraisal of policies where appropriate and agreed to ensure that departmental procedures are in place to check that this happens and to keep them under review. They have also agreed to consider publishing those appraisals where there is a significant environmental impact. In 1991 my Department published "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" giving extensive guidance on how to integrate environmental considerations into Government policy. Consultants (KPMG) have been appointed to evaluate the practical application of environmental appraisal and are due to finalise their report shortly.

  The Government are also fully committed to running their own operations and buildings in accordance with best environmental practice as an integral part of their contribution to the UK's sustainable development strategy. All Government Departments have had green housekeeping strategies in place since 1992 and have achieved a great deal. Energy efficiency on the Government estate has improved by almost 15 per cent. in the five years to March 1996 and a new target of an overall 20 per cent. improvement by March 2000 has been endorsed by the Prime Minister.

  New Government buildings and major refurbishment will be assessed under the Building Research Establishment's environmental assessment method, or an equivalent scheme. The Department of the Environment's office services division has achieved accreditation for its environmental management system under BS 7750 and ISO 140001; this makes the United Kingdom one of the small number of countries that are investigating the application of such techniques in central Government. Work is under way by Government Departments to review the scope for reducing the impact of their travel and transport patterns on the environment and the scope for introducing green commuter plans to encourage staff to switch from the car to public transport, walking or cycling.

  Green Ministers have now agreed a further programme of action to take forward the green government initiative. The KPMG report and its case studies will be published as soon as it has been finalised. Green Ministers agree with the thrust of KPMG's emerging findings on the environmental appraisal of policies. Specifically they have agreed to:

  (a) prepare a short aide memoire, widely available and targeted more towards policy advisers than appraisal specialists, and showing the range of techniques available;

  (b) provide more detailed material on good practice for those needing further specialist advice; the Department of the Environment will be ready to advise other Departments without such expertise, and more generally (including considering the dissemination of case studies using both written material and seminars);

  459

  (c) review in their Departments the systems and processes they have in place to deal with environmental issues in policy appraisal where there are significant; although requirements differ across Departments, they will provide a clear point of contact for officials seeking advice;

  (d) take responsibility for ensuring that the necessary systems and processes are being properly used and, where the environmental impacts are significant, demonstrate publicly how they have taken account of environmental considerations in policy development. Collectively Green Ministers will review the situation periodically to satisfy themselves that arrangements are working well.

  The Government's corporate strategy on green housekeeping signals the Government's determination to build on the action already taken and to follow sound environmental principles across its operations. In particular, the Government will work to the target of a 20 per cent. improvement in energy efficiency over 1990 levels by 2000, and explore new ways of measuring performance by standard performance indicators. We shall ensure that new buildings and major refurbishments are designed to achieve high standards of environmental performance.

  The Government will also monitor targets set by Departments for reducing their waste in accordance with the UK strategy for sustainable waste management and promote the concepts of reduction, re-use, recovery and recycling with disposal as the least favourable option. New guidelines will be issued to Government Departments on taking environmental factors into account in purchasing goods and services consistent with the need to achieve value for money.

  Departments will reduce the use of hazardous substances, materials and goods and, where they are essential, dispose of them safely and in an environmentally preferable manner. Furthermore, Departments will minimise the environmental impact of the transport needs of Government operations, promote environmentally sensible choices in the way staff travel to work and provide them with the information and training they need to carry out their duties with the minimum impact on the environment.

  Green Ministers recognise that the achievement of improved environmental performance requires the commitment of all staff from senior management downwards and depends on Departments developing proper management systems. Where they have not already done so, Departments will consider whether it would be practicable, and whether it would bring extra value, to seek accreditation under BS 7750 and ISO 14001 or to have their systems assessed by auditors trained in environmental management.

SCOTLAND

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown by project of PFI schemes for which his Department is responsible as identified in table 5.5 of the Red Book. [18934]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 6 March 1997]: Table 1 gives a breakdown of the forecasts for Scotland in table 5.5 of the Red Book. It is possible to give a
  460
  meaningfull breakdown of the forecasts by project only for the Scottish Office's own projects and those of its agencies and nationalised industries. Forecasts for other sectors are based on information supplied by the public bodies concerned and the views of the Scottish Office and the Forestry Commission of the likely progress of the PFI in these sectors.

  Table 2 lists the latest forecasts on the same basis.

  Table 1: Red Book forecasts

  Estimated capital investment (£ million)

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  Total

  Scottish Office, Agencies and nationalised industries:

  M6 completion

  22

  70

  30

  122

  M8 completion

  25

  50

  40

  115

  M80 completion

  —

  —

  25

  25

  Bowhouse prison

  40

  40

  —

  80

  Inverness Airport terminal (Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd.)

  1

  2

  1

  4

  Water and sewerage

  60

  230

  307

  597

  Further and higher education

  5

  3

  3

  11

  Health

  100

  150

  270

  520

  Forestry Commission: timber harvesting

  10

  11

  14

  35

  "Scotland" total in Red Book

  263

  556

  690

  1,509

  Scottish local authority projects

  22

  104

  105

  231

  Figures are rounded to the nearest £ million.

  Table 2: Latest estimates

  Estimated capital investment (£ million)

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Total

  Scottish Office, Agencies and nationalised industries:

  M6 completion

  37

  59

  33

  130

  M8 completion

  25

  50

  40

  115

  M80 completion

  —

  —

  15

  15

  Bowhouse prison

  20

  60

  —

  80

  Inverness Airport terminal (Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd.)

  9

  —

  —

  9

  Water and sewerage

  60

  230

  307

  597

  Further and higher education

  10

  8

  3

  21

  Health

  100

  150

  270

  520

  Forestry Commission: timber harvesting

  10

  11

  14

  35

  "Scotland" total in Red Book format

  270

  568

  682

  1,520

  Scottish local authority projects

  22

  103

  100

  225

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest £ million.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide figures for his Department's PFI projects in the same form as used by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, in his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 6 March,Official Report, columns 692–93; and if he will list his latest estimates of annual totals for PFI projects, on the same basis as those given in Table 5.5 of the Red Book. [20395]

  Mr. Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) today.
  461

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list (i)by health board and (ii) overall the number of(a) doctors, (b) nurses, (c) midwives, (d) health visitors, (e) administration and clerical staff and (f) managers in the NHS in Scotland in each year from 1990 to 1996. [18894]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 10 March 1997]: As the information requested is lengthy, I have arranged for copies to be placed in the House Library.

  Market Testing Unit (Costs)
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the costs of his Department's market testing unit in each year since 1992, indicating for each year the(a) staff costs, (b) running costs and (c) costs of work commissioned by the unit. [19155]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 10 March 1997]: The information available on the costs of market testing is given in the table. This shows staff costs for the period up to June 1994 and the full costs to date of consultancy support. Information on staff costs since June 1994 and non-staff running costs is not available centrally and could be gathered only at a disproportionate cost.

  £ million

  Year

  Staff costs

  Consultancy costs

  1992–93

  0.965

  0.917

  1993–94

  1.239

  0.469

  1994–95

  0.095

  0.064

  1995–96

  Not separately identified

  Nil

  1996–97

  Not separately identified

  Nil

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what have been in each year the(a) consultancy, (b) advertising and (c) other fees associated with the establishment of nursery vouchers in Scotland. [19157]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 10 March 1997]: The information as at 4 March 1997, excluding VAT, is as follows:

  1995–96 £

  1996–97 £

  Consultancy fees

  0

  4,188

  Advertising fees

  520

  113,400

  Other fees

  9,350

  203,518

  "Other fees" include translation and production fees subcontracted by advertising agents, and fees to Capita Managed Services for the issue and redemption of vouchers, helpline staffing and associated services. Charges made by local authorities and others for the secondment of staff as development officers and for work on the curriculum framework, by Stirling university for research on the pilot schemes, and by press and television firms for the carriage of advertising (these latter amounting to nil in 1995–96, £212,901 in 1996–97), have been excluded.
  462

  Scallop Conservation
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to implement the results of the consultation on scallop conservation measures in Argyll and Bute; and if he will make a statement. [19493]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The results of the 1996 UK consultation exercise on scallop conservation were largely inconclusive. No specific measures are proposed for Argyll and Bute. Discussions are continuing in the context of the European Commission's proposed revision of the technical conservation regulation.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of food poisoning in Scotland were notified to his Department in(a) 1996 and (b) each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [20193]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table. Notifications of cases of food poisoning are made to the Common Services Agency for the Scottish health service. Notifications of food poisoning cases are made by doctors but, since February 1995, cases ascertained by laboratories and environmental health officers have also been included in the totals.

  Notifications of Food Poisoning1,2 in Scotland, year ending 31 December 1979–1996

  Year

  Total

  1979

  2,657

  1980

  2,689

  1981

  4,379

  1982

  4,525

  1983

  4,265

  1984

  4,301

  1985

  4,230

  1986

  4,662

  1987

  5,050

  1988

  5,734

  1989

  6,156

  1990

  6,757

  1991

  6,318

  1992

  7,877

  1993

  7,170

  1994

  8,291

  1995

  9,297

  1996

  10,126

  1For 1979–1995 notifications are confirmed cases, adjusted where a revised diagnosis is subsequently received. For 1996 notifications are provisional and subject to amendment where a revised diagnosis is subsequently received.

  2Includes Campylobacters from 1980. Excludes Campylobacters in Avrshire and Arran Health Board area from 1979–1986.

  source:

  Common Services Agency.

  Mr. W. J. Duff
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions, and from what date, the Common Services Agency dental practice division undertook ad hoc checks on dental payment claim forms submitted by Mr. W. J. Duff; what were the conclusions; and what action was taken following each occasion. [19264]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 March 1997]: The Common Services Agency's dental practice division undertakes ad hoc checks where dental payment claim forms are rejected during processing for any reason such as when there is incomplete information

  463
  on the form. In such cases, payments are not made and the forms are returned to the dentist for correct completion. Because these checks are ad hoc, no records are kept.

  Drug Services (Funding)
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy in regard to the ring fencing of funding provision to health boards for drug services. [20198]

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  In order to ensure that sufficient priority is given to tackling the problem of drug misuse in Scotland, the Government's policy is that the ring fencing of funding provision to health boards for drug services is essential and should continue.

  Radioactive Materials
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the civil police provide escorts for type B containers of civil radioactive materials transported by road at the request of the material's owners; and if he will make a statement. [19932]

  Mr. Page
  I have been asked to reply.

  The civil police do not escort type B containers of radioactive materials transported by road. The UK Atomic Energy Authority constabulary escorts these containers when necessary.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the owners of radioactive materials in transit are responsible for the cost of civil police escorts; and if he will make a statement. [19933]

  Mr. Page
  I have been asked to reply.

  The civil police are not involved in the escort of radioactive materials and therefore no costs are incurred.

HEALTH

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people with disabilities, living in NHS hospitals or residential accommodation, currently receive the mobility component of the disability living allowance. [20130]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  People with entitlement to disability living allowance mobility component at 21 January 1997 who were in hospital for over 28 days (84 days for children)

  Number

  Rate of mobility entitlement

  Higher

  10,480

  Lower

  13,951

  Total

  24,431

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division 100 per cent. data.
  464

  Community Care
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Healtl if he will place in the Library the responses to his: Department's draft guidance for local authorities on the implementation of the Community Care (Direct Payments Act 1996; and if he will make a statement. [19205]

  Mr. Burns
  Copies of all responses have been placed in the Library, except where respondents have indicated tha they wish their reply to be excluded from this arrangement In those cases, confidentiality has been respected.

  We have received 206 replies to the consultation throughout the United Kingdom. These comprise 86 replies from local authorities, 70 from voluntary organisations, and 50 from independent providers, healtl bodies, statutory bodies and individuals.

  Pepper Gas
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for: Health, pursuant to his answer of 13 February,Officia Report, column 287, for what reasons his Departmen compiled the report on pepper spray; and if his; Department has prepared other reports on this subjec since 1991. [19088]

  Mr. Horam
  The report to which the hon. Member refers was prepared by officials at the Department of Health at the request of the Home Office. No further scientific reports or this subject have been produced by officials.

  Extra-Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the hospitals which have facilities to provide extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation for children aged(a) up to six months and (b) six months and over; and how many paediatric intensive care beds there are in each of the units with extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation facilities. [19497]

  Mr. Horam
  On the basis of recently publishec evidence of the effectiveness of extra-corporea membrane oxygenation in neonates, my right hon. Frienc the Secretary of State announced on 8 January that, from 1 April this year, an ECMO service for neonates and premature babies up to six months suffering front respiratory syncytial virus will be purchased centrally from Great Ormond Street hospital for sick children London; Glenfield hospital, Leicester; and the Freemar hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne. All three have the necessary neonatal and paediatric facilities to suppor ECMO treatment for this group of babies.

  The information requested on the number of paediatric intensive care beds with ECMO facilities is not held centrally.

  Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus
  Mr. Brian David Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the hospitals in the west midlands that have had recorded incidents of MRSA since 1992; [19721]

  (2) how many (a) cases of and (b) deaths from MRSA have been recorded in (i) the west midlands and (ii) west midlands hospitals in each year since 1992; [19719]
  465
  (3) how many cases of MRSA have been recorded in Walsgrave hospital, Coventry in each of the last five years, broken down by age bands of 10 years; [19720]

  (4) what has been the percentage change in the annual incidence of MRSA in west midlands hospitals from 1990–91 to 1995–96. [19722]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on the total number of cases of infection or colonisation with methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus is not collected centrally. Some health authorities monitor the occurrence of MRSA, but these are likely to be subject to local variations in the type of data collected and the methods of collection used.

  Data on the occurrence of MRSA compiled by the public health laboratory service are derived from isolates submitted voluntarily by hospitals in England and Wales for typing.

  The data held by PHLS of the number of hospitals in the West Midlands health region reporting incidents of MRSA from 1992 to 1996, the number of patients affected and the year-on-year percentage change of number of patients affected are shown in the table. The names of individual hospitals are not available. An incident is defined as three or more patients with the same strain of MRSA in a month from the same hospital. It is not known in how many of these cases MRSA contributed to or caused death.

  Incidents of MRSA: West midlands health region 1992 to 1996

  Year

  Number of hospitals reporting incidents

  Number of patients affected

  Year-on-year percentage change of patients affected

  1992

  11

  200

  —

  1993

  17

  677

  +239

  1994

  21

  2,180

  +222

  1995

  22

  1,448

  -34

  1996

  17

  1,293

  -11

  Source:

  PHLS.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS trusts(a) have had their establishment orders altered, and when, and (b) are currently being considered for alterations to their establishment orders. [19824]

  Mr. Horam
  Copies of establishment orders for national health service trusts are available in the Library.

  Establishment orders for the following trusts are being considered for alteration:

  Black Country Mental Health trust

  Bromley Hospitals NHS trust

  Chichester Priority Services NHS trust

  Leeds Community and Mental Health Services Teaching NHS trust

  Leicester Ambulance and Paramedic Services NHS trust

  Lifecare NHS trust

  Riverside Mental Health NHS trust

  South Lincolnshire Community and Mental Health Services NHS trust.

  466
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to alter the establishment orders of NHS trusts involved in negotiating private finance initiative projects. [19823]

  Mr. Horam
  A decision will be taken following consultation with the local community health council in respect of trusts which require changes to their establishment order as a result of a private finance initiative project.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) negotiations he is undertaking with and (b) representations he has received from,(i)NHS trusts,(ii)community health councils,(iii) health authorities, and (iv) private sector private finance initiative partners concerning alterations to NHS trust establishment orders. [19825]

  Mr. Horam
  Alterations to trust establishment orders are generally requested by the trusts concerned. A decision is made on amendment following consultation where that is applicable. The consultation process where an alteration to an establishment order is due to a change in service provision is carried out by the Department involving the trust and the local community health council. Health authorities and the private sector are not directly involved.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 4 March,Official Report, column 569, concerning NHS trusts' funding, if the establishment order for each NHS trust named permits it to sign a contract for the private finance initiative project it is currently negotiating; and if he will make a statement. [20070]

  Mr. Horam
  The position is set out in the table.

  Trust

  Establishment order compliant with PFI

  Bishop Auckland NHS trust

  Yes

  Bromley Hospitals NHS trust

  Consultation in progress

  Calderdale Healthcare NHS trust

  Amending order made 13 March 1997

  Carlisle Hospitals NHS trust

  Amending order made 13 March 1997

  Dartford and Gravesham NHS trust

  Yes

  Greenwich Healthcare NHS trust

  Consultation required

  Hereford Hospitals NHS trust

  Yes

  North Durham Acute Hospitals NHS trust

  Yes

  Oxleas NHS trust

  Yes

  St. James and Seacroft University Hospitals NHS trust

  Yes

  Swindon and Marlborough NHS trust

  Yes

  Walsgrave Hospitals NHS trust

  Consultation required

  Wellhouse NHS trust

  Amending order made 13 March 1997

  Worcester Royal Infirmary NHS trust

  Yes

  Art Therapy
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received recently regarding art therapy services in London; and if he will make a statement on the matters raised by the hon. Member for Woolwich in his letter of 5 March regarding Lewisham and Guys NHS mental health trust; [19514]

  (2) with whom the final decision to delete art therapy services in the Lewisham and Guy's NHS mental health trust rests; and if he will make a statement; [20332]
  467
  (3) what was the basis upon which the decision to cease to provide art therapy services in the Lewisham and Guy's NHS mental health trust was taken; and if he will make a statement. [20333]

  Mr. Burns
  [holding answer 10 March 1997]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has received a number of representations concerning art therapy in London. The decision to discontinue some of the art therapy services provided by Lewisham and Guy's mental health trust was made by Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham health authority, in consultation with the trust. The decision followed a review of patient needs and priorities in the south-east London area.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance is given by his Department regarding the notice given by service providers for terminating work with long-term clients, with special reference to art therapy; and if he will make a statement; [20334]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the implications of his decision in respect of the recognition of art, music and drama therapy for NHS funding, priority setting and the provision of such services. [20331]

  Mr. Burns
  We have not issued central guidance on arrangements for terminating art therapy services. The funding, priority setting and provision of art therapy services are matters for the national health services to determine in the light of local circumstances. In recognition of the part art therapists play, we have agreed that they should be registered in accordance with the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the additional funds which he has provided for mental health services in London can be spent on art therapy services. [20335]

  Mr. Burns
  There is no reason in principle for excluding art therapy from the range of services to be funded from the mental health challenge fund or from target funds, provided that their provision relates to the

  Places in residential care homes for elderly people—London, as at 31 March 1987 and 1996

  Local authority

  Voluntary sector

  Private sector

  All sectors

  Borough

  1987

  1996

  1987

  1996

  1987

  1996

  1987

  1996

  All London boroughs

  15,677

  7,251

  6,284

  6,284

  5,529

  7,443

  27,490

  20,978

  Inner London

  6,639

  3,152

  2,097

  2,210

  874

  1,264

  9,610

  6,626

  Camden

  553

  206

  198

  225

  71

  170

  822

  601

  Greenwich

  560

  333

  0

  0

  109

  178

  669

  511

  Hackney

  495

  239

  137

  148

  0

  75

  632

  462

  Hammersmith

  461

  274

  106

  113

  16

  16

  583

  403

  Islington

  626

  319

  58

  126

  32

  0

  716

  445

  Kensington

  300

  167

  249

  158

  51

  82

  600

  407

  Lambeth

  698

  472

  286

  233

  172

  279

  1,156

  984

  Lewisham

  760

  248

  18

  66

  237

  372

  1,015

  686

  Southwark

  682

  255

  248

  93

  0

  0

  930

  348

  Tower Hamlets

  407

  236

  125

  178

  0

  0

  532

  414

  Wandsworth

  568

  152

  636

  789

  186

  92

  1,390

  1,033

  Westminster

  529

  251

  36

  81

  0

  0

  565

  332

  Outer London

  9,038

  4,099

  4,187

  4,074

  4,655

  6,179

  17,880

  14,352

  Barking

  359

  433

  0

  32

  38

  55

  397

  520

  Barnet

  544

  364

  1,003

  941

  534

  560

  2,081

  1,865

  Bexley

  437

  129

  5

  251

  45

  46

  487

  426

  Brent

  437

  132

  129

  140

  72

  197

  638

  469

  468
  needs of people with severe mental illness, and that bids have been soundly based within the criteria which govern the allocation process.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for the City of Durham(Mr. Steinberg) of 29 January,Official Report, columns 271–72, concerning NHS PFI projects, what information he has received regarding (a) the date that contracts, including financial agreements, will be signed and (b) the likely start date and time scale for construction work at each of the sites named. [20071]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 13 March,Official Report, column 341. Financial agreement on a private finance initiative contract is expected three or four months after the commercial contract has been signed. Shortly after financial agreement, work can begin on site.

  Negative Equity Buy-out
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many, and which, health authorities and trusts operated negative equity buy-out or similar relocation schemes prior to October 1994; and how much was paid by each health service body under such schemes in each year. [20117]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 13 March 1996,Official Report, column 621.

  Residential Care for the Elderly (London)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each London borough the number of residential places for the elderly in(a) 1987 and (b) 1997 in (i)local authority and (ii) other homes by category. [20014]

  Mr. Burns
  Information for 1987 and 1996, the latest available year, is given in the table.
  469

  Places in residential care homes for elderly people—London, as at 31 March 1987 and 1996

  Local authority

  Voluntary sector

  Private sector

  All sectors

  Borough

  1987

  1996

  1987

  1996

  1987

  1996

  1987

  1996

  Bromley

  475

  41

  646

  532

  330

  575

  1,451

  1,148

  Croydon

  579

  183

  239

  290

  698

  475

  1,516

  948

  Ealing

  595

  338

  383

  266

  302

  253

  1,280

  857

  Enfield

  550

  125

  28

  15

  354

  594

  932

  734

  Haringey

  457

  109

  343

  293

  140

  146

  940

  548

  Harrow

  412

  108

  134

  110

  396

  518

  942

  736

  Havering

  490

  283

  0

  151

  303

  531

  793

  965

  Hillingdon

  505

  348

  88

  75

  57

  188

  650

  611

  Hounslow

  432

  168

  136

  140

  5

  82

  573

  390

  Kingston upon Thames

  253

  115

  6

  0

  370

  327

  629

  442

  Merton

  262

  168

  165

  175

  165

  178

  592

  521

  Newham

  616

  253

  109

  125

  24

  16

  749

  394

  Redbridge

  481

  215

  151

  137

  231

  372

  863

  724

  Richmond upon Thames

  353

  239

  434

  288

  85

  202

  872

  729

  Sutton

  338

  147

  176

  113

  299

  428

  813

  688

  Waltham Forest

  463

  201

  12

  0

  207

  436

  682

  637

  Source:

  DH annual return RAC5.

  Hepatitis B Vaccinations
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many vaccinations against hepatitis B were administered in each of the last three years; [20023]

  (2) what was the cost, in each of the last three years for which figures are available, of programmes to vaccinate groups at risk from hepatitis B. [20025]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Liver Cancer
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the number of deaths from liver cancer and (b) the cost to the NHS of treating liver cancer, in each year since 1994. [20027]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on the number of deaths from liver cancer in 1994—latest available figures—is contained in "Mortality statistics: cause, England and Wales, 1993(revised) and 1994"(Series DH2 no. 21), published by the Office for National Statistics, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Information on the costs to the NHS of treating liver cancer is not collected centrally.

  Health Spending (East Sussex)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS spending in East Sussex is on people over retirement age. [20017]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact John Lewis, chairman of East Sussex Brighton and Hove health authority for details.

  Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the current structure and membership of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. [20026]

  Mr. Horam
  Current membership of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation is as follows;
  470

  Professor Sir David Hull (Chairman)—formerly Professor of Child Health, Nottingham.

  Dr. R. Aston—Consultant in Communicable Disease Control, Bolton.

  Dr. B. Bannister—Consultant in Communicable Disease Control, Coppett's Wood Hospital (Royal Free Hospital).

  Dr. H. Bowyer—Consultant in Public Health Medicine, Borders Health Board.

  Dr. K. Cartwright—Director, Gloucester Public Health Laboratory.

  Dr. S. Conway—Consultant in Paediatric Infectious Diseases, Leeds.

  Professor D. Goldblatt—Senior Lecturer/Honorary Consultant, Institute of Child Health.

  Professor D. Hall—Professor of Community Paediatrics, University of Sheffield.

  Dr. D. Joynson—Director, Swansea Public Health Laboratory.

  Dr. C. R. Kennedy—Consultant Paediatric Neurologist, Southampton University Hospital.

  Dr. J. Lunn—formerly Consultant in Occupational Medicine, Northwick Park Hospital.

  Dr. K. Nicholson—Senior Lecturer and Honorary Consultant in Infectious Diseases, Leicester University and Leicester Royal Infirmary.

  Dr. M. Ogilvie—Senior Lecturer and Honorary Consultant Medical Virology, Edinburgh University Medical School.

  Professor L. Ritchie—General practitioner and Professor of General Practice, Aberdeen.

  Dr. R. Smithson—Consultant in Communicable Disease Control, Western Health and Social Services Board.

  Two new members to advise on nursing matters and paediatric epidemiology are currently being appointed and will replace outgoing members Mrs. D. Roden and Professor C. Peckham.

  Drug-related Incidents (Weekends)
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what data his Department collates on the number of people currently treated on average on(a) Friday and (b) Saturday nights at accident and emergency units for (i)ecstasy,(ii)cocaine and (iii) heroin-related incidents; [20354]
  471
  (2) how many people are currently being treated in hospital for ecstasy-related health problems; [20415]

  (3) what research he has (a) evaluated and (b) commissioned into the long-term effects of taking ecstasy; [20401]

  (4) what is his estimate of the number of people who currently use ecstasy on a weekend in the United Kingdom; and on what data these figures are based; [20376]

  (5) what research he has (a) evaluated and (b) commissioned on the side effects of taking ecstasy; [20400]

  (6) how many people have died in 1996 as a consequence of taking ecstasy or attending ecstasy-related events. [20414]

  Mr. Burns
  The Department of Health does not collect information by day of the week on drug-related incidents in accident and emergency units, but anecdotal evidence from a number of hospitals suggests that incidents related to the drug known as ecstasy are common at weekends. It is not possible, because of its clandestine nature, to determine accurately the level of ecstary misuse, but surveys suggest that about 1 per cent. of 16 to 29-year-olds take the drug on a regular basis.

  Information on the number of patients treated for ecstasy-related health problems is not collected.

  The Department of Health has commissioned a literature review to evaluate existing research on both the short-term side effects and long-term health risks of taking ecstasy and has received advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on these issues, which was the subject of a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) on 28 February 1997, Official Report, columns 441–42. The Department of Health is considering, in the light of this work, what further research may be necessary on the health risks of this drug.

  Figures for the number of deaths from ecstasy in 1996 are not yet available, but there were 10 deaths in 1994 attributed solely to the misuse of ecstasy.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will require the Medicines Commission to review the operation of the Committee on Safety of Medicines in October 1995; [20481]

  (2) if he will list the dates between 1 June 1995 and 19 October 1995 when he met the chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines; [20622]

  (3) if he will publish the documents of 16 October 1995 relating to the instructions his Department gave to the Medical Direct Mail Organisation; [20561]

  (4) when data from the World Health Organisation study into oral contraception were first made available to the Medicines Control Agency; and if he will make a statement; [20559]
  472
  (5) when his Department's formal written request of 11 October 1995 relating to desogestrel and gestodene was acknowledged by (a) the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products and (b) the European Medicines Evaluation Agency; [20482]

  (6) on what date the licensing authority received the abstract relating to the transnational study, subsequently presented at the British Pharmacological Society; and when the abstract was seen by the Committee on Safety of Medicines; [20623]

  (7) if Ministers asked the Medicines Control Agency to arrange the meeting of the Committee on Safety of Medicines held on 13 October 1995; [20562]

  (8) on what dates after 13 October the Committee on Safety of Medicines considered matters relating to the safety of oral contraceptives containing desogestrel and gestodene; [20483]

  (9) on whose instructions the letter over the signature of the chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines of 18 October 1995 was issued. [20560]

  Mr. Malone
  The hon. Member, and the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) have already pursued these matters in great detail. I refer the hon. Member to the statement to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on 23 October 1995 at columns 701–10 and to the replies I gave on 12 June 1996 at columns 250–71, 7 November 1995 at columns 679–80, 11 December 1995 at columns 522–23, 19 December 1995 at columns 1148–50 and 1152–54, 8 February 1996 at columns 343–48, 7 March 1996 at column 321, 14 March 1996 at column 752, 21 March 1996 at columns 317–18, 25 March 1996 at column 428,28 March 1996 at column 748,1 April 1996 at column 53, 2 April 1996 at columns 184–86, 24 April 1996 at columns 172–74, 25 April 1996 at column 281, 30 April 1996 at columns 497–99, 9 May 1996 at columns 243–44, 10 May 1996 at columns 280–82, 5 June 1996 at columns 447–49, 13 June 1996 at columns 245–247, 17 June 1996 at column 358, 20 June 1996 at columns 570–71,21 June 1996 at columns 667–68.

  Blister Packs
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what ways British standards covering the strength of blister packs for pharmaceutical products differ from those applying in other European Union countries. [20541]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Medical Personnel (Voluntary Work Overseas)
  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made since the NHS executive letter of 28 June 1995 in facilitating the release of medical personnel for voluntary work overseas, with special reference to Medical Emergency Relief International; what new proposals he has to facilitate their release; and if he will make a statement. [19610]

  Mr. Malone
  Executive letter (95)69 makes plain that decisions on whether to release staff to work overseas are matters for local national health service employers. I understand that a number of trusts have made
  473
  agreements with Voluntary Services Overseas about releasing health professionals to work in developing countries.

  Treatment Costs
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the average cost per patient treated in each NHS trust in England. [19718]

  Mr. Horam
  The information available, in the form of average cost per finished consultant episode, has been placed in the Library.

  Health Service Chairmen (West Yorkshire)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the chairman of each NHS trust and health authority in west Yorkshire; when each was appointed; and when their current period of office comes to an end. [20108]

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

  Health authority

  Chairman

  Appointed from

  Appointed to

  Bradford

  Zahida Manzoor

  1 April 1996

  31 March 1998

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  Allan Templeton

  1 April 1996

  31 March 2000

  Leeds

  Clive Leach

  1 April 1996

  31 March 2000

  Wakefield

  Anne Bolter

  1 April 1996

  31 March 2000

  NHS trust

  Chairman

  Appointed from

  Appointed to

  Airedale

  Peter Bell

  1 December 1993

  30 November 1997

  Bradford

  John Watson

  2 December 1996

  30 November 2000

  Community Health

  Bradford Hospitals

  Linda Pollard

  15 July 1996

  31 October 1999

  Calderdale Healthcare

  Ian Hughes

  15 July 1996

  31 October 1999

  Dewsbury Healthcare

  John Hemingway

  1 November 1995

  31 October 1999

  Huddersfield Healthcare

  Garrick Graham

  1 November 1994

  31 October 1998

  Leeds

  Bill Kilgallon

  1 November 1994

  31 October 1998

  Community and Mental Health Services

  Pinderfields Hospitals1

  Vacancy

  Pontefract Hospitals1

  Christine Searby

  1 November 1996

  31 October 1997

  St. James's and Seacroft University Hospital

  Tony Hughes

  1 April 1995

  30 November 1998

  United Leeds Teaching Hospitals

  David Hall

  1 April 1995

  30 November 1998

  Wakefield and Pontefract Community Health

  Roy Widdowson

  1 November 1996

  31 October 2000

  West Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance

  Alan Titterington

  1 November 1996

  31 October 1998

  1 Applications are currently being considered for the chairmanship of the merged Pinderfields and Pontefract Hospitals trust.

  474

  Ambulance Trusts
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) emergency vehicles and (b) vehicles for non-emergency services were in service with each NHS ambulance trust in each of the last three years. [20128]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not collected centrally. The second report of the Health Committee in Session 1994–95, copies of which are available in the Library, provides some information about the number of emergency ambulances in service at that time.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vehicles and of what type are (i) owned and (ii)leased by each NHS ambulance trust; and, for each type, how many are(a) less than one year old, (b) between one and three years old, (c) between four and seven years old and (d) eight or more years old. [20129]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current average waiting time between a child being referred for speech therapy, an assessment taking place and referral for treatment. [20132]

  Mr. Burns
  The information requested is not available centrally. Under the childrens charter, parents can expect to be told the local charter standard for the maximum waiting time before their child is seen.

  Trust Boards (Disabled People)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people with disabilities are members of NHS trust boards; and what percentage this is of the total membership. [20131]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on all trust board members is not available. Of 845 non-executives appointed since monitoring began in July 1996, nine—1.06 per cent.— considered themselves to have a disability. Information about executive trust board members with disabilities is not collected centrally.

  Residential Care Charges
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that the partial equity release insurance scheme will form part of the long-term care partnership proposals set out in the draft Community Care (Residential Charges)Bill. [20127]

  Mr. Burns
  The Government remain willing to explore options for making equity release a safe and affordable way of financing the purchase of long-term care insurance, as made clear in paragraph 29 of the policy statement "A New Partnership for Care in Old Age"(Cm 3563), copies of which are available in the Library.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of food poisoning were notified to his Department in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [20194]
  475
  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary gave the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) on 27 February 1997,Official Report, columns 307–308. Data for the preceding years are available from the same source.

  Medicinal Drugs (Third World)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to persuade other nations to reduce the distribution of surplus medicinal drugs in third world and other countries following the recent medicinal drug deaths in Nigeria, Haiti and Lithuania. [20292]

  Mr. Malone
  The United Kingdom will continue to work with other countries and appropriate international organisations, particularly the World Health Organisation, in pursuit of agreed standards and guidelines regarding drug donations and their safety.

  Funding (Market Forces Factor)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of overall funding reflects the pay element of the market forces factor in the allocations of resources in each health authority. [20461]

  Mr. Horam
  The market forces factor is one component of the weighted capitation formula used to calculate health authority targets which in turn inform allocations.

  There are six elements within the MFF adjustment and their corresponding weightings are shown in the table:

  Element

  Weighting Percentage

  Staff

  57.31

  Medical and dental London weighting

  8.68

  Non pay

  22.57

  Land

  1.17

  Buildings

  7.94

  Equipment

  2.33

  Total

  100

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of the market force factor in his health authority funding formula

  Expenditure by GP fundholders on the purchase of healthcare from non-NHS providers

  £ thousand

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  North Yorkshire family health services authority

  101

  512

  348

  618

  989

  Northern region

  238

  960

  1,978

  n/a

  n/a

  Yorkshire region

  315

  1,086

  2,182

  n/a

  n/a

  Northern and Yorkshire region

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  7,390

  8,870

  Source:

  The annual accounts of family health services authorities.

  Notes:

  1. The 1995–96 figures are provisional.

  2. Northern and Yorkshire Regions merged in 1994–95, though South Cumbria transferred to the North West region.

  3. Expenditure in North Yorkshire family health service authority is included under the Yorkshire region for 1991–92 to 1993–94 and the Northern and Yorkshire region total for 1994–95 and 1995–96.
  476
  in areas which his Department has identified as having low rates of pay largely based on Whitley Council agreements. [20459]

  Mr. Horam
  The staff market forces factor enables all health authorities to meet trust prices which reflect national pay agreements.

  Anti-anthrax Vaccination
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the recommended interval between each injection in a course of anti-anthrax vaccination. [20449]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is contained in the book "Immunisation Against Infectious Diseases" issued by the Health Departments, which was issued to all practising clinicians and copies of which are available in the Library. The information is also routinely included in the insert included in every pack of vaccine.

  Four injections of 0.5 ml is recommended. There should be an interval of three weeks between the first three injections, and six months between the third and fourth. Subsequent reinforcing doses of 0.5 ml are recommended at annual intervals.

  Oakleaf Rehabilitation Centre, Guildford
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will pay an official visit to the Oakleaf rehabilitation centre in Guildford. [20473]

  Mr. Burns
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has no plans to visit the Oakleaf rehabilitation centre.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 10 March,Official Report, column 114, how much money was spent by fundholding general practitioners practices in (a) North Yorkshire, (b) Yorkshire region and (c) Northern region on purchasing hospital and community health services from private sector providers as defined by sub-code 160 in form FAA23 in the accounts filed by health authorities in each year since general practitioner fundholding started. [20690]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is given in the table.
  477

  Anti-depressants
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment his Department has made of the(a) short-term and (b) long-term effects of(i) tricyclic anti-depressants and (ii)selective serotinin re-uptake inhibitors; and if he will make a statement. [20537]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 6 February 1997,Official Report, at column 723, which referred to benzodiazepines and tricyclic anti-depressants. The answer to that question also applies to selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors.

  Funding (Private Health Care Investment)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account is taken of the level of investment in private health care in the formula used to distribute resource allocations to health authorities. [20460]

  Mr. Horam
  The national weighted capitation formula determines health authorities' shares of available resources and its aim is for health authorities to be able to purchase similar levels of health services for resident populations in similar need. The formula does not take explicit account of levels of private medical insurance and therefore allocations are not directly affected.

  The national health service is available to all, regardless of ability to pay, and people with private medical insurance always have the option to use the NHS.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the number and proportion of pensioners in each region of the United Kingdom who received(a) income support, (b) housing benefit and (c) council tax benefit. [17484]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the tables. The information for May 1994 corrects that given in my reply of 9 January 1996,Official Report, columns 171–72.

  Income support pensioner recipients by region: May 1995

  GSS region

  Number of claimants

  Proportion of the pensioner population (percentage)

  South East

  444,000

  12.7

  South East (except London)

  236,000

  10.4

  London (inner/outer)

  209,000

  17.0

  North

  101,000

  15.4

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  157,000

  15.1

  East Midlands

  107,000

  12.6

  East Anglia

  55,000

  11.8

  South West

  116,000

  10.2

  West Midlands

  173,000

  16.0

  North West

  218,000

  16.7

  England

  1,372,000

  13.7

  Scotland

  165,000

  15.9

  Wales

  95,000

  14.6

  Total (Great Britain)

  1,632,000

  13.9

  Northern Ireland

  59,000

  21.0

  Total (United Kingdom)

  1,690,000

  14.1

  478

  Housing benefit pensioner recipients by region: May 1995

  GSS region

  Number of claimants

  Proportion of the pensioner population (percentage)

  South East

  539,000

  15.4

  South East (except London)

  286,000

  12.6

  London (inner/outer)

  253,000

  20.6

  North

  135,000

  20.6

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  196,000

  18.8

  East Midlands

  123,000

  14.5

  East Anglia

  68,000

  14.5

  South West

  128,000

  11.2

  West Midlands

  188,000

  17.4

  North West

  231,000

  17.7

  England

  1,609,000

  16.0

  Scotland

  234,000

  22.6

  Wales

  88,000

  13.5

  Total (Great Britain)

  1,932,000

  16.5

  Northern Ireland

  42,000

  15.0

  Total (United Kingdom)

  1,974,000

  16.4

  Council tax benefit pensioner recipients by region: May 1995

  GSS region

  Number of claimants

  Proportion of the pensioner population (percentage)

  South East

  732,000

  20.9

  South East (except London)

  424,000

  18.7

  London (inner/outer)

  308,000

  25.0

  North

  184,000

  27.9

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  283,000

  27.2

  East Midlands

  193,000

  22.6

  East Anglia

  101,000

  21.5

  South West

  203,000

  17.8

  West Midlands

  293,000

  27.1

  North West

  360,000

  27.6

  England

  2,347,000

  23.4

  Scotland

  304,000

  29.4

  Wales

  132,000

  20.3

  Great Britain

  2,784,000

  23.7

  Northern Ireland

  n/a

  n/a

  United Kingdom

  n/a

  n/a

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand. Percentages are given to one decimal place.

  2. A case is defined as being a pensioner if in receipt of the pensioner premium, higher pensioner premium or enhanced pensioner premium. It excludes those aged 60 or over without a premium, i.e. preserved right residential care cases.

  3. There will be an overlap between recipients of the named benefits.

  4. Regions used are Government standard statistical regions.

  5. Income support sample size 5 per cent.

  6. Council tax benefit does not apply to Northern Ireland.

  7. Figures are for benefit units which may be a single person or a couple.

  Sources:

  1. Income support statistics quarterly inquiry May 1995.

  2. Housing benefit management information system, annual 1 per cent. sample inquiries taken at the end of May 1995.

  3. Office of Population and Censuses and Surveys mid-term estimates 1995.

  4. Income Support (Northern Ireland)100 per cent. sample May 1995.

  5. Northern Ireland Housing Executive inquiry taken at 15 December 1995.
  479

  Housing benefit pensioner recipients by region: May 1994

  GSS region

  Number of claimants

  Proportion of the pensioner population (percentage)

  South East (except London)

  283,000

  15.4

  London (inner/outer)

  256,000

  1—

  North

  136,000

  20.6

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  205,000

  19.7

  East Midlands

  120,000

  14.2

  East Anglia

  66,000

  14.2

  South West

  127,000

  11.2

  West Midlands

  189,000

  17.5

  North West

  227,000

  17.3

  England

  1,609,000

  16.0

  Scotland

  245,000

  23.7

  Wales

  90,000

  13.8

  Total (Great Britain)

  1,944,000

  16.6

  Northern Ireland

  42,000

  15.1

  Total (United Kingdom)

  1,986,000

  16.5

  Note:

  1 London and South-east regions have been added together for the population estimate.

  Council tax benefit pensioner recipients by region: May 1994

  GSS region

  Number of claimants

  Proportion of the pensioner population (percentage)

  South East (except London)

  433,000

  20.9

  London (inner/outer)

  299,000

  1—

  North

  187,000

  28.3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  297,000

  28.5

  East Midlands

  192,000

  22.7

  East Anglia

  102,000

  22.0

  South west

  213,000

  18.8

  West Midlands

  305,000

  28.3

  North west

  362,000

  27.5

  England

  2,390,000

  23.8

  Scotland

  304,000

  29.4

  Wales

  135,000

  20.7

  Great Britain

  2,829,000

  24.1

  Northern Ireland

  n/a

  n/a

  United Kingdom

  n/a

  n/a

  Notes:

  1 London and South-east regions have been added together for the population estimate.

  1. In each table the figures in italics were transposed in error in the original reply.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand. Percentages are given to one decimal place.

  3. Regions used are Government standard statistical regions.

  4. Figures for housing benefit council tax benefit are for benefit units which may be a single person or a couple.

  5. Pensioners are defined as either a claimant or partner aged 60 or over except for the figures for Northern Ireland where claimant or partner are aged 65 or over.

  6. Council tax benefit does not apply in Northern Ireland.

  Sources:

  1. Housing benefit management information system, annual 1 per cent. sample inquiry taken at the end of May 1994.

  2. Office of Population and Censuses and Surveys mid-term estimates 1993.

  3. Northern Ireland Housing Executive inquiry, taken at 15 December 1995.

  Gulf War Victims (Compensation)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost to the 480
  social services of the delay in the payment of compensation to United Kingdom victims of the Gulf war through the United Nations Compensation Commission. [18726]

  Mr. Heald
  None. The United Nations compensation arrangements relate to United Nations peace-keeping operations. Operation Granby in the Gulf conflict was a multinational force operation mounted under a UN resolution and is not therefore covered by those compensation arrangements.

  Private Finance Initiatives
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 6 March,Official Report, column 720, if he will provide figures for his Department's PFI projects in the same form as used by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, in his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington of 6 March, Official Report, columns 692–93. [20390]

  Mr. Burt
  Information on the Department of Social Security's private finance initiative projects is not available in the format requested. Disaggregating the figures quoted in table 5.5 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" into individual, identifiable projects at this stage would involve publishing commercially confidential material, harm the competitive position of a third party and prejudice the Department's position in on-going and future project negotiations.

  Basic Pension Plus
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cumulative cost of the basic pension plus proposals between 2020 and 2040. [20488]

  Mr. Heald
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 11 March,Official Report, column 194.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of(a) average pensioner incomes, (b) the distribution of future pensioner incomes and (c) the number of pensioners living on incomes under half the national average for the years before pension benefits will be paid under the basic pension plus scheme. [20469]

  Mr. Heald
  The available information is contained in Government economic service working paper No. 129, titled "PENSIM: A dynamic simulation Model of Pensioners' Incomes", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many pensioners he estimates would be reliant on means-tested benefits in retirement if people made contributions only at the minimum 5 per cent. level under the basic pension plus proposals; and what assumptions about the level of means-tested benefits underlie this estimate; [20500]

  (2) what would be the impact on the retirement income of (a) people on (i) a quarter,(ii) a half,(iii) three quarters and (iv) average earnings and (b) public spending on

  481
  means-tested benefits under the basic pension plus scheme if people made contributions only at the minimum 5 per cent. level. [20499]

  Mr. Heald
  The rebates will be around £9 a week plus for employees—around 5 per cent. of earnings on which national insurance is payable. The basic pension guarantee will ensure that everyone gets at least as high a basic pension as they would from the current state scheme; and the investment of their funds gives a good prospect of higher pensions. The number of pensioners reliant on income-related benefits could be lower than under the present scheme, even if there were no increase in the number making voluntary additional provision.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his basic pension plus proposal will involve any alteration to the rates of national insurance contributions set out in table 3 of the Government Actuary's report on the 1994 Pensions Bill. [20440]

  Mr. Heald
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 11 March,Official Report, columns 197–98.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assumptions underlay his estimate of £10 billion for the continuing cost of the basic pension guarantee after 2040. [20442]

  Mr. Heald
  The broadly estimated cost of the basic pension guarantee is £10 billion per annum, on the assumptions that broadly the same proportion of the work force as now will accrue credits, and that because of low charges and simple but effective regulation there will not be many funds which fail to produce the required minimum return of 4.25 per cent. per annum.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assumptions he has made about me number of employees opting out of their occupational pension scheme in his basic pension plus proposals. [20490]

  Mr. Heald
  It has not been assumed that anyone would opt out of an occupational pension scheme as a result of basic pension plus. Members of occupational pension schemes will be able to opt to have their basic pension plus funds managed as an additional voluntary contribution by the occupational scheme.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assumptions he has made in his basic pension plus proposal about the level of additional contributions beyond the 5 per cent. minimum contribution level. [20498]

  Mr. Heald
  In costing the basic pension proposal, no assumptions have been made about additional contributions beyond the minimum rebates of £9 a week plus 5 per cent. of earnings to fund the state pension. Everyone will have their own pension fund and will have the opportunity to make additional contributions.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what estimate he has made of the value of the pension earned under the basic pension plus for(a) a male and (b) a female on (i) a quarter and (ii) three quarters of male and female average earnings, relative to average male and female earnings in 2040; [20463]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the value of the pension earned on entering the basic pension plus in the years (a) 2010, (b) 2020, (c) 2030 and (d) 2040, for those
  482
  on (i) a quarter,(ii) a half,(iii) three quarters and (iv) average earnings relative to average earnings when they can expect to retire; [20467]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the value of the pension earned under the basic pension plus for a woman on average earnings, relative to overall average earnings in 2040. [20464]

  Mr. Heald
  Generally, at least as good as the pension available from the present state scheme or better.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will assess the impact of altering the capital limits on benefits on the incentive to save under the Government's basic pension plus proposal. [20475]

  Mr. Heald
  The incentive to save under the basic pension plus proposal will come from the existence of a basic pension plus fund for each individual, to which they can add. The effect on the propensity to save of a change in the capital limits on eligibility for income-related benefits is independent of the basic pension plus proposal.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if public employees who opted out of their pension scheme, or moved to a job in the private sector, would be able to move their pension into a funded private sector pension scheme under the basic pension plus proposals. [20492]

  Mr. Heald
  Yes. Under current legislation, public service employees who terminate their pensionable service more than one year before the scheme's normal pension age have a statutory right to transfer the cash equivalent of their accrued rights. The transfer payment may be made to another occupational pension scheme, personal pension scheme or suitable insurance policy able and willing to accept it.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what level of charges was assumed for years when people are not contributing to the scheme under the basic pension plus proposals; and what is the estimated effect of this level of fees and charges for years when people are not contributing to the scheme on expected pension benefits. [20502]

  Mr. Heald
  As the technical note, paragraph 19, explained, the Personal Pensions Investment Authority will publish a list of personal pension providers whose charging structures do not penalise people who take career breaks, intentionally or unexpectedly.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his assumptions for the costs of his basic pension plus proposals allow for behavioural effects resulting from the proposed change in tax relief. [20497]

  Mr. Heald
  No. There is no reason to believe that there will be significant behavioural effects resulting from the proposed change in tax relief. We will consult the pensions industry and other interested bodies to ensure that any changes are made in a way which preserves, undiminished, the immense contribution that existing pension schemes make to people's pension provision. Pension savings will remain an attractive form of investment for individuals.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assumptions were made about the proportion of occupational pensions schemes
  483
  (a) providing salary-related benefits and (b) operating money purchase arrangements under the basic pension plus proposals. [20491]

  Mr. Heald
  None.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what level of fees and charges was assumed in calculations of the pension benefits under the basic pension plus proposals; what are the administrative costs of occupational pension schemes; and if he will make a statement on the impact of fees and charges on pensions under the basic pension plus proposals relative to the impact of administrative charges in occupational pension schemes. [20501]

  Mr. Heald
  The assumptions are consistent with those made by the Government Actuary in his report "Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes: review of certain contracting-out terms" Cm 3221. There is currently a range of different cost structures for occupational pension schemes.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated public expenditure cost under the basic pension plus proposals of top-ups for employees with national insurance contributions of less than £9 per week. [20441]

  Mr. Heald
  Whether such top-ups should be classified as public expenditure is under consideration.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of pensioners who will retire on incomes under half the national average under the basic pension plus scheme. [20468]

  Mr. Heald
  The number is expected to be smaller than under the current state pension scheme.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the additional contributions necessary for people on(a) a quarter, (b) half, (c) three quarters and (d) average earnings to receive a pension equivalent to the value of the single and married person's tax allowances for those over the age of 65 years if these allowances are uprated in line with (i) prices and (ii)earnings under the Government's basic pension plus proposals. [20476]

  Mr. Heald
  The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security at what point the Government would use their powers to impose a ceiling on charges under the basic pension plus proposals; and for what reasons the Government have not used their existing powers to limit the charges imposed by existing providers of personal pensions. [20503]

  Mr. Heald
  During the period prior to legislation we will consult extensively about means of ensuring competitive pressures bear down on costs and charges, but we will not hesitate to use legal powers to impose a ceiling on charges should they not reflect those reduced costs.
  484

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the amount of money recovered by the compensation recovery unit in respect of benefits paid to persons who subsequently received compensation for accident, injury or disease in the first six months of the fiscal year 1996; what projection he has made as to the level of such payments in the period April to September 1997; and if he will make a statement. [20647]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  From April to September 1996, just over £69 million was recovered by the compensation recovery unit. It is estimated that approximately £75 million will be recovered during the same period in 1997. These figures are provisional and subject to change.

  Benefit Reliance (Evaluation)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on reliance on means-tested benefit and the impact on the incentive to save. [20474]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Two recent studies commissioned by the Department provide information relating to the relationship between receipt of income-related benefits and savings. DSS research report No. 38, "Managing Money in Later Life", explored older people's knowledge of the capital limits for income support and their attitudes towards asset holding in relation to these limits. Research report No. 53, "Moving Off Income Support: Barriers and Bridges" provided information on the extent to which income support claimants have savings.

  Private Pension Schemes
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to adjust the level of rebates to reflect changes in the Government Actuary's assumptions about the rate of return which private pension schemes can expect to earn. [20443]

  Mr. Heald
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on 11 March,Official Report column 198.

  Pensioner Numbers
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the increase in the number of pensioners(a) between 2020 and 2040 and (b) after 2040. [20487]

  Mr. Heald
  Estimates of the number of pensioners are published in "National Insurance Fund Long Term Financial estimates: Report by the Government actuary on the Third Quinquennial Review" under section 137 of the Social Security Act 1975(HC160).

  All Work Test (Appeals)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals against incapacity benefit all work test decisions are currently outstanding in Greenock and Port Glasgow; what is the average waiting time for such appeals to be heard; what was the number of all work test decisions made in Greenock and Port Glasgow in 1996;and if he will make astatement. [20646]
  485
  Mr. Burt
  There are currently 317 appeals against incapacity all work test decisions outstanding in Greenock and Port Glasgow. The average waiting time for such appeals to be heard is 25 weeks and a total of 200 all work test decisions were made in Greenock and Port Glasgow in 1996.

  Social Fund Funeral Payments
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to change the provision of social fund funeral payments. [20953]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Amending regulations and a copy of the Social Security Advisory Committee's report, along with my response, have been laid before the House today. After having carefully considered the committee's report, we have decided to proceed with the main changes as originally proposed.

  The changes will target help more precisely on those most in need. In cases where there is no surviving partner, where a parent, son or daughter of the deceased exists,
  486
  and neither they nor their partner are in receipt of an income-related benefit, it will be considered unreasonable for someone who is receiving such a benefit to take responsibility for the funeral expenses.

  The level of help available will increase and be much easier to understand. The person responsible for arranging the funeral will be free to decide which elements they wish to be included, taking into account the level of help available from the social fund. This includes the choice of either burial or cremation, for which the necessary cost will be met separately. In the case of a burial, this cost alone can exceed £1,500 in some parts of the country.

  Where the deceased lived in a remote area of the country, or died away from home, extra help will be available. In addition, up to £600 will be available for other funeral expenses.

  The revised scheme aims to balance the needs of someone who has good reason for taking responsibility for arranging a funeral and the taxpayer who has to fund the cost.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.

Bicycles: Lighting Regulations
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will encourage chief constables to give priority to enforcing the requirement, under the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989, for bicycles to have front and rear lights lit on public roads in darkness.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, enforcement of the law on pedal cycle lighting is an operational matter for individual chief officers of police. Chief officers recognise the dangers of failing to display lights on pedal cycles after dark. However, the answer lies not just in enforcement but in education and publicity.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her reply. Has she herself encountered unlit bicycles at night, their riders apparently oblivious to the danger that they are in, because the most careful drivers may not see them in the dark, especially in bad weather? As cycling is being encouraged in order to reduce traffic congestion and pollution, can suitable warnings be included in guidance on road safety—for example, on television?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not wish to detract from the serious point that my noble friend makes. I have not personally encountered such a thing. As somebody who comes from Cambridgeshire, my greatest worry about cyclists is uncontrollable undergraduates weaving through traffic and shoppers in Cambridge city, and having to leap madly out of their way.
The other point that my noble friend makes is important. It is a matter primarily for chief officers. However, there is a great deal of publicity and promotion of awareness of the dangers of riding bicycles without lights. Policemen liaise with schools, and county road safety officers focus on and promote road safety. The Department of Transport issues a number of leaflets. I would mention two in particular: Drive Safe, Cycle Safe, and Tips for Safer Cycling. There is also the mainstream Highway Code, in addition to which there is a special highway code for younger people. In both versions there is a very large section devoted to safety when cycling.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, while cycling may be encouraged, cyclists are becoming increasingly unpopular, especially when they cycle without due regard to other people on the footpaths,
644
very often knocking people down? That applies particularly to disabled and blind people. Will the Minister tell the House what indemnity there is for people injured by cyclists illegally cycling on pavements? Also, what will the Minister do to encourage the police to stop the practice by prosecuting them?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government are considering adding a fixed penalty for cycling on a pavement. It is a very real issue. I cannot answer the question about indemnity. I will seek to write to the noble Lord. I can do no better than repeat what was said by Mr. Bowis, the transport Minister in another place. He said:
"Safe cycling is enhanced by responsible cyclists. People who cycle through red lights—or cycle without lights or on the pavement—are not enhancing the good name of cycling and are doing nothing for their own safety or that of other people".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/1/97; col. 4.]
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House whether there is any possibility of encouraging cyclists to use flickering red lights on their rear mudguards?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in the course of promoting safer cycling a great deal of advice is given to cyclists about making sure that they can be seen, in order to be safe not only for their own sake but for the sake of other people. It is remiss of me; I ought, on behalf of the whole House, to have wished my noble friend a very happy birthday.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would it be possible for the Minister's department to look into a complete irregularity on the part of the London Borough of Ealing, which has said that people may ride their bicycles on the pavement?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that the council will not encourage people to ride their bicycles on the pavement. It is not merely those of us who can see who are in some danger; people who cannot see also use the pavements. Someone coming at them on a bicycle can be a very dangerous proposition indeed.
Lord McNally: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many parents realise that the pleasure of their youth, namely cycling, is no longer available to their children because, for cyclists, the roads are literally lethal? If children are to be allowed out to cycle, we need many, many more cycle lanes and an awareness by drivers that it is they who are in the dangerous vehicle, not the cyclists.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to respond to the noble Lord's points. There is now a national cycling strategy. It proposes a doubling of the existing level of cycle use by the year 2002, and a further doubling of cycle use by the year 2012. A national cycling strategy forum has been established to oversee progress and co-ordinate and integrate contributions to this. The forum will be chaired by the Minister for Road Safety, John Bowis, and includes representatives from a variety of public, private and voluntary bodies. A constituent part of the agenda will be safety.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House how many convictions there were last year for

645
cyclists riding without lights at night? Does she agree that if the police are so under-resourced that they cannot afford to put film in video cameras they are unlikely to be able adequately to enforce legislation relating to cycling without lights?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, so far as concerns the second point that the noble Lord raised, CCTV will be enormously helpful to the police in detecting that kind of offence. We have done more than any previous government to improve matters and to supply local authorities and partnership schemes with cameras for closed circuit television in their areas.
With regard to the statistics, there have been 332 prosecutions for lack of cycle lights and reflectors. The offences are also covered by formal warnings, written warnings, oral warnings and fixed penalties. We do not separate out the particular statistic requested by the noble Lord.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I may join the Minister in congratulating the noble Earl on his birthday.
Perhaps I may also express some surprise at the Minister's assertion that the Government have plans for new legislation. In three days? They will have their work cut out. The House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, for raising this important issue, but is not one of the problems that for the most part cyclists are not insured? Whether they ride their bicycles in the way the noble Lord indicated or in the way my noble friend Lord Stoddart indicated, in the event of an accident it is extremely difficult in most instances to contemplate the possibility of recovering damages in relation to serious injury. Is there not a necessity to contemplate more effective publicity about this aspect of the issue than has been the case in the past?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot answer the question about insurance in the time available. However, what I can say to the noble Lord is that we are entirely confident that we shall be in charge of a legislative programme now and into the future.

London Underground: Privatisation Advisers
2.44 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Which independent experts they intend to employ in connection with their proposed White Paper on the privatisation of London Underground; when they intend to enter into such contracts; and what is their estimate of the costs thereof.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, advisers have not yet been appointed.
646
The privatisation of London Underground remains the policy of the Government. We intend to continue with the appointment process after the general election.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that that is a departure from the answer given in another place by the Secretary of State, who said that the Government would immediately go ahead with the appointment of experts? Is he also aware that that would have been an absolute moral outrage? Bearing in mind that the Government know that the proposition they are advancing is not acceptable and is opposed, it would have been quite wrong, would it not, for the Government to have incurred expenditure of this kind in advance of the general election?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my remarks were fully consistent with those of my right honourable friend, which I re-read but moments ago. My right honourable friend said that we wished to press on as soon as possible with the privatisation of London Underground. That is exactly what we are doing. However, we have had an important announcement this morning. The Government want to see London Underground privatised as soon as possible but there are rules to be followed in the election campaign and we shall follow them.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, with respect, that is not what the Secretary of State said in another place on 25th February. He said:
"In deciding on the detailed structure for the privatised underground, we shall need to take account of the network's unique nature and operating characteristics, and to obtain further technical and financial advice. Specifically, detailed work will now begin on three possible models … We also intend to start the process of appointing advisers".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/97: col.150]
The Minister seems to be out of kilter with the Secretary of State, not for the first time.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it might have escaped the noble Lord's attention but there has been an announcement in the intervening period since the statement he quoted. I believe that we are following properly the rules concerning the conduct of government business during a general election campaign.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, bearing in mind that the Government's proposal for privatisation, even if they were returned to power, would take some three years, according to what we were told, and bearing in mind the statement in The Times today that London Underground is underfunded—which we all know—and will presumably continue to be underfunded for the three-year period, have they considered some half-way house whereby, without remaining in the public sector

647
but not necessarily being in the private sector, London Underground could be given the opportunity to raise money from the commercial market?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords, we do not intend to fudge the issue. We believe that privatisation is best, as it has been for the railways, and that is the model that we shall follow.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will today's announcement trigger contract cancellation charges?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as I said, the process has not yet begun, so the noble Lord's question, as I understand it, is not material.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister saying that no negotiations are yet taking place with regard to the privatisation of London Underground? Can he give an undertaking that when the process does begin, if by some mischance we have the same government, the privatisation will not be at 30 per cent. less than the market value, which was the case in past privatisations, as a result of which a future Labour Government will have to charge a windfall tax to claw back some money for taxpayers?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right to contemplate seriously the very likely return of a Conservative Government to power and indeed to start thinking about what questions he will ask the Government concerning the way in which we shall privatise London Underground. This is a good policy. We have clearly seen the benefits of privatisation for British Rail and we shall bring those benefits to the travelling public in London.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the Government have already spent some £450 million in employing consultant advisers on their various privatisation programmes? If only for the sake of the money involved, would the noble Lord not agree that he would do far better to take the advice of noble Lords on these Benches, who provide their services free of charge?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am certainly sure that the noble Lord provides very good value for money with regard to the number of questions that he asks and the amount of briefing involved in order for Ministers to answer them. He said that privatisation has incurred costs through employing advisers. Yes, indeed it has, but it has also brought massive savings to the taxpayer that hugely outweigh those costs.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may turn the Minister's mind back to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Ezra. Is he aware that that question did not relate to the merits or otherwise of privatisation but to investment in the interim before privatisation can take place? He was asked whether he would relax the rules
648
on borrowing on the capital market in the interim between now and privatisation. I should be grateful if he could answer that question.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord's question suggested some half-way house in the run-up to privatisation because, in his view, the Government were not investing sufficiently in the network in the intervening period. It is worth noting that over the next three years investment in LT's core network will, on average, be in real terms 50 per cent. above the level of the 1980s and twice the level of the 1970s. The sums being invested are very serious indeed. They are very large sums of money. Yet we feel that the real benefits will come through the full privatisation. Our policy remains to fund the London Underground properly up to that time but then to embark on the privatisation as soon as possible.
Baroness Symons of Veinham Dean: My Lords, in the unlikely circumstances of the Government being in a position to see through the privatisation, will they be in a position to waive the usual commercial-in-confidence rule and give the House details—as my noble friend on the Front Bench has asked—of how much the advice on privatisation has cost the Government? In the past we have always had the excuse that such information could not be given to either House because of commercial-in-confidence rules. Will the Minister tell the House that he will be in a position to give us the information in that unlikely eventuality?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Baroness, like her noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick, is right to contemplate very seriously indeed the prospects of the Conservative Government being returned to power. I am pleased that there is such positive thinking on the Labour Benches about that. There are proper rules for disclosure of information. The Government have always had the policy of open government and delivering as much information as possible into the public domain without interfering with the commercial process. If things are commercially confidential, we have to respect those confidentialities.

Radioactive Waste
2.50 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the volume of the three categories of radioactive nuclear waste in this country has increased since the April 1994 figures published by the Department of the Environment, and, if so, by how much in each category.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, April 1994 is the latest date on which figures for the United Kingdom

649
Radioactive Waste Inventory are available. The next inventory is planned to be published in 1999, and will provide figures for April 1998.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that it is entirely unsatisfactory that we in this country should be in total ignorance of what is happening year after year? At the moment, in the absence of figures, rumour goes round to the effect that we are being absolutely swamped with nuclear waste of all kinds. We ought to know. To a very much smaller degree this issue has created considerable uproar in Germany because at least they know what is happening. Here, we are condemned to silence because the Government will not tell us. Will they buck up their ideas and let us have some information more quickly, so that we know exactly what is happening to us?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is lovely coming from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins: telling us to buck up our ideas and let people know what is happening. Oddly enough, we would rather like to know what the Labour Party is doing about things but its members have been told that they must not speak; they have to keep their mouths shut. But we will discover what is going to happen, I have no doubt, if we are lucky, within the next few weeks. With regard to this particular point, it is perfectly true that there are inventories periodically. The last one was held in 1991; another in 1994; and the next is planned for 1998. In these matters, it takes quite a lot of time to try to assimilate all the facts. I do not know whether the noble Lord really expects us to do it every year.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Indeed, my Lords, I do expect the noble Earl to do it every year. I am quite convinced that when a Labour Government, which I fully support and whose policies are entirely clear to me if not to the noble Earl, come to power, we shall get greater information; there is no reason whatever, except the Government's tardiness, that we should not have it every year.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I will take the noble Lord on a bet; that is, if his party were to gain power, which they will not, they will not do it every year. The second point is that this is really most revealing. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, says that he is now part of new Labour. But we all know that there is a new Labour and an old Labour. For years the noble Lord has been categorised as being old Labour. Does he really mean to say that he has changed his spots totally?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, as interest in the noble Lord's Question seems to be flagging a bit and as the original Question refers to both the Department of the Environment and to waste, I hope I am not going too wide of the mark in asking my noble friend for an assurance that that dreadful building which houses the department will be totally evacuated before long.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am bound to say that that is stretching the Question just about as far as you can
650
stretch any Question. If it is waste, the contents of the department were not waste; it was merely the building, which has obviously offended my noble friend's eye, and that will come down as soon as may be.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind that the Government will have some financial responsibility with regard to radioactive waste, can the Minister give the figures for the radioactive waste, which is a government responsibility and which will presumably be needed to enable the Chancellor to conclude his Budget commitments and calculations, on the basis that there will be financial implications of how much waste there is at any one time?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not quite sure of the question which the noble Lord asked. It was rather convoluted. In any event, I think that I shall have to take advice upon it. If the question is what I thought it was, I shall still have to take advice on it.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble Earl suggested that I have changed my views. Is he aware that there is a difference between knowing what the policy is and approving it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The only trouble is that he is lucky enough to know what the policy is of the Labour Party and nobody else does.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Earl give us an absolute assurance that this country will not become a dumping ground for nuclear waste which countries like Germany will not accept and which will increasingly be unacceptable to their own populations?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, this country is not a dumping ground for nuclear waste. We reprocess nuclear waste and send it back to the countries of origin.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I wonder whether I might ask the Leader of the House, through the medium of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, whether or not the lights in the Chamber can perhaps be dimmed, as there is so much whistling coming from the other side?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, what a pity that even the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition cannot see the light. If he came over to this side of the House, and joined this party—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Earl Ferrers: Noble Lords opposite must allow Ministers and others to complete their sentences without caterwauling in the most disreputable manner. All I was saying to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is that if he were to come over to this side of the House and join us on the Benches here he would see plenty of light which is shining over there and it is pretty disagreeable stuff.

Healthcare Rights for Older People
2.59 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will implement the recommendation made in Healthcare Rights for Older People: the Ageism Issue, prepared by Age Concern and the Nursing Times, to institute an independent inquiry to examine the causes and extent of discrimination in the NHS and to identify possible solutions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the Government do not intend to institute an independent inquiry because it is not and never has been government policy to withhold medical treatment on the grounds of age. Health Ministers have made it clear that whatever the age of the patient, there are no exceptions to the fundamental principle that the NHS is there to provide services for everyone on the basis of clinical need.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Is she aware that the research recently done by the national Nursing Times and Age Concern shows a completely different picture? Although the research is still not complete, they have proved that 20 per cent. of coronary care units operate age related admission policies and 40 per cent. restrict the giving of clot busting drugs to older people. Sixty-three per cent. of deaths from breast cancer are in women aged 65 or over, yet it is the older women who are not being given the same facilities for screening as younger ones; those at most risk are not allowed to be screened. Two thirds of kidney patients between the ages of 70 and 79 are not accepted for life saving dialysis or for transplants, and the president-elect of the British Geriatric Society has been quoted as saying that older people are under-researched, under-diagnosed, under-valued and sometimes over-drugged. Does not that give the lie to what the Minister said in relation to the Government's picture? And does it not mean that we are well overdue for an independent inquiry into the situation of discrimination against older people in hospitals?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, no. When one looks at the resources that are put into services for elderly people, we have seen an increase in the number of consultant geriatricians, community nurses and home helps; around 40 per cent. of the hospital and community services are for people aged 65 and over. However, we agree that age should not be an indicator of quality of life or of intellectual prowess—one only has to look at your Lordships' House to see that. But clinical decisions must take into account the likelihood of a person recovering and their strength to withstand an operation.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, from my experience and from visiting hospitals while I was a parish priest, I cannot agree that there is any discrimination against older people? That did not appear to be the case on my recent visit to hospital for a fractured
652
kneecap, nor does it appear to be true that if one had a clot, one would be discriminated against by not being given the treatment for that.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is right that if one looks at the operations that affect elderly people, particularly hip operations and cataracts, in each of the years before the reforms around 50,000 people had a hip replacement; yet last year alone 62,500 people had the operation—that is 12,900 more than in the years before the reforms. The situation with cataracts is even more pronounced. It would be wrong therefore to say that elderly people are not receiving treatment. My figures prove that they are.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, when the Minister says that a specific number of elderly people have been treated, are the Government referring to the individual people who have received treatment or, as is their policy, to the number of patients who have to return because they are sent home too early and therefore appear as new patients in the statistics?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the technical term is "finished consultant episode". That is often difficult to say on these occasions. In relation to cataracts, it is likely that the figures refer to individual people who have had an operation on one eye and may have to come back for treatment to the other eye. The same applies to hips.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the authoritative report referred to by my noble friend in his original Question includes therapies such as rehabilitative care, chemotherapy, palliative chemotherapy for people in the later stages of cancer, and so forth? They are not simply statistics about operations which can be referred to in this simple numerical way. Is the Minister aware that her Answer is slightly surprising because it throws scepticism on the report of an extremely authoritative body? If such decisions are being taken within the health service—and the report indicates that they clearly are—who takes them and at what level? Is this a policy decision or a complete fragmentation of the health service where all these decisions are taken by local trusts on a business basis rather than on the basis of any national criteria of care for elderly people?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Government are clear that it is clinicians who should take decisions about clinical treatment. In May 1992 the General Medical Council made clear to general practitioners and doctors throughout the service that it was unacceptable to discriminate against any patient. It is right that consultants should take those decisions. The last thing we want is managers or lay people taking clinical decisions.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I must come back to the Minister and ask: is she concerned about what appear to be inappropriate clinical decisions being taken by doctors in relation to old people?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is a matter for professional bodies.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, does not the Minister agree, for all her statements that there is no

653
lack of care for the elderly, that treatment varies enormously from district to district? It depends on where one happens to live whether a certain treatment is available. Can the Minister envisage, in the same way as parents move house districts where there is a good school, the whole of the elderly population moving into a district where the care is better.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Government are fair in their allocation of resources to different health authorities. It is then up to the health authorities to decide how to spend those resources. In relation to general practitioners treating elderly people, we have weighted the system so that general practitioners receive a high capitation fee for elderly people. We have tried all those mechanisms. But I come back to the point that in the end it must be for consultants to make clinical decisions. It would be wrong if they did not take into account people's likelihood of recovery, their strength to withstand an operation or the quality of their life afterwards. That is extremely important. If the quality of life is not improved, then the treatment may be an unkindness.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the Minister accept that her replies today will be read with dismay by those taking part in serious research? They have already uncovered serious complaints which should be investigated. Even at this late hour, on the eve of a general election, cannot the Minister say something constructive as to how this Government intend to deal with those complaints rather than simply dismissing that serious research?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, this Government have put more resources into the health service than any other government. What is more, they have made a pledge that for five consecutive years, if re-elected, they will increase the budget of the National Health Service. That is a pledge that the Opposition cannot match.

Dissolution of Parliament
3.6 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships—and of some interest—to know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has today asked Her Majesty the Queen to proclaim the Dissolution of Parliament. Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to signify that she will comply with this request.
Parliament will be prorogued on Friday, 21st March. The Dissolution will take place on Tuesday, 8th April. The general election will take place on Thursday, 1st May. The new Parliament will be summoned to meet on Wednesday, 7th May when the first business will be the election of the Speaker in another place and the swearing in of Members of both Houses. The state opening will be on Wednesday, 14th May.
For the moment, the House will proceed with today's business as it appears on the Order Paper, though in the light of this announcement it is proposed to adjust the rest
654
of this week's business in your Lordships' House. It may also be necessary later this afternoon to reflect further on progress on the Education Bill.
With the leave of the House, I propose to make a further Statement about all these matters later this afternoon. I shall arrange for adequate warning of that Statement to be given on the annunciators, but I cannot at this stage be any clearer as to the time.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know now that my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal will this evening table, for consideration at the start of business tomorrow, any necessary Business of the House Motions, as is usual on these occasions.

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

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

Knives Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Education Bill
3.10 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Relaxation of controls on changes relating to selective admissions]:
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No.1:
Page 1, line 18, after ("county") insert ("secondary").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is a somewhat surreal atmosphere but we must nevertheless proceed as if nothing has happened. In moving Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 13, 14 and 15, and await any announcement before I get to the end.
The purpose of the amendment is to prevent the expansion of selective admissions to primary schools under the Bill. I make no apology for returning at the start of the debate to what I think is an important issue—whether or not we shall see selective intakes to primary schools and whether or not it is the Government's intention that we should do so.
The views in your Lordships' House about selective education in secondary schools are fairly clear. It is undeniably the purpose of the Bill to extend selective education in secondary schools. It is equally clear that we on these Benches are totally opposed to that. The position with primary schools is rather less clear. I hope that today we can get some clarity on exactly what are the Government's views about the desirability or otherwise of selection for primary schools.
In Committee the Minister confirmed that it is the Government's view that at present primary schools may select up to 15 per cent. of their intake if they so wish. In answer to a question he confirmed that that is not enshrined anywhere in legislation; it is contained in a legal opinion. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether that legal opinion has ever been tested in the courts. Subject to what he may tell me, I believe that it has not and that it remains therefore simply an untested opinion.
The Bill, which the Minister says is not a significant change, would enshrine it in legislation not at 15 per cent. but at 20 per cent. I see that as a significant change. It makes the position absolutely clear in legislation and it increases primary schools' ability to select their intake. In Committee the Minister stated:
"We do not believe that many—if any—primary schools will wish to select pupils by general ability".—[Official Report, 24/2/97; col. 944.]
That is what we would all wish to believe but I wonder whether that reflects reality as it is now developing.
Since the Committee stage of the Bill we have taken another step nearer to that, with the publication last week of the Key Stage 2 results, translated immediately by the media into league tables—schools with different positions in the league depending on which paper one reads. Nevertheless, the media inevitably, and as we all expected, chose to put them into league tables, even though there was some confusion about how they interpreted the results, which actually made the position even worse. We know that Key Stage 1 results are to be published. No one can have any doubt that they, too, will turn into league tables.
Already we are going down the road of competition. It does not take any great leap of imagination to think of what will happen. Governors and head teachers will examine their school's position in the league. They will examine how to improve the output—their school's performance—and they will consider how to improve the input—the quality of that input. Parents will look at the tables—they are already looking at those tables—and they will choose, or try to choose, the schools that appear to be highest in the league table. Oversubscribed schools will review their admission procedures and then the next step is obvious—governors will give serious thought to selecting 20 per cent. of their admissions.
656
What to many of us is fantastic, ludicrous and obnoxious is rapidly becoming a reality. We need to know—and we need to know today—whether that is the Government's intention in the Bill. They may not believe it will happen. But it could happen, and we need to know whether they wish it to happen.
I have said before that I believe that to be a significant move in the wrong direction. The arguments against selection at age five were rehearsed in Committee: first, that young children develop at different rates, particularly at that age; secondly, that the selection of children at an early age is more perhaps than at any other age a reflection of variations in the quality of support within the home; and thirdly, that selection in the primary sector is even more likely to disadvantage children from ethnic minorities. We have had much debate over the years about being branded as "a failure at 11". If that happens at 11, it is much worse if it happens at five. Finally, the pressure on school places if there is a selective intake will be even greater and parents will find that they can no longer get places at their local primary school. This is already becoming a problem for local education authorities.
Unlike the Minister, I believe that these represent very significant changes indeed. In my view, they are changes wholly in the wrong direction. The amendment seeks to deal with that and to make the position clear that the provisions in the Bill for increased selection do not apply to primary schools. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendment No. 1 and the other amendments in the grouping. We on these Benches are shocked by a government proposal which will thwart parental choice by allowing into the equation a consideration which would override the need for children from the same family to attend the same school. It shows the Government's failure to understand that a sense of community begins in the family and moves into the local primary school for those families in communities who choose to send all the children in the family to the primary school of their choice and where that primary school serves the locality and has strong links with it.
As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, children at primary age develop at very different speeds. Within the same year group it is quite possible to have a child who is barely four who is advanced for his or her age alongside a child who is a late developer and who is chronologically aged five. That makes an enormous difference. No doubt the Minister will say, "This is only a small thing. It is only 20 per cent.". But only those schools which are oversubscribed or which are able to demonstrate certain approaches, through the Government's abuse of comparisons between schools through the publication of primary school league tables, will be able to use this mechanism to reject children. There would be no purpose in selecting by ability for 20 per cent. were that not to be the case. That competition which the Government espouse is quite clearly not competition which compares like with like.

657
We on these Benches make absolutely no excuses for schools which fail pupils. But at the beginning of their primary education children start with very different skills and levels of attainment; for example, the child from a family background where English is not the family language or a child with a special educational need—not the statemented degree of need, which can be regarded, but a non-statemented need which affects 18.5 per cent. of children. Such children could be seen by schools which espouse the Government's marketplace approach to primary education as, if possible, children to be avoided because they would bring down the school's league table result.
That is not the way in which the real world works for over 90 per cent. of parents in this country. They want a welcoming school in which they can participate as parents. They want a school to which all the children in the family can go. As the Minister has just said from a seated position, they want a good school for all their children. They want the same good school for the child who is a late developer or who has learning difficulties as his or her brothers and sisters, in order that the family can be together. These parents want their children to go to the same school because they know the teachers and have links with the school. The parents want the children to go to the same school so that, as good parents, they can attend functions at the school, extra curricular activities and play a full role in the life of the school.
We on these Benches are aware that a tiny percentage of parents in this country exercise the option to buy private education for their children of primary school age. Not being one of those parents, I find it difficult to put myself in their place. But it may be that they look at league tables; they have an au pair who can drive, or a nanny or housekeeper, and access to one or more vehicles. It may be that it is possible for the children to be driven to different schools and to split up the family. That is not what primary education is about. This small wedge—as the Minister would, no doubt, describe it—is open to abuse because, as I said at the beginning, it can deny parents the right to choose and allow schools to put forward a reason for rejecting children which does not stand up to the test of what the role of the community primary school should be. I support these amendments.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I had to miss most of the Committee stage of the Bill for reasons beyond my control. But in catching up on the arguments which were advanced over this issue of primary selection, I was particularly struck by the curious position which the Government appear to have adopted.
On the one hand, the Minister accepted what the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and others were saying about young children developing at different rates and about the early disadvantages for those for whom English is not their first language and so on. One would have thought that these were strong arguments against selecting, not just by general ability,
658
but also by particular aptitude at such a very early age as five. On the other hand, the Minister went on to say,
"However, we believe that primary schools should have the same option as most secondary schools".—[Official Report, 24/2/97; col. 944.]
I find this impossible to reconcile. Like my noble friend Lady Warnock, I am no out-and-out opponent of all forms of selection. But if selection by ability at the age of 11 is generally discredited on grounds of reliability, as it is, then a fortiori it should not be contemplated at the age of five. I think it should be clear that in this respect at least primary schools must not have the same option as secondary schools as otherwise communities will be split, those who start disadvantaged will be further handicapped and much talent will go to waste. For those reasons I support the amendments.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I would like to make one point which, I believe, has not been made so far in the discussion on this amendment. It is a simple one. There will be some schools where there is a trust deed which governs the purposes of the education to be provided. In some cases that may specify that the site of the school will be held on trust for educating, say, the poorer classes of a parish. I realise that that is a somewhat dated way of looking at admission to a school, but nevertheless it is clear that, where there are such trusts, they will not necessarily specify that it is to be the cleverer classes who are to be admitted. So in addition to the arguments which have already been advanced, I suggest that there may be some conflict should there be a provision for selection for a primary school which is on a site for which the trust provides for some other criterion of admission.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, perhaps I may give a concrete example of what my noble friend was talking about earlier. The primary school league tables came out last week and four local primary schools in my immediate vicinity were included. One of them did relatively badly. It so happens that that primary school prides itself on taking in children with special needs. To compound its problem, it also had a number of children away on the day when the tests were done. The combination of those two factors meant that the school came quite low down in the league table in Wandsworth. My daughter's school did comparatively well. Already, her school is over-subscribed both in the reception class and in the nursery class. Parents are very keen to get their children into this school.
The problem that we see now in our very localised area, with four schools within about a mile of each other, is that the differences between them are being completely exaggerated in a way about which the schools themselves are very unhappy. The schools do not want to see themselves in competition in any way. They realise that there are different strengths in all the schools.
The problem of having the option of introducing selection at any level is that it will only exacerbate the trend which the league tables have started. I cannot see that they will give any benefit to any of the children at

659
all in any of the local primary schools in my area. They will do harm to the schools which have the enlightened policy of actively encouraging children with special needs. I support these amendments. They are extremely important. I believe that the Government are wrong even to leave an opening chink with the possibility of introducing selection at the primary level.
3.30. p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in supporting this group of amendments I take as my text an aspiration of our Prime Minister, John Major. He aspired to build a classless society in Britain. I suggest that our primary school system in this country approaches the classless society to which John Major aspired.
Apart from that very small category of our citizens which my noble friend Lady Farrington mentioned, which effectively buys primary education for its children, we can see that by and large the different classes in our society send their children to the local primary school. There may be a Church affiliation in some areas, but by and large over 90 per cent. of the children of primary school age go to the local school. That is beneficial to our society. In effect, it breaks down class barriers between young children. Indeed, it has been suggested that young people are egalitarian in other ways. It has often been pointed out that young children of, say, four or five are almost colour blind when it comes to putting members of their peer group into any particular category. That is a powerful reason for supporting this group of amendments.
Perhaps I may give an example from my own experience in Manchester. Three county primary schools are equidistant from our house. When my children were coming up to primary school age, we went round each of them. They were all run—I believe that the usual description is "controlled"—by the local education authority in Manchester. Manchester is regarded as having a monolithic education system. Nothing could be further from the truth. Each of those primary schools had a completely different character and ethos. It was not a question of one being better or worse than another. It was simply a case of the characters of the schools being different. That was partly because of the buildings, partly because of the geographical sites, partly because of the staff but particularly because of the ethos and attitudes of the different head teachers.
As, dare I say it, middle-class parents, we had to make a choice about the education of our children. We took our eldest daughter around each of those schools and, to be honest, she picked the school with which she felt most comfortable. It was not a question of saying that this or that school would be better, because we recognised that the standard of education would probably be the same. What made the difference was the ethos of those schools.
I hope that the Government will acknowledge that we all recognise the diversity of schools and that there is a general understanding in society that no one primary school is better than another. That enables parents to choose a school largely on the basis of proximity to
660
home or on its ethos without putting the parents under the pressure of having to determine whether it is a "better" school than others.
Unfortunately, however, as we have heard in the House many times in debates on education, when it comes to selection it is not a case of the parents choosing the school but of the school choosing the parents. I hope that simply because a particular primary school in an area has a relatively new building, or has been tarted up with a bit of paint, or has a head teacher and senior staff who are very good at marketing themselves in the local community—they may not provide a better education but they may well generate an image of being better—we shall not end up with competition which would be deleterious in the primary school sector.
I hope that the aspirations of our Government, our Parliament and, indeed, all our people will be to ensure that our young children grow up in a classless society in which all can benefit from a good all-round education. We must recognise that different schools have different characteristics. We should revel in those differences between our schools. We should not point out the differences between them only in terms of the quality of education because that can then constrain parents to start making choices—and what we shall end up with is the schools choosing the pupils.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I should have thought that you cannot get rid of competition. Whatever form of education we have, whatever the system and whatever the different types of schools, education will not be any good unless there is competition. Indeed, that is what children and youngsters like. It is nonsense to be afraid of competition. What counts in any school is not so much the building—naturally, it would be all the better if all schools could have nice or beautiful buildings—but the quality of the teachers. Even with a lovely building, unless there are good quality teachers, the education will not be any good.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, if I understood the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, correctly, competition is pretty well the answer to the whole thing, although the noble Lord qualified that slightly by stressing the importance of teachers. I agree absolutely. However, does he agree that a whole range of factors have to be considered if there is to be fair competition or "perfect competition", as it used to be called in the economics books that I studied? That is what makes such nonsense of the league tables which were presented last week.
I address this next question again to the noble Lord: what about the buildings? I do not know whether he has seen the recent television programmes, including one today, which show schools dropping to bits. They were nowhere near to meeting the basic requirements for providing a decent and proper education.
What about the structure of the teaching staff? An ideal school would have three or four very experienced teachers and perhaps one or two newcomers with new ideas. However, that does not happen. At the moment, because of cost constraints, the Government are trying

661
to get rid of the more experienced teachers. The noble Lord shakes his head, but it is true. Hundreds of more experienced teachers have left. I am referring to the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, not the Minister, because he and I have talked about this previously. One could speak for a long time about the conditions that are necessary for the provision of a decent education. With great respect to the noble Lord, it is most naïive to say that competition is what matters. Competition, yes, but only provided that all the circumstances are right. I see that the noble Lord wants to intervene and I hope that he will agree that unless all of the conditions are right, competition as he has defined it is absolute nonsense.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, when I referred to competition, I was not dismissing other things; I was saying that you cannot completely dismiss competition.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, perhaps I may take this opportunity at Report stage, following the first intervention from the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, to welcome him back to our deliberations on the Bill. We were sorry that he had to miss so much of the Committee stage and we are pleased to see him back with us, looking as healthy and fit as he ought to do. We also appreciate the noble Earl's great struggle, if I may put it that way, to rise from his sick bed to vote for the party opposite in its ambush at 10.30 p.m. on the first Committee day on this Bill. The noble Earl is stronger than I thought.
I start by making one or two points on performance tables in response to the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Dormand. I was sorry to hear their views about performance tables whether in the primary or the secondary sectors. They will appreciate that I do not share their views. I believe that performance tables are one of the most valuable educational reforms of the past 18 years. They have two roles. The first is to provide information to parents, but they are not the only form of information that is available to parents. They are a relatively crude form of information. Valuable though it is, there is much other information available to parents through school prospectuses and other matters. Parents can take note of that and make their choice accordingly.
Secondly, they have an equally important role. They have a motivational effect on schools. We know that that effect has been dramatic in the secondary sector. It was for that reason that Mr. Rae, a former head of a distinguished public school—who I believe is not a supporter of my party but the party of the noble Lord, Lord Tope—said that performance tables had done more to raise standards than possibly any other reform that we had introduced because of the motivational effect on schools. That was why we were very keen to extend them to primary schools and why after the election we will be keen to extend them not just from Key Stage 2 tests but to the Key Stage 1 and 3 tests.
Turning to the amendment, it is designed to prevent entirely any primary school from introducing any selection into its admission arrangements. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that the effect of the amendment
662
would be to return schools to the present regime governing selective admissions which allows just that. Although these matters have not been tested in the courts at any stage, we have every assurance that they will still be effective and allow schools to select up to a certain percentage.
As to the current regime, I believe that during our debates at Committee stage there was a degree of confusion. Noble Lords opposite appeared to believe that the Bill broke new ground in permitting primary schools to introduce any selection at all. That is not the case. At present, the rules regarding selective admissions to primary schools are exactly the same as those for secondary schools. An admission authority would have to publish statutory proposals if the proportion of pupils they wanted to admit by selection would amount to significant change in character. In my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's view, selecting up to 15 per cent. of a school's intake whether primary or secondary does not constitute a significant change of character, so the admission authority for any school, either primary or secondary, can at present introduce up to 15 per cent. selection without publishing statutory proposals. The Bill sets a new statutory baseline of 20 per cent. for selective admissions, with higher thresholds for specialist and grant-maintained secondary schools. We believe that, just as the present regime does not discriminate between primary and secondary schools, the new baseline should apply to both. The Bill maintains the current principle of parity between primary and secondary schools in relation to selection. It does not break new ground in this respect; nor does it seek to encourage primary selection, as some noble Lords opposite have argued in the past. Decisions on whether to introduce an element of selection will remain a matter for the admission authorities concerned, whether that be the school, the LEA or whoever. The Bill does not require primary school governing bodies to consider annually whether to introduce or extend selection. It merely makes a marginal increase to the current baseline above which statutory proposals are needed.
I should like to deal with the point raised by the right reverend Prelate as to whether there is a conflict between primary selection and any given trust deed that an individual school, particularly a church school, may have. I reassure the right reverend Prelate that nothing in the Bill would enable a school to introduce admission arrangements contrary to anything specified in relation to admission in a school's trust deed. That matter would have to be resolved in other ways relating to the trust deed itself.
We do not believe that many primary schools will wish to select pupils by general ability, although some may want to do so by aptitude for a particular subject. I believe that my honourable friend Mrs. Gillan gave the example of music when she spoke on this matter in another place. We believe that primary schools should have the same options as most secondary schools. That is what the Bill gives them. The amendment seeks to

663
undermine that. For that reason, I do not believe that noble Lords would be able to accept them. I urge the House to reject the amendment.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. He began by responding to points that had been made in the debate about performance tables. Perhaps I may do likewise. We on these Benches are wholly in favour of more information being made available to parents. But that needs to be good, reliable and accurate information in the proper context. The experience last week of the publication of the performance tables for Key Stage 2 illustrate the point extremely well. They were published quite properly by the DfEE not in league table form and were made available to the press. The press immediately interpreted them as league tables.
In moving this amendment, I made a passing reference to the fact that a school's place in the league table depended on which paper published it. I speak from experience in that I am a governor of a junior school. The school had a governors' meeting two days after publication of the tables. It appeared that the English tests had been mislaid through no fault of the school. They had apparently—and literally—been lost from the back of a lorry. The DfEE league tables were published with a symbol that simply said that the tests had been lost through no fault of the school, but newspapers interpreted that information quite differently. I was pleased to see that in the London Evening Standard my school was top of the league because of the way that newspaper had interpreted the missing results. In a number of other newspapers, one of which was the Independent, the school was bottom of the league because instead of averaging three it had averaged only two. That is a practical illustration of how the information is of no benefit to parents and certainly not to the school. My school was extremely upset about it, not least because it had just received an extremely good Ofsted report. That is the problem with league tables.
The Minister said quite rightly that league tables increased motivation. That is part of my concern, because in the competition to get up the league table the pressure on primary schools to select by ability and to improve intake and its position in the league table—because that is what parents will be looking at—will be all the greater. We do not believe that many primary schools, if any, select by ability now. We are heading down that road. The pressure on some schools to select by ability, particularly GM primary schools who can select up to 50 per cent., will be even greater. The effect that that will have on the remaining county primary schools does not bear contemplation.
We have repeatedly rehearsed the arguments on this point. We accept that these amendments do not mean that there will be no selection. They mean that we keep the status quo. Although I may regret it, I believe that that is better than to enshrine in legislation that primary schools may select up to 20 per cent. or more depending on their particular status. To enshrine it in legislation and to put it beyond doubt is to encourage it. I believe that this is a very significant change within the Bill.
664
I totally disagree with the Minister's view on this matter. For those reasons, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
3.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 94; Not-Contents, 116.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Kintore, E.

Addington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Annan, L.

Longford, E.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Barnett, L.

McCarthy, L.

Blackstone, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blease, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Borrie, L.

McNair, L.

Bridges, L.

McNally, L

Bruce of Donington, L.

Marsh, L.

Calverley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carlisle, E.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Monkswell, L.

Clancarty, E.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nelson, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Northbourne, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Peston, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Donoughue, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Dubs, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ezra, L.

Russell, E.

Falkender, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Falkland, V.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Serota, B.

Fitt, L.

Sewel, L.

Freyberg, L.

Stallard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gregson, L.

Taverne, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Halsbury, E.

Tenby, V.

Hamwee, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tope, L. [Teller.]

Hayman, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Warnock, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

White, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Addison, V.

Attlee, E.

Ailsa, M.

Balfour, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Belstead, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Blatch, B.

Annaly, L.

Blyth, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Boardman, L.

665

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lucas, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lyell, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Burnham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mersey, V.

Byford, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cadman, L.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carew, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mountevans, L.

Carnock, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Moyne, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Northesk, E.

Courtown, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Palmer, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Davidson, V.

Pender, L.

De Freyne, L.

Quinton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Denbigh, E.

Rawlings, B.

Denham, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Reay, L.

Dundee, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rowallan, L.

Ferrers, E.

St. Davids, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gainford, L.

Seccombe, B.

Geddes, L.

Selborne, E.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Sharples, B.

Goschen, V.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Haddington, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Haig, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swansea, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Swinton, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Terrington, L.

Hemphill, L.

Teviot, L.

Henley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Holderness, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hood, V.

Vivian, L.

Inglewood, L.

Westbury, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wise, L.

Long, V.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.56 p.m.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Schedule inserted after Schedule 5 to the Education Act 1996]:
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 57, leave out lines 23 to 30.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 5, 17 and 18. Amendment No. 4 seeks to ensure that before a grant maintained school extends its age range to include post-16 students, or introduces or increases the number of students admitted to a sixth form by reference to ability, such proposals
666
should be subject to a more rigorous process of consultation and approval than would otherwise be the case.
The Bill would allow schools to increase the number of pupils to be selected by reference to ability and aptitude, and, in the case of grant-maintained schools, significantly to increase the number of pupils on the roll without their having to follow the long-standing procedure for the publication of statutory proposals. The threshold beyond which a school would have to publish a statutory notice would vary depending upon the status of the school and whether it a primary or a secondary school.
In all cases a limit is to be set to ensure that beyond a certain point the proposal is properly published, debated, and not allowed to proceed without the consent of the Secretary of State. In the case of a grant-maintained secondary school, it is envisaged that a school without a sixth form could create one without that being regarded as a significant change in character. Before reaching a decision as to whether a school should be allowed to open a sixth form, the Secretary of State has always considered the likely demand for extra places, the impact on the demand for places elsewhere, the range of courses which would be available, the experience and quality of the teaching staff and the cost of the new provision.
In addition, the Secretary of State has had regard to the view of local electors, the FEFC, the FAS and LEAs. The range of bodies which has been consulted reflects the fact that in the case of sixth forms, education and training provision extends beyond the school system. Significant changes to the number of places in schools' sixth forms may impact upon existing provision and the planning decisions of all those other providers.
The fourth amendment in the group seeks to ensure that before a school can establish a new sixth form, the legitimate interests of prospective pupils in terms of the range of courses available and the effectiveness of the teaching are considered, together with the impact on provision elsewhere, including any overall increase in public expenditure. It would also enable proper consideration of the circumstances of young people who might be denied a place in a school sixth form if the school wished to change its entry requirements.
The intention is not to prevent a school from opening a new sixth form or to stop a school with a sixth form from becoming wholly selective, but to ensure that schools seeking to make such significant changes are subject to a more rigorous process of consultation and approval than would otherwise be the case. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, as Amendment No. 5 is also being spoken to, I should point out that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 6.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I support the noble Lord. I am sure that the Minister, like myself and many other Members of this House, has

667
received a number of letters from sixth-form colleges which are concerned about the impact of new sixth forms in their area. The fact that someone puts pressure on you does not mean that you have to agree with what he is saying. However, in this case I do. All the experience of successful sixth forms shows that they need a certain number of pupils before the full curriculum can be delivered. The sixth-form colleges have been extremely successful in getting that critical mass of pupils together. Therefore, each pupil who goes to the college can have a wide range of choices and be taught in sufficiently large classes to make the teaching of each subject economically viable.
There are in existing secondary schools some successful sixth forms where the same critical mass has been achieved. My fear—and I believe it to be legitimate—is that if schools whose age limit is 16 begin to create new sixth forms the effect will be to reduce the number of pupils going to colleges, which will have a deleterious effect on them, and to produce smaller sixth forms. In other words, instead of having one or two sixth-form colleges or good sixth form provision in a particular area, there will be three or four inadequate institutions. My argument relates to the quality of education in a sixth form and for that reason I support the amendment.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, what concerns me in so much of what appears in the early parts of the Bill is not only, or not principally, what the Government are encouraging schools to do, but the fact that they are empowering them to do it without regard to the interests of anyone else.
If I decide that my own development can best be furthered by bursting into song or performing acrobatics while the Minister is replying to the debate, noble Lords can propose that I be no longer heard. In the last resort I can be removed from the scene. But if a school decides to go its own way and drive a coach and horses through local co-operative sixth-form arrangements, such as operate successfully in the Oxford area where I live, it will be able to do so without further restraint.
This is not self-government for schools; it is selfish government for schools. There will no longer be statutory procedures where objections, if any, can be heard. A school will be able to create a sixth form without that being regarded as a significant change in character, which seems to me an offence against language. The Further Education Funding Council was concerned enough about the destabilising effect on the viability of existing sixth-form provision, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, to write about it to the Secretary of State last autumn.
It is noteworthy that the welcome increase in staying-on rates, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, drew attention in Committee, has taken place without the deregulation provisions of this Bill, quite uninhibited by the existing system of checks and balances. These amendments are designed to retain the consultation and approval procedures without which a
668
free-for-all would work against the interests of post-school age pupils as a whole. I support them strongly.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we too support the amendments. It is difficult to debate with a Government whose use of language and adherence to policies is becoming so strange. Earlier today in your Lordships' House we learnt that, if the Opposition Benches put on a three-line Whip and win a vote, that is called "an ambush". That is a strange use of language.
Since 1979, the Government have exhorted local education authorities to make the best use of available resources with regard to financial and educational effectiveness in what they are able to offer as a range of options to pupils post-16. It was this Government which exhorted the local education authorities to review post-16 provision in their area. The terms of that review were to look very hard at sixth-form colleges of less than 200 pupils because it was not possible to offer the proper range of courses without undue public expenditure.
At that time in the 1980s, the Conservative Government said that their real concern was that schools were using resources intended for pupils who were not reaching the desired levels of attainment in the 11 to 16 range. The resources for those pupils were being diverted into the competition to attract greater financial benefit by encouraging more young people to stay on. It was a difficult exercise. There has to be consultation and discussion at local level. The Secretary of State of the day had to agree to the proposals concerned. However, the real concern was to ensure the quality of each subject offered and the range of subjects.
We in this country suffer from too few young people taking sciences and modern languages. Even with large, viable sixth forms, we are finding it difficult to recruit sufficient numbers into the sciences and languages, particularly the languages which are essential if we are to be effective members of the European Union. Young people will also need languages in order to work effectively in industry, the law, education and a wide range of professions. The amendments are modest, asking that due consultation and consideration is given to the interests of those young people.
I fail to understand how the Government can have performed a complete U-turn in their approach to what ought to be on offer. The Minister smiles at my presentation of what happened. It is an accurate description of what happened in the early 1980s and it was important that that took place. However, the voluntary sixth-form colleges, for instance, raised money in order to be able to develop a good provision. There has been no proper consultation so that parents and governors of the schools concerned can have an opportunity to understand all the facts. Instead there is to be an immediate decision to expand provision, thereby damaging the chances of a generation of young people. The Government cannot believe that that is in the best interests of education.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, the education authorities of the Roman Catholic Church also are

669
concerned about the proposal to extend the right to develop sixth forms. The education authorities of that Church attempt—rightly or wrongly, and I believe rightly—to ensure that there is a coherent provision for children whose Roman Catholic parents want them to have an education based on Christian values. In doing so, they have set up sixth-form colleges, in many cases very good ones.
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, made an important point about critical mass. I accept that the Government's philosophy is one of market forces. But while market forces sort themselves out, the education of a great many children could be destroyed through classes which are too small, making departments uneconomic, and preventing them from offering the degree of diversity and quality of education which those children deserve.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I support all the amendments in the group and I shall speak in particular to Amendment No. 18 to which I have put my name.
As has been made very clear again and again, this Bill would allow grant-maintained secondary schools without sixth forms to create a sixth form without that being regarded as a significant change of character.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, all of us who have been involved with this Bill have been inundated with correspondence from those concerned about sixth-form education in this country. They have produced well-argued cases on their problems and worries about the future of sixth-form education in this country. I was impressed by that and most of the people who have received that information have been impressed by it.
The current statutory procedures involving the Secretary of State in considering the question of costs, viability, increasing choice and diversity and the impact on existing provision before deciding whether a new sixth form can be established seem the minimum that would be required before giving permission for any new sixth form to be created. On the basis of this Bill which the Government are trying to bring forward, only a scheme with serious shortcomings, which has already been rejected in one of those areas, would be likely to set itself up. In other words, it is the sixth forms which have already been rejected by that procedure that one can confidently expect to be among the first to be established once the floodgates open and they no longer have to go through the procedure which the Secretary of State has applied so far in giving permission.
Until now the Secretary of State has always paid attention to the views of the Further Education Funding Council, the Funding Agency for Schools and local education authorities. I have always understood that the reason for that wide range of consultation was that it has always been recognised that as regards sixth forms, education and training provided those much wider than the schools system. Changes in numbers of sixth-form places will affect both the existing provision and the planning of all the other providers.
670
Amendment No. 18 seeks specifically to make sure that before a new sixth form can be established, consideration will have to be given to the range of courses available and the quality of the teaching. As my noble friend Lord Ponsonby has already made clear, those are surely legitimate interests for any prospective pupil. As well as that, consideration must be given to the impact on provision elsewhere. It would also ensure that consideration would be given to the question of young people who may be denied a place in a school sixth form if the school wishes to change its entry requirements.
I can only repeat the point made already about these amendments and this amendment in particular. The intention is not to prevent a school from opening a new sixth form; nor even to stop a school with a sixth form from becoming wholly selective. It is merely to ensure that schools making such significant changes, with wide-ranging ramifications, should be subject to a fairer process of consultation and approval than would be the case if these amendments are not carried.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, drew attention to the concerns of the Roman Catholic Education Service. I mentioned those concerns in Committee and I am glad that he has reiterated them. As he pointed out, the Roman Catholic Church has largely followed the route of providing sixth-form education through sixth-form colleges. The Church of England has done that more through sixth forms. Nevertheless, the same considerations would apply.
I should like to add one point to those which have been made already. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, used a mathematical illustration in talking about critical mass. I agree with the points that she made. The point about equilibrium is equally significant. It seems to me that under the proposals in the Bill it would be possible for a school to make a decision which would disturb the existing equilibrium, which is very positive. In a neighbourhood there are schools of different types and traditions. I can think of one town within my diocese where the provision comes from the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England, a former grammar school and two other county secondary schools, which among them provide a splendid cross-section of opportunity for sixth-form pupils. It seems to be entirely right that any school which wanted to disturb that equilibrium should be subject to certain considerations and not be deregulated as proposed in the Bill.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in supporting the amendments I could reiterate the arguments about the prudent use of public funds; I could reiterate the arguments about the limitations on the breadth of curriculum being offered; I could point out the risk of inadequate teaching; I could even reiterate the arguments that I used in connection with the previous amendment—that it was going against John Major's classless society aspirations. But in some respects, this amendment is too important for that.

671
I give an example of what I mean. Between the age of 16 and 18 I had the privilege of going to the North-East Essex Technical College and School of Art, which was effectively comprehensive tertiary sector provision. I was taking A-levels, as were a large number of other students. But there were also young people on vocational courses and I can remember in particular a bricklaying course. There was also a strong music school.
One of the problems which this country faces over the next few years is the need to ensure that we have the technical and vocational teaching which is so essential to provide the technicians who will produce the wealth of our country over the next 10 or 20 years. Japan, Germany, France and even the United States are producing far more of that calibre of student than we are. On the other side, we have almost an over-provision of undergraduate courses and graduates. The Government are talking of reducing the number of graduates because there are not enough economic openings for them in terms of jobs. I argue that we desperately need to improve education and training at the vocational level, particularly between the ages of 16 and 18, which is the age group that we are talking about.
Over the past few years we have heard how the number of students at universities or university-type institutions undertaking an undergraduate course has exploded. I believe that it is now more than 30 per cent. of that age group. I do not believe that we need many more graduates from universities. But we are desperately in need of the young people who will power the manufacturing revival that we require to survive as a country. We need the vocational education for those between the ages of 16 and 18.
I would argue that one of the ways in which we can do that is by building a truly comprehensive sector of education for that peer group, so that the pupils who are taking A-levels are seen to go to the same institutions as the people who are taking courses in bricklaying and metalwork and those who are studying foreign languages and music. All those people are essential and there should be some parity of esteem. It is to be hoped that, with that parity of esteem, will come parity of funding and of emphasis; that—dare I say it?—even the middle classes will start to think that these are good places; and that it is essential to support them and thereby build up a virtuous spiral of activity that will enhance, enable and empower the people of this country to rise above the decline which has beset us over the past 20 years.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to add my voice to the many others who have spoken to the amendments. I should like particularly to speak to Amendment No. 18. The debate takes me back to 1974 when I was on the Cambridge education committee. We were setting up sixth form colleges which were a new venture in the area; indeed, we set up two sixth form colleges in Cambridge itself, one in the old county boys' school and the other in the girls' county school. We had to be very careful that we did not have many sixth forms in the rest of the area, and we ended up with two.
672
The result of keeping the number of sixth forms down to two in the whole of the Cambridge area was that both sixth form colleges have been a tremendous success. They started with rather too many boys in one and too many girls in the other but that has evened out. Moreover, the range of subjects which can be taken is really miraculous; and, indeed, cost-wise it is very effective. It is interesting that both the Funding Agency for Schools and the Further Education Funding Council are very anxious about the steps that the Government are attempting to take. I do think that we would really be putting at risk the 110 sixth form colleges which have been so highly successful and produced such wonderful education. I hope very much therefore that the amendment will be supported. I also hope that the Government will think about cost. It really is over twice as expensive to set up a sixth form place in a school as it is to provide one in a sixth form college.
Lord Henley: My Lords, if the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, noticed an element of amusement on my face, it was really about what she said regarding the three-line Whip and what I described as the "ambush". I have to say that I did find it amusing; indeed, I found it amusing that the three-line Whip from the party opposite was able to drag from their sick bed members of another party entirely—that is, those from the Cross-Benches. I believe that that was a performance of which the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, in his great days as Chief Whip in another place many years ago, would have been proud. As I said earlier, we were more than happy to see the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, here at 10.30 on that night and more than happy to see him here voting on that occasion—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am quite sure that the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, will confirm that I had no part in removing anyone at all from his sick bed. It may have been the illogical position that the Government were in that forced people to rise up and come to this Chamber.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should remind the noble Baroness that we are at Report stage. I do find it the most extraordinary coincidence—as I am sure does the noble Baroness—that, at precisely 10.30, the noble Earl should recognise that that was the time to rise from his sick bed as he did. However, we welcomed him; indeed, we love to see him here. But at precisely 10.30, without any intelligence and without any information from the party opposite, I find it extraordinary that the noble Earl should rise from his sick bed in time to lend his support to the party opposite. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I rise simply to correct the noble Lord. This is information which he may in future find helpful, if not indeed useful. There is a distinction between a three-line Whip and an ambush. The two need not coincide; in fact, the best ambushes are not laid on three-line Whips. In the particular case to which the noble Lord referred, a three-line Whip was put down by this party. I made it quite clear on that three-line Whip that it might very well be that the House

673
would divide at a particular time. I invited all my colleagues—and, indeed, any Members of the House of other parties—to attend at that time to see whether or not that was the case.
However, an ambush is quite different. On a previous Bill some time ago, I had the pleasure and duty of arranging an ambush. It was arranged quite separately to take place at a late hour and was by invitation only. An ambush by invitation only is something that I would recommend to the noble Lord if, in the unlikely event that he should ever find himself in the position on these Benches, he wishes to defeat a government proposal. One of the great dangers with an ambush is that, of course, it leaks. The secret of a successful ambush I will now reveal to the noble Lord: you make the ambush as late as possible in the day; you do not inform the people until as late as possible, then there is little chance of a leak; and you do it by telephone and write nothing down. I hope that the noble Lord will find that of help.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am most interested in and amused by the noble Lord's explanation of how the Whips' Office operates on the other side of the House. The point that I was making is a similar one; namely, that I was amused that those on the Cross-Benches on their sick beds should know quite so easily, despite their sickness, exactly what was going on. However, we shall leave the matter there because I do not think that the House wishes to debate the intricacies of whipping at this stage, and we have other matters before us.
This group of amendments raises a number of separate issues. However, there are one or two points that I should like to concentrate on in my opening remarks. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, talked about the problem of an alleged paucity of those taking sciences at different stages. In particular, she talked about the post-l6 level. I agree that we would like to see more people taking sciences. Indeed, in what I believe to be National Physics Week, we would like to see more girls taking up sciences, particularly in physics. Nevertheless, I believe that we can now say that we have got science into the national curriculum. By the end of the century all that will have fed the whole way through the system and we will begin to see greatly improved results.
I can tell the noble Baroness—and this is very encouraging—that something like one third of all university graduates are now graduates in either science or engineering. That is one of the highest rates in the entire OECD; it is something of which we can be proud and upon which we can build, bearing in mind that that is a third of a much higher number than it was 15 or 20 years ago.
In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, about graduates, perhaps I may remind the House that there is still a growing demand for graduates. I forget the name of the survey which was published only last week, but it showed that the demand for graduates was rising, and rising fast. I shall look into the matter in due course and write to the noble Lord. I can also point to the fact that we have seen the incomes of graduate recruits—for example, in their first
674
year—rise quite a lot over the past year. Again, that implies that there is a need for them. We have also seen the CBI call for a greatly increased number of graduates emerging from the university sector.
No doubt all those matters will be addressed by Sir Ron Dearing in his report on the future shape, size, structure and funding of higher education. Although I may possibly have misinterpreted what was said, it would be very remiss of noble Lords to imply that we are already producing too many graduates. Certainly that is not the view of the noble Lord's party and, indeed, not a view that I would share. Moreover, it is certainly one that we hope Sir Ron will address in due course.
I turn now to the amendments. As I said, they deal with three separate issues. The first two relate to selective admissions and the third relates particularly to sixth forms. I appreciate that most noble Lords and noble Baronesses spoke particularly to the third and fourth amendments and I shall deal with them in due course. However, I should say a few words about Amendment No. 4. I shall take Amendment No. 5 to be more of a probing amendment and one which I largely dealt with in Committee.
I shall begin with Amendment No. 4. Paragraph 3(1) deals with sixth form admissions and has nothing to do with the establishment of new sixth forms. It does not introduce anything new. Its purpose is to preserve the freedoms schools already have. At many schools the sixth form is made up entirely of pupils coming up through the school. So the issue of external admissions—which is what Schedule 1 is about—does not arise. It is only an issue for schools that admit pupils from outside the school at 16, and the number of admissions at that age is usually small.
Entry to sixth forms—whether from within or outside the school—has traditionally been on a selective basis. Because of this, and the small numbers admitted at 16, the department has always taken the view that changes in selection arrangements for admission to sixth forms do not significantly change the character of schools. Paragraph 3(1) does no more than confirm the current position by exempting changes in the proportion of selective admissions to sixth forms from the arrangements for triggering a requirement for statutory proposals.
Removing that exemption—which the amendment seeks to do—would place a new constraint on the relatively small number of secondary schools that happen to have external admissions to their sixth forms. That would be discriminatory and run counter to the deregulatory intention of the Bill. Therefore it is not an amendment that I would welcome.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 18, to which most noble Lords spoke, are designed to reverse the Bill's intention of giving grant-maintained schools more freedom to establish sixth forms. We believe that grant-maintained schools have a leading role to play in extending both choice and diversity. That includes provision for the 16 to 19 age group. We believe that the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools are in the best position to make a judgment about local demands and to respond to what young people and their parents want. The

675
governing bodies will not invest time and effort in setting up a new sixth form unless they know the demand will be there.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, and others that it does not mean that they would be able to set it up without any regard for the interests of others. If the noble Earl considers Clause 7(2) of new Section 265C of what I presume will be the 1996 Act, he will find that it states quite clearly that,
"In such a case the governing body shall, before implementing their proposals, carry out such consultation (if any)"—
we shall discuss those or similar words later—
"as appears to them to be appropriate".
It is obvious that they would have to consult all those who would be affected and have regard to guidance from the department. That guidance will make it clear that the schools will be expected to consult neighbouring schools and sixth-form colleges, the FE colleges and the FEFC. We expect schools to act responsibly in the light of the needs of the pupils in their areas.
A new sixth form will mean that there will be new competition for existing 16-to-19 providers in schools or even in the FE sector. One should bear in mind that the FE sector is perfectly free at present to expand, should it so wish. But just as the amendment makes provision for GM schools, so it is right for FE colleges, and there is nothing wrong with that. If existing providers are offering what young people and their parents want, they will have absolutely nothing to fear. If they are not, the appearance of a new provider will spur them into action.
Perhaps I may say a few words about the size of sixth forms and whether some may be too small to be effective. I think that we should all agree that there is no automatic right size for any specific school sixth form. Circumstances vary widely. In the interests of increasing choice and diversity, it may well be desirable for some school sixth forms to be relatively small without as wide a range of courses as larger sixth forms might provide. In making decisions of that kind, governors could respond to the needs of their pupils. We see no problem whatsoever with schools setting up sixth forms offering specialist opportunities—for example, just catering for GNVQs—as their contribution to the local pattern of provisions. Schools do not necessarily have to provide the full range of all A-levels and all vocational courses post-16. That can be a matter for the schools themselves.
As I made clear, we want to give all GM schools more flexibility to respond to the needs and wishes of the communities they serve. I believe that the amendments seek to prevent that. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response to my group of amendments. In the coming weeks I suspect that we shall all be honing our skills at using buzz words and reducing political debates to one or two phrases. Perhaps I may practise that skill as a result of this short debate.
676
"Critical mass", "selfishness" and "equilibrium" seem to be the words which characterise the debate of the past 37 minutes.
The purpose of the amendments was to introduce a more rigorous process of consultation. As I believe every speaker made clear, it was not the purpose of the amendments to reduce the choice of sixth-form provision or in any way to damage the choice available to students.
The issue of critical mass was raised. While it may be the case that there can be different sizes and types of sixth forms, that does not address the argument that there must be some minimum size which does not detract from other sixth forms and from the range of provision that sixth forms can provide.
I am not satisfied with the response to the amendments. Nevertheless, I realise that we have much to get through today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 57, line 43, after ("school") insert ("or involve a substantial increase in the numbers admitted to the school").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 16.
The purpose of the amendments is to test whether whole new age groups can be added to a school's intake where the proportion being selected remains the same. The issue was raised by my noble friend Lady Farrington in Committee (at cols. 960–961 of Hansard). My noble friend asked whether the provisions of paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 and the equivalent provisions in what is now Clause 5 meant that the Government have no intention of allowing schools suddenly to start recruiting destructively from adjacent schools—potentially pupils at the age of 13 or 14 years.
I understand that the Minister wrote to my noble friend on 10th March. He stated that the provisions of the paragraph would have no effect on a school's ability to recruit from other schools and that it was no part of the Government's intention to introduce any change in that area. That assurance is welcome so far as it goes but it does not answer the question as to whether the existing law is sufficient to prevent the adding of large numbers of pupils, even as many as whole new year groups, to the later years of the school.
Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 is a tangled thicket whose meaning can be, and I believe is, elusive. The purpose of the two amendments is to require that the publication procedure should apply where a school sought to recruit a substantial number of extra pupils on a selective basis under the protection that the overall percentage of selective pupils was not being altered.
There may be a misunderstanding here and the Minister has clarified that the Government have no intention of loosening the position in their drafting of paragraph 3. The Minister is asked, however, to confirm

677
whether in his view the existing law would prevent a situation arising such as has been described and whether paragraph 3 introduces no changes in this respect. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it may help if I start with an explanation of paragraphs 3(2) and 3(3) of Schedule 1 which I accept are somewhat difficult to understand. I shall explain them as clearly and simply as I can. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, will at least take the amendments away and consider that explanation in due course.
As I explained earlier, paragraph 2 of the schedule provides for automatic publication of statutory proposals where changes in the proportion of selective admissions cross set thresholds. Paragraphs 3(2) and 3(3) provide for an exception to this rule relating to new relevant age groups.
Before explaining why that is necessary, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord what a relevant age group is. It is an age group in which pupils are normally admitted to a school. A school may have more than one relevant age group. For example, some secondary schools admit most of their pupils at 11 years but also admit smaller numbers at 12 and 16. Under existing legislation, statutory proposals are required if a school extends its age range. But they are not required if the school starts to admit pupils to any existing year group. They would not, for example, be required if an 11 to 18 school started to admit 12 year-olds. Nothing in the Bill changes that.
The school might be a non-specialist county secondary school which was already selecting more than, say, 20 per cent. of its 11 year-old intake. For consistency it would probably want to select the same proportion of its new 12 year-old intake. Without paragraph 3(2), statutory proposals would be required for that because the proportion of pupils to be selected in the new relevant age group would exceed the relevant threshold. In other words, without paragraph 3(2) statutory proposals would be required where the school's character was not going to change at all, which would be senseless. That is why paragraph 3(2) is needed.
Paragraph 3(3) also serves two necessary functions. It confirms that the exemption does not apply where the introduction of a new relevant age group would extend the school's age range and in these circumstances statutory proposals would be required. They would deal with the proportion of pupils selected in the new relevant age group as well as the extension of age range.
Paragraph 3(3) also provides that where paragraph 3(2) refers to existing relevant age groups, that should not be taken to include admissions to sixth forms. That is necessary because admission to sixth forms is traditionally selective, as we discussed earlier. Without that restriction, paragraph 3(2) would enable a school which had fully selected a sixth form to select all its new 12 year-old entrants, even though the proportion of 11 year-olds was, say, only just over 20 per cent. Removing paragraph 3(3), which would have been the
678
effect of Amendment No. 5, would have left schools free to select most or all of their pupils in a new relevant age group, even though the proportion of pupils selected in existing relevant age groups or statutory age groups was substantially lower. I am sure that the noble Lord would not welcome that intention.
Having explained that, these two amendments moved by the noble Lord would create a new requirement. Under existing legislation statutory proposals are needed where a school's age is to be extended or where significant enlargement is to he made to its premises and there is no requirement to publish proposals where a school admits more pupils to existing year groups.
The noble Lord's amendments would seek to change that position for certain schools. They would bite on schools with selective admissions above the relevant threshold. If such a school introduced a new relevant age group which substantially increased total admissions, statutory proposals would be required even if the new relevant age group was within the school's existing age range and the proportion of selective admission was no higher than in existing relevant age groups—in other words, the only real change was going to be an increase in the number of pupils admitted.
I believe that the noble Lord seeks further additional regulation. I suspect he fears that selective schools are likely to be popular schools. I believe that is right. Selective schools could become popular and selection is likely to make a school more popular because it offers a provision that many parents want. However, I do not see any reason for the extra controls that the amendments seek to impose on the expansion of those selective schools within the constraints that we already have.
I hope, therefore, given my rather detailed earlier explanation for paragraphs 3(2) and 3(3), the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his detailed answer to my amendments. I shall read his response with care. After listening to him as carefully as I could, I am not sure that he answered the question as to whether the existing law would prevent a situation arising such as I described in moving the amendment. Nevertheless, I believe it would be better if I were to withdraw the amendment and read his answer in detail. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 59, line 18, leave out ("(if any)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments, grouped with another series which affect Clause 7, are directed to the situation that arises where changes proposed by a school do not require publication but where the Bill states that the Government should nevertheless consider what consultation, "if any", the proposals are to be submitted to.
In Committee, we argued at some length on the inclusion of the words "if any". I believe I waxed quite lyrical on that very subject. We have attempted to satisfy the Minister on that point by the use of the idea that consultation will not be necessary, or consultation could reasonably be decided as not to be necessary,
"where the variation is one to which the publication procedure did not apply before the coming into effect of this schedule".
I am rather hopeful that, if the Minister takes our points on board, he will agree that by making a fairly minor change to the Bill he will achieve what he wanted. In response to our points in Committee he said that people will naturally consult on the proposals and that the guidance will encourage them to do so. He said that the only time that they might not consult would be in a situation where any such changes were,
"so small that formal consultation would be a waste of time, effort and money for all concerned".—[Official Report, 2/4/97; col. 998.]
So by removing the words "if any", we simply state what the Minister said the guidance would state—namely, that people should consult—and by adding in the words about a reasonable allowance for non-consultation on projects which would not have required publication previously we satisfy his point about allowing people not to consult on very small changes. I hope that those two points at any rate will meet with his approval.
The third point has to do with the period of time over which such consultations should take place. The Minister seemed to suggest that he thought a month was about right. We cannot agree with that, hence the suggestion that these consultations should take place over a two-month period. That would allow everybody who was interested in these changes—other schools, local education authorities and so on—to make their representations and to be given a reasonable time to do so. These are useful, not tremendously challenging amendments. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accommodate them. I beg to move.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I support all six of these amendments: Amendments Nos. 7 to 9 and 19 to 21, to all of which I have my name. Their purpose is to ensure that there will be consultation by admissions authorities or grant-maintained schools in all significant cases where there are proposals to increase selection or make other changes to grant-maintained schools such as enlargement to give all concerned the opportunity to know what comments are being made on the proposals and to allow them a reasonable period in which to respond.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, mentioned, the Minister made clear on the first day of the Committee stage that the words "if any" were there in relation to the statutory requirement to consult to cater for those cases where,
"there are bound to be some changes so small that formal consultation would be a waste of time, effort and money for all concerned".—[Official Report, 2/4/97; col. 998.]
We have therefore taken his words into consideration in framing these amendments and exempting any minor changes which are not at present required by law to undergo the publication procedure.
680
Any change, no matter how small, can have an impact on children, parents and other schools in an area. The Bill seems to contain no provision to prevent a school making small changes which incrementally would lead to a small change in character. If the Government really believe in consultation, I do not see why there is anything to prevent the Secretary of State's guidance differentiating between cases where the impact is, in the Minister's view, small and other cases. Surely insisting that consultation is not justified when a school wishes to increase selection brings into question the Government's commitment to considering the legitimate interests of the whole community in which every school has to operate?
I, like other noble Lords, have been concerned about the Minister's response [Official Report. 24/2/97; col. 999] to the points we raised about the extent of consultation and its timing. The Minister did not make it clear—at least not to me—whether the guidance would ensure that all comments received during the consultation period would be available for public inspection. I understand that it has been common practice for government departments to make available to the public any responses from interested parties whom they consult unless the respondent does not wish it. That seems to me to be a very good practice which does not place any additional burden on the respondents.
With regard to the period of time for comment, the Minister referred [Official Report, 24/2/97; col. 999] to a period of not less than one month for interested parties to respond to proposals to increase selection. I know from my experience as a chair of governors that when parents and governing bodies of schools have to be consulted that period of time is wholly inadequate even during term time and is completely unacceptable at any other time. Let us try to live in the real world for a moment and accept that a proposal to increase selection is likely to arouse strong feelings in any area. It surely must be right that parents and governors should have time to consider the responses and should not be made to feel that they are being pushed or railroaded into making very important decisions.
The wording of the Bill as it now stands is unfortunate in these regards at least, if not also in some other regards, but that can easily be corrected. After all, public consultation should not be considered a burden or something only to be undertaken when very large numbers of parents or children might be affected. These amendments would simply ensure that parents and others concerned would have an opportunity to know about, and to comment upon, proposals to increase selection by ability or aptitude. I hope that the Minister will find it possible to accept these amendments.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I support these amendments. I read with care what the Minister said in Committee. I was encouraged by what he said about the extent of consultation undertaken by his own department and consultation that could be expected from guidance to be issued on this point of varying admission arrangements under Schedule 1 and Clause 7.

681
Nevertheless, the words "if any" are unfortunate. In broad terms, I believe that they give the wrong message—the suggestion that consultation is less rather than more appropriate—and in narrow, legal terms they leave a significant loophole.
I do not believe that there is any disagreement of substance over what the Government intend, but it seems to me that this is one of the cases where, given the sensitivity of the issue in question, the Government could with benefit accept the minor change of wording, which concedes nothing in substance. Incidentally, I also associate myself with the two-month period even though my name was not down on those amendments.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I too wish to speak in support on this group of amendments and in doing so to draw particular attention to the points made so strongly on the issue of the period of time for consultation. The Minister cannot have experienced the process of change proposed for a school in a locality which affects other secondary schools and the primary schools in the area if he is prepared to support, and adhere to, the notion that such a consultation should take place within a period of no longer than a month.
When a change is proposed that will affect the school at which their children are pupils—or would become pupils, if they are primary school children—meetings for parents and public meetings in the locality tend to be packed. People are concerned; there is a wider community interest in the effect that proposals will have.
If a proposal to consult is begun by holding meetings, either the meetings have to be enormous and attended by so many that people become angry and say that they have not had an opportunity to raise the concerns of their school and their particular set of circumstances or it is necessary to hold meetings one night after another in different parts of the locality. I say that having had that salutary experience myself. I would be surprised if the noble Lord the Minister had not, in his time in local government, become aware of that phenomenon. I cannot think of any changes affecting the type of entrants into a school which have not attracted that degree of parental interest. It is therefore deeply concerning if the Government are not prepared to accept that a period of two months would be more appropriate and would avoid the Government being blamed for lack of consultation, lack of thorough consultation or lack of time to have due regard to the outcome of that consultation.
I cannot believe that the Minister would want to set in place a system doomed to failure. I cannot believe that the Minister would want to set in train a procedure that would lead to criticism from all those attending meetings. I am sure that the Minister is able to concede this very small point.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right, I do have very similar experiences to those she has, though probably not as frequent in terms of seeing the consultation process when a number of schools are threatened with closure or merger. I particularly remember one consultation process I was involved with in
682
my own LEA. I think it was the year before county council elections. With a hung council, we were proposing closure or merger of a very large number of schools. The proposal had all-party agreement and, as one would expect, the whole thing fell apart at first instance, particularly after consultation. I believe that the document that the county council as a whole put forward containing these proposals was called The Way Ahead. I have ever since been deeply suspicious of any document called The Way Ahead; I have seen a great many over the years and most have suffered a similar fate.
Perhaps I may start by giving an assurance to the House, as I made clear at Committee stage and as colleagues have made clear in another place, that we intend that in most circumstances consultation will be required. I believe that in moving this amendment the noble Baroness accepted that there are some occasions when changes are so minor that formal consultation would be a waste of time, effort and money for all concerned—I use the same words as I used on an earlier occasion.
There are two ways in which one could approach this issue. One could either adopt the Government's approach—which I think is the better one—of using the words "if any" and then offer a degree of guidance (I will go into that in due course) or, at the cost of lengthening the Bill by an extra three or four lines, one could take the approach adopted by the noble Baroness in her Amendment No. 9 and the other amendment, Amendment No. 21, to much the same effect. I believe that guidance is the better route. It will be guidance to which the proposers will be required to have regard and will clarify which changes would not require consultation. It will also clarify what periods of consultation might be appropriate in those circumstances. I will come to the timing in due course. I believe that that is the way in which consultation is treated at the moment and I believe that these amendments are another example of a degree of detail that it is not necessary to have on the face of the Bill.
We accept that consultation will be important where the proposed changes would have a perceptible effect on the functioning of the school. That is why we have a specific clause on the subject of consultation. As I said, for the very minor changes—variation of a few per cent., numbers to be selected, for example—within the overall threshold, that consultation would not be necessary. Again, that would be set out in the guidance.
I can give an assurance that the guidance will include, within the changes required, all those changes currently requiring publication of statutory proposals as set out in the noble Baroness's two amendments. Further, the Bill also provides that other changes which do not currently require the publication of proposals but nonetheless are of importance to other schools in the area would also require consultation. I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, that in terms of access to responses to the consultation, we would certainly expect that the guidance would include an expectation that the governors should place copies of the responses to the consultation in a public place, such as a local public library, unless there is some very good reason to keep them confidential. The noble Baroness mentioned the

683
fact that the respondents themselves specifically asked for their response to be kept confidential. That is the most obvious reason. There may or may not be others but I cannot think of one at the moment. That is something which could be left open. For those reasons in the main we consider that our more flexible approach of guidance is more appropriate.
There are also the two amendments which suggest that there should be a minimum period of consultation. Again, it is our view that the length of consultation will vary according to the type of proposal and the number of interested parties. I go back to my own experience in a particular LEA where a great deal of consultation was required because some major changes were proposed. But to take the example of an isolated rural school catering for rapid growth in pupil numbers, it may not impact on any other particular institution. In those cases, to restrict them to that two-month period might not be necessary. The key is that those with a proper interest are consulted in a way that enables them to give serious consideration to the issues before them. One could also say that there would be a serious risk of judicial review if they were not given that opportunity for a serious review of the issues before them. Again, I can give an assurance to the noble Baroness that we shall make sure that the guidance offers appropriate guidance on what should be the length of consultation in individual circumstances.
With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
5 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I believe that we have got a little further in that he suggested—so I understand—that the guidance would indicate that consultation is likely to be required on all those kinds of proposals which currently have to be published. That was one of our objectives. I should prefer to see some of the amendments on the face of the Bill.
I am a little worried about the timing proposal. Two months is not a very long time in the life of a school, of parents, of a local authority and of other schools. Meetings have to be put together and people have to talk to each other. It sometimes takes a little while for people to understand or even hear about proposals which have been put forward. I am not happy about that.
Although there are areas where I am still unhappy, I can see that the Minister will not change his mind and give way to what I call almost drafting amendments. Therefore I agree to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Duty of governing body to review selective admission policy]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2. line 24, at end insert—
("(2A) In undertaking its consideration in accordance with this section, the governing body shall have regard to any financial consequences which might reasonably he expected to arise for the
684
local education authority from any variation in the admission arrangements for the school.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 23, which is its parallel in relation to grant maintained schools.
The purpose of the amendment is to require governing bodies, when they undertake their annual consideration of the expansion of selection, to have regard to the financial consequences which would be expected to arise for the local education authority were the admission arrangements to be changed; and, mutatis mutandis, the same would be true for grant maintained schools.
This point arose in debate on Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 at Committee stage (Official Report, 24/2/97, col. 1011). Those amendments set out a series of criteria which governing bodies might be asked to consider in taking their annual decision. Your Lordships will remember that in moving the amendments, my noble friend Lady Farrington referred in particular to the impact on transport arrangements, where one school decided to expand selection and altered the pattern of movement among pupils both to itself and to the neighbouring schools. There is in transport a network, a reticulation, of arrangements which, if one part is disturbed, has repercussions on other parts of the web.
The issue was picked up by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon (col. 1011) who pressed the Minister to respond to the point that a governing body would be able to take decisions which had financial consequences for others and in particular for the local education authority. Transport simply forms a single direct example of the additional financial commitments with which the LEA might be faced. There are others. The likely consequence of an increasing number of appeals, for example, arising from an expansion of selection represents another potential area in which the LEA would incur additional cost.
But this amendment is not confined to those particular kinds of cost. It is set in a context of community. I remind your Lordships that in that previous debate I drew attention to the fact that schools are part of a wider community. We on these Benches place a great deal of importance on the community aspect of schools. A decision by one school to introduce or increase the proportion of pupils who are selected by reference to ability or aptitude is bound to have an impact, and an impact of varying magnitude, on other schools within its area and within the whole local education community. It will impact on the way in which primary schools conduct themselves. The way things are developing through this Bill, it will in fact affect how nursery schools work and the provision of nursery education in a community. In certain cases, the effect will radiate far beyond the area of the local education authority itself because people will be attracted to certain schools from well beyond the official LEA boundary. So we believe that no school should be able to take such a decision without due regard to the full implication of its actions.
I said a great deal more than that but I shall spare your Lordships my further reflections and turn simply to what the Minister said in his response. It was a long

685
day and a long debate. One should not perhaps be held too rigidly to the precise sense of every phrase that one utters in the heat of the moment or even the battle of the day. But I must confess that, in looking at the Minister's response—I have read it carefully more than once—I note in it things which cause me worry, things which cause me confusion and certain things which I should be grateful if he would explain.
The Minister said,
"governors will obviously consult and talk to local people. If others have a view that serious financial consequences may arise, that is something which can be taken into account. But I do not believe that it would be right to undermine the right of governing bodies to consider those matters. I believe that those matters can be adequately considered and on some occasions—and I take the example of school transport—costs might rise on the one hand but diminish on the other".—[Official Report, 24/2/97; col. 1011.]
Although the Minister says,
"governors will obviously consult and talk to local people",
it is by no means obvious that that will be the case if there is no requirement on them to do so. The overwhelming majority of people in this country will not commit murder. It would therefore be superfluous to create a law for perhaps one in 10,000 people. The vast majority of people go through their whole life without committing a single murder; people act in a rational and reasonable sort of way. The law deals with those people who do not behave in a rational and sensible way.
Obviously the majority of governors will consult and talk to local people; but what if they do not? That is what the law is dealing with. The sanction is vitally necessary. The Minister went on to say,
"If others have a view that serious financial consequences may arise, that is something which can be taken into account".
What "others"? Who is the Minister talking about? He said,
"that serious financial consequences may arise, that is something which can he taken into account".
Obviously anything "can" be taken into account. Does the Minister mean "needs" to be taken into account? Does he acknowledge that it need not be taken into account? He goes on,
"But I do not believe that it would be right to undermine the right of governing bodies to consider those matters".
That is perhaps the most arcane sentence in what he said.
We are asking that governing bodies "shall" consider. How can that undermine anything? The Minister went on to say that he considered that transport costs, like other things (which he did not specify), might well balance each other out on different occasions. That I find extremely opaque. Is there any known example where that is the case? Can he point to any specific balancing out of transport costs as a result of the kind of activity which is the subject of this specific section of the Bill? Indeed, how could the transport costs balance each other out? How would he or anyone else know whether that had happened? Who gathers the statistics on the balancing out of transport costs in the event of that kind of activity taking place? Have any
686
such statistics been previously published? Does the department have any intention of giving us the benefit of that kind of research?
I am afraid therefore that I found that the responses given by the Minister, though marvellously convincing at the time, do not stand up to the cold light of day when one sees them in print—that is something which affects us all. The Minister seems unclear as to whether he is arguing that governors "should" take such issues into account or whether expecting them to do so would undermine their right to take a decision. The legislative position, as the Bill is drafted, is perfectly clear: there is nothing to require a governing body to consider these matters at all, nor to talk to anyone else about them if it does not wish to do so. On that basis, the Minister's claims are simply without foundation.
Amendment No. 10 was tabled—it applies to both maintained and grant-maintained schools—to propose a minimum requirement that governing bodies should have regard to the financial consequences to another body—that is, the LEA—from its own decisions. The amendment does not bind the governing body except to the extent that it should have regard to that factor in making its decision. If the Government wish governing bodies to act responsibly, they can have no logical reason for resisting this gentlest possible amendment. The request is utterly minimalist and I can see no reason why the Government should now reject it. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I rise to support Amendment No. 10 and to bring attention to the transport costs that could arise from changes envisaged in this section of the Bill.
Transport costs already amount to a considerable proportion of an education authority's costs; it is usually several millions of pounds. The system is that pupils who live within a certain distance from their school do not receive free transport, but those who live further away than the minimum limit—for secondary schools it is three miles—and cannot gain access to a closer secondary school receive free transport.
If we were to allow secondary schools, for example, to increase their level of selection, bearing in mind the economic effect on the local education authority, a situation would be created where those pupils who are excluded from a school as a result of an increased proportion of selection would have to travel further afield. By definition, secondary schools are more widespread in their geographical distribution than are primary schools; they are big.
As a result of haphazard changes in some schools, a situation will arise where pupils cannot get into a school to which they could walk or pay their own public transport fares and will have to travel further to another school where the transport will be paid for by the local education authority. That could impose a serious cost on local education authorities.
I have struggled for years with the question of school transport and am horrified at the apparently light-hearted way with which the Minister dealt with the issue. It is

687
an extremely serious business. The cost of school transport to a local education authority and to those who do not receive free transport is probably the most frequently raised objection with local councillors in relation to the education process in general. That is certainly the case in my authority. Rightly or wrongly, people there have a fairly benign attitude towards the education system but are outraged at the cost of travelling to school if they choose one school as opposed to another.
Children who come into a selected school from a distance will not become the responsibility of the local education authority because they are choosing to move further than they need. But the cost of those who are prevented from attending their nearest school will come on to the shoulders of local ratepayers. It is time therefore that the issue was given the serious consideration that it deserves.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I am glad to see this amendment before your Lordships today. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for the practical considerations they have put before the House. I wish to underline what seems to be the principle here. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, describing the words of the noble Lord the Minister in which he said that a governing body can take account of consultations. I suspect that what the Minister meant to say was that a governing body may take account of such consultations or conversations. Frequently we use the word "can", especially in the process of speaking quickly, when we should use "may". I should be interested to know the Minister's view of that.
In any case, neither of those words is the same as "shall". The amendment says that a governing body,
"shall have regard to any financial consequences".
This is a question of principle—and a very important principle—that governing bodies are being encouraged to act responsibly. They are being encouraged to take responsibility for the life of their schools. However, in doing so they must surely also act responsibly in relation to the community in which they are set and in relation to the effect of their decisions on others. If it is the case that a decision taken by a governing body means that other people have to pick up the financial costs of it, surely that is something a governing body ought to have regard to. I believe that it is right that this should be on the face of the Bill and that the word "shall" should be included here. I should like to underline what I believe to be the very important principle behind the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may begin with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, on my earlier remarks. He is being somewhat premature in getting into the most intricate detail of how the consultation may operate. The department is rarely criticised for being less than comprehensive in drafting guidance and circulars. I can give the noble Lord an assurance that we shall be as thorough as he would wish in drafting and consulting on our guidance on
688
consultation and will then take account of the specific points raised. But I do not think that they are necessarily suitable matters for the face of the Bill because we do not want to prescribe precisely the factors which governors should take into account when considering whether selection is right for their schools and for the parents they serve. We believe that the governors themselves are best placed to assess just how their schools should develop and they will take into account all relevant factors in reaching that decision.
When the governors of a county or controlled school decide that they wish to introduce or extend selection and the statutory proposals are necessary, the LEA, as the relevant admission authority, if it is the relevant admission authority, will consider any financial implications in deciding whether to publish proposals. The same will be true when an LEA considers a request for the introduction of selection when the statutory proposals are not required. Where the governing bodies of voluntary aided or grant-maintained schools decide to introduce or extend selection, Clause 7 of and Schedule 1 to the Bill will place them under a duty to carry out consultation as appropriate—that is the reason for the distinction between those schools and the others—even where statutory proposals are not needed. I certainly believe, as I think I said on an earlier occasion, that if there are any financial consequences for the LEA arising from any proposed change, I am sure that the LEA, as the admissions authority, would make the school's governing body more than aware of that fact during consultation.
Perhaps I may also go back to the possible costs of selection and to the example given on a previous occasion—transport. I accept, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, put it, that transport is a major figure in the accounts of local education authorities and is a major concern for a number of parents. However, I do have to say—and I repeat what I said at an earlier stage—that there is no reason to assume that more selection will necessarily lead to an overall increase in the costs of home-to-school transport.
In some areas the introduction or extension of selection may mean some pupils travelling long distances to schools. But the Bill does not change the rules on home-to-school transport in any way and pupils will continue to be entitled to free transport to the nearest suitable school, as the current legislation puts it, at which places are available if that is beyond the statutory walking distances of two or three miles, depending on their age. That means that some parents whose children would have been entitled to free school transport to the nearest non-selective school may forgo that right in order to send them to a selective school further away. That, in effect, was the example given by the noble Baroness. That could certainly offset any extra transport costs which might or might not arise from other pupils acquiring an entitlement to free transport because their nearest suitable school with places available was now further away.

689
I have to say, therefore, that I do not believe that the amendment is necessary and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I would not deny for one moment the assiduity with which the Department for Education and Employment carries out its consultation exercises. We had an example of this so recently as last Thursday when across this very Dispatch Box the noble Lord and I discussed the Deregulation (Provision of School Action Plans) Order. That order was an eye-opener to me because I had not realised the extent to which consultation over tuppence ha'penny could extend. It was a small matter. It was not an earth shaking issue. However, the consultation list was enormous and the cost of that consultation staggering.
The extent of consultation in this area is something about which I would have no worries. Guidance, on the other hand, is something about which I would not feel the same way. Guidance can be given but guidance is not law. The Minister said that a local education authority could make its views to the governors very clearly heard. It could indeed. The LEA could squawk very loudly. But am I not correct in saying—before I make a final decision as to whether I shall withdraw the amendment I should be grateful if the noble Lord could help me on this—that the governors could, if they wished—if this was no more than a matter of guidance—turn a deaf ear to the loudest noises made by the LEA, however many times they were made? They could indeed extend the two fingers of scorn to the LEA and say, "We shall have nothing whatever to do with this".
I am reminded of that moment in Act IV of The Merchant of Venice when Portia says,
"Then must the Jew be merciful".
Shylock says,
"On what compulsion must I? Tell me that".
Portia has no answer to him and has to say,
"The quality of mercy is not strain'd; It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven",
which has nothing to do with what has been said and is no answer whatever to the question. If the governors say,
"On what compulsion must I? Tell me that".
What is the reply?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there would be LEA governors on the governing body of the schools, because we are talking about county schools on this occasion.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, if the Minister assures me that that would be ample justification and that there would be enough to force that decision, I hear what he says and must consider it more carefully. But I have the greatest worry about leaving a matter of this kind in the area of guidance. I would be much happier if it were not there. However, time is getting on. We must be aware of the fact that there is a great deal ahead of us. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 11: Leave out Clause 2.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 24. The purpose of this amendment is to remove the duty on governing bodies of county, voluntary and grant-maintained schools to review their selective admissions policies at least once every school year; to conduct a secret ballot; and to explain their decisions in their annual reports. I mentioned earlier that last week I attended a governing body meeting of the junior school of which I am a governor. It was the meeting at which we were required to go through our annual ritual of deciding whether this junior school wished to start the process to become grant maintained. Although it is by no means the first year that we have had to do it, my fellow governors were still puzzled as to why we were required to go through this ritual. The decision took almost no time at all. If it is of any reassurance to the Minister, they were not in the least bullied by an LEA. Neither myself nor the Conservative nominee had any need to say anything at all. All the governors were convinced that it was a pointless question and that they had no need whatever to be grant maintained.
What took the time was thinking up additional reasons to those that we gave last year. The reasons given last year were basically to do with the excellent relationship and partnership that they had with the LEA and the other schools which they did not want to put in jeopardy. If I remember, five reasons were given last year, and they felt that this year they should find at least two more reasons to re-emphasise the point that they wished to stay with the LEA. As I said, that was done with absolutely no bullying at all from the LEA; nor do I believe that that happens with the overwhelming majority of schools when required each year to consider this matter.
The purpose of my mentioning this is because this Bill has yet another requirement to make governing bodies consider something which they may not wish to consider, but which is something that they will have to consider in the normal course of events. The Bill places a duty on the governing bodies of the schools to review their selective admissions policy at least once a year.
There are two objections to it. The first is that it is unnecessary. In the case of county schools, the relevant LEA, as the admissions authority, must consult governing bodies every year about their plans for admissions. Any county school governing body which wishes to review the authority's admissions policy in relation to its school has the opportunity to do so on an annual basis. History has shown that very few of them, if ever, wish to consider a selective intake. We have debated selection in this House on previous occasions and I suspect that we may well do so again. It is and remains our view and that of the vast majority of school governors throughout the country, that selection reduces choice for most: it does not increase choice for many.
They are, therefore, able to consider this matter anyway. There is no need for a requirement in the Bill to do so. The same is true of voluntary and

691
grant-maintained schools which are themselves their own admissions authorities. It would be natural for them to consider any change to their admissions policy at the time of the annual review. So governors of all these schools are free to raise the issue of selection at any time. They already have an opportunity to do so at least once a year in the extremely unlikely event that any of them wish to.
The other objection to the Bill is that it is yet more of an imposition on the conduct of governing bodies and the content of their annual report. In the past few years the Government have pressed many additional responsibilities on governing bodies. Indeed, the fourth edition of the DfEE guide to the law for governors of county controlled and special agreement schools, extends to over 150 pages of extremely helpful advice. Included within this booklet is a reference to the governing body having to prepare and publish an annual report which will explain, among other things, how the governing body has put into practice its plans for the school since the last report. In addition, it must include by law such information as the school's special educational needs policy; national curriculum and GCSE results; details of the further education training or jobs which pupils have gone on to; a summary of the school budget; pupils' absence information; details of governing bodies' discussions on whether to ballot parents on grant-maintained status and so on. This Bill seeks to add a further imposition of what must be included in the annual report and that should be resisted.
The statutory content of annual reports by the governing bodies of voluntary and grant-maintained schools is equally long and, to add one further burden by insisting that the annual report shall give details of the decision taken in relation to the school's admissions policy and an explanation of the reasons for the decision, makes no sense. It also assumes that the author of the report can reflect accurately the reasons why a large number of governors reached a decision through a secret ballot.
These amendments do not seek to restrict the number of occasions on which governing bodies review their selective admissions policies as they already have the opportunity to do so at least once a year. Clauses 2 and 9 are both unnecessary and unnecessarily burdensome. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I support my noble friend. The amendments seek to remove something which already happens. Going through a process of selection does not add anything because everything that has to be done will be discussed and has been discussed. I do not know how many times we have sat in this Chamber discussing various processes and when one should review education selection. I wonder how many hours of parliamentary time have been used by this particular subject.
Basically, what always happens is we say that we must discuss this. The Government say that this must happen and then we say that it is already happening. The Government say that they will bring the issue forward again. We then find that it has been discussed on a vast number of occasions. The matter is then
692
nodded at in a meeting and the whole issue is put back for another year. We can safely say that this discussion has taken place on other occasions and that we do not need to have it again. We can save the shorthand typists who are minuting various meetings a great deal of trouble if these amendments are accepted.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I oppose these two clauses because I find them offensive. I have attended a good many meetings in my time, as I am sure most of your Lordships have, including governors' meetings. I find the notion of being told what to discuss by some outside body something of an insult to one's intelligence. It is unnecessary, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has already pointed out, and it adds another burden to already crowded agendas and annual reports.
Governors are quite capable of reviewing their admissions policy at any stage without prompting from on high. But, of course, this is part of the Government's continuing tactic of tilting the playing field at key points in order to make it more likely to get the result they want. A governing body may have no particular desire for selection, but eventually, given time, on some 'flu-ridden winter's evening the decision may scrape through and, bingo, the thing is done!
I vividly recall our debates during the passage of the 1993 Education Bill over the very similar proposal, already mentioned, for considering opting out. It was the right reverend Prelate the then Bishop of Guildford who, I thought, summed up the position with clarity and perception when he said that the insertion of the clause in question betrayed
"a slight loss of nerve"
as he put it, on the Government's part, as if the benefits on offer could not speak clearly for themselves. He added that he was surprised to see such a clause inserted; that he would be far happier to see it deleted; and that there was such a thing as "administrative fidgeting". Clauses 2 and 9 are prime examples of "administrative fidgeting". Do the Government believe that schools will be unaware, after the passage of this Bill, that they can raise the issue of selection? The idea is not credible. These are nannying clauses, they are manipulative and they should have no place in this Bill.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, it will do no harm to repeat two of the objections to this clause, which have already been set out by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley. Those two main objections are, first, that the clause is unnecessary. That has already been said, and I should have thought that it was self-evident. Secondly, the clause is yet a further imposition on the conduct of governing bodies, as was stated so fluently by the noble Earl, and on the content of their annual reports.
I was intrigued by what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said. Perhaps I may say how valuable it is that in your Lordships' House we should be able to hear from people who have, almost literally, daily experience of governing bodies. To hear that the noble Lord's governing body, which is so manifestly a conscientious body, has to think of one or two extra reasons for not

693
being grant-maintained and has to include them on last year's report makes one think that in about 10 years' time it will have about 15 reasons for replying in that form.
The date of the general election has been announced today. There is at least one part of this Bill—this clause is connected with it to a large extent—which will help to defeat the Government at that election in a few weeks' time. I am not only surprised—I am bewildered—that the Government should include such provisions in this Bill and that they have placed so much stress upon them, as does Clause 2. I refer of course to selection. We are constantly told that parents want selection—indeed, that they clamour for it. Who do the Government talk to about it? The polls all show little support for selection. The last one that I saw showed 70 per cent. against. Anecdotal evidence is strongly opposed to it and only a minority of professional educationists show any enthusiasm for it. Almost all Members of the Government—indeed, almost all Members of the Benches opposite—send their children to public schools—but perhaps I had better say to "private" schools. That is selection by money. That shows an inbuilt bias towards selection on the part of the Conservative party.
I should like to say a few words about selection, and about what was once the most frequently discussed aspect of it, but which has not been mentioned very much for some time. I refer to the fallibility of the selection process. I should have thought that the weakness of examination, interview or any other type of selection technique at about 11 years of age has been discredited for many years now. Perhaps I may add a personal note and say that this matter has affected my own family in recent weeks and months. I hesitate to take us back to my 11-plus days because they are so long ago. I mention this only because the same difficulties occur now as occurred all those years ago. When I went to grammar school, I left behind pals who for years had been brighter than I was at school. What happened to them? Almost all of them went down the pit, as they would do in County Durham where there was virtually no other employment. The tragedy of that waste still haunts me, not least because so many of my friends died prematurely with coal dust on their lungs. I saw the same thing happening as a teacher, and particularly as an education officer who had to administer such schemes.
No one is more conscious of that weakness than parents. I find it impossible to understand why the Government's policies, as in this clause, fly in the face of such overwhelming evidence. They have the evidence of the success of so many comprehensive schools. It is widespread evidence because some 90 per cent. of our children now attend such schools and—this is highly significant—we see no demand for a change in that particular system. There have been proposals for more selection in some areas, all of which were strongly rejected, so far as I am aware. If any of those proposals have been adopted, I hope that the Minister will tell us in his reply. Perhaps he could tell us where that has happened and how the adoptions compare with the
694
rejections. More recently, we have had evidence from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools of the success of so much comprehensive education. I often wonder how much more evidence the Government need on this matter.
I turn to the criticism which is constantly made and which has been repeated many times in debates on this Bill in both Houses. It is an obvious criticism, but it is not recognised by the party opposite although I am sure that some Conservative Members must feel uneasy about it. For every child who is selected, one child cannot be selected. How many times do we have to say that? It is patently obvious, yet we have the inanity of the Prime Minister repeatedly calling for a grammar school in every town. If he is the honest man that he is supposed to be, and claims to be, I wonder when he will change his speech and say that he advocates secondary moderns—or any other name for them—in every town, because that is exactly what recommending grammar schools implies. The Government have never given an answer on this issue. That is not surprising because there is no completely satisfactory answer. They say, "Yes, we shall make the necessary provision in the non-grammar schools". But if the schools are different, as they are by definition, how can that be done? We ought to be told. Let it be repeated again and again that selection means grammar school for Jimmy but not for Jenny, regardless of whether the names "grammar school" and "secondary modern" are retained or changed.
That point is closely linked to the Government's favourite word and thought: "choice". I put to the Minister a question which I have posed both to him and to his predecessors on a number of occasions. If parents want their child to go to a school which has more applicants than places, what then? Parental choice cannot be met. The Government should be honest and say that there is no such thing as complete freedom of choice, but that is never said. I recall in a previous debate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon saying—I hope that I am right; the right reverend Prelate will correct me if I am wrong—that in Ripon itself there are only two schools. I see that the right reverend Prelate is agreeing with my interpretation. One is a grammar school and the other is a non-grammar school. It is pretty obvious—indeed, I believe that the right reverend Prelate said so—that it is not possible in the case of the grammar school for all parents to get what they desire. So much for parental choice.
The position is exacerbated by this Bill. It is certainly not helped by the clause which is now under discussion. As has been said many times, selection means selection by the school, not by the parents. Selection by ability means exactly that. That in turn means that the degree of choice is reduced for those parents whose children do not meet the entrance criteria decided by the school.
There are two closely connected issues to this aspect of the Bill. The first is the question of providing for consultation. We have just had a debate relating to that and I shall not repeat what has been said although I hope that the Government will take cognisance of the substantial contributions that have been made. Let us not forget that the proposed changes are of fundamental

695
importance to a child's education, so the decisions have to be correct. Changes can alter the nature of a school to a very significant degree.
Parents and prospective parents may, where the school is grant-maintained, be denied the right to express a choice on the nature of a school unless the governing body decides to give them the opportunity to do so. That is a most scandalous situation. Why should such fundamental decisions be taken by the governing body without any reference to the community which the school is meant to serve? Again, my noble friend Lord Morris stressed that point in a recent contribution. The Government will reply that the governing bodies must "have regard to" the guidance published by the Secretary of State. I suggest that that is mere lip service to genuine consultation. The change in the nature and character of a school affects all the schools in the neighbourhood—how many times has that been said during our debates on this Bill?—and is therefore a matter for the whole neighbourhood. Why should the Government be afraid of that? I can think of one good reason. The grant-maintained type school was and is a flagship of the Government. Not only has it failed; it has failed miserably. The Government expected overwhelming support for GM status. After all the publicity, not to say incentives, only some 1,200 schools out of 26,000 have opted for grant-maintained status.
The Government say that it was never their expectation that there would be a massive change. That is simply not true. They have changed their tune because of the response. When the scheme was being introduced we were told many times that there was an overwhelming desire on the part of local communities and parents to adopt such a proposal. It is no wonder that there is such a reluctance to consult in a proper and honest way. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, made that point in a previous contribution.
I said that there were two connected matters in relation to this part of the Bill's proposals. The second aspect is wider accountability. I say "wider" because the whole of a community or neighbourhood is affected by a change in one school. There is, therefore, a role for the LEA. Opinions differ about the work and quality of LEAs but they are elected and represent a wider area. They are accountable and can weigh in the balance all of the changes being made in their areas. That is a crucial role which, by definition, is denied to governing bodies. There is no other body that can perform this role. Having regard to the Government's record on consultation and lack of sympathy for local authorities, their assurance on consultation is unacceptable. Stronger provision should be included in the Bill, in particular in Clause 2 which we are now considering.
I would genuinely like to know—because I do not know—how many of our partners in the European Union have selective systems of education. My impression is that few of them have. Indeed, none of them places much reliance on selection of the kind promoted by this Government. Because of the stress placed by the Government on the need for a well educated and trained workforce to enable us to compete in the EU and the world, the question I ask is: who does not need that? We all do. What cannot be denied is that
696
present policies in this country are directed to the few and not the many. That speaks for itself. Every worker has to make his or her contribution towards our success, and it is the education system which is the foundation for all of it. For the sake of emphasis, I repeat that the Government's policies do not meet the views of parents, schools and others as to how progress is to be made.
As to choice—a matter so often repeated by the Government—appeals by parents whose children have not been offered the places of their choice have exploded from 21,000 in 1989–90 to 54,427 in 1994–95. As to the demand for increased selection, when the DfEE consulted on whether to raise the level of selection from 10 to 15 per cent., only 1 per cent. of consultees were in favour of it. That sounds like a rigged ballot. In the past five years only 24 schools have applied to select more than 10 per cent. of their intake and less than 4 per cent. of grant-maintained schools have applied to select up to 10 per cent. of their intake. Those figures have been taken either from Parliamentary Questions or the Library.
Your Lordships' House is a revising chamber. As a revising chamber it is expected to examine arguments objectively. The evidence against increased selection is so overwhelming that surely noble Lords from all parties will reject Clause 2, which is one of the principles of the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I should like to take a slightly different stance from other noble Lords in relation to this amendment. I do so on the grounds that I am by no means convinced that the requirement for an annual consideration will result in governing bodies increasing their selection. I take into account the parallel of the requirement that they should consider grant-maintained status. As the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, has said, the number of schools going for grant-maintained status is a very small proportion of the total: 1,200 out of 24,000.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, referred to a comment by my predecessor as chairman of the Church of England Board of Education, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. I believe that he commented that the provision for an annual consideration by governing bodies seemed to point to a loss of nerve on the part of the Government, who had to hold out some further inducement or requirement to persuade more schools to opt for this status. That took place against the background of a decision by the Board of Education (which I now chair) that it would be neither for nor against grant-maintained status but rather that it would recommend to the governors of each school the factors that should be taken into account in reaching a decision.
Nevertheless, the point made by my predecessor remains. The requirement to have an annual consideration appeared to be based on a slight failure of nerve that status itself would be sufficient inducement. But the outcome is that governors have not taken the road to grant-maintained status in large numbers. I believe that there is an argument that an annual requirement may have had the opposite effect and that governors have come to the clear view that they should

697
not take that particular route. I suggest that this requirement for an annual consideration may have the same result; namely, that governing bodies will reach the firm conclusion that selection is quite wrong for their schools.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I support the amendment. I should like to recount to your Lordships the experience of many governors who serve on school governing bodies, in particular parent governors. They are increasingly concerned that they are required to consider matters that they do not wish to consider because the Government have decided that they must do so. Many of them are also concerned about the demand on their time that is made by the tasks that they have taken on. First, governors are appointed on the basis laid down by the Conservative Government or Parliament. Surely, if the constituency of the particular governing body is that which the Government require, it is quite reasonable for the Government to leave it to that body to decide whether to consider a particular item at a particular meeting of that governing body.
Secondly, I should like to give strong support to the points made by my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington. In this country there is no doubt that the process of selection among the age group where it has occurred to the greatest extent has had two effects. One was that those who were put in what was normally the C stream of grammar schools viewed themselves as somehow below average ability. The other was that for those who failed the 11-plus it was a long period of time, in some cases well into adulthood, before anyone managed to convince them that they were capable of achieving high levels in terms of careers, aspirations and professional qualifications because the process of failure was so rigid. It was not the same as graduating from a primary school into a comprehensive secondary school and moving between those subject areas where it was possible for a pupil to be in set 1 for French and German and set 3 for mathematics so that the level of tuition was appropriate to the ability and aptitude of the child. That is one of the main concerns about the selection process.
At previous stages in the Bill the Minister has been quick to say, "no secondary modern schools". Perhaps the Minister will say what in the Government's view, and in the campaign that they are about to mount for a grammar school in every town, would be the logical number of non-grammar schools to have in relation to the number of pupils in the area. If a locality had four secondary schools, would it be possible for it to decide to call them all grammar schools? If only a certain percentage will be able to call themselves grammar schools and be selective, what will be the ratio of pupils in that school to those who cannot go to the school?
There is one minor correction I would make to what my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington said. For every successful child there is not just one unsuccessful child. On average, for every successful child there are three unsuccessful children.
As my noble friend Lord Morris said at the beginning of the debate, if we look at this country's economic performance, at this stage we do not need a few highly
698
educated people and a large number of hewers of wood; we need a highly articulate, highly skilled and highly flexible workforce. The worst possible way to achieve that is by dampening their self-esteem and self-expectation through a process by which the majority are told that they are failures.
6 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may start by disabusing the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, of a number of misapprehensions from which I believe he suffers. First, he seemed to imply that grant-maintained schools are selective. That is not the case. There are grant-maintained schools which are selective; there are grant-maintained which are partially selective; there are grant-maintained which are specialist schools; and the vast majority of grant-maintained schools are fully comprehensive. The whole grant-maintained movement has nothing to do with going selective. One should divorce the two.
Secondly, the noble Lord implied that we had never answered the question about choice if there were not enough places. If the noble Lord looks back to my former interventions at earlier stages of the Bill—possibly on Second Reading, and certainly in Committee—he will see that I have always made it clear that choice can never be 100 per cent.; choice is never total; choice is, by definition, always limited. That will always be the case and always must be the case. It is limited by various other constraints.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so soon. If the Minister or the Minister in another place said that, it would be nice to have the references, but that is something with which we can deal later. What I do grumble about, and I thought that I had made it clear, is that the Government will not say that. They always talk about parental choice, and that is all, giving the impression that parents will go to any school of their own choice without any equivocation of any kind. That is the impression that the Government give, and it is just not true.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord has that impression. I have always been at pains, as I think have others, to say that we want to encourage choice and diversity so far as that is possible. We have always recognised that it cannot be 100 per cent.
The third matter about which the noble Lord asked was as to what was happening in the rest of Europe. Again, that was an issue raised on Second Reading and on other occasions. I have a little list that might be of interest to the noble Lord. He will discover that they have selective schemes in Austria, Belgium, Germany—its economic performance over the years is much admired by many—Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and, as we know, Northern Ireland, because I quoted the example on Second Reading of the selective system in Northern Ireland, where overall the results are considerably better than those in the UK. I appreciate that they have a comprehensive system in France which is selective in parts and in Greece, Italy,

699
Ireland, Portugal and Spain. I understand that there are unitary systems (primary and secondary education in single schools) in Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway. I believe that covers virtually all the countries of western Europe. I appreciate that I do not seem to have anything about Liechtenstein, Andorra or San Marino, but perhaps they are too small to count.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I believe that there is only one secondary school in San Marino.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I suspected that that was probably going to be the answer. Liechtenstein and Andorra I shall leave to others more expert than myself. This House normally produces an expert on most subjects. No doubt in due course an expert will emerge who can inform us about those countries.
I want to make it clear to those who have been peddling the idea that every country was pursuing a purely comprehensive system that that is just not the case. There is a range of different options—many equally valid. The debate should not be about selection per se but about considering selection.
When talking about selection, noble Lords imply that if we are talking about grammar schools, that, by definition, means that all others cannot be comprehensive. That is not the case. There is a case for some fully selective schools, some partially selective schools, some comprehensive schools and some specialist schools. If noble Lords are saying that every time we set up a specialist school or a partially selective school, that means that the other schools in the area cannot be comprehensive, they are making the case for getting rid of all schools other than fully comprehensive schools. We would have to get rid of the private sector, selective schools and specialist schools. Further, we would have to go on bussing pupils around to ensure that every school is a perfect match with whatever community it is supposed to be, because there is always selection by means of mortgage and people moving around.
Noble Lords cannot have it both ways. If they accept that there is a case for the specialist schools—I believe that the party opposite has now done so—they cannot then say that the existence of those specialist schools will prevent other schools from being fully comprehensive. The debate is about whether schools should go selective should they so wish. We believe that selection is an important matter. It is one that deserves proper consideration as part of the school's strategy for improving standards and responding to parental attitudes. We impose the same requirement on governing bodies to consider whether they should go grant-maintained.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, spoke about a school of which he was a governor. The governors felt that they had to produce new reasons every year. I do not believe that that is the case. It is important that schools consider each year whether to go selective. It is important to remind the House that when the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, says that the grant-maintained movement has been a failure, it has not been a failure: 20 per cent. Of
700
secondary school children are now in grant-maintained schools. The important point to remember is that only one out of every 10 parents has been given the chance to have a ballot, because only one out of 10 governing bodies has offered a ballot to those parents. Out of those one out of 10 who has been so offered a ballot, some three-quarters or thereabouts have gone grant-maintained.
I suggest to all those school governors, and particularly the LEA governors on those schools, that they should take the risk of offering the parents the chance to have their schools go grant-maintained. They might then find that many more schools would go grant-maintained. However, if they have the courage of their convictions and feel that the movement has been a failure, then obviously the ballots will turn out as the noble Lord said.
The clause does not place any requirement on the schools to introduce or extend selection. All it does is require the governing bodies to consider that matter. We believe that it is right that the governing bodies should consider selection at least once a year. Local circumstances and local opinion can change. It is right that the governing body should keep those issues under review and be ready to respond. The clause will ensure that governing bodies consider introducing or extending selection on a regular basis.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, suggested that this provision was unpopular with the population at large and with parents. The noble Lord, as his party always does, relied upon opinion polls. The noble Lord will know from the last election, and no doubt following this election, that I do not always have the same faith in polls and surveys as the party opposite likes to place in them. Not all of them are as conclusive as the noble Lord suggests. He will remember the one I cited on Second Reading from the Association of Teachers and Lecturers. It showed that a majority of parents was in favour of selection.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. If he studies that opinion poll in depth, he will find that those people who are of an age to be parents were not in favour of selection. It was the older people who were consulted—those of grandparent age—who were in favour. In the parental age group the figures were against.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, put it to me as an electoral strategy, suggesting that by introducing further selection we were committing electoral suicide. I am making quite clear that surveys suggest that a majority of people are in favour. I dare say that the noble Baroness is not suggesting that we confine those who may vote in the coming election to parents of school-age children, desirable though that might be.
I am not taking an intervention, we are at Report stage. I have spoken long enough and it is clear exactly where we differ on these matters. Noble Lords will not

701
be surprised to hear that I cannot accept the amendment. Should the noble Lord, Lord Tope, press it to a Division, I urge the House to reject it.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps he will answer my question. What is the point of wasting the time of governors year by year by requiring them to consider selection when for a large number of schools the question of selection must be totally absurd? I speak of schools which, sadly, become what is generally known as bad schools. They contain a large number of children who have been excluded from selective schools either because of their behaviour, because they are not bright enough or because they are not specialist musicians, gymnasts or whatever.
There must be not necessarily secondary modern schools but schools which contain those children who have failed to gain entry to selective schools. Such schools could be good and run in a way that is best for those children. However, the idea that they should decide to become selective is farcical. No parents will choose them. They are the schools which parents will try to avoid. The fear, which is the argument against selection, is that they will go from bad to worse and wither away. How can the Government ask such schools to do other than their best for the children? They should not require them to ask what must be a fantasy question about whether they too should go selective. I should be glad to have the Minister's views.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should remind the noble Baroness and the House that we are at the Report stage. I was not aware that she had asked that question. The simple answer is that opinions and local circumstances can change. It is a matter for schools to consider those in the light of their own local circumstances. That is why we believe they should consider them on a regular basis. The schools about which the noble Baroness is talking might consider that, as part of their policy of improving themselves and raising their standards in one particular field they could introduce an element of selection without necessarily going fully selective.
Lord Tope: My Lords, it has been a useful and interesting debate in which we have learnt about the education system in San Marino. That was one answer that I was not expecting tonight. I found the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon far more persuasive in his argument as to why I should withdraw the amendment than I did the Minister. He pointed out that the requirement of governing bodies to consider going grant maintained has proved so spectacularly successful in preventing schools from going grant maintained that perhaps those of us who oppose increased selection should allow the clause to pass and encourage schools to consider selection each year on the basis that they will all refuse to do so. I find that a persuasive argument, but not persuasive enough.
Inevitably—and perhaps I started it—we were distracted by a discussion on grant-maintained schools. The Minister again proclaimed that on the one hand grant-maintained schools had been an outstanding
702
success, but on the other not quite so much of a success because, as he keeps telling us, only one in 10 parents have been allowed to take part in a ballot. I should not need to remind him that all the parents who are clamouring so hard for their schools to become grant maintained need only collect a petition with 20 per cent. of the signatures and they can have a ballot regardless of what the governing body has to say. The fact remains that their policy for grant-maintained schools, which were the flagship of this Government and were introduced some years ago in the expectation that the vast majority—not 20 per cent. or whatever—would go grant maintained, has been a spectacular failure. As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, the policy has been even more of a failure since governing bodies were required to consider it.
The purpose of the amendment is not simply to oppose selection—we do and we wish to reduce the chances of increased selection—but because we believe it to be unnecessary for governing bodies to be required each year to consider whether to increase their selective intake. As I said in moving the amendment, if they are so minded they can do so anyway when they annually consider their admissions policies. The amendment has been moved because the provision is unnecessary. In reply, the Minister has given me no reason why it is necessary for schools to be required to consider increased selection in addition to their normal and natural consideration of an admissions policy.
He has again reminded us of what the Government mean by "choice". We are all free to choose whatever we like. I can choose to become Prime Minister—at the moment I do not—and that is my free choice. I am just not going to get what I choose. That is the Conservative Party's vision of choice, but it certainly is not mine and I suspect that it is not that of the majority of parents.
I have heard no reasons from the Minister which convince me that I should withdraw the amendment and I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
6.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 76; Not-Contents, 131.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Desai, L.

Addington, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Dubs, L.

Barnett, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Berkeley, L.

Falkender, B.

Blackstone, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Blease, L.

Fitt, L.

Borrie, L.

Gallacher, L.

Calverley, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Carlisle, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Halsbury, E.

Carter, L.

Hamwee, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L

Hanworth, V.

David, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

703

Hooson, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hughes, L.

Rea, L.

Jeger, B.

Redesdale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Richard, L.

Kennet, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Russell, E.

Lockwood, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Longford, E.

Sewel, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McNair, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

McNally, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Marsh, L.

Tope, L. [Teller.]

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Tordoff, L.

Meston, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Warnock, B.

Monkswell, L.

Weatherill, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Wharton, B.

Nelson, E.

White, B.

Nicol, B.

Whitty, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Flather, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Goschen, V.

Annaly, L.

Haig, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Attlee, E.

Harlech, L.

Balfour, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hemphill, L.

Belstead, L.

Henley, L.

Blatch, B.

Holderness, L.

Blyth, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Boardman, L.

Howe, E.

Bowness, L.

Inglewood, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Brentford, V.

Kingsland, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Bruntisfield, L.

Kintore, E.

Burnham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Butterworth, L.

Leigh, L.

Byford, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cadman, L.

Long, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lucas, L. [Teller.]

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lyell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Carnock, L.

McConnell, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Marlesford, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Merrivale, L.

Courtown, E.

Mersey, V.

Craig of Radley, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Milverton, L.

Cranworth, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cross, V.

Monson, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mottistone, L.

Denbigh, E.

Mountevans, L.

Denham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Munster, E.

Devonport, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Dundonald, E.

Newall, L.

Elton, L.

Northbourne, L.

Erroll, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Ferrers, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

704

Orr-Ewing, L.

Seccombe, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Sharples, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Pender, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Rawlings, B.

Stewartby, L.

Reay, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Rees, L.

Swinfen, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rennell, L.

Torrington, V.

Renton, L.

Vivian, L.

Renwick, L.

Westbury, L.

Rotherwick, L.

wise, L.

Rowallan, L.

Wynford, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.25 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
CHANGE IN CHARACTER OF PRIMARY SCHOOL RELATING TO NURSERY EDUCATION
(". After section 41 of the Education Act 1996 there shall be inserted—
"Change in character of primary school relating to nursery education.
41A.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), references in section 41 to a significant change in the character of a school do not include, in the case of a primary school, any change resulting only from persons beginning or ceasing to be provided with full-time or part-time education suitable to the requirements of junior pupils who have not obtained compulsory school age if the local education authority have consented in writing to the change.
(2) Where the governing body of a primary school propose to make a change which, by virtue of subsection (1), is not a significant change in the character of the school they shall—

(a) before implementing their proposals carry out such consultation (if any) as appears to them to be appropriate and in doing so shall have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State, and

(b) where the school is a Church in Wales school, a Church of England school or a Roman Catholic school, before implementing their proposals obtain the consent in writing of the appropriate diocesan authority.

(3) In this section "appropriate diocesan authority" has the meaning given by section 311(1).".").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 116, which is an amendment consequential on the Education Act 1996.
This amendment makes provision for the establishment or the removal of a nursery class from a voluntary school without the necessity to publish proposals and to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State. The issue here is simple. Voluntary-aided or controlled schools are disadvantaged in attempting to establish a nursery class in relation to county schools. As I understand it, the position is that county schools have to obtain the approval of the LEA and, having done so, publish proposals. If there is no objection to the proposals, the decision stands; whereas voluntary

705
schools are required to publish proposals and whether or not there are objections, they are then required to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State. Therefore, there is a double hoop through which the voluntary schools have to jump. It is that voluntary hoop which this amendment attempts to remove, so that there is only the single hoop—namely, the LEA—which must be gone through.
When I spoke about this matter in Committee, I made the point that there could be significant disadvantage to voluntary schools caused by the fact that there would have been a time lapse. The permission of the LEA may have been obtained and the funds would be made available from the budget. The approval of the Secretary of the State would need to be obtained and it may very well be the case that by the time that approval had been obtained, the financial year had elapsed and the money was no longer available.
I should like to make a further point in relation to this amendment. Not only is there the possibility of a time lapse but there is also the possibility that the Secretary of State will reach a different conclusion from the LEA. That is why I speak of the double hoop which must be jumped.
I give an example from the Diocese of Chester to make the point which I am trying to establish. In the past six years in the Diocese of Chester, the Diocesan Board of Education has twice received the support of LEAs for establishing nursery classes. In fact, they related to different LEAs. The first related to Trafford LEA and the school concerned was St. Mary's School, Sale. Trafford had a long-standing policy of establishing nurseries throughout the authority and that particular school, with the support of both the LEA and the Chester Diocesan Board of Education, was in 1995 approved as part of that policy.
The diocesan director of education then received a letter reminding him that the approval of nursery proposals would be given only when the proposals could be implemented without recourse to the Secretary of State's budget or when a particularly strong case exists. It is that latter phrase to which I wish to draw attention—"when a particularly strong case exists". Who decides when such a case exists?
Clearly for voluntary schools, it must be both the LEA and the Secretary of State. The diocese was advised that a factor which might constitute a strong case was that a school served an area of significant deprivation, but the department concluded that the information provided by the LEA indicated that the area served by the school was no worse off than Trafford taken as a whole. So the department's decision, recommended to the Secretary of State, was different from the LEA's decision. It is quite clear that in that particular case, had the school not been a voluntary school, it would by now have had a nursery.
The second proposal in that particular diocese to which an LEA agreed was in central Birkenhead. Wirral LEA decided that it could finally provide the revenue resources to support a nursery at the Priory School, which is a voluntary school in the neighbourhood. This
706
is an area of severe social deprivation and the diocese was confident that the proposal would be successful. However, the department indicated to the LEA that it felt there were sufficient places within a two-mile radius and that the building costs for the nursery were too high. The LEA responded that there was in fact a shortage of suitable places for children around the school as five out of six nurseries were on the other side of the docks and there was no way in which children of any age could be expected to cross the docks to attend a school on the other side. There was only one nursery on the alternative side of the docks which had already had to be extended to meet the demand. Parental demand for a nursery at the Priory was high but a letter of rejection came from the department, as a result of the Secretary of State's decision, stating:
"On a careful and impartial consideration of all the information available to us, we concluded that there was no basis for treating the proposals as a special case".
The point that I am making is that county schools do not have to convince the Secretary of State of the need for the establishment of a nursery class, unless there is an objection to the published proposals. The voluntary schools have to convince two groups: they have to convince the LEA and they have to convince the Secretary of State, through the department. It is that double hurdle that provides the difficulty.
The amendment seeks to provide, in a well-worn phrase, a level playing field so that voluntary schools can have the same opportunity of establishing nursery classes as have county schools. When I moved a similar amendment in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, raised a difficulty. Therefore, I am moving it today in a significantly different form; namely, that the lifting of the necessity for proposals as regards the Secretary of State's decision shall only happen if the LEA has consented in writing to the change. We do not wish in any way to set aside the partnership that exists with LEAs but we want voluntary schools to have that double hurdle removed.
When I moved an amendment in Committee, the Minister talked about cherry picking because he believed that the voluntary sector was looking at only one element of deregulation and not at the whole package which is being offered in the Bill. I should like to ask the Minister to look at this amendment not so much in the context of deregulation but rather in the context of the particular issue which I have raised. It is a genuine issue regarding something which creates a good deal of difficulty. Whatever our attitude might be towards deregulation, the issue remains. Therefore, when he responds, I hope that the Minister will look at the circumstances that I have described. I also hope that he will consider the issue raised by this particular disadvantage to see whether or not there is some way in which he can move towards meeting the concerns that I have expressed. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is with great pleasure that from these Benches we are able to support the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate. As he said in his introduction to the amendment,

707
it would produce a situation which was fair across the voluntary-aided and county-maintained sector and would create circumstances in which it was possible to plan to achieve the ultimate objective which my party supports of ensuring nursery education for all children whose parents want it.
At present, it is possible for the Secretary of State to block proper planning and to do so in the absence of the detailed knowledge that exists at local level. LEAs work very closely with diocesan authorities and representatives in order to ensure that the provision meets the needs of the particular profile of the local community. At the moment in the local authority of which I am a member—and therefore declare an interest—Lancashire County Council, the Secretary of State has turned down six proposals for nursery units to be attached to primary schools. The tragedy is that the Secretary of State has turned down those proposals because of the availability of alternative nursery provision. That alternative provision to which the Secretary of State refers, is, in five out of six schools, satisfactory nursery provision (in the Secretary of State's view) in that it is early admission to reception classes. In the case of Lancashire County Council, not only do we allow children to have a full year in the reception class but we also make provision at nursery level to recognise the needs of those children who are under statutory school age.
That policy was agreed by the whole community. It was agreed across the political parties; it was agreed by the diocesan representatives on the education committee; and, indeed, it was agreed across the whole community in a series of meetings. However, it was not agreed to as an alternative to nursery education but as a half-way house. It is with particular sadness that the parents of those children who would benefit from that nursery provision are having their aspirations blocked by the Secretary of State simply because the Secretary of State is allowed to penalise schools which have to apply to her or him in order to gain approval to develop nursery provision. That is grossly unfair. It is an unreasonable level of discrimination and, as the right reverend Prelate said, demonstrates the lack of a level playing field.
One of the schools which has been turned down is a school in Ormskirk; that is, in the absence of nursery provision in the immediate community. In Lancashire we have taken a view, as have most education authorities, to look, first, at the areas of greatest social need. Yet, despite that fact, our voluntary-aided schools are judged unequally and are given this unfair hurdle to cross. Moreover, they have the additional problem to face; namely, that those who make the decisions in Whitehall do so without having the detailed local knowledge to which the diocesan representatives, the voluntary-aided school governors and parents have an intimate access. I beg the Minister to accept the amendment.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I should like to express my support for the right reverend Prelate. He has put the case so clearly that I am reluctant to attempt to repeat it. Therefore, I shall simply ask the Minister
708
quite straightforwardly if he can say whether or not it is the Government's policy that county schools should have an advantage over voluntary-aided schools in the matter of providing new nursery education?
Lord Renton: My Lords, subject to what my noble friend Lord Henley may say, I, too, support the amendment. I hope that my noble friend will find that he is able to give an encouraging answer.
I believe that it is absolutely right that the governing body should have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State. But it is also right that, in giving that guidance, the Secretary of State should be under an obligation to ensure that there is consistency across the board between all the schools in one specific group in a diocese. The amendment provides a simple way of achieving that.
We should pay tribute to the work which the various Church schools do, especially in the light of the reports on primary education. Various types of Church schools came out best. That is splendid, but it may not be sufficient to ensure that we achieve the results that we want. Consistent consultation should be the key to the matter.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I support the amendment. What I shall say will fit neatly with what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said.
Church schools are popular. If I may make so bold, they are sometimes particularly popular with speakers from the Government Front Benches. In recent statistics, those schools proved themselves to be successful in educating our younger children.
It seems particularly odd, therefore, that the Secretary of State should apparently display a bias against such schools opening nursery schools. I say that in the context of the arrival of nursery vouchers. As everyone knows who has thought about the issue or read about the subject, parents will try to get their child into a nursery class at the school that they wish their child to attend during his primary years. They will be one jump ahead, as it were. In the cases cited by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, far from being encouraged within the context of local authority planning to set up nursery schools, Church schools are being discouraged from doing so. Has the Minister considered how that will interact with the nursery voucher scheme? Perhaps in his own interests he might consider changing his mind on the matter.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall consider carefully whether I need to take advice from the noble Baroness about what my own interests are.
This is not a question as to whether Church schools are disadvantaged against county schools. We discussed the issue at Committee stage. The right reverend Prelate brought forward similar amendments allowing Church schools to open or close nursery classes subject to the consent of the diocese.
First, my principal objection was this. I believe that I used the words "cherry picking" that the right reverend Prelate mentioned. I made the point that the

709
provision was cherry picking one element out of the wider grant-maintained deregulation package. Secondly, it could impose a potentially significant new financial burden on LEAs if voluntary schools had discretion to open new nurseries with the LEA automatically having to pick up the bill.
The new clause meets the second of those objections. It provides that schools would have to gain the consent in writing of the LEA before they could proceed. I accept that that would allow the LEA to constrain increases in spending to whatever level it felt it could afford. However, by meeting that one objection I fear the amendment reinforces my other objection—the cherry picking of one element from the deregulation package. The effect is that before a voluntary school could open a new nursery it would have to gain, first, the consent of the LEA and, secondly, the consent of the diocese, and, thirdly, it would have to consult with all interested parties. Further, even if the LEA supported a proposal to add a nursery, the Secretary of State paying capital grants where that was needed, the amendment would not change the need to obtain capital from and the permission of the Secretary of State. That means that we end up much where we were when we started. The new arrangements require much the same level of regulation and control, as the school has to go through in publishing its proposals.
Perhaps I may return to the expression of cherry picking and mix the metaphor. I think that the cherry the right reverend Prelate has picked is in danger of being so shrivelled that it is neither fish nor fowl.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Henley: My Lords, I said that I was mixing my metaphors.
If the right reverend Prelate wishes to support the Government in promoting serious deregulation of voluntary schools, obviously he would be most welcome. But I do not believe that the amendment would confer any serious deregulatory benefit. For that reason, I would not wish to support the amendment. I do not believe that it achieves the aims that the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate wish. Before the right reverend Prelate sums up, I shall give way to the noble Baroness.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Minister confuses the issue unreasonably. Does he not agree that LEAs can develop their plans or proposals for nursery units and classes only in the light of the capital allocation that they receive? The voluntary-aided schools' building allocation situation is exactly the same. If the voluntary-aided sector puts in a bid for the right to capital allocation, it, too, has to wait. There would not be cherry picking. The only reason that the cherry to which the Minister referred is shrivelled is because this Government distributed part of the capital
710
allocation unfairly in favour of the grant-maintained sector at the expense, among others, of the voluntary-aided schools.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I reject that totally. I do not accept the allegation that we have unfairly favoured grant-maintained schools. Grant-maintained schools are funded on a different basis. Now is not the right time to go into a debate on that other than to say that I do not accept the noble Baroness's allegations.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he did not answer my question. Are not the voluntary-aided schools disadvantaged in comparison with voluntary schools under the present system?
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House—I remind noble Lords that we are at Report stage—we do not believe that they are disadvantaged. We do not believe that they should be given the same advantages as grant-maintained schools—that is the one element of the grant-maintained deregulation package. If the Church schools wish to go down that route, all well and good. But to take out that one element would not be right.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he justify his statement that voluntary schools are not disadvantaged in this respect? Every speaker made that precise point; they are disadvantaged. I am not clear that he has addressed that issue.
Lord Henley: My Lords, with all due respect to noble Lords—I again remind the House that we are at Report stage—I do not believe that the schools are disadvantaged. The amendment seeks to give further advantages to the voluntary-aided schools going down the line towards grant-maintained status. If they wish to have the advantage of being grant maintained, they should go down that route.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I am extraordinarily disappointed at the Minister's reply. He has totally failed to address the main issue. I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken from every Bench in your Lordships' House. I feel that there was considerable support for the point I made. If I dare say so, I believe that the Minister is circumscribed by the outlook enshrined in the Bill and has therefore been unable to address the issue raised. In my view, and in that of other speakers, the position was quite clearly one of disadvantage. I am sorry that the Minister cannot recognise what seems to the remainder of us to be so clear. However, at this stage of the debate I do not feel it right to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Relaxation of controls on changes relating to selective admissions]:
[Amendments Nos. 13 to 16 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Relaxation of controls on changes in age groups for admission etc.]:
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 6, leave out lines 28 to 31.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 17. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 4. I was not satisfied with the Minister's reply and wish to ask the opinion of the House.
6.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 17) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 114.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Addington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

McNair, L.

Barnett, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Berkeley, L.

Marsh, L.

Blease, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Calverley, L.

Meston, L.

Carlisle, E.

Monkswell, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Carter, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Craigavon, V.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

David, B.

Rea, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Redesdale, L.

Desai, L.

Richard, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Dubs, L.

Russell, E.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

St John of Bletso, L.

Falkender, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sewel, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hamwee, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hanworth, V.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tope, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hooson, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jeger, B.

Warnock, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Weatherill, L.

Kirkhill, L.

White, B.

Lockwood, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Longford, E.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Bowness, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ampthill, L.

Brentford, V.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Annaly, L.

Burnham, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Butterworth, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Byford, B.

Attlee, E.

Cadman, L.

Balfour, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Belstead, L.

Carnock, L.

Blatch, B.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Boardman, L.

Chelmsford, V.

712

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lucas, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Lyell, L.

Courtown, E. [Teller.]

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor]

Cranworth, L.

Cross, V.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Marlesford, L.

Denbigh, E.

Mersey, V.

Denham, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Milverton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Dundonald, E.

Monson, L.

Elles, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Elton, L.

Mountevans, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Flather, B.

Munster, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Goschen, V.

Northbourne, L.

Greenway, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Haig, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Halsbury, E,

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Harding of Pertherton, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Harlech, L.

Rennell, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Renton, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Renwick, L.

Hemphill, L.

Rowallan, L.

Henley, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Holderness, L.

Seccombe, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

shaw of Northstead, L.

Hothfield, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Howe, E.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Inglewood, L.

Stewartby, L.

Kimball, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Kingsland, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Ullswater, V.

Kintore, E.

Vivian, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Westbury, L.

Leigh, L.

Wynford, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7 p.m.
Clause 7 [Consultation and notification where proposals do not need to be published]:
[Amendments Nos. 18 to 21 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 7, line 44, at end insert—
(" () Guidance given by the Secretary of State under subsection (4) shall stipulate that governing bodies of Church in Wales schools, Church of England Schools and Roman Catholic schools should consult the appropriate diocesan authority before implementing their proposals.").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, when we discussed this matter in Committee, the Minister said that it was not necessary that a phrase should appear on the face of the Bill requiring the appropriate diocesan authorities to be consulted because guidance would be given by the Secretary of State. This is a very simple amendment which makes the point that if guidance is to be given by the Secretary of State it should appear on the face of the Bill that that is the case.
The amendment concerns consultation by the governing body of a Church grant-maintained school which proposes to make changes which, by virtue of the deregulation provisions in the Bill, do not require the publication procedure to be followed. Clearly the appropriate diocesan authority will be an interested body with regard to any such proposals. As I argued at Committee stage, even though the school is a grant-maintained school, surely it does not cease to be a Church school? Indeed, that is written into the constitution of its governors. Clearly, therefore, the appropriate diocesan authority is concerned and needs to be consulted. This amendment simply seeks to put on the face of the Bill the requirement that guidance, which the noble Lord the Minister said would be issued, requiring that consultation should take place with the appropriate authorities should be mandatory. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendment. This Report stage amendment refers only to grant-maintained schools, thereby overcoming some of the points raised by the Minister when we debated this at earlier stages. The Secretary of State is required to provide guidance to GM schools that they should consult appropriate diocesan authorities. The Minister and the Government on this occasion appear to have forgotten the importance of the relationship between the diocesan authorities and the individual voluntary-aided schools within that diocese. That is extremely important and, we believe, very worthy of support.
It has been said on previous occasions by my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris that we are not dealing here with a situation where people behave reasonably and carry out the appropriate consultation, but with the few occasions when people fail to behave reasonably.
This is a very reasonable amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon in the light of the points raised by the Minister during Committee stage.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by telling the right reverend Prelate that it is our absolute and clear intention that in any case where consultation is appropriate the relevant diocese shall be consulted. However, we consider that requiring consultation in every case, however small the change to the admission policy, is likely to prove too heavy-handed and could be a waste of time for the school and the diocese. I can, however, assure the right reverend Prelate that we recognise the important role that dioceses play in relation to voluntary schools; and the guidance on which we shall consult will take full account of the views of the diocesan bodies. As your Lordships know, we have already included the requirement to consult the relevant diocesan body in the existing guidance on such proposals given in Circular 23/94 and I imagine that that will be reflected in the
714
successor circular. In view of that assurance, I hope that the right reverend Prelate will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and I take some comfort from his comments. I have to say that I am not entirely satisfied. I believe that it would have been a better way forward to have included this requirement on the face of the Bill but, in the light of his comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 7.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Protection from Harassment Bill
7.5 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 3 [Civil Remedy]:
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) moved the following amendment:
Clause 3, page 2, line 31, leave out ("in such proceedings").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical drafting amendment resulting from the amendments considered on Report and is necessary to avoid the possibility of any confusion in cross-references between subsections. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall not detain the House long. This is the last Bill to receive proper consideration before Prorogation and Dissolution, and I pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who has conducted proceedings on the Bill with impeccable courtesy and wisdom.
I believe that this is a necessary Bill, the importance of which may be specialised in the sense that it may apply to—I hope—only a few hundred but perhaps a few thousand people who will be directly affected by it, but it is genuinely necessary. The Lord Chancellor has shown—certainly to my satisfaction—that the existing provisions of the law are inadequate to deal with the problem of those who cause severe pain and disruption to other people's lives, not by actions which are in themselves illegal but sometimes by actions which in themselves are legal but which amount to a course of conduct which is extremely painful for the victims.
I am conscious of the difficulties of framing such a Bill and of the fact that the solution which could have been reached last summer—and which in my view ought to

715
have been reached last summer—did not in fact cover all the possibilities. I am conscious of the difficulty posed by a Bill which combines civil and criminal remedies. All of those points are valid. However, I believe that in the end Parliament has to recognise that stalking and harassment of that kind cannot go unpunished. I believe that we have reached the best possible solution in the circumstances and I am pleased to support the Motion that the Bill do now pass.
Lord Meston: My Lords, from these Benches too we should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for the way in which he has guided this Bill through your Lordships' House. In particular, I am asked to convey the thanks of my noble friends Lord Russell and Lord Thomas of Gresford. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the way in which he has been receptive to both amendments and arguments. That has enabled the Bill to leave this House in an improved state.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, this is to some extent an unusual piece of legislation in the way in which it combines both the criminal and civil law. Nevertheless, it seems to me that it will provide a valuable addition to the armoury of both branches of the law. I hope that the House will agree that, although the very radical amendments of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford did not find favour with your Lordships, and with the Government in particular, they at least provided a useful model against which to test the effectiveness of the Bill and the basis for a stimulating debate.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I have not taken part in the procedure of the Bill itself, although last summer the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and I had a short exchange about the use of the word "stalking". I should like to take this opportunity to welcome the Bill and to wish it well, and to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who provided some of the original inspiration for the Bill.
However, I should like to send the Bill on its way with a further hope that the word "stalking" does not become too widely used in the context of the crime—the very irritating and unfortunate crime—which this Bill now depicts. I say that not only because the word "stalking", as I said in our exchanges last summer—is an honourable activity and pastime in Scotland but also because stalking is completely the wrong word to describe the particular activity which is now outlawed by the Bill. When you go stalking, if you send your quarry a bunch of roses or make yourself persistently felt in any way, you will have precisely the opposite effect on the quarry and it will run as fast as it can and disappear in the opposite direction, making your purpose worthless.
So I welcome the Bill but do so saying, as it goes, that I hope that the word "stalking" will not become too closely attached to the crime which this Bill so rightly identifies.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken this evening. The Bill is of course the Protection from Harassment Bill. I feel sure that that is a better and more accurate name for it than any shorter one. Alas, one of the difficulties of the
716
circumstances with which we are dealing is that those who are affected by the conduct in question have very little opportunity of escaping from it. The more they know about it, the more ardent become their pursuers. I am sure that what my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch said about it is accurate in that sense. Parliament has striven to use words which are accurate to describe the Bill.
I feel that it is fair to say that quite a lot of the basic work in connection with this matter so far as I personally am concerned was done in the original committee dealing with the domestic violence Bill, where the police indicated, for example, that they would welcome a wider power than that Bill could have given. Obviously, it was inappropriate in the context of that Bill to do so. That work was built upon by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, producing a Bill which was full and accurate on the civil aspects of the matter. But the difficulty of the Bill is that it embraces both civil and criminal sanctions. That has now been achieved in a way which I believe is highly satisfactory. It is a difficult area and we hope the legislation will work well in practice.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for the work that he put into the Bill. I feel that in a way he recognised that it would possibly have been even more valuable had it been produced at the consultative stage when we could have looked at its feasibility. Nevertheless, it was a useful model and a good test of what we have tried to do in the Bill itself.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for what he said and for his part in the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his perceptive comments on the Bill and for his help in consultation with me. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mottistone who raised an important aspect of the Bill in relation to people with mental disability. My noble friend Lady Blatch will communicate with him in that respect in due course as she has undertaken to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, was able, from his experience of the law of England, to suggest improvements to the aspects of the Bill which dealt with the law of Scotland. As I said on the last occasion, it is encouraging that it should happen that way instead of always in the other direction.
I hope that the Bill will reach the statute book quite quickly. I believe that the amendments that we have made are manifest improvements and will, I hope, commend themselves to the other place in the days left before the prorogation of Parliament, so that the hope expressed by all who took part in the debates in this House that the Bill will reach the statute book before the general election will, in fact, be fulfilled.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Welsh Development Agency Bill
7.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It concerns Awdurod Datblygu Cymru. For those of us who do not have the

717
necessary qualifications to speak the language of the angels, I shall conveniently refer to it as the Welsh Development Agency throughout my speech.
The purpose of the Bill is to amend Section 18 of the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 to raise the financial limit of the Welsh Development Agency from its present level of £950 million to £1,350 million.
The proposed new limit carries no implications for either spending or policy decisions. Such decisions will be made in the usual way.
The Bill also makes provision for future increases to that financial limit to be made by order of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, subject to the affirmative procedure. Of course, it being a purely financial affirmative procedure, it will not touch this House. So on future occasions the increase in the limit, if the Bill goes through, will not come before this House. The matter has been discussed with the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, though it has not had an opportunity to meet formally. No objections have been raised with me or the Welsh Office. It seems to us and I believe to others to be an entirely appropriate change, simplifying and reducing the burdens on the time of this House.
I should not like the Bill to pass without drawing attention to the achievements of the Welsh Development Agency since its creation. In that respect, I should like to pay my respects to John Morris, who was Secretary of State for Wales at the time of its creation and still graces the other place with his presence. I am sure that many of my noble friends and others disagreed with him at the time he introduced the agency, but it has been an enormous success and indeed has been a great success under our stewardship.
The agency has played a key role in the transformation of the Welsh economy, which now has a far more diverse and well balanced industrial structure. We have seen growth in manufacturing output. We have seen falling unemployment. We have seen a great deal of inward investment—over 855 projects since 1983, creating or safeguarding over 100,000 jobs. We have seen a great deal of effort put into encouraging indigenous business; that again has been an area of considerable success. Having achieved that level of success, principally in what has been referred to as the eastern M.4 and A.55 corridors, we are now determined that that success should be replicated in those areas of Wales, principally the far west, where high unemployment persists.
We have set the WDA more demanding targets and given it more scope to give additional aid to projects in those areas where the inconvenience of getting there requires such aid in order to encourage companies to go there. The agency has also been involved in land reclamation with considerable success. I am sure noble Lords opposite will know a good deal more about that than I do.
I commend the Bill to your Lordships and hope that in the ensuing days it may find favour with all sides of the House and achieve a speedy passage.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Lucas.)
7.20 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I rise not just to congratulate the Minister on his excellent pronunciation of the Welsh Development Agency in Welsh, but also to indicate my support from these Benches for the new strategy of the agency, as agreed with the Welsh Office, of setting targets to develop in the western areas of Wales.
The agency has also, through its "Source Wales" programme, been effective in providing new employment opportunities arising from inward investment. Indeed, Cardiff Business School recently estimated that over 4,000 were directly employed in Sony. That can be multiplied by a further factor of four for those employed in industries which are providing our suppliers with the "Source Wales" programme. In addition to that, the recent technology plan of the European initiative will have a substantial effect on the skills base of the Welsh economy as it develops.
Finally, I should like to emphasise that the agency's role in all aspects of innovative development in the economy needs to be looked at. I should declare an interest as chair of Screen Wales—the agency is on that board—and also of the new agency where the WDA itself is a senior partner. In paying tribute to that role of the agency, it is important to remind the House that its environmental activity is a long-standing activity and was part of its package at the very beginning. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, expresses agreement with me from his position in the Chamber. The noble Lord was the Secretary of State who took on the agency, as the Minister indicated.
There is also a lesson here in that the agency was conceived as an object of political disagreement but became a consensus agency in developing the Welsh economy through successive governments. One hopes that that will continue in the future. In that context I pay my tribute to the stylish and effective work of the chairman, David Rowe-Beddoe. He brought to his role in public life in Wales all his skills of communication, and his reputation abroad as a successful business person has been translated effectively into public sector ambassadorship on behalf of Wales. It is appropriate that we pay tribute to him in this debate for his work.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I have always been a great believer in a mixed economy. Thirty-five years ago I fought a by-election on the basis that we needed a development board in rural Wales; I wrote a booklet on the matter. I always felt that the way to obtain a combination of public and private investment was with such bodies as the Rural Development Board, the Land Agency and the Development Agency, because one then had a combination of public money with the discipline of private enterprise utilising that money. It has been of enormous advantage to Wales to have a body which has primed the pump.
I add to the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Elis, to the present chairman. He was a wise choice. He has been shrewd, energetic, business-wise and sensible in his approach. It makes a great deal of difference to have

719
a man in charge of such an agency who is business-wise; who knows what business expects and deals realistically with the problems.
With impeccable timing, I found in my post today a paper headed, "The Welsh Development Agency: a briefing". That perhaps shows the business wisdom of the chairman. It is interesting to see that it points out the locations in Wales of the international companies. But we should perhaps issue a word of warning. A perceptive article was recently published in the New York Herald headed something like, "Wales: the problem of investment". I took some photostat copies of the article and distributed them.
The article was perceptive in showing not only the advantages to Wales of internal investment, but also its dangers. It laid emphasis on the point that a high proportion of the jobs coming in were low level jobs; many did not provide the higher level of employment that could be hoped for in an industrial nation as well developed as ours. It pointed out the advantages that come to Wales, but when jobs are subsidised at the rate of £30,000 each—that was the rate of subsidy recently—one is bound to ask whether that money could sometimes be spent on home industries. I have had the experience of seeing one company in Wales develop from having two employees into an enormous employer. Sir Bernard Ashley told me that it was easier to obtain help once he could manage without it than it was to obtain it when he really needed it.
A good deal of consideration should be given in the future to whether it is possible to help young thrusting entrepreneurs—there are a number of them in Wales—with risk capital in particular at an earlier stage. That would mean a certain amount of discrimination, appreciation and assessment of the individuals and the companies involved. There is a danger in Wales of becoming too dependent on subsidiaries. That is reflected in other ways; for example, in sponsorship. Sponsorship problems arise in relation to rugby, football, music and so forth. One often finds that companies with a considerable presence in Wales are not making the contribution to the social and cultural life of Wales which one could expect them to make. That is partly because they are generous in their contributions elsewhere—perhaps where the head office is located—but that does not happen sufficiently often in Wales.
Perhaps I can add a personal note. When I saw the list of achievements in Wales, the international companies included Bosch. Perhaps I can express a personal reminiscence in that regard. I should like to pay tribute to the late Sir Brandon Rhys Williams who was, in the end, responsible for the site being developed. Although he was a political adversary of mine and we often disagreed—he was a highly eccentric man—I enormously admired his courage and determination. I appeared for him in planning cases and in quashing compulsory purchase orders on land that would have prevented the development. Years after his death—perhaps one day his story will be written—it is right to acknowledge his contribution on an occasion like this.
720
I was tempted to table an amendment to the Bill. I have no objection to the increase in the capital to be distributed from £950 million to £1,350 million. However, there is a provision which states,
"or such greater sum as the Secretary of State may from time to time by order specify".
I was tempted to table an amendment to strike that out. One of the advantages of making the development agency come back to the House for an increase is that it allows for a short debate of this kind so that one has the opportunity of assessing its work. However, I decided that it may delay the Bill and this may not be the best moment to move such an amendment.
All in all we are pleased with the work done by the agency. I was pleased to hear the Minister congratulate John Morris who initiated the idea. But it is right that all parties supported the agency. The successors to John Morris—one of them, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is sitting on the Benches opposite—continued the work and there was no disagreement between the parties as to the value of the work once the initial expected political reactions had died down.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the scheme of the Bill and for his tact and grace in not making any indecent reference to the final score on Saturday. I particularly want to echo the tributes which have been made to Mr. Rowe-Beddoe; and not simply to the chairman but to the board and staff, because it is notoriously well known that there were black patches in the history of the WDA relating to corruption and malpractice. It is difficult to reinvigorate staff in those circumstances. There is no doubt in my mind that if it had not been for this chairman that work would have been much more difficult.
I certainly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said about the energy and foresight shown by the then Secretary of State, Mr. John Morris. It is interesting to see how the world has changed. All Conservative Members in another place voted without dissent against the creation of the WDA. But as has rightly been said by both noble Lords who have spoken, all political parties and all subsequent Secretaries of State have made the agency work well.
I was particularly pleased to hear the Minister's emphasis on moving away from the eastern concentration. West Wales is lightly populated but the problems there of high unemployment and low investment continue. It is critically important that the West Wales rail links should be maintained intact and that the North Wales rail links should be improved.
All in all, this is a most welcome Bill—an increase of £950 million to £1,350 million coming into effect and available to the Welsh Development Agency just at the appropriate time—two months from Royal Assent—when there will be a new regime to ensure that these moneys are properly distributed in the interests of the people of Wales. In respect of the Minister's admirable stab at speaking the language,

721
for which we are most grateful, I hope that he continues with his lessons; and, who knows, in about 10 years' time or so he may be able to sit on that Bench and speak Welsh with equal fluency.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I look forward to sitting on this Bench—or at least on these Benches—for a long time. I am afraid though, given my facility with languages, that it may also be a long time before I feel that I have any reasonable command of the beautiful Welsh language.
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Elis-Thomas, Lord Hooson and Lord Williams of Mostyn, for their remarks, particularly for their praise of the agency and its chairman. I am sure that their praise is well deserved.
The noble Lords, Lord Hooson and Lord Williams of Mostyn, referred to how the agency should go on and to the limitations of what it has achieved. It is true that one has to start building from the foundations when one has lost so much of the industry that was in Wales. The jobs in the industries one gets to begin with are not the most exotic or attractive but we are quite aware—I am sure the agency is aware—of the need to build beyond that and to get some depth as well as some breadth in the industries which have been reintroduced to Wales.
No one should doubt that it has been an enormous success story. Venture capital is a problem everywhere in the United Kingdom. One needs to find a way to encourage that for all of us. I am sure that the Welsh Development Agency has its mind set on increasing its activities in that area in Wales. We clearly needed to establish success in the easily accessible parts of Wales—the highly populated parts of Wales—before we could move out to the further limits of the region. The time has clearly come for that. I make no apologies for the fact that these matters are now being addressed more extensively than they were. The time is now ripe for that to be done.
Looking back at it, the way in which all parties, and indeed the nation, have put their mind to dealing with the problem that arose in Wales as a result of the demise of its heavy industries is a great demonstration of the value of the Union. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure. Contrary to what was said earlier, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage of the Education Bill starts again not before eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.35 to 8 p.m.]

Business of the House
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, following my earlier announcement I am now in a position to announce that the business for tomorrow will proceed as on the Order Paper, with the following additions. Immediately after Starred Questions my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal will move a business Motion to suspend Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) and to suspend Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken in one day) until the end of the Session to give Her Majesty's Government the power to arrange the order of business. Such a Motion is usual and precedented on these occasions, but I am sorry to say that, in spite of a number of helpful agreements reached with the official Opposition, it has not yet been possible to secure agreement with all the usual channels on tomorrow's business.
If this Motion is agreed to, the House will be asked to take the Report and remaining stages of the Crime (Sentences) Bill tomorrow. The dinner break business will be as on the Order Paper, but remaining stages of the two Bills will also be taken.
I am unfortunately not yet in a position to announce the business for the rest of the week, except that it is intended to take the Finance Bill through all its stages as first business on Wednesday. I hope that the House accepts my will and desire to give as much information as soon as possible and that it appreciates the brevity of this Statement. I hope to make a further Statement tomorrow afternoon.
Lord Richard: My Lords, certainly we on these Benches appreciate the brevity of the Statement. I am obliged to the noble Lord for his brevity and also for making the Statement. Perhaps I may put two points to him. First, can he say whether or not the business on Wednesday will be Government business or whether it is proposed that the two short debates remain? Secondly, the noble Lord will know that at the moment the House is discussing the Education Bill. If it is the intention of the Government that that Bill should come back at some stage in the course of this week, it might be that the official Opposition—I speak for no one except them—may feel that to sit here until midnight or one o'clock tonight discussing the minutiae of that Bill, might not be the most fruitful way the House, or indeed those Members of it who will be here, can find to occupy their time.
If the noble Lord can tell us that it is the Government's intention that either on Wednesday or Thursday this House will consider further the Education Bill, then no doubt I shall be in a position to have conversation with Members on this side of the House who are speaking for us on the Education Bill. I hope that I shall also be able to emulate the noble Lord's brevity.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for making the Statement. He has stated the position with characteristic accuracy. There is in fact no agreement between the Government and my noble friends on the time allocated for these

723
important measures which have major constitutional implications. I join the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in asking what are the Government's intentions as regards the Education Bill. We still have a substantial distance to go. Perhaps the noble Lord can assist us in this matter by giving us some indication as to whether we are likely to be discussing this legislation on Wednesday or Thursday of this week.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to reply to the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition and to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. So far as concerns Wednesday, as I announced in my Statement we shall be taking the Finance Bill as first business after Questions. Therefore, for that part of the day it will be Government business. The position as regards the Wednesday debates is as yet undecided. However, I believe that it would be unfair to continue without indicating that, because of the large amount of business that needs to be completed before Parliament is prorogued on Friday, it is unlikely that the debates set down for Wednesday will continue.
As regards the Education Bill, I recognise that much fruitful discussion has already taken place today, but I would not wish the House to feel that it was wasting its time. However, I am not yet in a position to be able to offer advice to the House as to when or if a deal will be struck on the Education Bill. I hope that we shall be dealing with the remaining stages of the Bill before Thursday.
I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that the advice he should give to his champions on the Front Bench who are dealing with the Bill is that perhaps they should not spend too much time dealing with the minutiae of detail on the Bill so that the House can rise relatively early this evening, because it looks as though the House may well have to sit very late tomorrow evening.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I hope that it is in order for me to speak from the Back Benches. The one thing that can be said with certainty is that the Back Benchers on all sides of the House do not form part of the usual channels. Therefore, when discussions take place to truncate your Lordships' business, Back Benchers who may have been playing a very active part in Bills which have been before the House have no opportunity to participate in those discussions. I am not urging that the usual channels should be swelled with great numbers of Back Benchers. I am merely stating the fact that Back Benchers do not participate among the usual channels. When they do not participate on occasions like this, there are Back Benchers such as myself—and there are many others who have actively participated in the Crime (Sentences) Bill thus far—who are greatly concerned that this Bill should go through all its stages tomorrow.
As your Lordships will know we had four days in Committee. I believe that we were scheduled to have two days for Report stage. I have in my hand the amendments tabled for that stage, and the Marshalled List is almost as thick as the Bill itself. A number of very important issues were raised from all sides of the House and your Lordships will be aware of what leading
724
members of the judiciary have said about this Bill. I express enormous concern that your Lordships may be invited to take this Bill in one truncated stage tomorrow. There is another course, and that is the course of reflection and to bring this Bill back for consideration in the new Parliament.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, by asking the Chief Whip whether the business Motion to truncate the debate on the Crime (Sentences) Bill and take it in one day is debatable. When is it proposed to move that Motion?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in reply to my two noble friends on the Back-Benches, I say that of course the usual channels are not designed to seek to bind the agreement of all of my noble friends, and it is helpful to hear what they have said. The usual channels are there as a convenience for the House and always seek to strike an agreement. It is unfortunate that in this instance they have not been able to do so. I do not say that the usual channels are the conscience of the House, but since I have been Government Chief Whip we have always sought to move forward on agreement.
Perhaps I may say in reply to my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow that the Motion that my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal will be tabling tonight on the Order Paper for tomorrow is a debateable Motion. I fully anticipate that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will want to say a few words at that stage before we continue with the rest of the business. This can only happen with the agreement of the House but I hope that noble Lords will deal with the issue as sympathetically as possible so that the reputation of the House may be maintained and so that we can do as much business as is possible, with the agreement of the House, before the dissolution of this Parliament.

Education Bill
8.11 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 9 [Duty of governing body to review selective admission policy]:
[Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Secretary of State's reserve power to limit appropriate threshold]:
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 13, line 28, leave out ("20 per cent.") and insert ("such a percentage, which shall be not less than 10 per cent. nor more than 20 per cent., as the Secretary of State may specify in relation to that area.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this ungrouped amendment is to give the Secretary of State greater flexibility in imposing restrictions on selectivity when there is a threat to the supply of school places in a given area. The purpose of the amendment is to strengthen the Secretary of State's ability to deal with any potential adverse consequences of too many schools in an area seeking to exercise the power of selection.

725
Different percentages could be applied between 10 and 20 per cent. depending on the Secretary of State's judgment of the needs of the area.
The existence of Clause 13 in the Bill is, in itself, an acknowledgement that the Government recognise the possibility that the indiscriminate increase of selective admissions policies could create difficulties. A laissez-faire approach to the control of admissions at school level could very easily produce an uncomfortable conflict with the Government's separate policy objective to secure optimal parental choice within an economical and efficient national service. This was fully documented in the recent report by the Audit Commission, Trading Places, in which the commission identified the danger of "policy grid lock" arising from the conflict of the different policy objectives that are simultaneously advocated by the Government.
When this question was discussed in Committee (Hansard, 25th February, cols. 1086, 1087) the Minister admitted that the figure of 20 per cent. as a lower level for free selection was arrived at without any specific rational. He said:
"I do not think that I can take the matter further, other than to repeat that it is not a matter of science; it is a matter of judgment. We believe that 20 per cent. is about the right figure".
It is accepted that, if the Secretary of State needs to invoke this power, it will be a matter of judgment as to the particular action that is necessary in order to meet the circumstances that gave rise to the need for the Government to intervene. Since we cannot predict what those circumstances will be, and the Government are not in a position to say clearly why they believe 20 per cent. will be an adequate limitation, it is surely much safer to give a future Secretary of State the flexibility to use a figure as low as 10 per cent. After all, this amendment would not preclude the Secretary of State deciding at the appropriate time that 20 per cent. was, in fact, the correct figure and to use that. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I should like briefly to indicate our support for the amendment. In the event of the Secretary of State feeling it necessary to intervene because there are too many selective places in an area, this amendment would give her greater flexibility with regard to that intervention. I should have thought that that would benefit the conduct of business in those circumstances. Therefore, I hope that this will be regarded as a helpful amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the reserve power allows the Secretary of State to designate areas in which the threshold for introducing selection would be 20 per cent. for all schools, but it is a fall back power. It would only be used if it were evident that pupils were not getting places at local schools due to the number of selective places in an area.
We think it reasonable that all schools should have the flexibility to introduce at least 20 per cent. selection. This is more likely to permit a separate form of entry than the current 15 per cent. flexibility, but I do not accept that what would still be a modest element of
726
selection will adversely affect the overall supply of places in an area. Indeed, we do not envisage having to use the power in the Bill to reduce the ceiling for all schools to 20 per cent. often, if at all. Experience suggests that admission authorities co-operate sensibly so that pupils are not left without school places.
It is also important to remember that we have put in the Bill a provision which would prevent schools which were partially selective from holding open places if they had applicants waiting who did not meet the selective criteria. It is wrong to say that a particular level of selective places necessarily disenfranchises local children. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, before withdrawing the amendment, I note only that the Minister did not address the issue of why he might not give his right honourable friend the flexibility which may assist her in her decision. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Grants to promoters of grant-maintained schools]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 14, line 43, at end insert ("on professional development fees").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to define more specifically the purposes for which the Funding Agency for Schools may make grants to promoters of grant-maintained schools.
Clause 16 would allow the Funding Agency for Schools to make grants to the promoters of grant-maintained schools in connection with expenditure incurred by them in formulating the proposals and preparing the particulars of the proposed premises. This amendment seeks to ensure that the promoter of a new school is not reimbursed for expenditure incurred in, for example, employing a public relations company to encourage support among the public, or lobbying in support of the proposal. This is not to suggest that such practice would be commonplace; but it is important to ensure that it would not be possible for public money to be used in this way, especially as local education authorities might also be spending money in preparing proposals at the same time.
Grants from the Funding Agency for Schools should be limited to expenditure on professional development fees related to the proposed site and buildings. This may include fees which have to be met in relation to the employment of architects and engineers, and any fees incurred in obtaining legal advice about the proposed development of the site. These are all costs which would have to be met if the local education authority was itself developing a similar proposal and as such it would be perfectly reasonable for the promoter of a grant-maintained school to have this expenditure reimbursed by a grant from the Funding Agency for Schools.
The Minister accepted when this matter was debated in Committee (Hansard, 25th February, col. 1099) that the wording of the then Clause 14 did not expressly prohibit the payment of grant for the purposes of propaganda, and that it is not a function of the Funding Agency for Schools to fund propaganda or to promote the grant-maintained sector. It is quite clear therefore that to provide money for this purpose would be outside the remit of the Funding Agency for Schools and on that basis it would be helpful if the amendment is accepted so that the funding agency is quite clear as to Parliament's intention. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, this amendment bites upon Clause 16 which enables the funding authority to pay grant to prospective promoters of new GM schools to help them develop their proposals. A number of costs can be incurred by prospective promoters of new GM schools in developing their proposals. Typical examples might be architects' and surveyors' fees on premises-related aspects of the proposals and legal advice on land tenure and trust arrangements. Promoters might also incur expenditure related to advice on curriculum and financial matters or on a survey of parents. Some items of expenditure might be described as professional development fees; others will not.
Clause 16 simply refers to,
"expenditure incurred or to be incurred",
by the promoter. There can be no justification for restricting the categories of grant to professional fees only. Therefore, I believe that the amendment is excessively restrictive. This reduces the flexibility that the funding authority may need if it is to respond helpfully to the promoter. The whole purpose of Clause 16 is to enable the funding authority to provide such help in the interests of enabling potentially sound proposals to go forward for publication which might not otherwise have done so without such grant. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I may ask whether he agrees that the funding of propaganda is not really legitimate.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the funding of propaganda is not right, just as the funding of propaganda by the local education authority against a proposal by a school to go grant-maintained would not be legitimate. What we are saying is that the words "professional fees only" are excessively limiting.
Baroness David: My Lords, when I moved the amendment I believe I said that, for example, the employment of a public relations company to encourage support among the public would not be a legitimate use. It may be that the amendment is drawn too widely and that "professional fee" covers too many matters. Given the possibility that the Bill may have a Third Reading, I suppose that one can return with a more specific amendment. However, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 15, line 21, at end insert ("and if the viability of neighbouring schools would not be significantly affected.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the establishment of a new grant-maintained school does not lead to the education in other schools in the neighbourhood ceasing to be of a satisfactory standard by reason of the intake of those schools being significantly affected. The amendment is an attempt to prevent the spending of public money on the promotion of new grant-maintained schools in areas where the creation of such a school with, say, 750 places for 11 to 16 year-olds would be likely to impact on other schools in the area to the extent that those other schools might be unable to provide as good an education as now or even not provide a satisfactory standard of education.
As the clause currently stands, it appears to give carte blanche to the promoters of a grant-maintained school to spend public money to drum up support for a school in any area of the country, including presumably areas in which there are plenty of places in existing schools and no demand for a new one. While the Government have acknowledged in subsection (3) that the viability of any new school must be such as to ensure that it is able to provide a satisfactory education, what the clause fails to take cognisance of is the impact on other schools in an area.
This difference of view between the Government and this side of the Chamber goes to the heart of what separates the two approaches to the Bill. On the one hand, the Government operate in the belief that a free market in school places will ensure that eventually there is some semblance of equilibrium between supply and demand, in spite of the Trading Places report in which the Audit Commission exposed so cruelly the failure of the market approach. On the other hand, the view of the Opposition parties is that there needs to be a strategic management of school places for the good of all the pupils in an area. The idea of schools withering on the vine may appear attractive to certain elements of the party opposite, but they have less to say about what happens to the pupils while this often protracted process takes place.
Speaking subject to correction, I recall very well that the only contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who I see is sadly not in his place at the moment, was on 25th February when he said:
"I believe that the clause does not go nearly far enough. Schools should be allowed to expand and contract as their market demands and as parents want them to do, without having complicated number systems. If there are surplus places in schools, the schools should be closed down. If the school is not working, why should we as taxpayers go on subsidising something which does not work?".— [Official Report. 25/2/97; col. 1069.]
That is entirely opposed to the way in which we on these Benches, and I believe many noble Lords on the Benches opposite, view schools. To close a school in such a situation is a big operation that has deleterious effects on all kinds of people, particularly the children. I was shocked at what I heard on that occasion.
While it is considered in many ways a vice to have a few too many places in an LEA school, it seems to be a virtue to have whole new grant-maintained schools

729
where there is no shortage of places. The shift by the Government to the notion of a viable school in which a satisfactory standard of education can be provided is to be much welcomed. This amendment merely seeks for a similar approach to be applied to the other schools in an area in which a new grant-maintained school is proposed.
There will be a high level of interest in exactly how the concept of "viability" is applied. In his letter of 10th March to me, the Minister usefully detailed a number of ways in which potential viability could be demonstrated. It is the intention of the DfEE to offer detailed guidance to the FAS on this matter. There are many, however, who fear that, should this responsibility be delegated to the FAS, it may find too little difficulty in sorting out what both "viable" and "satisfactory" means if there is a possibility of setting up a grant-maintained school. The FAS will want to do so. We believe it is wrong that the FAS should be given the power to decide whether it shall do so. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, in relation to this amendment I should like to raise the question of sixth-form colleges. I believe that they could be made unviable if GM schools with sixth forms were created. That raises again the question whether sixth-form colleges, which have been so successful and have provided such a good service to students in the community, may have difficulty if certain plans are taken forward. I support the amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I also support the amendment. I believe it is very important that the viability of one school, whoever establishes it, should not be bought, as it were, at the expense of loss of viability of other schools. It is extremely expensive for a local authority to run and fund such a school and not good for children to have to learn in a declining school. To create a situation in which surrounding schools may be rendered less viable is not desirable.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am sure that the House will agree that this is an exceedingly important amendment. It contains the words and spirit of a number of matters that have already been debated. In those circumstances, I should like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that there is not a single Conservative Member on the Back Benches opposite. The Minister may recall that not long ago there was a debate on education and, unwisely and uncharacteristically, he made reference to the fact that some of us who were interested in education were not in the Chamber. He included my name in that list. I think it is right to say that no one on the Tory Back Benches is interested in a part of a Bill which the Government have said time and again is so important to the future of this country.
When the Minister replies perhaps he will define "viability". That is the most important word in this debate. From what has been said in previous debates on
730
the Bill it appears that the Government's definition of "viability" is somewhat different from ours. That may make a difference when he comes to reply.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, makes well the point about the absence of my noble friends behind me. I dare say it is unlikely that the noble Lord and his noble friends will want to divide the House, but I am sure that if he did so he would find that there were considerable numbers of my noble friends in the House—probably all glued to the television watching every moment of this debate and taking enormous interest in it.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, if that is the case, why does the noble Lord believe that we were not glued to the television when he was talking about our absence?
Lord Henley: My Lords, because I believed that the noble Lord was elsewhere and not in the House.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, how does the noble Lord know where his noble friends are?
8.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I say that because I have faith in those behind me.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, returned to the question of sixth-form colleges. It is interesting to discuss that again at this time of night. However, we discussed it earlier and divided upon Amendment No. 17 as a result of an intervention by her noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. I believe that that is a matter on which the House has come to, dare I say it, a fairly conclusive decision. On that occasion a considerable number of my noble friends were here and slightly fewer of the noble Lord's noble friends.
I was interested also in what the noble Lord, Lord Morris, had to say about the intervention of my noble friend Lord Onslow. It was a fine speech, although he went slightly beyond what is the accepted policy on these Benches. That is something to which the noble Lord will be well used with some of the interventions that he has noticed not necessarily on this Bill but on a number of other Bills and on a number of other occasions from those who sit behind him. One cannot always guarantee the total support of those who sit behind you, although one can always guarantee the total agreement.
The clause, as amended by a government amendment in another place, provides that grants should not be paid to help the promoters develop their proposals unless the funding authority is satisfied that it is likely that the school will be viable. At this point it may be worth referring the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, to Clause 16, where we insert new Section 213A. Subsection (3) of that new section provides a definition of "viable". It states:
"For the purposes of subsection (2) a proposed school would be a viable school if there would be a sufficient demand for places at the school to ensure that a satisfactory standard of education was provided there".

731
That is a suitable definition which deals with the noble Lord's point.
There is the exception that the funding authority would be able to exercise its judgment under subsection (2)(b) where it believed it likely that it would be so satisfied once further work was done. The amendment adds a further test. The definition of viability in subsection (3) would include the test that the viability of neighbouring schools would not be significantly affected.
It is certainly the case that the funding authority would take account of the level of surplus places in the area of a proposed new school when it considered proposals during the consultation phase. The Secretary of State also of course takes that factor into account, among others, during her consideration of proposals which come to her. But it is one of a number of considerations which are weighed in the balance. One important factor would also be whether the proposed new school was likely to enhance the quality, choice and diversity of provision in the area.
The difficulty is one of making judgments about how far the viability of particular schools is dependent upon the existence of another. It could by no means be certain that the existence of a new GM school would by itself affect the viability of local schools. There can be a number of factors in the case. An existing school may not be popular with parents. It may not be a good school and may already have a number of unused places as a result. A new GM school might because of its character draw from a very wide area, perhaps drawing pupils from across the LEA boundary, so that the extent of its impact on any one individual school in the locality may be difficult to assess.
That is not to say that the level of surplus places in an area is not an important factor for the funding authority and the Secretary of State to take into account. But creating an absolute test of viability in relation to the position at neighbouring schools could well he unworkable. And in its very absoluteness it denies the opportunity for other factors to be taken into account as to the merits and soundness of proposals. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation which I found helpful. To paraphrase Evelyn Waugh: Up to a point, Lord Henley, up to a point. I take the Minister's point that impact is something which is difficult to assess. In this case there is a great deal of common ground between us. We need not pursue this amendment further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Recovery from local funds of sums in respect of start-up grants]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 15, line 43, after ("may") insert (", after consultation with the local education authority or any appropriate body which appoints foundation governors to one or more schools in the area, reasonably").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to insert a simple requirement that, first, the Secretary of State should consult the LEA or appropriate voluntary authorities before exercising her powers under Clause 17 to recoup from the LEA the start-up costs of any new grant-maintained school; and, secondly, that she act reasonably in setting the level of recoupment in each case.
The amendment is essentially a probing amendment. It relates to statements made by Ministers during the Bill's passage in another place and by the Minister himself in Committee on 25th February, when he said:
"It is our intention to consult the LEAs in individual cases so that the LEA view can be taken fully into account".
In rejecting previous amendments proposed by the Opposition, which would have put limits on the amount which could have been recouped from LEAs to the equivalent start-up costs of a new county or voluntary school, the Government attempted to offer assurances that the Secretary of State would always have to act reasonably when exercising the recoupment powers envisaged in the Bill. The Minister himself conceded:
"Indeed, the Secretary of State could be challenged in the courts if she did not take the views of the LEAs into account and did not act reasonably".—[Official Report, 25/2/97: col. 1102.]
Since that is the Government's publicly and often stated position, will the Minister now confirm that he is prepared to accept this simple, straightforward amendment on the face of the Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, we support the amendment. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the amendment merely tells the Secretary of State to do what she will already in fact do. As I said in Committee, we are not convinced that such matters as this are for the face of the Bill. I remain of that view. I do not believe that we should be attempting through the Bill to tell the Secretary of State that she must act reasonably or prescribe the process through which she should reach a reasonable decision.
In Committee I made it clear that the Secretary of State would consider each recoupment case on its merit, in the light of representation from LEAs. We shall actively consult LEAs. Representations will therefore be invited. That is perfectly normal practice. We already engage LEAs in consultation, as necessary, on recoupment questions which arise under existing provisions in the 1996 Act, which, as the noble Baroness knows, is a consolidation of various other Acts. Again, as I said in Committee, my right honourable friend has to act reasonably in making her decisions. She could obviously be challenged in the courts if she failed to do so—whether or not the Bill says so—by, for example, failing to take account of relevant factors and therefore not taking account of representations from LEAs. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I suppose that one has to take a good deal on trust: that the Secretary of State is expected to act reasonably. One hopes that he or she

733
would. Of course I am not entirely satisfied with the answer, but I shall have to make do with it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Ballot observers]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 16, line 25, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall, except in the circumstances specified in subsection (2A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 30. The purpose of Amendment No. 29 is to require that ballot observers be appointed in all cases except where the parties to an individual grant-maintained ballot regard it as unnecessary. The Government have consistently rejected Opposition amendments that would have ensured that ballot observers would be appointed in every case. Ministers, both here and in another place, have repeatedly stated that they do not accept that there will be a need for a ballot observer to be appointed in every case. The Government have argued that the Secretary of State ought to have discretion to decide whether to make an appointment of a ballot observer, and that it would be a waste of public resources for an observer to be appointed on every occasion. Very well, so be it. The time has perhaps now come to attempt some kind of compromise.
The amendment goes with the grain of that thinking, but it seeks to introduce a necessary check on the unfettered discretion of the Secretary of State—the unfettered discretion which he or she would otherwise have under the provisions of Clause 18—by, in effect, requiring the Secretary of State to take steps to establish whether the actual parties to a grant-maintained ballot themselves consider that the ballot could safely be conducted without the need for a ballot observer to be appointed. Where they agree, we would be quite happy to take that result.
One of the central deficiencies in leaving the decision to appoint a ballot observer entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State is that she and her department officials are, by definition, remote from the local situation of the individual school. Let us consider the principle of subsidiarity: let the decision be made by those as close as possible to the problem. She and they cannot predict the likely turn of events. Indeed, no one can. If the whole purpose of appointing observers is to seek,
"to help avoid or deal with problems arising in the course of a ballot"—[Official Report. 25/2/97: col. 1110]—
the Minister may remember those as his own words—surely it is necessary and sensible for the Secretary of State to take steps to inquire of the locally interested parties to the ballot their views on the likelihood of any difficulties. That is what the amendment would specifically require the Secretary of State to do.
A further point needs to be made. No great expense would be incurred in that tiny consultation. I am sure that the Minister will agree that resources will be readily
734
available from the £224 saved every four to five years by the Deregulation (Provision of Schools Action Plans) Order we discussed last week. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I support the amendment. I have a good deal of experience of ballots since, internally, my political party is absolutely obsessed with them. I notice that that obsession is spreading to other parties as an interest is being taken in what every member thinks about a given subject.
Experience teaches one that not every person approaches a ballot pure in heart—I put it no higher than that. Therefore, it is a good idea to have a ballot observer in order to ensure that the ballot is properly conducted and does not result in a falsified outcome. The idea of encouraging the Minister to sound out the opinions of those involved is excellent. That would reveal whether there was any doubt in the minds of any members of the parties that the ballot was to be conducted sensibly. If that were the case it would be a good reason for appointing a ballot observer.
In Committee, the Minister was unable to give the outcome of his department's consultation on how the ballot arrangements might work in practice. The period of consultation closed at the end of January and I wonder whether the Minister is now in a position to reveal at least his preliminary thinking on the numerous issues raised in that detailed consultation paper. It is important that this House is given some form of feedback as to the Minister's current thinking on these issues, which are important.
Lord Henley: My Lords, back in the dim and distant past I was a member of the former party of the noble Baroness—I was a Liberal—but then I saw the light. Fortunately, in those days the party did not have too many ballots and therefore I was spared.
Perhaps I may deal first with the noble Baroness's principal point. We have received responses to the consultation paper on ballot observers from 14 organisations, including a joint response from the Local Authority Associations, some teacher unions, some grant-maintained school organisations and a range of others. In general, the principle of ballot observers has been welcomed. However, a wide range of detailed comments and questions were raised, including who should be able to request an observer, the identification of suitable people to serve as observers and the functions to be carried out by those observers. Obviously, we shall study all of those comments very carefully and will bring forward revised proposals as soon as possible, as we always do after consultation. However we have not yet had the opportunity to study the comments in the necessary detail. It would be premature to give any commitments at this stage on the detailed arrangements.
I turn to the amendments, which are similar if not identical to those moved in Committee. I then explained the reasons why the Government do not accept them and I repeat them today because I have not changed in my view. I accept that some ballots in grant-maintained schools become fraught and controversial and lead to

735
formal complaints requiring investigation. But they are only a small minority. The Government do not accept that a grant-maintained ballot needs to be controversial. Quite the opposite. The assumption should surely be that people of common sense and goodwill can discuss these issues reasonably and reach a decision between themselves.
I accept that the implication behind the amendment is that noble Lords opposite believe that that is not the case. Their presumption seems to be that ballots will be so fraught that the involvement of an external, independent observer is likely to be necessary in most cases. I regret that presumption. The facts show that it is unwarranted. During 1996, 125 schools held ballots. Only 14 of those ballots resulted in complaints requiring an investigation by the department. I accept, of course, that there may have been others where problems arose even though no formal complaint was made. Nonetheless, I believe that these figures can safely be taken as an order of magnitude; that is, that more than three-quarters of the ballots pass off without any major incident or difficulty.
That being so, it would be wasteful to work on the presumption that ballot observers should be the norm. More importantly, it would send the wrong signal. None of us wants to encourage a confrontational stance in ballots. That is the signal that these amendments would send.
I conclude by saying that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, put forward the figure of £224 saved over five years by the deregulation order. That was his estimate and it is not one that the Government recognise or accept. I recognise that there are many other savings to the schools—duplicating, copying and staff time—in terms of producing the document about which we spoke last week.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the question of the £224 must remain an issue between the Minister and me. I am sure that I am right. In fact, in an attempt to produce a conservative figure which he could in no way dispute, I seriously underestimated the amount of saving which could be made. However, perhaps we can agree that wherever savings can be made within the budget of individual schools they should be made.
I am grateful to the Minister for what I regard as a most unsatisfactory answer. Whatever I may have said, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, from her great experience of such ballots, made unanswerable points. Had I been on the Minister's side I should have collapsed immediately and agreed to take away what she said.
We on this side believe that the world is not quite so sensible, or nice or reasonable as the Minister believes it to be. However, this is not an issue which we can resolve at this time of night and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved]
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 16, line 31, at end insert—
("() Any person appointed as a ballot observer under this section shall be a person who has experience appropriate to the activities which he will be expected to undertake.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of the amendment is to ensure that any person who is appointed as a ballot observer has appropriate experience and can therefore command the confidence of all parties to act properly as an impartial observer. It also raises the issue of what the role of an observer is expected to be.
I suppose that even at this late stage in the game it is essentially a probing amendment. It seeks to prompt from the Government a clear indication of the kind of people, the arrangement of identification and any appointment they consider to be appropriate to undertake the role of ballot observer.
Previous Opposition amendments which sought to require that ballot observers should be,
"an independent person who has appropriate experience of either the conduct of ballots or the provision of education".—[Official Report, 25/2/97; col. 1128.]—
a phrase that we used—was summarily rejected by the Government. Although the Minister did not say so in words nor reveal in detail the Government's thinking, in his reply to such an Opposition amendment tabled on 25th February he said that the Government believe that it is too restrictive to limit the Secretary of State's discretion in a way that such a previous amendment would have done.
However, the Minister revealed that the Government believe that it is important that observers should be "of the right calibre" and that officials in his department have been,
"talking to neutral and well respected organisations, especially the Electoral Reform Society".—[Official Report, 25/2/97; col. 1130.]
Will the Minister tell us now which organisations—other than the ERS—officials in his department have been talking to? Also, if he would be so kind to make us privy to any of the things which were said, it would be extremely helpful to have that on the record.
Will the Minister now clarify precisely what he considers to be appropriate experience for a ballot observer? Does a phrase like "of the right calibre" mean anything at all? If so, what does it mean? If calibre is a criterion, how is it established? How do you avoid the accusation that someone of the right calibre is also "one of us"?
This is an important issue. The House will be aware that the Opposition take the view that the law and procedures governing the conduct of grant-maintained ballots are complex and that it is necessary in our view for ballot observers to have the appropriate experience of the education service or the conduct of ballots to undertake properly the role envisaged for ballot observers. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord,

737
Lord Morris of Castle Morris. It seems as though the ballot observers will have quite a complicated job to do—in effect, leading the process of the ballot. It is quite important to know how the Minister's thinking is going in respect of the sort of person who would be suitable to do that job; for example, the kind of knowledge of the grant-maintained or education system which this person may be expected to display and what is meant by the word "calibre". Are we looking for people who are respected locally or people who are part of some reserve corps who can be brought in to do the job because that is what they do as their bit of voluntary effort?
Without telling us rather more about what is his thinking on this issue, I do not understand how the Minister can convince us that the right kind of people are going to be conducting these ballots.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, we discussed a slightly different amendment in Committee. That amendment referred to:
"any person … who has appropriate experience of either the conduct of ballots or the provision of education".—[Official Report, 25/2/97; col. 1128.]
I gave the reasons why I was unable to accept that amendment.
The new amendment appears to accept that argument, for which I thank the noble Lord. The new amendment requires only that observers have appropriate experience. That would undoubtedly provide all the flexibility that one could possibly desire. The problem is that it is now such a statement of the obvious as to be hardly worth saying at all. It cannot be seriously suggested that this Government or any government would appoint people as ballot observers if they did not consider that they had experience which was appropriate in some way to the activities which they would undertake, whichever form that experience might take.
The noble Lord asked who we had spoken to and asked for their views. I have quite a long list of those organisations invited to comment, including the Association of County Councils, the Association of Grant-Maintained and Aided Schools, the National Association of Head Teachers, and going on through the Catholic Association of Grant-Maintained Heads down to the Standing Conference on Chief Education Officers. No doubt I could offer that to the noble Lord in due course if he would like to see all of those who were invited to comment. I could also give a long list of those who responded, including a number of individual LEAs, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, the Association of County Councils, the Electoral Reform Society, which has been mentioned, Local Schools Information, the National Governors Council, the Professional Association of Teachers and the Secondary Heads Association. The point behind that is to say that we have invited comments from a number of people and we have in reply received a number of comments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked how we should select the right people. She is right to identify the importance of getting the right people for the job. The criteria for eligibility would need to be set and we
738
should have to identify the useful or necessary skills appropriate for that capacity. A large pool of observers would be needed. For that reason, there are a number of different options that one could pursue; for example, by drawing on the pool of observers of elections abroad, maintained by the international side of the ERS. But there are a number of options that we should wish to consider.
As I said earlier, the important point is that this Government or any government would always wish to make sure that the appropriate people with the appropriate skills were, the right organisations having been consulted, appointed with the appropriate expertise.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the consultation ended on 31st January, some six weeks ago. Is it possible at this stage to give us at least a hint, a direction or a general flavour as to what the consultees advised? I realise that we are speaking on Report, and I should of course give way as the Minister wished to intervene.
The key point is that the role of the observer is growing from being simply a ballot monitor to being a leader or the chair of the process which goes beyond the function in the Bill. The job is so important that it is worrying to consider that that expansion or swelling of the role seems to be taking place as a result of a consultation which is still shrouded in the secrecy of the bowels of the DfEE.
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House, as I made quite clear, we do not believe that ballot observers will be necessary on that many occasions but, obviously, on the occasions when they are necessary, it is important to make sure that the right people are appointed. That is why we have discussed this issue with a number of people. I cannot give the noble Lord a flavour of the responses from those who have been consulted but I shall consider that further and, if necessary, write to the noble Lord.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that additional piece of information. He still has not explained the role and the thinking about the matter or really what area of experience would be agreed as being appropriate. But I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord in correspondence or even at some later stage on discussions of the Bill. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Provision of advice or assistance by funding authority]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 17, line 43, leave out ("free of charge or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the proposal in the Bill would allow the FAS to provide or arrange for the provision of advice and assistance, not including financial assistance, and it would give the FAS power

739
to provide not only that almost unlimited range of services but also to do so with the discretion of not charging anything at all.
That plainly seeks to put the GM sector on a totally different funding footing from that of LEA-maintained schools. The circumstances in which an LEA can provide similar support without charge to a school in difficulties—and the Bill does not restrict such largesse solely to GM schools in difficulties—are very limited by the regulations governing LMS. Even where that is permissible, the cost of such support would count against the strictly limited percentage of the potential schools budget which an LEA is permitted to retain for centrally-provided services.
The Minister previously responded to the amendment on 25th February by saying that the FAS already provides support without charge to GM schools experiencing financial difficulties and those operating under special measures and that Clause 17 proposed only a modest extension of the circumstances in which non-financial support can be provided. But that is simply not what the Bill describes or would permit.
Whether or not the Government expect many GM schools to be caught by the new provisions, they potentially create a totally different basis for support between the GM and LEA sectors. There cannot be any justification for such a difference. It is merely a further example of the privileged treatment habitually accorded to GM schools. The fact that such a difference already exists by virtue of the current practice of the FAS is no reason to extend it. It is rather like saying that if adultery exists, then it is better to have lots of occasions of adultery. Rather the current practice of the agency ought to be brought within the terms of the amendment. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I should like briefly to express my support for the amendment. It is difficult for the Government to argue that this is only a small extension of the current powers of the FAS when one reads in the Bill that the agency will be able to provide for free,
"advice and assistance in connection with the discharge by the governing body of any of their functions".
The governing body is responsible for ensuring that a curriculum is adopted for the school; it is responsible for the discipline policies of the school; and it is responsible for the financial policies of a school, together with a whole host of other things. If it can get free advice from the FAS on all those matters, it is indeed obtaining something that it is quite impossible for a LEA funded school or a directly funded school to obtain. Earlier today the Minister suggested that GM schools did not obtain any advantages over and above those already enjoyed by LEA schools. I am afraid that the provision is an example of precisely the sort of advantage against which we were complaining.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I reject that; I do not accept that there is a hidden premium for grant-maintained schools in the provision. The circumstances in which the
740
funding agency would offer support will be akin to the targeted additional support from which LEAs experiencing serious difficulties already benefit—from responsible LEAs—when they need it. These are difficult cases which fully justify the input of targeted public resources at an early stage to avert more serious or costly later problems. For that reason, I believe that they are a quite proper and appropriate use of public funds. I do not accept that there is a hidden advantage for GM schools. For that reason, I am not able to accept the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he tell the House exactly which advice, support or services are available to GM schools without payment from the FAS, or are provided by another body through the FAS, which are similarly able to be provided by the local education authority?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as a member of an LEA, although I understand that she will shortly he standing down from that position, the noble Baroness knows exactly what services the LEAs can provide to their schools. Similarly, it will be open, as the amendment sets out, for the FAS to provide support to the schools. However, as subsection (4) makes clear, "assistance",
"does not include financial assistance".
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister's reply. I noticed that he did not answer the question I posed; namely, which service could be provided free without being removed from the budgets available for the schools. I am disappointed in his response. It is further evidence that the Government are embarking this evening upon what might be called a rather vain "last ditch attempt" to lure people into GM-nationalised status with carrots that are thinly disguised, denied when they are shown in public and which, at the end of the day, have no effect on the overwhelming majority of schools. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Extension of assisted places scheme to schools providing only primary education]:
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 18. line 7, leave out from ("education)") to end of line 8 and insert ("after the words "providing secondary education" there shall be inserted—
"in respect of which—

(a) inspections are undertaken in accordance with the School Inspections Act 1996 and reports are published by the school; and

(b) measures as to the protection of the physical and moral well-being of pupils are undertaken in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State,

and."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment would require schools participating in the assisted places scheme to go through inspections in which their reports

741
are published and to undertake satisfactory child protection safeguards. These issues arise from the debate which took place in Committee on what was then Amendment No. 90 and, in the first instance, from a question raised by me. In reply to my question the Minister kindly wrote to me on 6th March. In that letter he made clear that,
"certain reports known as Full Inspection Reports (FIRs) are published at the discretion of the Secretary of State and as such are freely available to members of the public".
The Minister went on to list 14 schools in respect of which reports had been published out of a total of 294 APS schools which were visited by Ofsted over the past five years.
The issue behind the amendment is quite simple and straightforward: if schools are receiving public money for the education of children, they should be accountable to parents and the wider community through the publication of inspection reports in the same way as any other maintained school. The figures in the Minister's letter are quite damning. Less than 5 per cent. of the "visits" undertaken by Ofsted inspectors resulted in a full published report. This means that parents participating in the APS scheme are receiving a less satisfactory standard of inspection and accountability than those whose children are in maintained schools. They do not know this. However, it is the truth.
The full picture may be even worse than the figures suggest because the list of schools quoted by the Minister includes some of the greatest names; indeed, some of the top public schools in this country. The inspection reports which would be of the greatest interest would be those from the small schools, the schools which rely on the assisted places scheme to keep them solvent and afloat.
With the publication of the primary league tables last week, another reason for the amendment is not far to seek. Parents may now refer to standards reached in key areas in all primary schools except those schools in the independent sector, and including those preparatory schools which, under the Bill, will be brought into the APS scheme.
The second part of the amendment requires measures to be put in place to protect the physical and moral well being of pupils. We believe that independent schools should co-operate with the measures which the DfEE put in place for protecting children from teachers who may constitute a danger to them. The Minister should accept that, if public money is to be spent in the independent sector, the standards of provision routinely to be found in the public sector, and insisted upon for the public sector, should be extended to the independent sector as well. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I support the amendment. We are dealing with an important point. We are extending safeguards to pupils whose education is taken on by the state through a private provider, giving those pupils the same protection as is provided in a state school.
742
As the noble Lord, Lord Morris, suggested, in dealing with small public schools one goes from the comic Decline and Fall style of bad educational practice and the snobbery of going to a public school because it sounds so much better to have been educated there to the straightforward fact that public schools are places where physical and sexual abuse have occurred. Ultimately that is a danger that we cannot overlook. The amendment, or some provision like it, will give that extra guarantee. It is an issue that we must address. I hope that the Minister will give a favourable response.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, are—dare I say it?—as usual pretty ridiculous. Those are matters which can be dealt with by the Children Act, or whatever.
I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. As regards my right honourable friend's role, she has responsibilities in relation to all independent schools. They require her to be satisfied that they meet certain standards in terms of premises, accommodations, curriculum and instruction, and the welfare of pupils in boarding establishments. Ofsted's regime of inspections in the independent sector is concerned mainly with the monitoring of educational provision. Ofsted undertakes monitoring inspections to ensure that minimum standards are being maintained. Those inspections do not themselves lead to published reports, but the findings are passed to the department so that any necessary action can be taken. Ofsted also undertakes reporting inspections which, as for maintained schools, lead to a published report.
As I explained to the noble Lord in my letter of 6th March from which he quoted, of the 355 schools currently participating in the scheme, some 294 have had monitoring inspection visits by Ofsted in the past five years. Fourteen had reporting inspections which led to published reports. In addition, monitoring of assisted places scheme schools' performance is also carried out on an annual basis through examination results and audit surveys and through analysis of their statistical returns.
I believe that these amount to a monitoring regime that is appropriate to the nature of the assisted places scheme and the status of these schools as independent institutions. They are independent even though some of their pupils come from the assisted places scheme. Therefore I believe that the regime, as we have set out, is appropriate. I would not wish to go down the line proposed by the noble Lord.
Lord Addington: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does he not agree that, as regards a pupil in a boarding school, the danger of someone in a position of power abusing that power exists? Would some provision such as proposed in the amendment be a safeguard against that danger?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the same applies precisely in those boarding schools in the maintained sector, of which there are some 40 in this country, as the noble Lord will know.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I was mildly surprised at the Minister's reply. He began by

743
saying rather uncharacteristically that he found things said by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, "ridiculous". I did not find them ridiculous. I found them sensible, helpful, germane and very much to the point, and requiring an answer, which they did not receive.
However, what has emerged from his reply is that this constituency of APS schools is without doubt and beyond question very lightly and gently inspected in so far as they are inspected at all. That kind of inspection, plus the inspection of examination results, which anybody can do, are in our view simply not sufficiently rigorous, and far more rigour is required in the type of inspection that they should be given in the light of the fact that they receive considerable amounts of public money and, if the Government had their way, would be receiving very much more in the future were the Government so fortunate as to be returned to office. However, at this stage of the evening there is no point in our pursuing a matter on which we are simply not going to agree and on which the Minister is not going to move. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 18, line 8, at end insert—
("(2) In subsection (4) of that section, at the end there shall he added the words "and to the availability of places in grant-maintained schools and schools maintained by local education authorities."").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State in determining whether to make a participation agreement with an assisted places scheme school to have regard to the availability of places in the maintained and grant-maintained schools in general.
I hope that the Minister will note that in the amendment we seek not to distinguish between the maintained and grant-maintained sectors of educational provision. The amendment seeks to ensure a general and genuine regard to the availability of places within a wider area, a region or even the national picture before agreement is reached with a school on participating to increase the number of publicly funded places.
There are many areas in which it is possible to illustrate the issues raised by the government proposal in the Bill, which includes the proposal to extend the number of places in the assisted places scheme by including preparatory schools. At this time I shall concentrate merely on one.
In many parts of the country local authorities already spend up to double the average expenditure on the education of pupils in small rural communities. Inevitably the unit cost has to be very high. Such schools may be in very isolated areas with very small populations; they may be very small schools. In those authorities which seek to ensure that a child has access not only to one teacher during the whole of his or her primary school years, the unit costs may be very high indeed.
The additional cost of placing a child in such schools when the number of children on the roll is low is absolutely minimal. Some of the children in those schools are in classes as small as 10, 11 or 12 because of the particular age span and because of the very isolated location. How can it make sense in such circumstances to sign an agreement to extend the assisted places scheme and sign a contract with an adjacent school that may take two or three children away from that locality and may also in the end be instrumental in the closure of small rural schools. Were they to lose only a quarter of their pupils, the unit costs could become prohibitive. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I support the amendment. I wish in particular to draw attention to the mounting costs that are involved. Roughly speaking, it costs twice as much or even more to give a child an assisted place. If this amendment or some similar proposal is not taken on board, if guidance is not given and no other provision is made to make sure that that happens in practice in spite of not being on the face of the Bill, then sending an increased number of children into private schools under an increased assisted places scheme—which is what is envisaged—and particularly sending children who would otherwise be in primary schools to the private sector, could result in additional costs to the local authority. The whole burden on the public purse will increase more than I should have thought even the promoters of the Bill would be satisfied to see.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as always, we address this matter from rather different perspectives. We believe in choice, and we believe that the assisted places scheme supports that choice. I do not think it would be right to deny children who happen to live in local authority areas where there happen to be surplus places the chance to benefit from the scheme. I do not accept that the availability of assisted places by itself is likely to threaten the existence of village schools. We are talking about relatively small numbers. Further, I think that, if they want it, parents in rural areas should have exactly the same access to the scheme and the same opportunities to make an informed choice of the best education for their child as do parents in other areas. For that reason, I cannot accept the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it ill behoves the Government, who propose a measure in this Bill which will inevitably increase the number of surplus places, again to refer scathingly to the issue of surplus places in local authority areas. There are inevitably surplus places in some areas in order that they can be available for the exercise of parental choice. There are often buildings where it is impossible to remove from use part of the building in any sensible way and where it is essential that those surplus places are kept because the 80 per cent. capacity merits the first-choice aspirations of parents in that locality. The small rural primary school may well meet in full the parental choice in that locality, yet have a very high cost and surplus places.

745
The Government stand an approach to education through a policy of efficiency, effectiveness and economic viability on its head. We despair of them. But we seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.22 p.m.
Clause 23 [Power of members of staff to restrain pupils]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 21, line 11, leave out from ("himself)") to end of line 16.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 35, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 36. This clause concerns the powers of members of staff to restrain pupils. We accept the principle of the clause that members of staff should have powers to restrain pupils but we have a few questions as to the practical extent of the clause.
The first amendment would remove the third heading under which restraint can be exercised—namely,
"preventing a pupil from engaging in any behaviour prejudicial to the maintenance of good order or discipline at the school".
The second amendment looks at which members of staff may exercise the power.
The clause is welcome because it authorises teachers to use force to prevent a pupil committing an offence or causing personal injury. It may, however, go too far in two separate areas. In relation to the first amendment, the clause authorises a staff member to use force to prevent a pupil engaging in any behaviour prejudicial to the maintenance of good order and discipline. There are two distinct problems in that formulation.
The first is that preventing behaviour prejudicial to the maintenance of good order is a much wider formulation than authorising a teacher to use force where a pupil is committing an offence or causing personal injury. How, for example, does a teacher physically restrain a group of pupils who are chanting slogans in the playground? How does, or should, a teacher deal with a pupil who by use of threatening language causes disruption in a class? Stopping such behaviour by the use of force is likely to be perceived as corporal punishment or indeed as physical assault. More thought needs to be given to the implications of the extension of the power physically to intervene.
The formulation is in any case a broad one, relating to "any" behaviour prejudicial to the maintenance of good order and discipline. As the examples just given illustrate, allowing members of staff to use force in an area where judgments will be highly selective may be counterproductive.
"Any behaviour prejudicial to the maintenance of good order",
might include little more than making excessive noise or causing trouble at the back of the class. It is difficult to see why teachers should automatically expect to use physical restraint in those circumstances. Can the Minister tell us whether, in the various examples mentioned, he would consider physical restraint to be appropriate?
The Minister wrote to me on this issue on 10th March and I thank him for that letter. He cited an instance at the Ridings School. A pupil had been standing in a classroom shouting at the teacher and refusing to leave; a senior member of staff came in and led the pupil out. The Minister quoted this example as representing the kind of case which would fall within subsection (1)(c). The pupil was not committing a criminal offence or injuring another pupil but was making education impossible for all the other pupils in the class and the situation required firm handling.
The Minister made the point quite properly that, while the teacher who led the pupil away might have had a common law defence against assault, the purpose of the clause was to codify the common law and strengthen the position of the teachers. This is a fair example against which no reasonable objection could be made. The problem is that the clause goes wider than the example quoted. In any given case, the judgment need only be that the behaviour is "prejudicial" to the maintenance of good order, not that it is "preventing" the maintenance of good order.
In the specific case cited, the pupil might have been in the classroom raising his or her voice without the behaviour necessarily being repeated or the pupil refusing to leave. Yet the same action, which presumably—although the Minister did not make it clear in his letter—involved an element of physical force on the part of the teacher, would have been sanctioned under the clause. The upshot of the argument is that the clause (specifically subsection (1)(c)) could enable teachers to use force in minor and marginal situations which they judged to he prejudicial to good order but where in practice no serious actual situation has arisen. Would the Minister reflect on whether the word "prejudicial" is the right one in this circumstance and whether the formulation
"maintenance of good order and discipline at school",
is not too wide, given the sensitivity of the issue.
The second amendment suggests that the clause may go too far because it also authorises any person, not just teachers, to use force so long as it is with the authority of the head. The worry here centres on the strong likelihood that parents, volunteers, classroom assistants or laboratory assistants may not have had the appropriate training either in the necessary skills to be employed in physically restraining children or in particular circumstances when the use of force might be appropriate. The amendment therefore proposes that the power to intervene and use force should rest only with teachers.
In his letter the Minister implicitly acknowledged part of the force of that argument. He contended that it would be right to include within the scope of the clause staff such as playground supervisors or classroom assistants whom the head teacher might authorise to have control or charge of pupils. However, having made that point, he went on to accept that it might not be appropriate for staff such as groundsmen or cleaners to take charge of pupils. The problem is that the clause would not prevent the head teacher from authorising such a person to exercise the power to restrain.
The Minister made the point in his letter that the department would wish to offer guidance to head teachers as to who should be authorised. But in the drafting as it stands, the head teacher could authorise every adult on the staff to exercise the power, in direct contradiction to what the Minister considers would be appropriate. In those circumstances, it is surely reasonable to ask the Government to consider amending the clause so that some of the teaching staff are expressly excluded. Whatever view the Minister takes of this issue, it is surely incumbent upon the Government to give a clear commitment that all staff to whom the clause may be applied will be given proper training in this area and the Government will recognise the resource implications of that.
The Minister's letter raised one other issue. He said that he considered that it would be appropriate that volunteers, including parents, might appropriately be brought by a head teacher within the protection of the clause. He cited the example of a parent accompanying a school trip. The precise instance that he cited, however, did not fully assist his argument. He cited the case of a parent who might have to step in during a school trip when a teacher was not nearby in order to stop a child from doing something dangerous. That would indeed fall within the formulation of subsection (1)(b), whereby the person being given protection may use force to stop a pupil causing personal injury to another person or to himself. But the clause is not limited to that obvious case, with which anyone would agree. As the previous amendment illustrated, it also covers behaviour which can be considered "prejudicial" to the maintenance of good order and discipline.
The danger is that the clause will give protection to a "have a go" parent who believes in direct action and who would take advantage of an opportunity in such a situation, when a teacher is absent, to take matters into his or her own hands. Teachers have many skills when dealing with disruptive pupils without causing damage to their relationship with the class as a whole. Parents used to dealing with their own children might not have the same consideration in mind.
Finally, in the instance cited by the Minister, would protection be extended if the parent on a school trip who exercised the power of restraint did so in respect of a child who was his or her own? Is there a risk that the clause could have an unintended effect on the law of assault as it stands between parents and their children?
The clause, which seemed straightforward to start with, seems to me to have a number of complications. I hope that the Minister will reflect on what has been said and, if need be, think about it and, if there is another stage of the Bill, perhaps come back. At any rate I hope that he will consider that these are points which need very careful consideration. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment so ably and fully proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady David. It is a
748
welcome development of law but an extremely delicate area, as I am sure the Minister, with his experience, is well aware.
At the moment it is impossible for a teacher to lay a hand on a child under any circumstances. We move from that situation to a situation where, under certain circumstances—one or two of them a little doubtful, as the noble Baroness explained—teachers will be able to lay a hand on a pupil. That is a moment one must manage extremely well. I shall therefore be interested to hear the Minister's response on these sensitive, difficult and yet welcome issues.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness tells me that the clause is too wide. I am amazed by my moderation in respect of this clause.
The clause is intended to clarify the circumstances in which teachers and other staff authorised by the head teacher may use reasonable force—that is, force that is reasonable in all the circumstances and not just for trivial instances of misbehaviour—where necessary to stop pupils from harming themselves or others, committing a crime or causing serious disruption. It has been welcomed by most of those in the teaching profession and by all of the teacher unions. However, these amendments would significantly weaken the clause, by removing subsection (1)(c) which clarifies that reasonable force may be used to prevent pupils from disrupting good order and discipline at school, and by restricting the application of the clause to teachers only and not other staff authorised by the head. I shall come to that later.
On the question of the disruption of good order and discipline, my letter to the noble Baroness referred to an incident at the Ridings School in Calderdale. So far as I know, there was no complaint against that teacher. But we hear from time to time of other cases of defiant misbehaviour where the teacher's career is threatened by his or her actions. For example, a teacher tried to stop a girl from repeatedly switching a radio on during a drama class. That teacher ended up with a police caution for assault. That could have had a serious effect on that teacher's career. Another teacher was prosecuted for common assault after removing a defiant pupil from the classroom. I do not know how he did that, but he received a conditional discharge after pleading guilty on the advice of his lawyer. Subsection (1)(c) covers just those kinds of case.
The common law may provide a defence to teachers who are prosecuted, or sued for damages, for assaulting a pupil in the circumstances I have just described. However, the purpose of the clause is to codify the common law, by setting out the circumstances in which a teacher and other members of staff at a school may use reasonable force in situations such as this. The amendment to remove subsection (1)(c), if passed, would seriously weaken the clause, and could make it much more difficult for teachers to prevent pupils from causing serious disruption at a school, at least where that disruption did not involve a criminal offence, or injury to persons or damage to property.

749
If the clause were enacted without subsection (1)(c), and a teacher intervened in the circumstances I have described, he or she might arguably be guilty of assaulting the pupil. In practice, the likely effect of this amendment could be that teachers would continue to be advised by their unions that they should not attempt to restrain pupils for fear of being prosecuted for assault.
Disruptive behaviour in our schools is unacceptable and we should provide schools with the support they need for securing the good order which is essential for providing good education. We have to face the fact that some pupils will deliberately cause unacceptable disruption to lessons that prevents other children from learning, and that sometimes, as a last resort, that has to be dealt with by use of some moderate physical intervention such as leading the pupil away.
Amendment No. 36 seeks to restrict the application of the clause to teachers only. If the clause applied only to teachers, other members of staff such as playground supervisors or classroom assistants authorised by the head teacher to have control or charge of pupils would not be protected. That could make it more difficult for head teachers to use non-teaching staff to supervise children.
As the noble Baroness said, I pointed out in my letter to her of 10th March that it might not be appropriate for that to be extended to such staff as groundsmen or cleaners because they would not be likely to have the appropriate training that others would have acquired over their years in school. That is a matter to be considered in due course and one that we could come to later. However, we believe that properly authorised non-teaching staff—in some cases that might even be volunteers—should have the protection of the clause if they are to do their jobs properly. An example of the circumstances in which a volunteer might properly be put in charge of pupils by their teacher might be where a parent was accompanying a school excursion and the parent might well have to step in when a teacher was not nearby in order to stop a child doing something dangerous. I am sure that even the noble Baroness would accept that.
I trust that my explanation is sufficient to persuade the noble Baroness that Clause 23 is a very necessary clause. It is one that is needed and it is one that will be welcomed throughout the teaching profession. I hope the noble Baroness will realise that her amendments would fatally weaken the clause in such a manner that it would have relatively little effect, would probably be meaningless and would not provide the protection which I believe our teachers and others appropriately authorised deserve to have.
Baroness David: My Lords, I think I made it clear that I recognise that the clause is necessary and that it has been welcomed by teachers and the unions. I totally agree that disruptive behaviour is not acceptable. However, there may be some complications which perhaps have not been thought of. I should like to think that the Minister might ponder those before, if we do have it, another stage of the Bill. In his reply he admitted
750
that the problem of which staff should have the right to use restraint is one which should be gone into a little further. He said that both in his letter and in his reply just now. He said that this would be gone into further and that the position is not totally satisfactory as it stands. With, I hope, his willingness to look into this matter a little further and with such assurances as he has given that some matters concerning the staff will be looked at, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Clause 24 [Detention outside school hours lawful despite absence of parental consent]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 22, line 27, at end insert ("and the head teacher must have been satisfied that the pupil's parent or guardian was aware both that the detention was due to take place and of the time of day of the detention at which the pupil would be leaving the school").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this amendment we are back to the issue of the trouser pocket and the schoolboy or schoolgirl who does not always do what he or she is supposed to do. The note to say that the child will be in detention, the responsibility for collecting a sibling from either lower down the same school or from an adjacent school, the responsibility for doing something at home and the fact that parents surely have a right to know at what time their children will leave school are all important features of this amendment. It does not seek to prescribe the means but allows schools to use their judgment. It places on the head teacher a responsibility to be satisfied that the parent or guardian is aware of the detention and of the time at which the pupil is due to leave school. There are occasions when children would rather not tell parents that they have been kept in detention. The parents may not view the detention with total equanimity. Therefore, losing the note might be preferable to getting into trouble twice. That is perhaps a more mild version of the problems.
There is a serious issue behind the proposed amendment. In the event of something going tragically wrong, it is important for the school to be able to demonstrate that the parent was aware of the fact that the child would be leaving school later. Accidents do happen. A younger child may not be collected from school and may be injured in a road accident. It is a serious issue and a responsibility which we believe the head teacher ought to be required to meet in order that the child can be safely in the place where the parent expects him to be. It may be slightly different if the child has no responsibility for siblings and who is coming up to the age of, say, 15 years. It could be a younger child aged 11 or 12 who is also responsible for taking a younger child home from an adjacent primary school. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I appreciate the intention behind the noble Baroness's amendment. I believe that it is unnecessary and would probably make the clause unworkable. We obviously cannot legislate for what

751
we might describe as the non-co-operative or awkward parent or the non-co-operative child. For instance, some parents might not respond to a request to let the school know that they had received notification of detention. Regrettably, there will also be a number of awkward parents or children who, no matter what efforts the head teacher makes to satisfy himself that parents have received written notice, will do everything to thwart the head's good intentions.
As the noble Baroness is aware, as the clause stands the head teacher must take effective steps to give 24 hours' written notice to the parent whom he believes has custody of the child at the relevant time. If he has taken those effective steps, he can then assume that notification of detention has been received even if there has been no response from the parent. In those circumstances it occurs to us unlikely that a court would be sympathetic towards any claim of false imprisonment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may make plain to the Minister that I was not at any stage suggesting false imprisonment or a claim of that sort. The concern is for the safety of that child or siblings, not whether or not the parent can claim that it was illegal for the child to have been kept in detention. That is totally outside the terms of this amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was coming to that, but what I said is the effect of the noble Baroness's amendment in terms of what it would have done. The head teacher would not be able to impose that detention unless he had had acknowledgement from the parent. If he had been unable to achieve that, that would have been false imprisonment. Therefore, I believe that the point I make is valid. I was going to go on to say that I recognise the noble Baroness's concerns about safety of pupils, particularly when returning home late after detention. I believe that those are very real fears and they have to be addressed.
We shall address those matters in guidance which we intend to produce once the Bill is enacted. There will be very detailed advice about the content of the written notice, and guidance as to the methods of delivery will also be included. I do not believe that they would necessarily be appropriate for legislation. Guidance to the schools on what is appropriate and how to manage those things is the appropriate way forward.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am more satisfied by the Minister's answer than I thought at first. I am pleased that the Government propose that, should further stages of this Bill be completed, these matters will be addressed in guidance. As I said before, I sensed understanding from all parts of your Lordships' House. I do not believe that I am the only one who has come across people who deliberately hide things in trouser pockets so that they are washed out in washing machines. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Clause 25 [Variation of limit on fixed-period exclusions: all maintained schools]:
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 23, line 10, at end insert—
("(3) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring the head teacher to take steps to secure that a pupil who has been excluded for a fixed period returns to school as quickly as possible.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 25 permits schools to exclude pupils temporarily now for up to nine weeks at any one time during the school year. That allows disruptive pupils to be out of school for nearly a whole term. We also know about the problems of providing any education for these children while they are excluded. Figures from the recent Audit Commission report, Misspent Youth, are striking: 42 per cent. of offenders of school age who are sentenced in the youth courts have been excluded from schools and 78 per cent. of the permanently excluded and 31 per cent. of the temporarily excluded pupils commit offences.
The Home Office research unit has also identified school exclusions (including temporary exclusions) as one of the four main characteristic factors of young offenders in its report, Young people and Crime. It seems obvious that the longer the exclusion, the more likely the child is to offend and also the longer out of school, the harder it will be for the child to re-enter the school system.
The Ofsted report Exclusions from Secondary Schools makes for fascinating, depressing and frustrating reading. It notes that:
"some schools used fixed term exclusion so often it lost all effectiveness",
and that:
"schools' practice with regard to exclusions varied to an unacceptable degree—some were far too ready to exclude: others did so with extreme reluctance often at some cost to staff and other pupils".
This was not, however, an overall black picture. The report contained some words of hope worth repeating:
"Overall there are aspects in which low excluding schools do measurably better than high excluding schools. In other respects however the majority of schools could do more to prevent exclusion without extensive additional resources or changes to the current legislative framework. There is, in other words, all to play for. The number of exclusions is rising but that pattern is not irreversible".
The report makes clear that a number of high excluding schools have not followed DfEE guidance. I hope that the Minister will recognise that all we are trying to do in this amendment is to ensure that head teachers are told in regulation what they should be doing during the period of a fixed-term exclusion; guidance is clearly not enough—although I suspect that "guidance" will be the answer that I shall be given.
The amendment means that even if a child is told he is suspended for the full 45 days, he can and should be readmitted at an earlier date if the school is satisfied his behaviour has improved, or will improve. The importance of this amendment is that it

753
gives the Secretary of State regulating powers which the Secretary of State will not otherwise have. It will be up to the Secretary of State whether and how to use powers. But surely it is important to have them. I should be interested to know the Minister's view on that. The Ofsted report shows how vital it is that schools treat fixed-term exclusions as serious emergencies needing immediate action rather than just breathing spaces from difficult children. It is surely wise to give the Secretary of State powers to require schools to take more active steps to try to identify what is wrong and to put it right. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I shall detain the House only briefly to support the amendment. Generally speaking, I think that exclusions are a disastrously bad form of discipline; that the Government's policy of extending exclusions to 45 days in any one year is a ghastly mistake; and that anything that can be done to ensure that proper provision is made for children during that period or that they are got back to school as quickly as possible must, subject to other considerations, be highly desirable.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we debated a similar amendment in Committee when I expressed agreement with the general principle behind it: that no pupil should be out of school longer than is necessary. However, there may be circumstances, albeit exceptionally, where a pupil who has been excluded for a fixed term is ready to return before the period is completed. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, I do not believe that those are circumstances that can be prescribed in advance in regulations; nor that there should be a general presumption that the sanction of a fixed-period exclusion will normally be commuted. The point of a fixed period exclusion is that it is for just that period. But it can be a matter for the judgment of head teachers on a case-by-case basis. That is a matter for them. More generally, the actions to be taken by the head teacher during a fixed period of exclusion will, as I believe the noble Baroness recognises, be a matter for new guidance on exclusions to be issued by the department. I hope that that will offer the appropriate guidance and instruction to head teachers as to when it is appropriate in their opinion to commute the sentence that has been imposed.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I had entertained the faint hope that what I said about guidance not being sufficient would have persuaded the Minister. As I was not hopeful I am not very surprised, although I am disappointed. However, at this time in the evening and at this stage of the Bill I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 not moved.]
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris moved Amendment No. 41:
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause—
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS: RIGHT OF CHILD TO ANONYMITY
(" . Where any child is the subject of disciplinary proceedings within a school, or related appeals procedures, there shall be no publication which reveals the name, address or school of the child concerned in the proceedings, except as may be required by the school's disciplinary procedure or any statutory procedure.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment, which was first discussed on 3rd March at cols. 1538 to 1542, was to prevent publication in the press of the name of any child subject to disciplinary proceedings or associated appeals. It is understood that, following consultation with the department and the National Governors Council, the Government had given a private undertaking to bring forward their own proposals. I had hoped that the Government might be prepared to give a firm undertaking to take forward this matter.
It is a tricky situation. An amendment was tabled earlier in another place which sought to place the onus on the school or school governors to secure the anonymity of children who were subject to proceedings. That was tried by Mr. John Gunnell, MP, at the Committee stage in another place. However, it was pointed out there that that was not an effective solution to the problem. School governors, head teachers and others involved in professional education are universally sensitive to the importance of preserving anonymity. In any event, very few of them would wish to encourage media attention to disciplinary issues in their own schools. But it was invariably the parents or the children who revealed this information to a press avid for that kind of information. Any control would therefore have to bear directly on the press and have sufficient sanction to enforce compliance.
In that connection we felt that the parallel with the regulations applying to the youth justice system would be the model to follow. It would however be a model that would take a certain amount of following and that would not necessarily be easily or quickly done.
That was where the issue rested until this morning. This morning as I approached my desk and saw the very unwelcome pile of letters upon it, most of which required instant answers, I was pleased to find among them a particular envelope. I have had a great deal of experience of such envelopes in the past six days. I believe that I have received about 16 different letters from the DfEE in the past week. But this one was probably the most welcome. I looked at it and said,
"Light breaks where no sun shines".
I leave it to the Minister to attribute that quotation to its author. The letter stated that the Minister looked carefully at my proposal but unfortunately it was concluded that there was insufficient time to produce a properly considered and effective clause on this subject for this particular Bill. However, he said:
"I share your view that these difficulties are not insuperable … What I therefore propose is that the Department should prepare a consultation paper, for issue later this year"—

755
I was delighted that he did not say anything further about timing—
"on the issues involved and possible legislative solutions. In the light of responses to that consultation, a decision could then be made"—
by whoever was then in a position to make decisions—
"on what would he the best way to achieve the desired results".
That was a very welcome letter. I thank the Minister for it. If he can assure me that that is still his firm intention, I would be grateful. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am delighted to have heard about the letter, and look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
Lord Henley: My Lords, before I respond to the detailed points made by the noble Lord, since he devoted some of his time to teasing me, I wonder whether I may ask him whether he drafted Amendment No. 41. I was looking at the side heading on the Marshalled List which states:
"Disciplinary proceedings: right of child to anonimity".
I wonder whether he has any comments about the spelling of "anonymity", and, if so, whether he would like to pass them to the appropriate authorities. I am sure that that was a mere slip: even Homer nods, and even the noble Lord on occasions.
The noble Lord mentioned the letter. I am sorry that he received it only this morning. I cannot remember when I signed it but, as he said I have signed a number of letters. I wrote indicating my conclusion that we lack time to produce a properly considered and effective clause within the Bill on what is a difficult subject. As I think I pointed out in Committee, it would be one involving discussion with a vast array of different departments. It would involve European Convention on Human Rights issues. That is why I said that we propose that the department prepares a consultation paper for issue later this year on what are tricky issues and possible legislative solutions.
756
One possible way forward, for example, would be to focus solely on protecting those pupils involved in exclusion procedures, as those pupils form an easily identifiable group for the purposes of legal definition, and the media are unlikely to be much interested in other pupils whose behaviour has warranted lesser sanctions. That approach might be a way around the problem, but I raised the matter in Committee in relation to the scope of the amendment. The term "disciplinary proceedings" is too wide, and I think the noble Lord accepts that.
As regards enforcing the prohibition, that is another problem that was raised in Committee. One possible option would be to create a new criminal offence, but given the sensitivities involved in restricting press freedom in such a way, that is something that would not be appropriate for us to discuss at this hour, at this stage of a Parliament, on this Bill.
Perhaps I may say again to the noble Lord that I am grateful to him, even with the failures in his spelling, for raising this issue again. I hope with the assurance of further action by the Government following the election, he will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether he could promise by the morning those of us who have had fewer letters a note on the subject of the quotation.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall consider that point in due course and respond to the noble Baroness if I think it appropriate.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, if I could offer the Minister just the slightest hint as to the author of that quotation, it might not be too difficult for him to find an official who could look it up and give him the correct answer.
I hear what the Minister says about the way ahead. I am convinced. I am grateful. I am satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at one minute before ten o'clock.

  Gibraltar: Right of Self-determination
  Gibraltar: Right of Self-determination
  Northern Ireland: Social Deprivation and Low Achievement
  Northern Ireland: Social Deprivation and Low Achievement
  VAT Harmonisation: UK Position
  VAT Harmonisation: UK Position
  Mr. Alaathin Cakici
  Mr. Alaathin Cakici
  Mr. Nurettin Guven
  Mr. Nurettin Guven
  Mental Health Policy
  Mental Health Policy
  Council for the Professions Supplementary to Medicine: Chairman
  Council for the Professions Supplementary to Medicine: Chairman
  Home Composting
  Home Composting
  House of Lords Late Sittings
  House of Lords Late Sittings