Sitting of 7 April 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Middle East
    Mr. David Hanson: What steps he intends to take to assist the progress of a peace settlement in the middle east. [36528]
    Mr. Peter Luff: If he will make a statement on the progress of the middle east peace process during the British presidency of the European Union. [36536]
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What is his assessment of the current position of the peace process in the middle east; and if he will make a statement. [36543]
    Mr. James Clappison: If he will make a statement on progress in the middle east peace process. [36552]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I visited five capitals in the middle east and the headquarters of the Palestine National Authority last month. In Gaza, I emphasised our commitment to security and announced the formation of a European and Palestinian joint committee on security. In Israel, I stressed the importance of progress on the basis of land for peace and the long-standing opposition of Britain and Europe to the expansion of settlements that were in conflict with that principle. In Syria and Lebanon, I discussed their response to the Israeli proposals for withdrawal from southern Lebanon.
    Throughout the middle east, there was a warm welcome for the decision of the European Union, under the British presidency, to extend its financial support for the peace process and for our efforts to break the deadlock on interim steps such as the Gaza airport, sea port and industrial estate.
    The forthcoming visit to the middle east by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will further demonstrate the priority that we attach to restoring progress to the
    140
    peace process. It remains our objective to secure a peace settlement that will offer security and justice to both the Palestinian and Israeli people.
    Mr. Hanson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his full reply. I particularly thank him for his efforts in pressing British, European and United Nations policy on the illegal settlements in the occupied territories and his support for the Oslo principles. Will he confirm—I hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will confirm this in his forthcoming visit —that a moratorium on illegal settlements is necessary to secure peace and security in the region?
    Mr. Cook: I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that it has been the long-standing policy of both this Government and the previous one to oppose the expansion of settlements in the occupied territories. The Israeli Housing Minister has announced that he may proceed with 4,400 houses in the west bank this year. Most of the people of Israel understand that any gain there may be in respect of their housing is more than offset by the great damage that such expansion does to the prospects for a peace settlement that is as much in their interests as it is for the people of Palestine.
    Mr. Luff: At a time when we are rightly celebrating the 50th anniversary of the foundation of the state of Israel, will the Foreign Secretary resist his penchant for gesture politics, which he sadly demonstrated on his recent visit to Israel? Will he instead seek to learn the lessons of the previous Government, who were anxious to offer practical assistance to all parties engaged in finding a peaceful solution to the problems of the middle east? In that context, may I commend to him the interview with the Prime Minister of Israel in one of today's national newspapers and ask him to consider seriously the possibility of offering practical secure corridors between the different parties in the middle east to help achieve a peaceful outcome?
    Mr. Cook: We have several times offered to assist in achieving safe passageways, particularly in the southern area. We stand ready to assist in any interim step that would help to boost confidence between both sides. It is very important that we restore confidence and trust to make progress once again. It has not been easy to achieve such agreement, but I am happy to pursue any opening that is given us by the Prime Minister of Israel.
    Mr. Llwyd: I consider the Foreign Secretary's conduct on his recent trip to the middle east entirely appropriate. Does he agree that the greatest stumbling block to a lasting peace in the middle east is the fact that Israel continually sets up settlements on disputed land?
    Mr. Cook: On my visit to Har Homa, I am absolutely clear that I was right to underline the long-standing opposition of Britain and Europe to the expansion of settlements on occupied territory. I fully agree with Lord Hurd, who said at the time that I was right to proceed with the visit because to abandon the visit would have been to show that I was abandoning the policy.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Was it not clear from the start that my right hon. Friend was going

    141
    not just in his own right and on behalf of this country, but as the representative of the EU presidency, and that any snub was a snub to the EU initiative as a whole? Therefore, how does he see the EU initiative proceeding in light of that visit, and particularly in relation to the US initiatives?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that my visit to the middle east—and particularly to Har Homa—achieved the full support of my colleagues throughout the EU, and has had much support throughout Europe. On the US visit, we have been in close consultation with the US authorities, and I have discussed the matter a number of times with Madeleine Albright. While I was in the middle east, I pressed the leaders of the Palestinian authority and the Israeli Government to give a positive response to the proposals when they come forward. It is important that we get both round the negotiating table, knowing that the US proposals have the double authority of the US and the EU.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I offer my congratulations and support to the Foreign Secretary on his recent visit to the middle east, which has done a great deal to restore the reputation of Her Majesty's Government throughout the region? Will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity today to underline the fact that the British Government and Parliament have no quarrel with the Israeli people, but rather with the Israeli Government and the policies they pursue—particularly their rejection of the agreement reached at Oslo, based on the principle of land for peace? If, as appears to be the case, the Israeli Government are willing to implement the obligations contained in UN resolution 425— withdrawal from the Lebanon—would it not be logical and right for them to accept also the obligations contained in UN resolution 242, which guarantees a homeland for the Palestinian people?
    Mr. Cook: The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right that many people in Israel want the peace process to proceed. Mr. Netanyahu was elected on a commitment to peace with security. Security requires that the peace process continues and has a reasonable chance of success. Part of that process involves the Syrian and Lebanese tracks as set out in UN resolution 425, which is now 20 years old. I was interested in the proposals put to me by the Israeli Defence Minister during my visit to Jerusalem about withdrawal from southern Lebanon. I hope that it will be possible for the Israeli Government to take that forward and that it will provide a basis for unblocking the present stalemate on the Lebanese and Syrian tracks.
    Mr. Gerald Kaufman: With reference to the supplementary question from the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) in respect of the 50th anniversary of the creation of the state of Israel, is my right hon. Friend aware that David Ben-Gurion and Golda Meir, who helped to found the country—and whom I knew personally—would look with contempt and revulsion at the policies of the current Israeli Government because they worked all the time for peace with their Arab neighbours? Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on his visit to Har Homa, and on the Prime Minister's forthcoming visit to Gaza, where he will
    142
    stay overnight? Will my right hon. Friend continue to press for a fulfilment of the Oslo accords which Netanyahu is violating?
    Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend speaks with great authority and personal experience in this matter. I entirely agree that those who helped to create the state of Israel have greatly contributed to the success of the nation, which we salute. The security of that nation now depends on those currently in power in Israel showing the same vision as Itzhak Rabin, and recognising that one makes peace with one's enemies, and not just with one's friends.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Following his return from the middle east, why did the Foreign Secretary choose not to make a statement to the House, as is the custom? Was it because he thought his trip was unimportant, or because he does not regard it as part of his duties to account to the House for his doings?
    Mr. Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the custom for statements to the House is that they are made when there is a policy change. There was no policy change involved in my visit to the middle east. Indeed, the policy that I enunciated throughout my visit to the middle east was the policy which Opposition Members espoused when in government. It is a pity that they do not espouse it now that they are in opposition.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his visit to Har Homa was widely applauded in the face of the unmannerly conduct of the Israeli Government? Will he continue to put pressure on them to rejoin the civilised countries of the world, among which Israel once played so notable a part?
    Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support. I think, however, that the immediate area for us to focus on now is the Prime Minister's forthcoming visit. Last week, I met the Israeli ambassador. We had a very good exchange for an hour, at the end of which he gave me an assurance that the Prime Minister would be received courteously and that his visit would be a success. I am sure that the visit will provide a way forward for us to engage Israel in the peace process and to demonstrate the underlying health of our relations with the great majority of the Israeli people.
    Mr. Michael Howard: The House would have listened with astonishment to the Foreign Secretary's novel doctrine of ministerial statements, but surely the one thing on this issue that should unite all hon. Members is the hope that the Prime Minister's visit will help to revive the peace process. Is the Foreign Secretary so pleased with his own performance that he believes that there are no lessons to be learned from it to enhance the Prime Minister's prospects of success?
    Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I shall try to rely on his diplomatic skills of charm and courtesy. I say to him and to the House that I am not pleased with the present state of the peace process. Indeed, I came back from the middle east deeply concerned for the peace process and by what I had heard, not only in Jerusalem but in the Arab capitals.

    143
    I have discussed the Prime Minister's visit with the Israeli ambassador. I am confident that the Prime Minister will be treated with courtesy and respect. He does go with specific proposals; we very much hope that those proposals will help to unblock the deadlock on the interim steps, which is so important for restoring confidence. It is vital for the people of Israel and the Palestinian people that we make progress, and vital for Europe, which is a major contributor to the funds of the peace process and is the next neighbour to the middle east. We also have a clear interest in achieving peace in the middle east.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Steve McCabe: What recent discussions he has had with the Turkish Government on Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [36529]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I have regular discussions with the Turkish Foreign Minister, Ismail Cem. We last spoke on 26 March.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has telephoned the Turkish Prime Minister twice this year. As a result of their discussions, he has twice sent Sir David Hannay as his personal envoy to the Turkish Prime Minister for meetings which included issues to do with Cyprus.
    We are seeking to establish a meeting of the Association Council in order to deepen political dialogue and economic co-operation between Europe and Turkey. It remains our firm view that Cyprus has a valid application for membership of the European Union and that the people of Cyprus are entitled to have that application judged on its merits.
    Mr. McCabe: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that a great many Cypriots in this country, including in my constituency of Hall Green, who supported Labour in May 1997, will be delighted that we are maintaining yet another manifesto commitment? Will he give the House an assurance that no party outside the European Union will have a right of veto on the process of the Cypriot application for EU membership?
    Mr. Cook: I am pleased to report to my hon. Friend and the House that, last Tuesday, we received the Foreign Minister of Cyprus at the General Affairs Council of the European Union, when we heard for the first time the start of the negotiations between the European Union and Cyprus on its application for accession. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that no third country can have a veto on whether a sovereign state should apply for membership of the European Union, or whether the European Union should respond positively to that application.
    It would, of course, greatly enhance the prospects both for Cyprus's accession and the success of that accession if, in the course of the negotiations, we could also make progress on the parallel question of the division of the island. Britain will continue to do all that it can to try to find a solution.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that a sad stumbling block regarding the current Cyprus position is the refusal by the Turkish
    144
    Cypriot leader, Rauf Denktas, to talk to Sir David Hannay? I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about this country's role, and particularly the EU position under our presidency, but will he take any positive steps to try to encourage Mr. Denktas to speak to Sir David Hannay?
    Mr. Cook: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have repeatedly encouraged Mr. Denktas to do that and other things as well, without—as the hon. Gentleman records—receiving a positive response from Mr. Denktas. I particularly regret the fact that he flatly turned down President Clerides's offer to include representatives of the Turkish Cypriot community in a mixed delegation to negotiate on accession to the European Union. I discussed that offer with President Clerides before it was made. I believe it was a fair and a generous offer, and it is a matter of regret for the Turkish Cypriot community that its leader ruled out its participation.

    Westminster Foundation for Democracy
    Mr. Tom Levitt: What plans he has to promote and expand the work of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. [36530]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): We strongly support the work of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. In recognition of its excellent work, we recently increased its grant in aid from £2.7 million in 1997–98 to £ 3 million for 1998–99.
    Mr. Levitt: I am delighted to hear that answer. I have had contact with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, having hosted visits with both eastern European and African delegations in the past. The extra grant will be very welcome. Will my hon. Friend encourage the Westminster Foundation to promote contacts between British parties and their sister parties in Europe?
    Mr. Lloyd: That is a little easier for the party in government than for the major Opposition party: I am not sure that the Conservatives have any friends left in Europe. There is certainly a need on both sides of the House for greater understanding of political trends throughout Europe. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is encouraging that, and we hope that the Leader of the Opposition will begin to catch up with us.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Funds from the Westminster Foundation for Democracy have been used to assist with beginning to modernise and democratise party political machinery in the Republic of Moldova. I welcome the Minister's remarks, as much remains to be done. Is it not a fact that hon. Members on both sides of the House can, and do, contribute their political experience and know-how in countries where democracy is still in its infancy? Is not the foundation the ideal conduit for that sort of exercise?
    Mr. Lloyd: There is no doubt that the work of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy is widely respected—and not just in this country. When the chairman of the foundation, my hon. Friend the Member

    145
    for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), visited America recently, he was told that the Americans regard the foundation as being extremely high value for a relatively low cost. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) is right: the exchange between parliamentarians and other initiatives undertaken by the Westminster foundation are cementing the democratic process in many parts of former Soviet eastern Europe.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that we have a bit of a cheek telling the emerging nations how to practise democracy when half the British Parliament is not elected? Would it be a good idea for the new Labour Government to close down the other half that is not elected? We would then be in a position to tell the rest of the world what democracy is all about.
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend knows very well that the Government intend to ensure that at least the hereditary element in the other place disappears. I must confess that the matter is not directly in my hands. We shall have to see what opposition we meet from the Conservatives and from their lordships in another place.

    Kosovo
    Mr. Andrew Tyrie: If he will make a statement on the situation in Kosovo. [36531]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): We vigorously condemn the excessive force used by the Serbian security forces in Kosovo in recent weeks and deeply regret the loss of lives there. As the United Kingdom has presidency of the European Union, I visited Belgrade to record our concern and I also called a meeting of the contact group in London to respond to the crisis. Our central objectives are the withdrawal of paramilitary special police from Kosovo and a meaningful dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina to secure greater autonomy and enhanced status for Kosovo.
    We want to be able to accept the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia into the European family of democratic states, but we cannot do so unless Belgrade starts to accept modern standards of human rights and ethnic tolerance.
    Mr. Tyrie: What are the Government doing to prevent the spread of conflict to Macedonia? There are currently just under 1,000 lightly armed troops in Macedonia, mainly from United States forces, but how many more do the Government think it would be appropriate for the United Nations, or possibly NATO, to deploy there?
    Mr. Cook: The day after the contact group meeting, I spoke to President Gligorov of Macedonia, who particularly welcomed the commitment in our statement at the contact group that the mandate of the UN force on the border between Macedonia and Serbia be extended beyond its expiry date this June. We are working on how we can achieve that extension, and whether it should be done through the UN, NATO or other regional groupings.
    I do not think that the number of troops is as significant as their symbolic force. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) is right in saying that most of the troops are from United States forces, which gives immense
    146
    confidence to Macedonia that anyone who infringes its border is taking on the United States —the numbers are less important than the clear symbolic support that they represent.
    We are currently exploring with Albania and the other neighbouring states how we can also provide them with similar security and reassurance, so that we contain tensions from Kosovo and they do not spill over into a regional conflict.
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Following that reply, will my right hon. Friend say why the Albanian Government's requests for such deployment have so far been refused?
    Mr. Cook: We have explored with the Albanian Government the possibility of a partnership for peace project in Albania, to demonstrate the country's close ties with NATO and NATO's close interest in it. I met the Prime Minister of Albania after the most recent contact group meeting at the end of March; we had a very useful exchange, and he warmly appreciated the strong support of Europe and the contact group for the neighbouring countries. We are determined that any continuing disruption in Kosovo will not spill over. Moreover, we are determined that Belgrade should stop behaving as it is in Kosovo, and achieve a settlement there, which is the key to securing that region's security.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Does not the Foreign Secretary agree that early action in this very dangerous area could save great grief later? Why does he not take a lead in urging that observers be stationed in Kosovo on pain of increased sanctions against Serbia if the Serbs do not agree?
    Mr. Cook: First, I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point, which is exactly why I went to Belgrade the week after the killings. That is also why the contact group met within two weeks of the killings, and why the British presidency ensured that all the sanctions that were approved by the contact group on 9 March were fully implemented by the European Union within 10 days. We have acted, and we have acted with speed.
    Three major sanctions are now in place against Belgrade: first, the arms embargo, which the Security Council has now cleared; secondly, a ban on visas for senior members of the Belgrade authorities; and thirdly, a freeze on credits for investment or participation in privatisations by the Serbian Government—that is vital because that is the way in which Mr. Milosevic pays for his police activities. We are committed to a further meeting at the end of the month, when we shall review progress.
    On observance, we have repeatedly pressed for Pristina and Kosovo to be open to an international presence. I am pleased that, because of contact group pressure, the Red Cross was able to visit the area and to monitor what is happening. Our embassy in Belgrade regularly and routinely visits Kosovo.

    Yugoslavia
    Mr. John Home Robertson: If he will make a statement on progress towards stability and democracy in the former Yugoslavia. [36534]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): We have witnessed considerable progress over recent months, particularly in Bosnia and Herzegovina since the elections in Republika Srpska last November. However, there remains a lot to be done to enhance stability before any of the countries of that region can claim to be fully democratic.
    Mr. Home Robertson: My hon. Friend may be aware that I have a little experience of the conflict in Bosnia. Surely the main lesson to be learned from that is that the west must take a tough line on extreme nationalism in every part of Yugoslavia. I welcome the comments that my right hon. Friend made about Serb excesses in Kosovo, but may I urge my hon. Friend not to lose sight of the appalling record of the Croatian authorities, not only in Bosnia but in Krajina? Will he take this opportunity to condemn President Tudjman's latest outburst, which keeps him very much in the same nationalistic stable as Slobodan Milosevic? Does he agree that there can be no question of Croatia's joining the family of European nations under that kind of leadership?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend rightly points out the disgraceful speech that President Tudjman made to his party congress in February, in which he played to the most unpleasant nationalistic sentiments, not only of his fellow countrymen but of the Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina. That speech was condemned throughout the European Union. We have made it clear to President Tudjman and his Government that any movement towards Europe depends on a genuinely multi-ethnic settlement within his country, on the return of Serb refugees and others to their traditional areas, on a serious attempt at a process of reconciliation, and on a crackdown on the ethnic violence that continues to disfigure Croatia.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: On the same theme, does the Minister agree that it is vital that the Croatian Government allow Serbs to return to their former homes in Krajina and eastern Slovenia? Would not that free up homes in Bosnia and Herzegovina for other returnees? Is the Minister absolutely satisfied that the Government are doing all that they can to put pressure on the Croatian Government to remove that logjam?
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is right. There is no doubt that the return of refugees is vital to the proper and full implementation of the Dayton agreement. President Tudjman is one of the parties to that agreement. It is right and proper that Serbs should be allowed to return to Croatia because it would allow the process to take place throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina, where places would be liberated by Serbs returning to Croatia. The international community is apprised of the need to put pressure on President Tudjman and his Government. A conference will soon be held in Banja Luka to deal with refugee return throughout the region. We demand that the Croatian Government play a constructive part there as well as in Croatia.

    Ambassadors
    Siobhain McDonagh: If he will issue guidance to ambassadors to promote the creative talent of Britain. [36538]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): Our ambassadors already promote Britain' s creative talent as part of their general role in export promotion and public diplomacy, but we have nevertheless been examining closely what more we can do. Bodies such as Panel 2000, the creative industries task force, and the creative industries export promotion advisory group bring together the public and private sectors to work out a strategy for developing the export potential of the creative industries. Our missions abroad will have an integral part to play in implementing that strategy.
    Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he assure the House that the effective change that the Government made will be communicated to all our ambassadors overseas?
    Mr. Fatchett: Our ambassadors are keen to play a full part. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet our ambassador in Lisbon, who is responsible for the Expo there later this year. The whole House will be delighted by the preparations made for the British involvement in that Expo, and a great deal of credit must go to our ambassador and his team.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Will the Minister ensure that he commends the activities of the British Council, the traditional role of which has been to ensure that both contemporary and traditional Britain is better valued and respected around the world, not only through its English language and educational scholarships, but through the promotion of creativity, culture and British values?
    Mr. Fatchett: I am delighted to join the right hon. Lady in singing the praises of the British Council. I have always been impressed by its work, which I have seen in many parts of the world. I hope that it can build on the secure foundations that this Government are offering it, unlike the previous Government, whose cuts in the British Council budget made it difficult for it to plan ahead.

    Exports
    Mrs. Betty Williams: What steps he is taking to promote British exports. [36539]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): We, and the Department of Trade and Industry, are implementing the recommendations of the export forum. This includes a new internet-based sales leads service; the export explorer scheme for new and inexperienced exporters wanting to do business in western Europe; the largest ever programme of trade fairs and missions for 1998–99; and the new support for exhibitions and seminars abroad initiative.
    In addition, we have introduced a new scheme of short-term attachments of business people to our overseas posts, and 37 senior business leaders have agreed to act as ambassadors for British business.
    Mrs. Williams: I congratulate the Minister on the measures that have been taken. We all understand the difficult export conditions that we face at the moment.

    149
    Can he announce today what plans he has to build on the successful work of his private sector advisers, and say whether he intends to recruit more?
    Mr. Fatchett: We are very much enjoying our relationship with the private sector through the business ambassador scheme. It is in its early days, but all the signs are that it will be a great success. Indeed, those from the private sector who have been involved in the scheme see the value of it and wish to continue to participate actively and effectively in future.
    Mr. James Paice: Is it not pretty pointless trying to encourage exports when the British export industry is being crucified by the value of sterling? Much of British industry and agriculture is already on the verge of recession. Is not it time that the Government said loudly and clearly that it is not in the interests of those who will be in the single currency, or those who will be outside it, that the entry criteria should be fudged in the way intended?
    Mr. Fatchett: It has not taken the Conservative party long in opposition to start to run down the efforts of British exporters. It is about time that Conservative Members recognised the success of British exports and started to work out their own policy. They have to tell the country whether they are in favour of the boom and bust that existed under their stewardship of the economy or whether they do not want the Bank of England to have the independence that it currently enjoys. I want to hear exactly what their policy is.
    Ms Joan Walley: May I remind my hon. Friend that every time he walks to the Chamber from Central Lobby, he does so by stepping on tiles manufactured in Stoke-on-Trent? I draw his attention to the importance of giving support to ceramic industry exports. Can he give any encouragement to visits from business people across north Staffordshire to promote our local exports?
    Mr. Fatchett: We recognise the importance of the industry to which my hon. Friend refers, and we will continue to give substantial support. My earlier point about extensive support in terms of trade missions and seminars will be helpful to the industry. I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend will find Opposition Members' comments about the plight of Britain's manufacturing industry rather strange when during their stewardship, millions of jobs were lost in British manufacturing industry. They have to answer for their own record, and it is about time that they did so.
    Mr. David Faber: The truth is that Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers are now competing with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see who can do maximum damage to British exporting. Can the Minister confirm that the export control organisation in the Department of Trade and Industry has suffered an administrative nightmare since the Government came into office? However commendable the objective of the proposed European code of conduct on arms sales, will not the code as drafted simply hand on a plate to other countries the orders for which this country has refused a

    150
    licence? Under the draft code, will not we be obliged to tell other countries when we have refused a licence, but be powerless to prevent them from fulfilling the same order?
    Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman's question tells us a great deal about the Conservative party. The fact is that it has not learnt from the years of the Scott report. All he is saying is that Conservative Members want to get rid of all the restrictions on licensing arms exports. They would sell to anybody at any time, without any moral or foreign policy guidance. The hon. Gentleman's question has told us exactly where the Conservative party stands.
    Ms Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that we must strike a balance between the needs of British exporters and human rights? In Hong Kong, for instance, although the transition has proceeded reasonably smoothly, human rights issues still exist. The elections that will take place on 24 May will not be held under a system of straightforward universal suffrage. Does my hon. Friend agree that the importance of exports to China should not be allowed to overshadow our on-going moral responsibility to the people of Hong Kong?
    Mr. Fatchett: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I have no doubt that she will endorse the Government's policy. It can be demonstrated that, in our relations with China and with Hong Kong, we have been able to promote both a trade agenda and a human rights agenda. My hon. Friend can catch up with what we have done by referring to the list of human rights achievements that I gave in the House last week. We have made a number of substantial achievements in the human rights dialogue with China, and we will continue to do so. One important achievement is that China has agreed to report directly to the United Nations on human rights in Hong Kong.

    Israel
    Mr. Eric Pickles: If he will make a statement on current relations between the UK and Israel. [36540]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): We enjoy a full range of contacts with Israel. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is looking forward to his visit to Israel later this month as part of a tour of the middle east.
    Mr. Pickles: Does the Minister agree that the United Kingdom remains a firm friend of Israel, and that one of the duties of a friend is sometimes to give unpalatable advice? On reflection, does he feel that the conduct of his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary — in terms of the mixture, or balance, of those whom he met, and in terms of the choice of location and the language used—precluded Britain from taking such a position of influence, because it was undiplomatic? What advice will the Minister offer the Prime Minister to repair the damage that the Foreign Secretary did to Israeli-British relations?
    Mr. Fatchett: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's visit was a success, and I have every confidence that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to Israel will be a similar success.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Through my hon. Friend, let me congratulate my right hon. Friend the

    151
    Foreign Secretary on his recent visit to the middle east. It is clear from the reports from both Israel and Arab countries that the visit was an unqualified success.
    Does my hon. Friend agree that the one thing that we need to know about foreign policy in the middle east is that those who have dealings with the parties there must be honest, straightforward and truthful? Is he, like me, saddened by the fact that Opposition Back Benchers seem to have given up on the bilateral agreement that we reached across the Floor of the House, and that they, more than anyone else, are likely to undermine the influence of Britain and the European Union in the middle east, where it is essential?
    Mr. Fatchett: I am delighted to say that we are not responsible for the behaviour of Opposition Back Benchers. That task would be too great for even this Government.
    My hon. Friend is right. We have in the European Union a clear statement of principles. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary always acted in accordance with those principles: that is why his conduct and his visit to the middle east were endorsed by European Union Foreign Ministers. We have been able to show that Europe can make a significant contribution to the peace process.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Minister recognise the incredulity with which members of my party have observed the Foreign Secretary patting himself on the back for the success of his visit, with typically lickspittle Liberal Democrat support? Does he not recall that his visit was summed up by a leader in The Times in two words—"diplomatic disaster"? Does he not realise that members of all parties in the House, whatever they may say publicly, are secretly relieved—given the contribution that the Foreign Secretary made to that peace process—that he is not involved in the current attempted peace process in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Fatchett: I think that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will accept that that question was unworthy even of his own normal standards.
    Throughout the lifetime of this Government, we have said that we have a keen commitment to the peace process, and we will continue that commitment. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that the only way in which to make progress in the middle east is to ensure that we push the peace process forward. That is what we want to do. Rather than making cheap, snide comments from the Back Benches—or, indeed, from the Front Bench—we want to get on with the real agenda. We are engaged in that, and will continue to be engaged in it.
    Mr. David Winnick: I have supported the state of Israel since its establishment 50 years ago, and have defended its right to combat aggression and terror like any other state, but is my hon. Friend aware that many of us are deeply disappointed at the actions of the current Israeli Government? Is not it absolutely clear that home truths should be told to the Israelis, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has done, and that there can be no justice in the middle east until the Palestinian people have a state of their own, alongside the Jewish state?
    Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is right to say that there can be no peace in the middle east until there is justice
    152
    and security for Israelis and Palestinians, and that is the objective to which my right hon. Friend and the Government are working.

    EU Enlargement
    Mr. William Cash: If he will make a statement on EU enlargement following the European conference in London on 12 March. [36542]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): The European conference successfully held its first meeting in London on 12 March. Last week in Brussels, we launched accession partnerships with the central Europeans and Cyprus, and the European Union has opened accession negotiations with the six countries that are ready to proceed.
    We are embarked on the largest expansion in the history of the EU. The enthusiasm of 11 more countries to become members of it demonstrates their view of its success as the basis for prosperity and security. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will endorse their view.
    Mr. Cash: Cannot the Foreign Secretary see that the results of the proposed enlargement are reflected in opinion polls, for example, in Poland, which show decreased enthusiasm for deeper integration? That is the direct result of the rumbling of the fact that the new Europe, which new Labour is encouraging in its presidency, is an over-centralised, undemocratic, unaccountable Europe, which is going in exactly the opposite direction to that in which the people of central and eastern Europe really want to go.
    Mr. Cook: I am not sure how the hon. Gentleman has spent the past year; the thrust of Government policy is to decentralise rather than to over-centralise, in plain contrast to the policy of the previous Conservative Government. As to lack of democracy, more people have attended open meetings of European Union Councils in Brussels in the first half of the British presidency than ever attended such meetings in the whole of any previous presidency. We have already set a new record for openness.
    I warmly welcome the words of the Polish Foreign Minister on returning to Warsaw—that he strongly supports the new central role that Britain is playing in Europe. If the hon. Gentleman listened to those in government in Poland, he would find that they regard his view of the EU as wholly wrong; they will carry their people with them.
    Mr. Robert N. Wareing: In Latvia and in Estonia, which is being considered for membership of the European Union, large Russian minorities are denied citizen and human rights. Does my right hon. Friend accept that there should be no question of those countries being permitted to accede to the European Union until the situation there is put to rights?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend touches on what is undoubtedly a big internal issue for Latvia and Estonia. Both countries, especially Estonia, which is in the front rank for accession to the European Union, have made

    153
    major progress towards integrating the Russian-speaking minorities, and both, especially Estonia, have matched the proposals of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe to meet its standards and recommendations on the treatment of ethnic minorities. Continued dialogue with the EU and the prospect of membership of it will greatly increase the incentive for both Governments to ensure that they complete that work and fully conform with Europe's standards of treatment of ethnic minorities.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Foreign Secretary give the House an assurance that, on the date that they are expected to join the European Union, the applicant countries will meet the same high standards of animal welfare and environmental protection as are achieved in the existing member states?
    Mr. Cook: I can assure the hon. Lady that the applicant countries must meet the full acquis of the European Union. At the point of membership, they must either be fully in conformity with all existing regulations or have tight and well-defined limits on the transition periods to achieving that. Enlargement is important precisely because the environmental standards of some central and eastern European countries are well below those of western Europe. We stand to lose as a result of the pollution and environmental hazards in those countries, so it is in our interests to bring them into the European Union and up to our standards.

    Iraq
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: What assessment he has made of the progress of weapons inspectors in Iraq since the UN Secretary-General's agreement with Saddam Hussein. [36544]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): I am satisfied that Iraq has so far adhered to the commitments it gave to the United Nations Secretary-General on 23 February. At present, it is allowing weapons inspections to proceed in line with its obligations under relevant Security Council resolutions.
    Mr. Blizzard: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Given the current situation, compared with that of just a few months ago, has not the Government's policy of taking a tough stance with Saddam Hussein been completely vindicated? Has not that policy improved peace prospects in that part of the globe?
    Mr. Fatchett: I agree with my hon. Friend. The position taken by the Government and supported by the other political parties in the House was the right one to take. When he was in Baghdad, Kofi Annan acknowledged that the threat of force helped in the negotiations. It is in all our interests for the agreement to be adhered to, and we shall continue to monitor the situation closely.
    Mr. Tim Collins: Given what the Minister has just said, will he continue to resist the requests of some Labour Members, which were aired yesterday in Defence questions, to withdraw British forces from the Gulf? Will he instead keep them in place and
    154
    reinforce them until we can be clear that Saddam Hussein is living up to the spirit and the letter of all agreements with the United Nations?
    Mr. Fatchett: I had a meeting last week with Richard Butler of UNSCOM, who told me what was happening on the ground and that UNSCOM was able to carry out its work. It is important that we maintain our vigilance: we must be cautious and must not become over-optimistic about the delivery of the agreement. We want the agreement to be honoured, and it is important that we free Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. It is essential for UNSCOM to get on with its work unfettered.

    Nigeria
    Mr. Keith Hill: What assessment he has made of progress towards democratic civilian government in Nigeria; and if he will make a statement. [36545]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): We, along with the European Union, the Commonwealth and other partners, are following closely General Abacha's transition to civil rule. To date, we have concluded that in the absence of freedom of association or speech, and while the draft constitution of 1995 remains unpublished, there has been no real progress towards the restoration of democracy.
    Mr. Hill: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does it remain the Government's policy that it will not be acceptable to Britain for General Abacha to transform himself into a civilian president?
    Mr. Lloyd: We have always made it clear that the decision about who should be president must rest with the Nigerian people on the basis of a free and transparently fair electoral system. Those requirements have still not been met. We have appealed to the Nigerian Government to ensure that those conditions are put in place, but we are still waiting for real progress in that direction.
    Mr. Bob Russell: While everyone is attempting to bring civilian rule back to Nigeria, is it helpful to deport Nigerians from this country back to a country where, as we have just been told, civilian democracy does not exist?
    Mr. Lloyd: The question of refugees is a matter for the Home Office. Conditions in Nigeria have led to the detention of journalists, the erosion of civil rights and the deaths of some people in prison. Unfortunately, those conditions also create a lively traffic in people who use the asylum system to pursue other ends. Sadly, they do so at the expense of the genuine refugees to whom this country would willingly give shelter.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Minister agree that it is important that international human rights organisations and delegations from other human rights groups should have an opportunity to visit Nigeria to assess for themselves prison conditions and the treatment of people there? Will he do what he can to encourage the Nigerian high commission and the Nigerian Government to lay themselves open to the kind of

    155
    international humanitarian examination that the regime certainly needs, in terms of looking at prison conditions and the lack of freedom of association, which the Minister rightly mentioned in an earlier answer?
    Mr. Lloyd: We know that prison conditions in Nigeria are not good. That is evident from the recent death of Shehu Musa Yar'Adua, who was a soldier of great integrity and whose death was widely mourned by, I think, the overwhelming majority of decent Nigerians. The Nigerian Human Rights Commission has itself criticised conditions in the prisons. My hon. Friend is right to say that it would be in the interests of all Nigerians and, indeed, in the end the Nigerian Government to make the process much more transparent. Sadly, I must record that I do not think that they are prepared to take that direction at the moment.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does the Minister agree that the Nigerian people had their say and elected a president, and that General Abacha is simply a crook who did not want to give up the chance of continuing to line his pockets? Her Majesty's Government should treat him in that way and should not dignify him with the title of President of Nigeria.
    Mr. Lloyd: There certainly was an election in 1993 and the international community as well as Nigerians believed that it was probably the fairest election that Nigeria had ever had. It certainly produced in Chief Abiola a person who was widely seen to be the victor. For his heinous crime of winning the election, Chief Abiola has languished in prison almost ever since. It is an outrage that he, together with General Obasanjo and 20 Ogonis, are held as political prisoners. We call on the Nigerians to release those in prison and to lay the foundations for a proper electoral process for the Nigerian people who are sovereign in the destiny of that country.

    Iraq
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Pursuant to his oral answer of 18 March 1998, Official Report, column 1266, if he will assess the advantages of lifting the embargo on the export of pumping equipment to Iraq; and what proposals he has to assist Iraq in improving the quality of water for domestic consumption. [36546]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): Paragraph 12 of Security Council resolution 1153 requests the Secretary-General to establish a group of experts to assess Iraq's ability to export sufficient petroleum or petroleum products to finance the expanded oil-for-food programme. On the basis of the group's recommendations, authorisation may be given for certain equipment to be imported to enable Iraq to increase oil output. Some of the proceeds under the expanded oil-for-food programme, which was set up by resolution 1153, will be available for rehabilitation of water and sanitation infrastructures.
    Mr. Dalyell: In view of the likelihood of the havoc that could be created by waterborne disease among the
    156
    children of Iraq, is not it a matter of great urgency for pumps to be repaired? What is the perceived danger in the export of pumping equipment?
    Mr. Fatchett: I remind my hon. Friend of the answer that I have just given, which is that, under the new procedures of resolution 1153, it is possible to satisfy some of the needs to which he refers. The matter will be controlled and regulated under the Security Council resolution. My hon. Friend may also be keen to know that, as part of its EU presidency, the United Kingdom is organising a conference on humanitarian aid to the people of Iraq. That will take place later this month and will give us the opportunity to bring together organisations from various countries which are working under the auspices of the United Nations. Hopefully, they will address some of the issues to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is highly desirable for the embargoes to be lifted as soon as that is conveniently and suitably possible? Does he also agree that the Annan agreement on the weapons inspectors has meant that, because of the burden of work, the weapons inspectors will take longer than before to do the deal which, the Minister rightly says, needs to be done thoroughly? What steps can he take to assist Richard Butler and his weapons inspectors to speed up their inspections so that the embargoes may safely be lifted?
    Mr. Fatchett: I have every confidence in Richard Butler and his team. They are getting on with their work to the best of their ability and at the speed at which they are allowed to proceed by the Iraqi regime. We shall certainly encourage them to move as quickly as possible, but the objective for all of us is to ensure that Iraq is free of weapons of mass destruction. That is the responsibility of the UNSCOM inspectors. The simple truth, which the hon. Gentleman recognised in his question, is that had Saddam Hussein complied with Security Council resolutions many years ago, all of these issues would have been resolved, and Iraq would have been free of sanctions and of weapons of mass destruction.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: What checks are in place to ensure that invoices relating to equipment imported by the Iraqis under the resolutions reflect the real export value from the countries of origin? Is not there a danger that unless proper checks are in place, over-invoicing of equipment will simply lead to moneys effectively being pooled by Iraqi business men and Ministers abroad?
    Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. If the system is working in the way he fears, we would certainly wish to hear evidence to substantiate his concerns. We are keen to make sure that the sanctions regime is fair and efficient—it should be fair to the ordinary people of Iraq, but should also allow the United Nations to meet its objectives and targets. Certainly, we do not wish to see the system bypassed in the way that my hon. Friend fears or in any other way. Again, if he has any useful information, I would be delighted to see it.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Michael Howard: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber), the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), said that it was the Opposition's policy to scrap all licences for the export of defence equipment. There is no basis for that statement, and the Minister of State knows that there is no basis for that statement. Will you now give him the opportunity to withdraw it?
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that it is not. It is a question of argument. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to table another question to the Foreign Office Minister, he is at liberty to do so, but it is not a point of order at this stage.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In answer to my question, the Foreign Secretary said that he was not making a statement on his visit to the middle east because the visit did not involve any change of policy. He was seeking to justify not making a statement on the ground—
Hon. Members: Order.
Madam Speaker: Order. I will hear points of order and make up my own mind whether they are valid. Mr. Hogg, I will hear you out.
Mr. Hogg: The Foreign Secretary was seeking to justify not making a statement on the ground that his visit to the middle east did not involve a change of policy. Will you please confirm, Madam Speaker, that, for very many years, Foreign Secretaries, other Foreign Ministers and, indeed, other Ministers have reported to the House on their overseas visits, notwithstanding the fact that those visits did not involve a change of policy? Will you also confirm that the Foreign Secretary's statement involves a change in practice which is very undesirable because it diminishes the accountability of Ministers?
Madam Speaker: I heard the exchange, and I wholly understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point
158
of order. It is true that ministerial statements need not be confined to changes of Government policy. There are many occasions when senior Ministers have made a visit abroad, and when the House has had a right to expect a statement on their return.
Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In spite of the concern expressed in all quarters of the House, and in spite of the representations made in debate and by letter, the BBC is persisting with its plans to change the broadcasting of Parliament. I know that you have written on behalf of the whole House on this issue. Is your correspondence in the Library? If not, would you be good enough to place it there?
Mr. David Winnick: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it not obvious that the BBC has shown total contempt for the views that have been expressed in the House and by many people outside, and for the representations that have been made, including, of course, by you? Should we not make it clear to the BBC that we are not simply concerned with the recording of our debates, but that we feel that people who want to listen—and listen on the most convenient channel—should be able to do so and should not be dictated to by the BBC? What sort of freedom would the BBC have if parliamentary democracy did not exist?
Madam Speaker: What is important to me is that the reporting of Parliament is available to as wide a listening audience as possible. On the BBC's own admission, the listening audience for "Yesterday in Parliament" and "The Week in Westminster" will be halved once the changes are made. I talked recently to the BBC chairman. The correspondence following that meeting is available to all hon. Members in the Library.

BILL PRESENTED
  LICENSING (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Paul Truswell presented a Bill to amend section 169 of the Licensing Act 1964 so that any person selling alcohol to persons under the age of 18 on licensed premises commits an offence: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 24 April, and to be printed [Bill 170].

Football Sponsorship Levy
3.35 pm
Gillian Merron: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Football Levy Board with powers to impose levies on football organisations and to allocate sums for the benefit of association football.
Parliament needs to take a lead, where others have failed, to tackle the ever-growing financial divide between super-rich clubs and the rest. If action is not taken soon, dozens of smaller clubs may go to the wall, dragging down with them the prosperity and well-being of the local communities that they represent.
I welcome the Government's commitment to supporting our national game through committing £20 million to the Football Trust to improve the stadiums of clubs below the Premiership, and I welcome also the action to tackle racism, but hon. Members on both sides of the House, as evidenced by the 155 hon. Members who have already signed my early-day motion, want to be able to applaud the Government for more. My Bill seeks to offer that opportunity through the establishment of an independent representative board to distribute television money more fairly.
If politics is to re-empower the disempowered, replacing disillusion with faith and commitment, football is as good a place to start as any. My Bill tackles the whole unfair business of football wealth. Football is awash with money. In the past few years, hundreds of millions of pounds have come into the game through lucrative sponsorship deals, stock market flotations, merchandising and, above all, television deals. That television exposure has been the key to unlocking the millions from those other sources, with the lion's share of the money going to Premiership clubs, which set themselves up as an elite group to cream off Sky TV money.
I do not wish to offend hon. Members who support Premiership teams, but the Premiership was founded on greed. As time passes, we see also the greed of people who have a passion for making vast amounts of money, rather than for football. That is a source of aggravation and despair for fans of Premiership clubs, who want football to flourish and to be given back to the fans.
This problem runs the length and breadth of Britain, but, if we consider the example of England and Wales, we can contrast the £200 million a year broadcasting money that is shared between 20 Premiership clubs, with the £20 million a year that is shared between 24 division one clubs, leaving the crumbs of £5 million to be scattered among the 48 divisions two and three clubs: for Lincoln City £104,000; for Spurs £10 million. At a meeting tomorrow, Nationwide first division clubs will seek to grab a bigger slice of the television cake. That cannot go on.
If the already uneven distribution of broadcasting money becomes even more uneven, genuine competition will be stifled throughout the game. Football thrives on competition. It depends on the art of the possible. With the right mix of skill, tactics, stamina, luck and sound finances, a small club can clamber up the football mountain.
The smaller clubs are being clobbered in many ways. The knock-on effect of the rich clubs being made richer by television wealth is the upward spiralling of wages and
160
transfer fees. I hope that hon. Members do not begrudge top-quality players the rich rewards that they deserve, particularly in such a short career, but the upward spiral of wages means that smaller clubs living on the edge have to offer wages that they can ill afford, because if they do not, somebody else will. On top of that, midweek televised football reduces the gates at the smaller clubs while the top clubs benefit.
Why should we be bothered about smaller league clubs—the Lincoln Citys, the Burnleys and the Bournemouths? There will be plenty of others to support, and hours of football on the television to enjoy. The reason why we should be bothered is my motivation in bringing forward the Bill.
Smaller clubs make a unique contribution to the economic and community life of their towns and cities, as I have seen in Lincoln. Around Lincoln City, affectionately known as the Imps, after the mischievous Lincoln imp in the cathedral, is a whole industry which touches our lives beyond the outcome of the match.
However, let us not minimise the impact of winning or losing on a community. At the most recent home game, I felt a dampening of the spirits at the Imps' 1-0 defeat at the feet of Colchester. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) will not support that point. Some say that losing a game is like losing an election. It is not; it is worse.
Mr. John M. Taylor: No, it is not.
Gillian Merron: For some, it is.
Lincoln City football club has spawned three websites, two fanzines—The Deranged Ferret and The Yellow Belly—an all-weather pitch, social and leisure facilities which we can all use, its own band featuring Ringo the drummer, in case anyone wondered where he went to, and a plethora of sponsorship deals ranging from those with big companies such as European Gas Turbines and the Lincolnshire Echo, down to sponsoring the boots of the club's longest-serving player, Grant Brown, which I do.
If you were fortunate enough to come to Lincoln on a match day, Madam Speaker, you could enjoy the nationally acclaimed and now legendary hot pork rolls. There is a whole economy, industry and community based around the local football club, which gives so much back through its community programme, its education programme and its charity work.
As David Kilpatrick, chairman of Rochdale football club, has said:
"How far do you want to be obsessed with always being the biggest and the best? There is a place for doing what you do at your level to the best of your ability, and I don't see anything wrong in that."
Let us not forget the career opportunities and the hopes and dreams offered every year by the smaller clubs to hundreds of talented youngsters. The super-rich teams cannot fill their sides with overseas talent for ever.
There will always be people who want to support a successful and famous team, but what is support? Is it buying the latest replica kit and the glossy club magazine, seeing the team on television, but rarely, if ever, watching it because it is too expensive; or is it watching the local team through thick and thin and feeling part of that club? The passion felt by supporters of smaller clubs is more

161
heartfelt, not less. A spectator is just as likely to see an enthralling encounter in the third division as in the Premiership.
For football to remain vibrant and solid in the local economy and community, there must be strength outside the Premiership. Mr. John Reames, chairman of my local football club, warns bluntly and correctly that the future of football as we know it is at stake right now. I ask hon. Members to support the Bill to serve the millions of people in hundreds of constituencies throughout the land for whom football, our national game, and all that goes with it, is key to their communities and lives.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Gillian Merron, Mr. John Heppell, Mr. Vernon Coaker, Liz Blackman, Mr. Russell Brown, Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe, Mrs. Joan Humble, Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mrs. Teresa Gorman and Mr. Lembit Öpik.

FOOTBALL SPONSORSHIP LEVY
Gillian Merron accordingly presented a Bill to establish a Football Levy Board with powers to impose levies on football organisations and to allocate sums for the benefit of association football: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 July, and to be printed [Bill 171].
Orders of the Day

  National Lottery Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.45 pm
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I am very pleased to open this debate on the National Lottery Bill. It is a Bill of which I am extremely proud, both for what it contains and for what it symbolises. It contains an agenda for radical reform of the way in which the lottery is regulated and the way in which lottery money is distributed. It is a very tangible example of the Government's commitment to reform and to keeping their election promises. The themes that underpin the Bill— excellence, access, education and the recognition of the value of creative and cultural activity to the country's economic and social well-being—are also the themes that run through all my Department's policies. So the Bill sets the stage for use of the lottery to assist more people in more ways and with greater fairness. I am astonished that Conservative Members cannot see the value in that.
  I have two very simple aims in seeking to reform the lottery: first, to ensure that people have confidence in the way in which the lottery is run and regulated, and, secondly, to ensure that people have confidence that the money that it raises goes where it is needed and to meet their priorities.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: So soon? Of course.
  Mr. Hawkins: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many of us on the Conservative Benches have reservations about what he is doing, because he is setting out to undermine the additionality principle on which so many of his hon. Friends, particularly the Minister for Sport, insisted when the lottery was set up?
  Mr. Smith: I should have run a sweepstake on when that question would first arise in the debate because, of course, it is the common and rather tired theme of Conservative Members. I shall quote to the hon. Gentleman a passage in the reply given to the Select Committee on National Heritage, as it then was, in July 1996 by the then Secretary of State for National Heritage, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley). She said very clearly —this is the precise definition of additionality:
  "Lottery funds are not intended to substitute for funds which would otherwise have been provided by conventional public expenditure".
  We stand firmly by that principle; there is nothing in the Bill that undermines it.
  The Bill goes a long way to creating a lottery that achieves the aims of greater confidence that I have set out. As I shall point out, there is much else that we are doing besides legislation to bring about our vision of a people's lottery. I should like to deal first with the operation and regulation of the lottery.

  163
  The national lottery has generated nearly £5 billion for the good causes since its launch in 1994, and we confidently predict that that will rise to £10 billion by the end of Camelot's licence in September 2001.
  I pay a word of tribute to the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), whom I am pleased to see in his place, for having had the courage to come forward with the proposal for the lottery in the first place. The lottery has become part of national life, and it is vital that it be an enterprise that we can be proud of, not one that provides a constant stream of headlines for the wrong reasons.
  There has, I fear, been a shadow hanging over the lottery since the libel trial involving Branson and Snowden earlier this year. I am determined that that shadow shall be lifted. We have long been concerned about whether the arrangements set in place by the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 were the best guarantee of effective regulation, and whether they provided the objectivity, independence and transparency that the public rightly demand.
  The Bill, as introduced in another place, recognised the importance of widening the experience and expertise brought to bear on the selection of the lottery operator. It therefore made provision for an advisory panel to help the director general with that task.
  Re-examining the matter, however, and in the light of recent events, I have concluded that there is more that we can do to ensure that the public can have confidence in the independence and objectivity of the regulator. In particular, I have concluded that a move away from a focus on a particular individual will help to remove any possible criticism to the effect that conflicts of interest, actual or perceived, threaten effective regulation.
  I therefore intend, as I announced in reply to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) last week, to introduce amendments to the Bill to replace the post of director general with a new National Lottery Commission. The commission, which will consist of five members, will take on the same statutory functions and duties as the director general now has. Its role will be to ensure that the lottery is run and promoted with all due propriety, and that the interests of all players are protected—and, subject to those duties, to do its best to secure the best possible return for the good causes.
  In appointing commissioners, I shall look for people with a mixture of relevant expertise, knowledge and experience—of the lottery market, of business and industry, of consumer representation and of the interests of players. Above all, I shall look for people of the highest integrity. They will be responsible for awarding all licences, for ensuring compliance with the conditions of those licences, and for maintaining the nation's confidence in the institution of the lottery.
  1 shall ensure that the commissioners are appointed following an open and transparent selection process. The commission will be the people's watchdog, the guardian of the people's money.
  Mr. Alan Williams: I am sure that the commission that my right hon. Friend has in mind will remove some of the danger of conflicts of interest. However, as I am sure he is aware, questions are now being asked about the National Audit Office's rights of access, not to Camelot but to documentation and records
  164
  held by the regulator, who is a public servant. That is a new issue. I shall not go into detail at this stage, but will my right hon. Friend ensure that the matter is clarified before the Committee stage, so that we are sure that the National Audit Office, the watchdog for Parliament, has full and appropriate access to the regulator's records?
  Mr. Smith: Yes. We intend to address that matter in detail in Committee. The precise provisions have, of course, to be agreed by the National Audit Office and to be properly put together—but we shall introduce amendments to secure the sort of access that my right hon. Friend and the Public Accounts Committee have in mind.
  The commission will be supported in its work by the existing Oflot staff, and the amendments will provide for their employment by the commission on the same terms and conditions as govern their current employment.
  None of what I propose should be taken as any criticism of the acting director general or his staff, whose professionalism and commitment are not in question. Through all the recent events, John Stoker has acted effectively and professionally. I had every confidence in him when he took over in February, and that confidence was not misplaced. He has taken a properly robust approach.
  I am glad that Camelot has sensed the mood of the country and decided to remove GTech as a shareholder and board member. The new commission will have in its armoury the power already contained in the Bill to fine licence holders. That fills a gap that was highlighted by the Public Accounts Committee, and any fines levied will go to the good causes, not the Treasury.
  Mr. Damian Green: The Secretary of State said that he expects £10 billion to be raised over the course of Camelot's licence. Given what he said about GTech, does he think that that £10 billion will still be raised if the acting director general decides that GTech is no longer fit to be a supplier of equipment to Camelot?
  Mr. Smith: The acting director general is currently considering that matter, and we expect his judgment very shortly. Until then, it would not be sensible to consider such hypothetical matters.
  Before Opposition Members do so, let me draw attention to something that is not in the Bill. Look as hard as one will, one will not find any mention of a not-for-profit operator; nor will one find any mention of a for-profit operator. We said in our manifesto that we would seek a not-for-profit operator for the next licence, and we remain committed to that objective.
  There is no need to change the existing legislation to bring that about. We can achieve our aim entirely within the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. Let me stress that, in seeking a not-for-profit operator and assessing any other proposals, the National Lottery Commission will have one overriding aim: to ensure that the lottery delivers the best possible return for the good causes. I remain committed to our manifesto pledge, and that will be clear when we advertise the next operator's licence.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I welcome the proposal for a commission of several people to regulate the lottery, but is the Secretary of State willing to consider separating the

  165
  function of selection of the operator from the function of regulation? In a written answer, he said that he was aware of the risk of regulatory capture, and it is desirable that the regulator should be seen to be at arm's length.
  Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point, and we considered carefully whether we should have one body, person or system for selecting the operator and another for monitoring the continuing operation of the lottery, but there are two problems with such a solution.
  First, during the lifetime of a licence there will be other licences, particularly section 6 licences, to be determined, and the question would arise whether the original body or the continuing body should make those decisions.
  Secondly, the information that a regulator gathers during the decision-making process on the selection of the operator is invaluable in protecting the interests of the public and informing the regulatory process through the course of the licence.
  Because we were concerned about regulatory capture, we decided to adopt the proposal of a commission rather than a single regulator. It is much more difficult to secure such capture when one has a commission rather than a single person to deal with. Though the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) has a valid point, we have considered carefully the arguments for and against proceeding down that road. We think that our solution is the best in the circumstances.
  Mr. Hawkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
  The Bill establishes a sixth good cause and a new lottery distributor, the New Opportunities Fund. The new good cause will direct lottery money into projects related to health, education and, in due course, the environment. The first three initiatives supported by the new good cause were announced before the general election and massively endorsed by those responding to our White Paper last July. Only yesterday, I was at a meeting of voluntary organisations in Telford and received overwhelming support for our precise proposals.
  Mr. Hawkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: If the hon. Gentleman wants to do a jack-in-the-box act, I am happy to let him in again.
  Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. Before he moves too far from the issue of a not-for-profit operation, will he acknowledge that, when the lottery operating bids were considered, it was clear that the not-for-profit bid would not have raised as much money for good causes as the bid that was selected? Is not the most important thing how much money goes to good causes, and not his party's dogmatic opposition to the concept of profit?
  Mr. Smith: Just two minutes ago—I can quote it exactly—I said:
  "Let me stress that, in seeking a not-for-profit operator and assessing any other proposals, the National Lottery Commission will have one overriding aim: to ensure that the lottery delivers the best possible return for the good causes."
  I cannot answer for the hon. Gentleman's hearing, but his intelligence seems to be lacking.
  We have already made much progress in setting out the detail of the initiatives under the New Opportunities Fund that we want to undertake: £300 million will be available between now and 2001 to train teachers and librarians in the new information and communications technology so vital to our children's futures in the next millennium; £50 million of that will help to digitise learning materials for use in schools and libraries, to be available free through the national grid for learning and the public libraries network. There will be £400 million over the next five years for out-of-school activities, including child care. That will ensure new and exciting out-of-school opportunities in at least half our secondary schools and a quarter of primary schools. They might provide maths, language or homework clubs, or the chance to take up new sports, get involved with local drama groups or learn about the local environment.
  There will be £300 million to establish a network of healthy living centres to provide practical help and advice on health, diet and fitness, on the high street or the local estate, accessible to at least 20 per cent. of the population. Only a few weeks ago, I visited a healthy living centre in Meadow Well on North Tyneside which is already helping to transform the confidence of which hard-pressed community, and the health and life expectations of many of its people. These initiatives command widespread public support, and will do much to help the lives of real people.
  That is an ambitious programme for the New Opportunities Fund. To help it get off to a flying start we have established a shadow fund. The interim chief executive took up his post last week, and other key staff have been identified. We have also advertised for the chair and members of the fund. The response has been overwhelming: more than 300 expressions of interest, the vast majority from well-qualified, experienced people eager to be part of this new and exciting enterprise. One or two of the expressions of interest have come from former Tory Members of Parliament—so perhaps the well-qualified epithet needs to be revised in a few cases.
  Unfortunately, I fear that the surviving Conservative Members have signally failed to share in the popular enthusiasm for the new good cause. They take every opportunity to tell the world that they do not like it. I am sure that we will hear the same old arguments from the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude). He will say that we have ditched the additionality principle—indeed, we have already heard that—implying, strangely, that anything proposed in health or education must be funded by the taxpayer, while arts, sport, charities and the heritage have never ever been Government responsibilities. What nonsense.
  The principle is clear. Lottery money must not replace Exchequer spending—it must add new value. We stand firm by that principle. Let us consider what the Conservatives would have done had they, by any remote

  167
  chance, been re-elected on 1 May last year. On BBC's "Sport on Four" on 7 March this year, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon said:
  "Had we won the last election, one of the things I wished to do, once the Lottery was established, was to see whether the resourcing was there to actually put sports teachers back into schools."
  Never mind the split infinitive; the Tories clearly were planning to use the lottery to pay for teachers' salaries—and they have the gall to criticise us for breaching the additionality principle.
  I also anticipate that the right hon. Member for Horsham will continue his party's pointless nitpicking about the shadow accounts that we and lottery distributors have set up, in line with the changed percentages proposed by the Bill. These arrangements are simple to understand, and just plain common sense.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: Does the Secretary of State understand that the additionality principle becomes impossible to determine in circumstances where both the Exchequer and the lottery are funding an activity? The Secretary of State talks about information technology training for existing teachers, but he must be aware that about £300 million is spent on training for existing teachers, 5 per cent. of which goes on information technology. How are the public to determine what is existing funding and what is additional lottery funding?
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman clearly is unaware of the fact that the Arts Council receives £190 million from the Exchequer each year and, in addition, receives about £250 million each year from the lottery. Yes, of course, there are organisations that receive money from the Exchequer and some additional money from the lottery, and there is no difficulty in determining which money comes from which stream.
  If the Bill is passed—as I hope and expect it will be—each of the good causes will be guaranteed at least £1.8 billion from the lottery over the lifetime of Camelot's licence; exactly what they originally expected. The extra £1 billion that we now forecast will be allocated to the new good cause and the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. In the interests of good planning, the distributors therefore agreed to run shadow accounts which show what money will be available to them if the Bill is passed. If the Bill is not passed, the shadow accounts will be ripped up.
  Money is flowing in accordance with the law as it stands, and will then flow in accordance with the changed legislation. There is no problem. However, for the Tories, there is a problem. They say that we are somehow acting unlawfully, and that the retrospective nature of the provision is entirely reprehensible. That is rich of Conservative Members. Several times in the past 18 years, the previous Government adopted an identical approach.
  Perhaps the clearest example relates to the Stamp Duty (Temporary Provisions) Act 1992. The Minister proposing that Bill told the House:
  "It is not retrospective in a substantive sense in that it does not have an effect on matters which took place before the announcement was made; so everyone who has made a transaction since we made the announcement has done so in the full knowledge of what we propose and what the consequences of his actions will be."— [Official Report, 15 January 1992; Vol. 201, c. 1074.]
  168
  The Minister who piloted that Bill through the House, and who said that to the House, was none other than the present right hon. Member for Horsham.
  On 1 October 1997, I announced our intentions. Shadow accounts were put in place from 14 October 1997. All the key players were aware of what we were doing. Parliament was informed. The distributors agreed. Lottery players knew where there their money would be going.
  Mr. Francis Maude: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: The Opposition stance on this is disingenuous, to say the least, and will continue to be so when the right hon. Gentleman intervenes.
  Mr. Maude: I anticipated that the Secretary of State would raise that issue, and I can imagine the thrill of delight, in the team meeting that he must have held at the Department, on the discovery of that fascinating precedent, which he must have thought proved his case. Sadly, it does not, because it is an utterly different case.
  On that occasion, I was talking about a retrospective measure which decided not to take from people tax that would otherwise have been taken. The Inland Revenue has always had a power, by way of extra-statutory concession, to do that. There is nothing revolutionary about that, and what I said at the time was correct.
  However, it is unprecedented for the Secretary of State to take a decision without parliamentary sanction—without legal backing—to take money from existing good causes to give to a good cause that has not even been set up. It is not even a question of waiting for the ink to dry; the thing was not even written.
  Mr. Smith: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong—and he has not been listening. We are putting in place a shadow accounting procedure, which will be activated only with the authority of Parliament—if the Bill is passed and receives Royal Assent. No money will be spent, and, if the Bill is not passed, nothing will change.
  Mr. Maude: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Smith: I add, before I give way again, that the arrangement received the approval and acceptance of all existing distributors.
  Mr. Maude: The Secretary of State is being slightly disingenuous; he is saying that this is a paper transaction. We are discussing real money, which would otherwise be available to the existing distributors to distribute, and which, because of his executive action without legal backing, will not now be available to them. There is nothing shadowy or technical about this; this is real money.
  Mr. Smith: This will be real money when the Bill becomes law. At present, it is simply an accounting procedure in preparation for the event of the Bill's becoming law. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman—who, supposedly, has a financial background— cannot understand the simple process that is in operation.

  169
  I shall now say what we are doing to improve the way in which lottery money is used to benefit good causes at the moment. The third section of the Bill—clauses 8 to 12—requires all lottery distributors to produce strategic plans showing how they intend to address the needs of their sectors. It also gives them new powers to solicit applications; to delegate decision making; to support projects in more flexible ways, such as by providing vouchers instead of grants; and to work together on joint schemes.
  Fiona Mactaggart: Those clauses are very important. Is the Secretary of State aware that, in constituencies such as mine, we have not had enough resources to make bids in the first place, and that we want help to ensure that lottery money is directed to where it is most needed?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our proposals are designed to ensure that lottery money not only gets distributed more fairly around the country but goes to meet real needs on the ground.
  Taken together, our proposals mean that we are asking and helping distributors to be more strategic and proactive in their use of lottery money. We are streamlining the applications system and helping to cut through the bureaucracy to make it easy for small community groups to find out about the lottery and receive grants.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: This is an extremely important point. Although the lottery officials in my constituency are extremely helpful in providing advice, at the end of the day, the organisations must find substantial sums of money to work up their individual schemes. Sometimes, the technical demands are such that organisations must raise the money before they are included in the selection process. As I understand it, those moneys are attached to the grant that is finally awarded, but, as my right hon. Friend said earlier, many small organisations cannot afford that seedcorn. The Rhondda and other valleys in south Wales receive little lottery money because of that problem.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The changes that we propose in the Bill will tackle those problems precisely. It is extremely interesting that, while Opposition Members are concerned—and wrongly concerned—simply about the theology of the principle of additionality, Labour Members are worried about real people in real communities up and down the country.
  Mr. Robert Key: When my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and I took the original legislation through the House, we acted on the best evidence provided by our officials. Our decisions were based not on some dogmatic dislike of what the Secretary of State is now proposing, but on strong evidence from lotteries around the world as collated by our officials. That led us to conclude that breaching the principle of additionality would reduce the revenue from and attractiveness of the lottery. That was our principle and that is why we always entrenched additionality. What has changed?
  Mr. Smith: For a start, we are not breaching the principle of additionality. I am sure that the hon.
  170
  Gentleman and his right hon. Friends brought forward the original legislation acting on the best advice available and on the best assumptions made at the time. However, I am afraid that they did not get it completely right. We are trying to correct some of the problems that have arisen since then.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: It must not become part of House of Commons folklore that, somehow or other, the Tory Government ensured that everyone got a fair crack of the whip on a regional basis. The truth is that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) checked the figures in the Library not long before the general election when the Tories were running the show. He found that the three constituencies of North-East Derbyshire, Bolsover and Chesterfield—which were represented by three left-wing Members of Parliament—were in the bottom l0 per cent. of recipients of grants handed out in Britain. On the other hand, Westminster received grants left, right and centre. The Tory party handed over the money—£12 million—for the Churchill papers. I am looking to my right hon. Friend to change that bias and award some grants to constituencies represented by my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is not quite right: the Churchill papers were bought with a grant of £13 million from the Heritage Lottery Fund. Since 1995, some 15,000 people have viewed the Churchill papers—which amounts to a cost of £840 per visitor from the fund.
  Mr. Christopher Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: No, I must make progress.
  We want to ensure that decision making on lottery funds is pushed down nearer to the grassroots. All that has been welcomed by the distributors, but another element, which is not in the Bill, is equally important if we are to ensure that people have confidence that lottery money is going where it counts.
  Under the 1993 Act, I can direct distributors on various matters that they must take into account in distributing lottery money. The policy directions that were introduced by the previous Government set a framework that is no longer appropriate. They restrict much of lottery funding to capital projects; they fail to tackle the social and geographical inequities in the system of distribution, which are apparent to us all; and they place too great an emphasis on the need for partnership funding.
  I am, therefore, pleased to announce that I have written today to the Arts and Sports Councils, the National Lottery Charities Board and the Heritage Lottery Fund, to open formal consultation on a new package of policy directions that will reflect new priorities. I am publishing those letters and the draft directions today—copies will be available in the Libraries of both Houses. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland will be writing in parallel to their arts and sports distributors with draft directions.
  The new directions establish a completely different framework for lottery funding. They shift the focus from the capital revenue debate and concentrate instead on ensuring that lottery money addresses the real needs of communities and that projects will make a real difference

  171
  over a specific period. They encourage the distributors to lend support to people and to activities, not only to bricks and mortar. They highlight the importance of promoting access to the arts, sport and heritage for people from all sections of society, wherever they live. They acknowledge, in particular, the need to focus on children and young people. They are intended to ensure a fairer geographical spread across the country.
  The directions remove the requirement for significant levels of partnership funding in every case, emphasising instead the importance of assessing each application on its merits and on the scope for in-kind contributions—for example, by involving volunteers. The directions will, for the first time, require distributors to consider how their strategies will contribute to sustainable development, and encourage them to look at what contribution they can make, through the good causes, to reducing economic and social deprivation. I am confident that the distributors will respond positively to those opportunities.
  The new framework, which I hope will be in place before the end of May, will open up the lottery for the benefit of everyone. That will mean more projects focusing on people, rather than on buildings, such as the Sports Council's support for amateur coaches or the Heritage Lottery Fund's £7 million for museums access, which is complemented by the Government-funded £2 million challenge fund to secure free admission to our great non-charging national collections.
  Part II of the Bill creates NESTA—the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. The creativity of the British people is second to none, but we do not encourage, develop or exploit it as well as we should. Too often, the talented are unable to win through, or have to go abroad to do so. NESTA will help to put that right. Following debate on the Bill in another place, we have tightened up NESTA's remit. Its aims are simple: to support and promote talent, innovation and creativity in science, technology and the arts.
  To do that, NESTA will be able to help talented individuals or groups of individuals to realise their potential and to turn good ideas into good businesses. It will also help to make everyone aware of the essential roles that science, technology and the arts play in our lives, and it will, I hope, help to break down those artificial barriers that have existed for too long between the arts and sciences. Those were false barriers in C.P. Snow's time, and in a multi-media world they are now even more irrelevant.
  We are giving NESTA a kick start with an initial endowment of £200 million from the lottery, which will immediately place it among the top 10 grant-giving endowments in the UK. NESTA will also raise funds from elsewhere and share the profits earned by individuals and projects that it has supported. The Bill allows it various tax exemptions—hard won from the Treasury—in recognition of its unique funding structure and its similarity in purpose to a charity. As with the New Opportunities Fund, we have already advertised for a chairman and members, and received an overwhelming response. Although I have often said that NESTA is a project for the 21st century, its foundation is being firmly laid in the 20th.
  Our vision for the lottery's future shows a clear difference in our politics from those of the Conservative party. It also shows how we are meeting change.
  172
  The Conservatives presided over a back-to-front lottery distribution process, which too often favoured big projects proposed by well-connected people with highly paid consultants. They did nothing to end the imbalance of lottery funding across the country. They were and are thoroughly hypocritical about additionality, especially given that most people in this country want their lottery money spent on projects related to health and education. Moreover, they are being insincere about their support for arts, sport and heritage, given that the Tories cut arts spending by £14 million in real terms over the past three years.
  By allocating an additional £5 million to the performing arts two weeks ago, I have been proud to be able to increase the arts budget for the first time in years. Today, I set out our programme for reforming the lottery to ensure that it benefits every community in the UK. Our framework will inspire confidence in the way the lottery is run and regulated, and in how the money is used. I am sure that Opposition Members will do their best to rubbish the Bill, because it is full of good ideas they wish they had thought of, and because they cannot accept that there is any room for improvement in the flawed model that they launched in 1994. There is, and I have shown exactly how we intend to go about improving it.
  Our proposals have already won wide support throughout the country. The Bill passed virtually unchanged through another place, and I hope that it can pass quickly onto the statute book so that we can get on with the job. I commend it to the House.
  4.27 pm
  Mr. Francis Maude: May I join the Secretary of State in the generous tribute that he paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)? It is good to see my right hon. Friend here, together with my right hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley). Against the background of much criticism, knocking and denigration, they did a huge amount to make the national lottery such an extraordinary success. It is ironic that their success enables this Government, with the Secretary of State as the hapless tool of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to treat the lottery as their re-election fund.
  Contrary to what the Secretary of State says, no one claims that everything about the lottery as originally set up was perfect. It would be astonishing if it were. Obviously there is scope for change and improvement. It is hundreds of years since the last national lottery in this country, and it would be extraordinary if we had got everything right the first time.
  Some of the changes in the Bill are welcome. We support some clarification of the regulator's powers, and we shall look carefully at the Secretary of State's plans for the new commission. There are clear arguments in the later part of the Bill for allowing the distributors to delegate grant making in some circumstances.
  However, most of what the Bill proposes is wrong, because it attacks the very basis on which the lottery was founded and which made it so successful. It puts at risk the success of the most successful national lottery in the world, and we shall oppose it.
  Please, let the Secretary of State spare us this insulting rubbish about it being the people's lottery supported by popular acclaim. Let us be quite clear: it is the

  173
  Government's lottery—by the Government, of the Government and for the Government. If his new commission is, as he so portentously claims, to be the people's watchdog, it is lamentable that he has now become the Chancellor's lapdog. It is the Chancellor's lottery.
  I shall speak briefly about the part that the Secretary of State rightly prefigured—a matter of some interest, the dog that did not bark, the most startling omission. Labour's manifesto contained a commitment to
  "seek a not-for-profit operator".
  In July 1996, Labour had said that the lottery
  "should be run efficiently but not for profit."
  There was no "seeking". It was a clear, hard-edged commitment. It was not at all equivocal. It was an uncharacteristically clear commitment, and, poor sap, the Secretary of State, thought so, because he doggedly went ahead and prepared the Bill on the basis that it was to enact such a provision. The real powers in the Government had not told him that they did not mean it. It was just for the birds. It was only a manifesto pledge. It was just a vehicle for
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it a parliamentary epithet that the House would regard as acceptable to describe an hon. Member as a poor sap?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): It is not unparliamentary, but I suspect that it is not language that the House would expect.
  Mr. Maude: If it is at all unparliamentary, I immediately withdraw it. It was not meant to be a phrase to denote insult; it was one of sympathy for the Secretary of State.
  The Secretary of State went ahead with the desire to enact the commitment, regarding it —as most people would have done—as clear. He had not been told that it was only a vehicle to extract every last ounce of cheap politics from the jibe about Camelot fat cat salaries. The Government did not mean for the commitment to be implemented. It was just their little joke.
  The Secretary of State had to be put right by those worldly folk at Downing street, in a letter that appeared in The Sunday Telegraph last July. It was quite a polite letter, so it probably was not written by Alastair Campbell. It made it clear that the Downing street priority—I agree with them—was to maintain the proceeds for the good causes, and any nonsense about eradicating profit was to be very much second place to that. I think that the phrase was that the new system must retain "proper incentives" for the operator to be efficient and to raise much money for good causes. When pressed, it was quite clear that what they meant were financial incentives. So we have an interesting situation: profit is definitely out, but financial incentives are in.
  The outcome of that interesting dance was a fudge so exquisite in its contradictions that it deserves to stand as a monument to new Labour's approach to government. The White Paper, when it eventually emerged, restated the manifesto pledge. It was perfectly clear, but in inverted
  174
  commas, as though it was not really to be taken too seriously—as though it were a slightly decomposing relic from the past.
  The text was far different. In place of "not for profit"—the phrase that Labour had used previously—there was now a commitment to
  "removing unnecessary profit margins".
  We have waited with bated breath for the Secretary of State to disclose how he plans to accomplish this astonishing goal. We have waited and waited. There is nothing in the Bill, so we assumed that there would be Government amendments, but there have been none so far. Now he tells us that there is to be nothing. The Bill will remain silent on it.
  So what is the answer? They have discovered something remarkable, that there is a way to remove unnecessary profit margins: invite potential operators to put in competing bids, and select the one that offers the best proposal for the good causes, with least profit to itself. It is called a tender process. It is a process which the Act already provides.
  We now wait—without much hope—for the Secretary of State to say that he is sorry; that, on reflection, the current system is fine, and he was wrong to say that the Government had changed it. What happened to the humility that was to be the hallmark of new Labour in government? Or was that just for the birds, too?
  Mr. Lansley: My right hon. Friend has referred to the existing system. The Public Accounts Committee examined the way in which the director general applied that system, and, in its report of July 1996, made clear the director general's view that applicants' intentions regarding the use of profit—and, indeed, whether a profit was made, and whether it was handed to charity—were not relevant considerations under the Act.
  Mr. Maude: It appears that there is now no agreement. I do not know why Labour had to make such a fuss about the profit element before the election, given that it has now utterly resiled from its former position. What we want is a system and an operator that will maximise the proceeds for good causes: that is what the lottery is for, for heaven's sake, and that is what the Act provides for. It is not a particularly revolutionary process. It is in the Act already, and the Secretary of State should now apologise for having run that canard so vigorously for so long.
  The Secretary of State spoke at length about additionality. I appreciate that additionality is not a subject of discussion in pubs and clubs up and down the land, but people know what is straightforward and what is not, and the introduction of the lottery was always going to be controversial. As well as concern about the endorsement of gambling, there was bound to be anxiety about how the proceeds would be used. It was possible, however, to win widespread support for the lottery, and essential to that support were its two founding principles.
  No one was more enthusiastic about those principles than the Labour party in opposition. Labour Members supported the lottery; indeed, they pressed us further, tabling amendments to entrench the system and make it more difficult for Ministers to abuse lottery money.
  The principles were clear. First, lottery proceeds should not be used to fund projects that were mainstream Government responsibilities: that is the additionality

  175
  principle. Secondly, the recipient projects should be chosen not by Ministers, but by distributing bodies operating independently of Ministers. That is the arm's-length principle. It is richly ironic that those twin principles, so passionately espoused by Labour in opposition, should now be so cynically betrayed by Labour in government.
  No one contends that we could never contemplate the addition of further good causes to those already established; that would be absurd. But Labour warned us when in opposition that it was the ambition of every Finance Minister throughout the world to deploy lottery proceeds on mainstream Government policies.
  What is so obnoxious about the Bill is the combination of theft and deceit. If the Government have got themselves into a tangle through policy commitments that they cannot fund in the usual way, let them be brave enough, and honest enough, to say so. Let them admit that they over-promised, and that they need to make up the shortfall from elsewhere.
  Mr. Chris Smith: The right hon. Gentleman's remarks are rather ungracious. First, the only items that we propose to fund through the Bill are those that we committed ourselves to funding with lottery money at the time of the election. Secondly, we entirely agree with what the Conservative party spokesman in the House of Lords, Lady Trumpington, said in November 1996, when she spoke approvingly of
  "the use of lottery funds to secure projects or programmes beyond the scope of foreseeable affordability but similar to those hitherto financed by public expenditure."—[Official Report, House of Lords, November 1996; Vol. 575, c. 567.]
  Does that not drive a coach and horses through the right hon. Gentleman's argument?
  Mr. Maude: The Secretary of State is now employing a wriggling, slippery, lawyer's argument to extend the definition of additionality far enough to encompass everything that he wants to do. The Prime Minister's words in the White Paper are in inverted commas, so the Secretary of State may want to distance himself from them. He said:
  "We don't believe it would be right to use Lottery money to pay for things which are the Government's responsibilities".
  That is perfectly clear—no ifs, no buts, no maybes and no provisos—but it is ignored in the Bill.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: I should like to make progress.
  Many of the headlines in the White Paper say one thing, but the fine print says another, which is the technique used by the dodgier timeshare salesman. How can anyone seriously argue that policy initiatives to be funded by the New Opportunities Fund are not Government responsibilities—in their own terms?
  Far from arguing that plans for out-of-school-hours clubs are not a Government responsibility, Ministers are desperate to take the credit and to boast about them. The Chancellor, announcing the scheme in his pre-Budget statement, said:
  "A national child care strategy is no longer the ambition of workless parents; it is now the policy of this country's Government".—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 777.]
  176
  Why have the Government taken credit for the scheme if it is not their responsibility, and why are they paying for it with taxpayers' money?
  Ministers have made it clear that the Government provide money through training and enterprise councils to fund their out-of-school child care initiative, and that the scheme announced by the Chancellor would be an extension of it—financed with lottery money. Why are the Government spending taxpayers' money if it is not their responsibility? By the Prime Minister's own criterion, lottery money should not be used if it is a Government responsibility.
  Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Labour Members said one thing in opposition and are doing another in government, a practice with which we have become all too familiar? Will he confirm that out-of-hours school clubs are not new? The Secretary of State repeatedly says that they are, and did so again on the "Today" programme this morning, but is he not ignoring the previous Conservative Government's support for the Kids Club Network and after-school clubs, with which I am familiar because I visited some with Conservative Ministers?
  Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend makes a good point. This magpie Government will take credit for anything, and will steal any idea. The sheer intellectual dishonesty with which the proposition has been introduced beggars belief.
  Mrs. Mahon: Has the right hon. Gentleman, like me, had playing fields and libraries in his constituency closed down wholesale because local government funding has been cut? How many homework clubs and healthy living centres were funded by the previous Government, and where are they?
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Lady makes my point exactly—in her eyes, those are Government responsibilities. To say that they are extras that are nothing to do with the Government and should be paid for by the lottery is rubbish. I know of playing fields that have been closed down; sadly, too many Labour councils were not interested in sport in schools, and sold them off.
  Mrs. Mahon: Does that not show that the right hon. Gentleman is not committed to after-hours activities for children?
  Mr. Maude: I do not know how the hon. Lady draws that conclusion. My point is about who is responsible; if she does not detect the deep inconsistency and danger in the proposals for those who look to the lottery to fund additional activities, she should look more carefully at the fine print of White Papers and Government announcements.
  Information technology training for teachers and for librarians is another so-called extra that is to be funded by the New Opportunities Fund. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) made the point that it is already funded by the taxpayer, but the Secretary of State tried to wriggle out of that when he wrote to me last year. He said:
  "The Lottery-funded training will not support the basics of operating the technology, but will focus on helping teachers to use the technology in the classroom".

  177
  That is not true. Only a month later, the Minister for School Standards admitted that the Government spend £50 million on exactly that.
  On Second Reading in the other place, the deputy Chief Whip in the House of Lords announced that the scope of the initiatives would be expanded to pay for digitisation of educational and learning materials for schools and libraries. It is to be used not only for paying for training teachers and librarians, but for the materials they use in classrooms and libraries. Exactly as we predicted, every step taken by the Government takes lottery money further into their own responsibilities.
  Mr. Chris Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he assumes that the Government have no responsibility for arts funding, sports funding and heritage funding?
  Mr. Maude: I simply go by what the Prime Minister said—he, I assume, sets out policy for the Government. I assume that what the Prime Minister said is the basis on which the Government are operating. He said:
  "We don't believe it would be right to use Lottery money to pay for things which are the Government's responsibilities."
  That is not my definition, although it is not a bad one to be going on with. I am surprised that the Secretary of State does not feel able to support the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Tom Levitt: Cannot the shadow Minister distinguish between a relatively small annual figure that is required for training new teachers in new technology and the relatively large one-off sum that is required to deal with a huge backlog in new technologies training and to get teachers up to speed for the new educational circumstances in which they will work?
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying, "Forget the principle; let's argue about the price." I should be interested in his view. Does he think that either amount—the large amount or the small amount—is a Government responsibility? If he accepts that either of them is, according to the Prime Minister's own words, lottery funding is not appropriate.
  Mr. Smith: I repeat the question: does the right hon. Gentleman believe that funding of the arts, sport and heritage has no relevance for Government expenditure?
  Mr. Maude: Of course I accept that there is a role for Government spending. It is an absurd question; the question that the right hon. Gentleman must answer—
  Mr. Smith: I have.
  Mr. Maude: The right hon. Gentleman may think that it is game, set and match, but he has not even picked up the racket. I remind him that he is the Secretary of State, and that Labour Members form the Government—they are setting policy, and must answer the questions. The Prime Minister has made a broad and clear statement of policy. Are those activities to be funded by the New Opportunities Fund? Are they Government responsibilities or not?
  178
  The White Paper makes it clear that healthy living centres are to be part of the Government's health care provision. It states:
  "healthy living centres will play an important role in the Government's public health strategy".
  It is funny that they should be paid for from the lottery if they are not a Government responsibility.
  It is insulting for Ministers to continue to go through the absurd charade of pretending that the basic principles of the lottery are being maintained. Put simply, no one believes it, because it is demonstrably untrue.
  Mrs. Diana Organ: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: I should like to give way, but many hon. Members wish to speak.
  Peter Riddell, never new Labour's strongest critic, is not the only one to spot what is going on. In The Times yesterday, he wrote:
  "But a Treasury raid it still is, to evade tight limits on public spending and to find new sources of revenue without having to raise taxes."
  That puts it pretty clearly. In reality, Ministers are condemned time after time out of their own mouths—we know what is going on, they know what is going on, and the Secretary of State knows what is going on.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin), who was present earlier, is not here. He knows what is going on, and spilled the beans the other day—he must have left his pager at home. Commenting on additionality, he said:
  "I think what we said in opposition was clear".
  It was—uncharacteristically so. He continued:
  "it was right at the time that the National Lottery was introduced, but what we have now is a situation where the budget, the public spending level is set, and we have said that we are going to stick to that level for two years."
  Not much gloss is needed on that.
  It is all different now. What they now say—the hon.
  Gentleman made it unusally clear—is: "It was all right to make these noises about additionality when we were in opposition, and we hadn't yet thought of passing ourselves off as fiscally responsible.
  But we have now, so we'll go back on everything we said then, and use the Lottery for public spending."
  The hon. Gentleman served the cause of truth and honesty well. It may turn out to be the last thing he is allowed to say, but it was a good way to go.
  The Government are determined to have it both ways, but they cannot square the circle. Old Labour wants higher public spending; new Labour wants to steal the money from the lottery.
  I appreciate that some people may ask whether this silly technical argument really matters.
  The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): From the right hon. Gentleman's side.
  Mr. Maude: The Minister for Sport is beginning to get interested.

  179
  The fact that the Government are so concerned to argue this case and to stretch it to its limit shows that they think it matters. It also matters because the existing good causes will be short-changed as a result of the Government's lightning raid on the lottery. In Labour's original plans, the New Opportunities Fund was to succeed the millennium fund, but that was not soon enough for them. Now they cannot even wait for the Bill to receive Royal Assent. The money is being grabbed already, and as the Secretary of State, in a pre-emptive but ineffective strike, has sought to establish, the Government have introduced a provision retrospectively to legitimise this unlawful act.
  The result of this precipitate greed is that £1 billion will not now be shared among the five good causes. We are familiar with the arguments: this £1 billion sprang from nowhere and is a bonus, so they will not miss it, as they were not expecting it.
  Yes, they will miss it. For some time now, £10 billion has been the expected total from the lottery. Up and down the country, charities, sports clubs, heritage sites and arts projects have been expecting this larger pot to be shared among them, as was promised. That is what the recipients and the distributors expected.
  Indeed, that is what many Labour councils expected. The Labour leader of Amber Valley borough council said in a letter a few days ago:
  "News that the Sports Lottery planned to introduce a fund for the refurbishment of existing leisure centres… had been widely welcomed in the Borough. However, the scheme has not been introduced reportedly because of the need to divert resources to the New Opportunities Fund."
  That is a dissatisfied customer, I am afraid.
  This money is being very directly taken from these recipients, without recompense and even without an apology. It is such obvious humbug. The lottery is now expected to raise not £1 billion but £3 billion more than originally estimated. Why does the Secretary of State not take all £3 billion, because exactly the same arguments apply? It is just a windfall tax on the good causes. He knows that there is no logical reason not to take all £3 billion: it is simply that the Government thought, in their cynical way, that £1 billion was the most that they could get away with for the time being. So much for high principle and integrity.
  What happens if the revenue estimates are wrong? Experience elsewhere shows that lottery revenues may plummet after a time. As the economy turns down, lottery proceeds may also turn down. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that existing good causes will receive the absolute sum to which he has referred, with the New Opportunities Fund bearing the shortfall? Or will he, when it suits him, discover that percentages matter after all? Is it a windfall tax, or is it just a tax? What if the proceeds exceed £10 billion? Who will receive the money? There are no prizes for guessing that. The good causes will not get it, not even a share of it.
  Previously, these questions would not have mattered so much. The original share-out was among five good causes, which, with the temporary exception of the millennium fund, were outside ministerial control. The principle that distributors should be independent of Ministers is important. That is not always convenient for Ministers, as my right hon. and hon. Friends know well. That independence meant that Ministers did not have an interest in changing the system year by year.
  180
  That has all changed now, because the provisions of the Bill increase ministerial control. The Bill is shot through with specific measures, which look innocent in isolation, but put together create a thread of control running from the Secretary of State's office to the ultimate recipients.
  Let us consider the New Opportunities Fund. Clause 6 states that it may make grants to projects
  "which are designed to give effect to such initiatives concerned or connected with health, education or the environment as may from time to time be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State."
  That does not sound terribly independent to me.
  The fund will clearly have an incredibly wide discretion to support any project, with just one proviso: it must be approved by the Secretary of State, blessed by a Cabinet Committee, endorsed by Labour's publicity machine, and milked by Labour's spin doctors for every ounce of political advantage. Why bother to go to the trouble and expense of establishing this body? Would it not be quicker, simpler and more honest to say that this money is in Minister's back pockets, and that they will hand it out wherever they think they will get the best political payback?
  The hon. Members for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) misunderstand their position. If my hon. Friends had had the power to make these dispositions, they would have given them lots of support, because we think that they are great national treasures. The threat to them comes from the Labour Government.
  The Secretary of State is giving himself a straightforward piece of ministerial patronage.
  Mr. Chris Smith: The right hon. Gentleman's argument becomes more absurd by the minute. The broad objectives of the New Opportunities Fund will be set first in this legislation, and secondly by subsequent orders debated, analysed, scrutinised and passed by Parliament. Individual decisions that are made within those broad parameters will be entirely up to the members of the New Opportunities Fund board, without any interference from Ministers.
  Mr. Maude: Is the Secretary of State giving a commitment that every order he makes under clause 6(2)—which will become new section 43B—specifying any new initiative will be debated on the Floor of the House?
  Mr. Smith: Every order specifying any new initiative under that part of the Bill must be passed by Parliament.
  Mr. Maude: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to wriggle out of it. Is he giving a commitment that the House of Commons will have a chance to debate every new order setting out a new ministerial initiative for the fund to support?
  Mr. Smith: The House of Commons, either on the Floor of the House or in Committee, will have the opportunity to debate each order made for any new initiative under the New Opportunities Fund. That is clear, and is implicit in the legislation.
  Mr. Maude: We have been given an absolute commitment that every order will be fully debated, either

  181
  in Committee or on the Floor of the House. That is encouraging. I see that the Opposition Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), is making a careful note of that. We shall look forward to debating the orders at considerable length.
  The next clause that raises concern is clause 11. It is a nice clause: it is about strategic plans for distributors. When the Government spokesman on culture, media and sport in the House of Lords introduced the Bill on Second Reading, he was kindly patronising about this provision. He said:
  "This has been sadly lacking in the past and I know that the distributors welcome the new approach. But I should stress that these plans will belong to the distributors."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 December 1997; Vol. 584, c.735.]
  Many distributors want to have strategic plans, but what prevents them from having such plans at the moment? Nothing. There is only one possible explanation for this provision: it is to enable the Government to exercise more direct control over what the distributors do. It is the direct arrogation of power to ministerial offices that makes us concerned about clause 8. Under clause 11, what do the distributors have to do with the strategic plans? They have to prepare a draft and send a copy to the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Chris Smith: That is clause 12.
  Mr. Maude: No, I am dealing with clause 11, but my copy of the Bill may be out of date. However, if the provision is the same—
  Mr. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is important to be accurate in our discussions. The right hon. Gentleman's copy of the Bill is out of date. He is speaking about clause 12, not clause 11.
  Mr. Maude rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Hon. Members are responsible for the documents they use, and from which they quote.
  Mr. Maude: I think that the provision is the same: it is in the same form. The Minister cannot have read it, or he would not speak so glibly about the independence of the distributors.
  Subsection (5) states that the distributors must
  "(b) prepare a draft of the proposed plan,
  (c) send a copy of the draft to the Secretary of State, and
  (d) after consultation with the Secretary of State, make such modifications to the draft as it considers necessary or expedient."
  That does sound independent, does it not? Let us not hear too much about independence after that.
  Mr. Chris Smith: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene again. He is getting the Bill wrong from start to finish. The strategic plan will be drawn up by the distributing body, not by the Secretary of State. If he cannot see the word "it" in the relevant subsection, I am afraid that his eyesight must be rather poor.
  Mr. Maude: I think that the Minister objects to the fact that I have read the Bill and the fine print. We are not satisfied with just reading the headlines that his spin doctors create in the newspapers.
  182
  We want to be sure about the Bill, which states that the distributors have to prepare a draft, give it to the Secretary of State, talk to him about it, and amend it. If he does not appreciate that the only reason for that provision is to exert greater control over the distributors, he has not read it properly. If the provision were entirely innocent, and only about being strategic, everyone would support it. Why cannot the Government recognise that? Of course they could: it is just a fiction.
  The direct arrogation of power to ministerial offices makes us concerned about the clause that gives distributors the power to solicit applications. I know that the distributors want that, and, on the face of it, it is innocuous. However, when combined with all the apparatus of massively increased ministerial control of the distributors, the clause is the final link in the chain of control between Ministers and recipients. If it is abused, it will effectively enable Ministers to decide who gets what, when and where. It amounts to a nationalisation of lottery proceeds.
  If the direction of the Government's intentions needed any clarification, the way in which the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts is to be set up provides it. The advance billing was that NESTA would be, in the words of the White Paper
  "a National Trust for talent and creativity".
  That is set out in a nice big headline—the Government are good at headlines— but the fine print makes it look rather different. We thought that it would, like the National Trust itself, be independent. After all, why endow it with scarce capital unless it is genuinely independent?
  As a trust, NESTA could be accountable to trustees in the same way as other independent truts, but, as before, the fine print belies the headline. It will not be independent at all: it will be a quango. Its board will be appointed by the Secretary of State and his cronies, and its staff will be civil servants on the public payroll. It will have no freedom over how it invests its endowment.
  Mr. Banks: What about the Arts Council and the Sports Council?
  Mr. Maude: No, it is rather different. Those bodies do not operate endowments.
  NESTA is meant to be independent, but it will have to invest its money with the National Debt Commissioners. That money will never leave the Treasury. Clause 19(2) states that investment will be by the National Debt Commissioners
  "in accordance with any instructions given to them by NESTA."
  However, before NESTA's fledgling hopes rise too high, it should be noted that subsection (3) states:
  "NESTA shall comply with any directions under section 20 below."
  Guess who is to give those directions Yes, it is the Secretary of State. Subsection (1)(a) states that he can require NESTA to comply with directions
  "in connection with the management, control or investment of their endowment or any other money held by them;".
  As a former Treasury Minister, I could not have put it better myself. The clause contains a list of devices to make NESTA yet another outpost of the ministerial empire.

  183
  No one can seriously contest the statement that those changes would hugely increase the powers that would be at the disposal of Ministers. Of itself, that would not be disastrous, except that all the evidence shows that, even without the Bill, Ministers have already been intervening, and have shown their contempt for the arm's-length principle. I shall give two examples of that, the first of which relates to the access fund for museums.
  Everyone knows what a terrible mess the Secretary of State got himself into over museum charges. Labour told everyone before the general election that a Labour Government would end museum entrance charges. After the election, the Secretary of State asked the Chancellor for money to carry out that pledge, and the Chancellor, with his well-known sensitivity to the Secretary of State's predicament, told him to get stuffed. A public bidding war ensued. I do not know what the No.10 press spokesman thought about that, but I should not think that it was very polite.
  There were carefully placed stories of funds for this and funds for that—£40 million here and £80 million there. There were so many funds that the Secretary of State's head must have been swimming. What did all that amount to? There was to be a fund: it was announced by the Chancellor in his Budget. It was nice of him to share the credit, but, on examination, it was apparent that it was not even his money. The amount was £9 million, of which £7 million was from the lottery.
  In these cynical days, it warms one's heart to think of the spontaneous telepathy that prompted the Heritage Lottery Fund managers to conclude that a museum access fund, amid all the competing claims for their scarce funds, was after all what they particularly wanted to support. It was lovely that they felt—again quite spontaneously—that they would much prefer the Chancellor to announce it. That way it would seem to be a Government policy, and they really wanted to help the Government out of the embarrassing fix into which they had got themselves. It was all terribly convenient, and, of course, completely spontaneous and independent. It is nice when fairy tales come true.
  There was an even more remarkable coincidence. The Arts Council, the Sports Council, the Heritage Lottery Fund and the National Lottery Charities Board all decided on the same day that they each wanted to chip in £25 million to help with the millennium celebrations. There was not quite as much in the millennium fund as the Government had hoped. First, it has been raided for the Government's re-election fund, and secondly, it seems that events at Greenwich are turning out to be more expensive than envisaged. Therefore, the millennium celebration, for which the millennium fund was set up, would need a bit of help from its friends.
  It was not the Secretary of State's reputation but that of the Minister without Portfolio which was under threat, and that Minister has real clout. How delightful, and what a huge relief for the Minister, when the four distributors had a good look through all their pockets and found that they could each rustle up £25 million after all. Hey presto! There was £100 million to rescue the reputation of the Minister without Portfolio. It is the splendid independence and spontaneity of it all that makes one feel so glad.
  If that is what Labour can contrive with a statutory framework that is designed to minimise ministerial power, there are no prizes for guessing what the Government will
  184
  do if the law is changed to maximise that power. That is why we oppose the Bill. It is unprincipled and cynical. It gives unprecedented power to Ministers who have shown by their every move that they are unfit to be entrusted with it. They are treating the lottery in the way that Robert Maxwell treated pension funds.
  Does not the Secretary of State realise how humiliated he has been? He is meant to be the champion of sport, charities, the arts and heritage, but he is taking money from those causes so that the Chancellor can dispense it to other more favoured colleagues. I am afraid that the Bill proves the Secretary of State's reputation beyond question. He is now the Chancellor's patsy.
  5.9 pm
  Mr. Tom Pendry: I am delighted to be called to take part in this important debate on what I consider to be one of the most important Bills that the Government have introduced in this packed Session of Parliament.
  I recall vividly during the passage of what was then the National Lottery etc. Bill some three years ago, when I led for the Opposition, pledging on behalf of my party full support for a national lottery, but expressing many doubts about the way in which the legislation had been drafted. Many people within the parliamentary Labour party also had reservations about that Bill. Nevertheless, we set about finding ways to improve it, and we were successful in obtaining several amendments.
  For example, we managed to give some kind of level playing field to the pools companies. I say "some kind" of level playing field because it certainly has not been a true level playing field to date, and the pools companies have been hit enormously hard by the national lottery. However, we did obtain for them the ability to roll over prize money, the legalisation of the sale of coupons in shops, and permission to be allowed to sponsor television and radio programmes. Nevertheless, the pools have been significantly affected by the lottery. For example, in 1994, the pools companies paid £350 million in betting duty, but the figure has shrunk to £131 million today.

  We also sought and achieved concessions to enable small charities and the lottery to compete, by raising the limit on the size of small lotteries to £1 million, and to prevent the national lottery from selling door to door in order to protect public collections. We also sought certain social safeguards. Whereas we wanted the sale of lottery tickets to be restricted to 18-year-olds and above, in line with the restriction for the pools companies, the then Government brought down the age to 16 in both cases—that was some kind of level playing field, but not the kind that we sought. I could go on about the improvements that we made to the National Lottery etc. Bill, but we did not stop there.
  In 1995, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the then shadow Secretary of State for National Heritage, set up an advisory committee on which I served along with representatives of business, local government, Churches and charities. Its remit was to examine the lottery and suggest ways to improve the running of it. We consulted, we shared ideas, and we listened; we then published the best ideas in a paper entitled "The National Lottery Initiatives and Recommendations".
  I remind the House of some of the recommendations. They included the creation of new beneficiaries from lottery money, more flexible distribution, the development

  185
  of a strategic approach to distributors, fast tracking for small grants, giving access to children's play, and introducing a national endowment scheme, all of which have been included in this Bill, which tells me that the Government are listening to those who are making constructive suggestions.
  At the same time, however, I want to put on record a few issues that I trust the Government, in the spirit of openness that they have shown so far, will deal with as the Bill progresses through the House. I have only 10 minutes in which to speak, so I shall confine my remarks to one issue alone—sport and the lottery.
  My major concern is quite simply that the Bill represents a watering down of Labour's previous commitment to sport. Although sport has been one of the great beneficiaries, and sport's governing bodies have always placed on record their strong support for sport being one of the good causes, I trust that it will remain a permanent good cause after 2001. I am disappointed that the Government have not made such a firm commitment in the Bill.
  All I ask is that we adhere to our promise in the manifesto, which I launched with numerous sports stars during the general election. It states:
  "Sport will continue to be a permanent good cause for the purpose of Lottery Funding".
  All I ask is that when he replies, the Minister for Sport spells that out once and for all.
  I welcome the New Opportunities Fund, because it addresses the Government's and the people's priorities, but I hope that the Government will recognise that sport and recreation are very much a people's priority. It is estimated that each week more than 22 million adults and 7 million children participate in sporting activity—that is almost 60 per cent. of the total population. However, I heard what the Secretary of State said today, and I am sure that his words address that point. I want to see those figures increased.
  One of my top priorities was to promote sporting opportunities for all areas. Access was the watchword. I am glad that the Government have got off to a pretty good start by accepting some proposals, such as that to protect some playing fields. However, there is more to be done in that connection—for example, I believe that the playing fields of colleges of further education should be included. However, I must chide the Government for removing sport from the list of compulsory subjects on the national curriculum without even consulting the interested sporting groups. That has to be rectified.
  I hope that the New Opportunities Fund will not neglect the impact that sport can make on the twin priorities of health and education. Academic success is enhanced through physical education. A recent study concluded:
  "Students who are involved in sport tend to perform as well, or better, academically than less active students, even though academic curriculum time is reduced."
  I am especially concerned that no urban primary school has yet received sports lottery money. In total, just eight such schools have received that money, but all have been in leafy shire districts—none in deprived urban areas.
  I should like to make another practical suggestion to improve sports funding. In our sports manifesto "Labour's Sporting Nation", we promised that the National
  186
  Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts would offer support for sportspeople. Page 10 of that document states:
  "The endowment will not focus solely on excellence, it will be inclusive in its approach, encouraging access and partnership across the whole range of earth sciences, humanities, sports and arts."
  I am highly disappointed therefore that that commitment to sport, which I personally wrote into that document, is being dropped by the Government. If they are intent on doing that, I have a suggestion as to how they can assist sport through NESTA in another way.
  If the Government are determined to exclude the development of sporting talent from NESTA's remit because of the Sports Council's involvement with existing sports organisations, using lottery funding for such development, I suggest that the Secretary of State can nevertheless find a useful and worthwhile sporting role within NESTA's remit—it can ensure the development of sports science, which is crucial for the enhancement of world-class sport within the United Kingdom sports institute network. It could also play a key role in the development of sports information technology, providing coaching and advice on nutrition and medicine for our potential world-class performers and, indeed, for our schools.
  I mentioned the impact of the lottery on the football pools, and at this point I should like to declare an interest. As the House may know, I have recently been appointed chairman of the Football Trust. In the run-up to the general election, the trust campaigned to secure national lottery distributor status. Having lost some 60 per cent. of its annual income as a result of the lottery, that represented the most straightforward way of ensuring that the trust could continue its essential work for football throughout the United Kingdom.
  Labour's proposal for the development of sport in "Labour's Sporting Nation" included the following commitment:
  "We'll make the Football Trust the recipient of Lottery money so it may continue its essential work for football at all levels throughout the United Kingdom".
  Once in government, rather than extend distributor status, Labour decided that it would be appropriate for the trust to form partnerships with the Sports Councils in order to have access to lottery funding. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that in England the Sports Council and the football authorities have shown a great willingness to enter into partnership. As a result, the trust is able to continue to help the game at all levels in England.
  We are also, we hope, in the last stages of putting together a successful partnership in Scotland, and I have opened discussions with the Sports Councils and the football authorities in Wales and Northern Ireland. It is essential that those also result in the formation of successful partnerships.
  The trust's contribution to the game throughout the United Kingdom is vital. It has a huge part to play in maintaining football's place in the community. We are not only about bricks and mortar, but can handle grant-aid programmes of every sort, including revenue grants for community involvement and player development. If we are to continue our important work, the Sports Councils must play their part, which means that they in turn must continue to receive the resources to enable them to do so. The creation of the six good causes is to be welcomed,

  187
  but we must ensure that sport continues to benefit from lottery funding to the appropriate degree and that the Sports Councils channel football's fair share of it through the Football Trust.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not think that I have been anything other than constructive, because I welcome the Bill and certainly give it two cheers. I trust that the Government will listen to what I have said and, more particularly, to what sports bodies on the ground have said, and recognise the strength of their case. I hope to come back to the House in a few months' time and give the Bill three good cheers.
  5.19 pm
  Mr. John Major: I think that it is common ground among hon. Members on both sides of the House that the lottery has been a stunning success over the past few years. The very fact that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is introducing a Bill that re-regulates the lottery in some fashion and that makes other changes shows the extent to which it has become a national institution in a short time.
  Let me say at the outset: I am not opposed to any changes to the original Bill that was presented a few years ago. The situation is evolving. It was an evolutionary scheme. It was expected to evolve, and some of the Secretary of State's changes, subject to more careful examination, I have no qualms about at all. It is sensible for him to look at new regulatory provision in the light of experience, and I am delighted that he has introduced measures for us to examine.
  The Secretary of State announced that consultation would take place on policy directives. We have not, of course, seen those directives yet, so I do not intend to give them blanket approval. If I heard him correctly, there is the prospect of moving rather more from capital funding to revenue funding, which was always envisaged at the outset and, again, is perfectly sensible. The only points at issue are the specific details of what is proposed and the timing. It is, I think, a natural evolution.
  The Secretary of State will forgive me if, having said that, I make the point that to issue more directives of this sort flatly contradicts what the Government said in opposition, when they remarked repeatedly and powerfully that decisions of this sort should be left to the distributing bodies. That was their position in opposition. They wanted the then Government to be at arm's length from the money.
  I had much sympathy with that view and did not dispute it when the Opposition made it a particular cause of theirs during the passage of the first Bill, but we now know that what they meant was that they wanted the Conservative Government to be at arm's length from the money, while the incoming Labour Government should get their sticky fingers on it, either by directives or directly, as speedily as they could. No wonder the Secretary of State had his tongue so far in his cheek during his speech. I was surprised from time to time that he did not choke.
  I shall refer to some of the background, and then I have a couple of specific questions to ask, which are pertinent to lottery fund distributors and beneficiaries. When we decided to establish the lottery, there was much opposition to it. I should like to explain briefly why I thought that it was the right thing to do; this Bill illustrates why we thought that it was important, although we oppose some tiny elements of the Bill.
  188
  I believed, and still believe, that the arts, sport and the built heritage enhance the quality of life for everyone. They are part of a rounded life, yet the opportunity for everyone to enjoy them was clearly not there. Some people were more capable than others of viewing or taking part in sports and the arts.
  I was concerned to ensure that a child who lived in a tower block had the same opportunity in arts and sport as the child who was the heir to rolling acres. It was part, if I may return to an old phrase, of what I thought of as a classless society. That intention was always implicit in our Bill.
  We wanted to help small charities, particularly unfashionable small charities, which do tremendous work and have such dedicated supporters, but find it difficult to raise money. We also wanted to prepare for something that we shall never see again in our lifetime— the millennium—and ensure that it could be properly celebrated, as it should be. That is how the five good causes were born in the original Bill, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) piloted superbly through the House; my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) carried forward its ideas during her tenure as Secretary of State.

  Why those causes? Why those of all the other good causes, some of which every hon. Member could name? It was largely because they were under-resourced and would always be under-resourced by any Government. For any Government—Conservative, Labour or mishmash — the competing demands of health, education, pensions and defence will always come first, because that is where the pressure and the need have always traditionally been. The purpose of the lottery was to raise funds without taxation for those essential components of our national life. British talent in the arts is immense. Much of it is tapped; much of it is still untapped. The lottery is helping to tap it, and the British affection for sport is not doubted by anyone in the House.
  I believed that the lottery and the funding flow that would follow, were it to be successful —and it has been stunningly successful—would revolutionise both sport and the arts and preserve for future generations much of the built heritage that would otherwise disappear. That is what the lottery has achieved and will go on achieving if the flow of funds continues, as I expect that it will.
  For those reasons, the lottery was underpinned by two objectives: first, that resources should be additional to existing public expenditure; and, secondly, that other areas of expenditure—very important, but legitimate taxpayer-borne expenditure—should be specifically excluded. Despite what the Secretary of State has said, in some aspects— not all, but in some aspects—of the New Opportunities Fund, he has strayed across the line into new areas of funding.
  The argument about additionality is being conducted on the wrong basis. The point is: are the Government now using money for areas that are beyond the remit of the original five good causes? In one or two restricted areas, they are, and I shall try to set out later what those areas are.
  This new money—this lottery money—was never expected to be just for professional arts or professional sport; indeed, the contrary is true. Some of it was, of course, but it was mainly for schools, clubs and local arts

  189
  groups. I am delighted that the vast majority of the awards have been made to local groups and have been for under £100,000, which is small in the context of Government expenditure, but massive in the context of what those small groups and clubs were doing to provide a cricket pitch, a swimming pool or a new arts club. Throughout the country, there was a revolution in facilities for people to enjoy, through either participation or watching.
  Lottery money was intended as capital provision in the first instance, for sound reasons that the House well understands. The aim was to build the facilities, but the implication was always there, that we would move beyond capital funding to revenue funding in due course. I thoroughly agreed with that, in certain cases with individual sponsorship as well. I have no objection to that in certain cases.
  No greater pleasure is given to people than when a great athlete or artist thrills the world with their particular abilities. I remember how the House practically came to a stop when Torvill and Dean mopped up, winning gold medals all over the place. I have no objection to individual sponsorship to produce more Torvills and more Deans and, if we could find a few fast bowlers as well, I should be even happier.
  The lottery has been a huge success throughout the country. Look, for example, at the Derby dance centre, the Cambridge Arts theatre, which I know extremely well, or the arts for everyone express scheme. Look—this lies within the responsibility of the Minister for Sport—at the national stadium or the UK sports institute. It is unthinkable that they could have been established without the lottery over recent years.
  Everyone in this debate wishes that to continue, but, for it to do so, two conditions are necessary: first, lottery funding should continue to be additional and, secondly, it should not be reduced and siphoned off to some other sector. The Secretary of State has re-endorsed the additionality principle. I shall not go through the debate between my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) and the Secretary of State and others. The Secretary of State has re-endorsed the additionality principle, and I welcome that. When he says it, I hope that the Treasury means it and will not come back to him later to change his mind directly, by pager or in any other fashion. I hope that he will stick to the additionality principle. If there are arguments to be had, they should be at the margins.
  A small part—or perhaps not so small; we do not yet know—of the New Opportunities Fund will use lottery money for what I envisaged would always be tax-based expenditure. I have no problems with some elements of the New Opportunities Fund, but expenditure on children's play, coaching in literacy and numeracy and science and technology —all of which are worthy areas for expenditure—should properly be tax-borne.
  The lottery is substituting for what we all, including the Secretary of State, know should be tax-borne expenditure. That is a source of grievance to us and to the distributing bodies. Although they have had their hands twisted up their back to agree with what they know that the Government, with their tame majority, will do, they feel strongly that the money has been taken from them for other purposes. Those areas of expenditure are not, not,
  190
  not in the original spirit of the lottery. They infringe the principles that Labour demanded of the previous Government when the original Bill went through the House. Demanding something in opposition and ignoring it in government is not the way to receive support and inspire confidence in those who are distributing lottery money.
  The Government are raiding the lottery, raising the fear that they will do it again— and possibly again and again. The danger of that is self-evident. One virtue of the lottery was that people could see continued funding that would enable the distributing authorities to think big, to think long and to be ambitious in their spread of spending over several years. The Bill and the New Opportunities Fund—I ask the Secretary of State to reflect on this and not to react immediately—have created uncertainty where there was confidence. I hope that the distributors have said that privately to the Secretary of State. They are saying it privately to us. They are uncertain where once they were certain. It is in the Secretary of State's power to remove that uncertainty. I hope that he or the Minister for Sport, who will wind up the debate, will do so.
  Many of the fears of the distributing bodies and much of the controversy of the Bill would be removed by assurances on two questions, which I shall spell out for the Secretary of State. As a result of the New Opportunities Fund, the share of lottery funds for the other good causes will fall from 20 per cent. to 16¾. per cent. The Government have always said that that does not matter because the good causes will still receive the £1.8 billion each that was originally envisaged. The Government claim that they are merely redistributing the funds raised by the extra success of the lottery. It has raised £10 billion instead of £9 billion and the Government claim to be taking only the extra £1 billion.
  I shall not repeat the excellent arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham on that, but the Secretary of State must know that his argument is pure sophistry. It is spurious. When the 20 per cent. level was agreed, no one knew what the cash figure would be. The percentages were always at the heart of the proposals, because nobody knew what future revenue would be. Suppose that the economy begins to contract and the excellent growth rate that the Government were fortunate enough to inherit begins to slip away. That would have many effects on the economy, including a reduction in lottery resources, resulting in a smaller pot from which to distribute to the five good causes—now to be six. The reduced percentage would then really begin to bite and resentment would grow. The Secretary of State should reflect and instruct his colleague to remove that apprehension this evening.
  I do not think that the new estimate of £10 billion will be an underestimate. If more than £10 billion is raised, where will the extra go? Will it go to the original good causes, to the New Opportunities Fund or to both? That is highly relevant to the fears of the arts and sports distributors. The Government know that it is more than likely that the £10 billion estimate will be exceeded. The Minister for Sport nodded when I said that, so the Government are clearly aware of the issue and have considered it. They must know what they plan to do with any excess. I waited for the Secretary of State to tell us, but he did not mention the subject. I hope that he will have decided before the end of the debate. Who gets any money over —10 billion and in what proportions?

  191
  My second question is equally straightforward. The distributing bodies need security to plan ahead. That is not a wicked point from the previous Government, but one of the points that were implicit in the White Paper, "A People's Lottery". I hope that the Secretary of State will forgive me if I digress for a moment, but I hope that the Government will grow out of their silly sloganising. We have long known that any country that is called a democratic republic is notably undemocratic. Anything called the people's something gives the people a good deal less say than they had before. We have a people's lottery, a people's money and cool Britannia.
  I am sure that the Secretary of State is ambitious—although I am not sure whether it is to be Prime Minister or mayor of London. Does he think that Mr. Attlee would have used such sloganising? I hope that he will decide that it is undignified and will drop it. It is not doing the country or the Government any good. When I hear Ministers producing such claptrap, I blush for them. When the Secretary of State came to the part of his speech about the people's lottery, he buried his head in his script. I am short-sighted—an accusation that was also levelled at my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham—but I thought that even the Secretary of State's ears went pink.
  Will the Government guarantee the percentage for the good causes beyond 2001—for 10 years or some other period? If not, why not? The White Paper said that the distributing bodies needed to be able to take a long-term view and that they needed certainty. There is only one reason why the Secretary of State is not prepared to give that guarantee—the Treasury will not let him. The Treasury must be keeping open the option of a further smash-and-grab raid on the existing good causes.
  Given the Government's substantial majority, the Secretary of State will get the Bill through the House. However, a failure to answer my question will cause disruption and concern for those who make the lottery live by distributing the money to the good causes, severely damaging their confidence in their future and what they can do with the long, continuing flow of lottery resources.
  I have asked the Secretary of State two clear questions. If he is not clear about them, I shall speak to him or his officials outside, so that he can be absolutely clear about what I seek. I am going to a significant arts event elsewhere this evening, but I shall miss most of it because I want to come back for the winding-up speeches to hear answers to my questions. I hope that the Government put at rest the minds of those who distribute money throughout the country. [Interruption.] I did not hear what the Minister for Sport just said.
  Mr. Banks: Trust us.
  Mr. Major: Where have I heard that before? "No new taxes—trust me," said the Minister for Sport's boss. The Government have broken promise after promise. We shall soon find out about the Minister for Sport. I know that he will be here at 9.30 this evening because Chelsea are not playing. I shall be here to hear him answer my two questions.
  If the Minister is in answering mode, perhaps he can answer one or two other questions. Who will bear the cost of setting up the New Opportunities Fund? I hope that it will not be the other good causes, for that would rub salt into an already open wound. Will the Minister answer that
  192
  at 9.30? Will he also confirm whether there will be further endowments to NESTA at the expense of the other good causes? He must know the answer to that. He cannot ignore the question: either he answers it, or everybody will make the only assumption that they can, that the Government will take more money away. I hope that, in the interests of arts, sports and other fund distributors, the Minister will give us unequivocal answers this evening.
  I shall reiterate one point. I am not, in Luddite fashion, opposing any changes, because I was particularly in favour of the National Lottery etc. Bill, which was introduced when I was Prime Minister. Times change; we learn from experience. There are changes are to be made, and I shall support them, but some of the Secretary of State's changes are wrong. I would have made other changes—he mentioned one of them. He was right; I would, for example, post millennium, have devoted the sums that are going to the millennium fund to the provision of sports coaching and arts teaching, across—as far as the money would stretch—our mainstream education system. I want us to win the World cup, the five nations trophy, the test matches, the Davis cup. Rooting a love of sport and the arts in schools would have been the right thing to do. Even though the Secretary of State used that suggestion to make a false point, it is absolutely consistent with the sport and arts element of the existing good causes. I was proposing to use money after the millennium fund ended, in order to extend the principles. However, in advance of it ending, the Government have got their sticky fingers on the cash.
  Despite the Government's astonishing honeymoon, we are coming to know them and how they manoeuvre whenever they are under any pressure at all. They are never too scrupulous in pursuit of their own interests. I hope that, this evening, they will redeem themselves just a little by giving clear-cut answers that show that they will not further pervert the original intention of the lottery, which has so far proceeded with outstanding success.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. Ben Chapman: I very much welcome the Bill. It is important that people have confidence in the lottery, and that means proper regulation. I say with absolutely no embarrassment that for me, the lottery is the people's lottery, as it reflects the people's priorities as they have expressed them. I particularly welcome the New Opportunities Fund, which will put money into healthy living centres and out-of-hours primary and secondary school clubs. That is in line with our manifesto promises, for which people voted.
  Part of the Bill provides for a more even distribution of lottery funding. It gives distributors new rights to assess local needs and to solicit applications from organisations where too little lottery money has been spent. I welcome clause 12, which provides for strategic plans, as the piecemeal approach adopted hitherto has not always resulted in the best or fairest use of lottery moneys.
  If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will forgive me, I shall use the example of my constituency to make points about distribution. It is necessary to highlight the way in which my constituency has—or, rather, has not—been the recipient of lottery funds. In the ranking of the number of awards to constituencies, it comes 628th, and 636th in terms of the value of the awards. In other words,

  193
  however one slices the cake, the situation is not good. My constituency has been inequitably treated. It is no wonder that the Tories lost the seat at the by-election in 1997.
  There is an apparent general mismatch between the allocation of lottery funding and the areas in greatest need of assistance. Since the lottery began, my constituency has received just short of £400,000—none of which has come from the Millennium Commission, the national heritage memorial fund or the Sports Council. That compares with an average lottery money distribution per constituency of £7.5 million. My arithmetic is not very good, but I think that that is a ratio of 20:1—despite a desperate lack of, for example, sport and youth facilities across my constituency.
  Recently, the West Wirral Trust for Sports submitted an application for a much-needed project, but with no success. The project would, I believe, have benefited not just my constituency, but those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral, West (Mr. Hesford) and for Wallasey (Angela Eagle). The trust was told that its application failed because it was not in a priority area. Apparently, the west of the Wirral is judged to be relatively well off. However, the constituency has major areas of need, not just financially, but functionally.
  The problem with judging applications on a competitive and piecemeal basis is that, too often, those who are best at putting together applications, rather than those who have the greatest need, get the rewards. The situation compounds itself. Thus, for example, areas that have resources to put together expertise to bid successfully for city challenge funding use those resources to bid successfully for single regeneration budget money. With the skills base further enhanced, they can bid for European funds and then lottery moneys. Money, as they say, goes to money. With the need for matching funding and, often, a partnership approach, that is increasingly so. It results in funding not necessarily going to those who need it. That is why I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement today.
  My constituency fundamentally comprises small communities rather than large towns or a city. It does not have a preponderance of professional organisations with expertise in fund-raising. That does not, of course, mean that the need does not exist—quite the reverse. Only 12 applications from groups or organisations in the constituency have been successful. That represents less than a quarter of the applications made. In the rest of the Wirral, just under half the applications submitted have been successful—even though the constituencies there also receive less than the national average.
  Mr. Green: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the creation of a new good cause under, more or less, the Minister's direct control makes it less likely that bids from his constituency will be successful because there will be less money to go around?
  Mr. Chapman: I do not accept that point at all, as I shall explain later.
  If the House will forgive me, I shall go through a few figures. My constituents receive on average £5.71 per person compared with £14.01 per person across the
  194
  north-west of England. The north-west receives 16.8 per cent. of lottery money, while Wirral, South receives 0.41 per cent. and Merseyside 1.4 per cent. That distribution cannot appropriately reflect needs across the communities. Wirral, South gets less than the people in the rest of the Wirral; Wirral gets less than Merseyside as a whole; Merseyside gets less than the north-west; and the north-west gets less than the rest of the United Kingdom. That cannot be right. It puts us at the bottom of the heap.
  There is imbalance not just when comparing constituencies. As in other spheres, there is a major north-south divide. In the past, the bulk of resources went to what are called "national institutions" in London. However, many arts and cultural organisations, including museums, in the provinces, for example, are in dire crisis and need money just to stabilise and survive. I recognise the importance of what is in the Bill for community groups, for example, but let us not stop considering—if we can—giving help to organisations outside London. Let us consider, for example, organisations such as the national museums and galleries on Merseyside, the Williamson art gallery and the royal Liverpool philharmonic orchestra. Such organisations are crucial to the quality of our lives.
  Many groups bring their problems to my attention weekly. As I have said, the need is clearly there, and as the Bill says, we need to help small community groups—but the methods and skills required to secure funding are often lacking. We should turn our attention to that. That is how my constituents could get more money, despite the additional distribution proposed in the Bill. Groups and organisations need to co-operate, not to compete, for funding for the same type of provision.
  There are many reasons why lottery bids fail. Incorrectly and poorly filled-out application forms are the most common. The National Lottery Charities Board needs, of course, to know that its criteria are being met, but organisations often fail to convey that when they complete their applications. Less experienced groups and organisations inevitably tend to be unaware that they must convince the NLCB that they can handle the additional funds and are legally entitled to receive them.
  To ensure that a more equitable and balanced distribution is achieved, those issues, so vividly highlighted in my constituency, must be addressed. More help, guidance and instruction needs to be obtained for the smaller groups and those that are not "professionalised" in that sense, so that they can compete for the vast but finite resources available through the lottery.
  Mr. Hawkins: In talking about the difficulties of smaller groups, will the hon. Gentleman not pay tribute to those who work for the lottery distributive bodies, who have always been prepared to give freely of their time and talents to help groups put sensible and acceptable bids together? Does he accept that the real role of all of us as Members of Parliament of all parties is to encourage those groups to work with the lottery distributive bodies and other organisations in putting together acceptable bids?
  Mr. Chapman: I readily accept that that is so, up to a point—but it has not happened enough. Many groups are unaware of the opportunities and of how to proceed. The measures that will allow distributors to assess local needs will address those problems. I welcome them, and know that my constituents will do so too.

  195
  The Tories oversaw the crazy lottery distribution process that we have seen hitherto. I am thankful that those days are over and that the lottery is being returned to a more sensible basis of allocation. The Bill is good news, and will bring back to the lottery the confidence that was so undermined by the Tories. It deals with people's needs and tackles the problems of distribution. I commend it, and am delighted to support it.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The debate is novel in a number of ways. Perhaps the most gratifying novelty has been the opportunity to follow a speech by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), from the Back Benches on a major Bill. I have always thought that he missed his vocation, and that the role of constructive opposition was one that he could fulfil without challenge and without peer.
  The right hon. Gentleman made the best possible case for the lottery—a case which has not always been made so strongly or clearly—and about why the particular heads of expenditure originally conceived made some sense. However, it could not be said, and cannot be said by the present Government either, that those necessarily conformed with the people's perceptions of their priorities for public expenditure. Indeed, the very converse of that is the justification of the peculiarities of the particular good causes that the lottery funds. It is because the Government are, in a sense, trying to have their cake and eat it, that the contents of the Bill are not entirely welcome.
  I must admit that, as the Minister is well aware, I come to the debate with a studied ambivalence, for I was not one of the proponents of the Bill in principle. There I differ again from the former Prime Minister, in that I do not see the lottery as the archetypal exemplar of the classless society at work, or even as something that would greatly assist the achievement of the classless society.
  I fear that, although it is a voluntary levy, the lottery bears hardest on those least able to pay. I admit to a certain moral revulsion when I see people whom I know are in deep poverty spending money that I doubt whether they can afford on the lottery. In taking that view of the lottery, I am no killjoy. I realise that hope lends encouragement to such poor people—but their hopes of being richly rewarded are slender indeed.
  The second novel feature is that we are debating a Bill that will be very different from that which concluded its passage through the House of Lords, in that, since then, the Government have announced a major change in the regulation of the lottery, and seek to substitute a commission for the role of the director general. In an intervention, I have already welcomed that move. Indeed, I put the proposal to the Minister across the Floor of the House a few weeks ago, and I am pleased that he has seen the merits of the argument made with considerable force by, among others, the Foundation for Sport and the Arts.
  The management experienced under the former director general, Mr. Peter Davis, was one that I, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, could not regard as exemplary. I understand why the Secretary of State said what he did about Mr. Peter Davis's tenure. None the less, that tenure fell far short of what the House expected of the regulator.
  196
  To avoid problems of regulatory capture, the possibility of behaviour that suggests an identity of view between the regulated body and the regulator, and a certain loss of awareness of the need to protect the beneficiaries of the lottery and the clients— those who spend on the lottery—the widening of the regulatory body is important.
  The third novelty—although it is perhaps not quite so novel as the others—has been the announcement in the debate of a wide-ranging directive from the Minister that will redirect the expenditure by the funding bodies. Like the former Prime Minister, I do not wish to jump to too speedy a conclusion about what the Secretary of State said. It sounded much in line with the priorities that I would have for redirecting the funding, but I should like to examine it more closely.
  It is sensible to have a wider geographical spread. Many of the causes that the Minister appears to espouse—such as the importance of access and of facilities for young people and children—are priorities which no one would quarrel with. I know that the distributing bodies have endeavoured to make some of those priorities a feature of their performance.
  Part of the difficulty was the need to get off the mark quickly with very large sums, which could most easily be deployed by bodies with well-established development plans. It is, therefore, not entirely surprising that major capital expenditure went to some of the best-financed bodies because they were already sitting there ready for development.
  Some of those major bodies in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), which were noticed by another hon. Member, were national bodies from which people from the whole of the United Kingdom, including my constituents in the far north of Scotland, have derived benefit. Geography cannot be more than a factor in deciding the appropriateness of particular directions.
  I have expressed my moral tentativeness about the lottery, but I accept that it has provided much cash for the arts, as well as for charities, heritage support and projects to mark the millennium. The lottery has enabled many activities to take place throughout the country, but there have been victims, such as the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, which, before the lottery's establishment, supported many projects and exemplified in its distribution of funds the priorities that the Secretary of State's new direction to the lottery appears to embrace.
  The main fact remains that the lottery, having provided a welcome source of alternative funding for areas such as the arts, is covering an unattractive trend in arts expenditure, for which, I regret to say, the Secretary of State is in part responsible. Since 1992, central Government expenditure has increased by about 15 per cent., whereas spending on culture has fallen by 23 per cent. I am informed that the Department's arts budget for last year constituted only 0.073 per cent. of total Government spending: one of the lowest figures in Europe.
  That is a somewhat depressing state of affairs. It is tempting to eulogise what the lottery has done in raising significant sums to be spent on the arts and sport. We must recognise, however, that the prospects are for considerably reduced expenditure from what was anticipated when the lottery was set up and, indeed, during its more recent operation.

  197
  I do not quarrel with the Secretary of State's figures or deny that the lottery has, in some ways, been more successful in raising funds than was anticipated, but I think that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon was right to draw attention to the percentage of expenditure as the crucial key to giving security to the grant-giving bodies. Like him, I will listen carefully to the Secretary of State to hear whether we are to be given any assurances on that point.
  There was a passage at arms between the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) and the Secretary of State about whether the Government might freely change further the direction of expenditure in the course of the development of their thinking about where the people's priorities might lie. There was a somewhat technical and legalistic argument about whether that would be done with or without the approval of the House.
  It seems to me that clause 14 contains a requirement for an affirmative procedure for any such change, but in a House in which the Government have a majority of 179, the Secretary of State or, perhaps more important, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, would probably not find that an obstacle to implementing changes such as those already outlined.
  Those changes, it is true, will not have the authority of a party manifesto, but I have never known that to stop a Government enunciating what they perceive to be the people's interests. That argument from the Government must be challenged head on. It may be true that healthy living centres are close to the heart of the people, but so are bobbies on the beat and 101 other matters, such as cutting hospital waiting lists and improving local medical facilities.
  There is nothing in the Bill's drafting to curtail in the slightest the possibility of raiding the lottery to fund central essential services that are close to the perceived wishes and needs of the people. If that happens, the lottery will have served its time, and it will be better for the House to revisit the whole issue and consider whether it is not more equitable and less regressive to raise taxation directly to pay for the central funding of centrally provided services.
  The Secretary of State kindly responded to my intervention about whether it would be preferable to entrust a separate body—or an individual supported by advisers— with the task of choosing the new lottery franchise holder, and to separate that function from the subsequent regulation. He has demonstrated his open-mindedness in his approach to the Bill.
  With the best will in the world, and notwithstanding the undoubted integrity and independence of the five good men and women whom the Secretary of State will, no doubt, appoint shortly, they are bound to be influenced by the consequences of their choice in considering the behaviour that they witness. They will find it difficult to stand totally at arm's length from the company that they are regulating and not to give it the benefit of the doubt. That is a well-recognised feature of regulation, of which the Secretary of State is obviously aware. I do not make the point with dogmatism, but merely ask him to reconsider it as the Bill proceeds.
  Members of the Public Accounts Committee are certainly aware that, under Mr. Davis's regime, when there was any discretion on what to do with unexpected
  198
  funds released by the lottery, that discretion was almost invariably exercised in favour of Camelot, and not of either the good causes or the punters. That is partly an institutional problem, and not entirely Mr. Davis's fault.
  The Government must come a little further with us on the new good causes and the New Opportunities Fund. At least at this stage, in widening the causes, they are relying on utterances made before the general election, but it cannot be said or thought that that is without cost. The new activity will take away about 20 per cent. of the money that would otherwise have gone to the arts, sports, charities and heritage.
  The Arts Council budget for this year has been cut by £8Million in real terms and, in conjunction with the Bill's proposal to remove another £50 million a year from the lottery proceeds for the arts and other causes, that means that the balance sheet is becoming less obviously weighted in the direction of the arts. For the majority of our arts organisations, this is the sixth consecutive year of either a cash standstill or a cash reduction, equivalent to an 18 per cent. cut in real terms.
  Mr. Chris Smith: I gently point out to the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have considerable respect, that two weeks ago, I was able to announce an additional £5 million for the performing arts, which somewhat changes the picture—not completely, but it helps.
  Mr. Maclennan: It would not have been fair of me not to acknowledge that point, but it does not rectify the decline in real terms of the Department's expenditure on the arts.
  I listened with particular interest to the former Prime Minister talking about how he has witnessed lively developments in the arts due directly to the intervention of the lottery. Like him, I have visited the Cambridge arts theatre. Like him, I have also visited Greenwich theatre with great pleasure, but it is now condemned to death. The Secretary of State would not deny that development of the live and performing arts is patchy. Greenwich theatre was not saved by the interventions of the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) when she was a Minister. Other theatres—to confine it to theatres— in the south-east have been affected.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: On arts funding, does the right hon. Gentleman know the total lottery arts funding so far?
  Mr. Maclennan: Yes, the figures have been widely canvassed, and Governments of both colours have taken much credit for what has happened, but the right hon. Lady must know what happened to the theatre in Farnham. I hope that she does not take satisfaction from that.
  Mrs. Bottomley rose—
  Mr. Maclennan: The right hon. Lady will no doubt make her own justificatory speech. Other hon. Members have confined themselves to short speeches and I have already gone on longer than some.
  The Bill gives distributing bodies the power to solicit applications and to be proactive. In a way, I understand that, but it does not reflect the people's priorities. It also

  199
  seems likely that, because of the reduction in funding, much of the strategic planning of those bodies will involve making less than adequate resources go round. That is regrettable.
  In some ways, the Bill is an improvement in lottery regulation, but it is a step back in its widening of the ambit of the lottery's good causes. I therefore cannot possibly support it, but I do not feel minded to vote against it either.
  6.11 pm
  Mrs. Diana Organ: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate, because my first nervous words in the Chamber were to ask the Secretary of State about his plans to make the lottery more relevant to ordinary people. In my supplementary, I raised my concern that people in rural areas should receive an equal and fair share of lottery funding.
  It was clear, both before the general election and subsequently, that many people wanted the proceeds of the lottery to go to health and education projects. That was demonstrated by the responses to the lottery White Paper, with 90 per cent. supporting the suggestion.
  Mr. Peter Brooke: Is that 90 per cent. of the 600 or so responses or a smaller figure? If it is a smaller figure, what is it?
  Mrs. Organ: I am talking about 90 per cent. of the 600 responses.
  Mr. Brooke: I fear that the hon. Lady is wrong.
  Mrs. Organ: I stand corrected. There is overwhelming evidence that people see the opportunity for the lottery to put money into the enrichment of education and health. They want young talent in arts and sciences to be nurtured. They want an improvement in how existing good causes benefit. They want to make them more relevant and applicable to a wider range of people. The Government have listened to what people have to say and put the reforms in the Bill. The new strategic approach of basing distribution on grassroots need and allowing the soliciting of applications, rather than waiting for the right ones to drop on the desk, will ensure that rural areas such as the Forest of Dean have a better chance of getting their fair share.
  Continuing my interest in the lottery, I tabled my first early-day motion, principally as a response to the announcement last summer of the grossly inflated remuneration packages of some directors of Camelot. I called on the Government, on the expiry of the current licence, to seek an efficient not-for-profit operator that would maximise the sums distributed to good causes across the country. The Secretary of State said that the Bill would not make provision for a not-for-profit operator, but I am convinced that the Government are concerned to ensure the best possible return for good causes in considering renewal of the licence in 2001.
  My early-day motion also asked the Government to establish a new lottery good cause to support initiatives in health and education that fall outside the services provided through taxation. Having taught for 20 years, I am chiefly interested in helping children to enrich and
  200
  widen their school experience. The programme of after-school activities and learning is crucial to such enrichment.
  I humbly admit that my prompting through my question and early-day motion is not why the initiatives were included in the Bill. With millions of others, I celebrate the fact that they were. Those requests were met because people believe that it is their lottery, and they want it to be the people's lottery. It is undoubtedly successful, a national institution enjoyed regularly by about 65 per cent. of the adult population. Some 95 per cent. of the adult population have played it at one time or another, although I never have. That is partly to do with my puritanical upbringing.
  Millions of people play; they play to win the jackpot or lesser prizes, but also so that their communities, villages or sports can win. They want the money to be used to good effect. They do not view it as stealing, but as the deployment of resources into extras that could not normally be funded. They also want it to be run effectively and efficiently. They regard it as a massive fund to deliver opportunities and enrichment, and improvement of local facilities and activities. People could not care less about the arguments about coming under taxation or stealing from the lottery. They just want these things there. The lottery can provide them.
  Lottery projects are not replacing Government provision or expenditure. They are not the cake or even the icing on the cake; they are the ribbon and candles that will make the cake special. That is especially true in respect of the development of a national network of after-school clubs under the New Opportunities Fund. The money that the fund will provide will be particularly appreciated in rural areas, which, until now, have not done as well out of the lottery as urban areas. As a widespread network involving half our secondary schools and a quarter of the primary schools, it will reach isolated rural communities. It will enrich the lives of children and young people. It will provide an opportunity for an after-school club in nearly every village and market town. It will bring real added value to education. It will offer opportunities not currently available to thousands of young people in small, isolated rural communities.
  Young people in rural areas suffer more than their urban counterparts from having nothing to do and nowhere to go out of school hours. They can feel lonely and alienated from their village community. The three or four hanging around the village cross or telephone are very visible. They often turn to drugs, under-age sex and drinking.
  At a recent meeting of the Gloucestershire diocesan anti-poverty group, the Rev. Roger Morris, a curate from the Cotswold village of Northleach, showed me a clipping from the Gloucestershire Echo about the phenomenon. It said:
  "We take drugs because there is nothing else to do"
  above the headline:
  Youngsters' cry for help."
  These are 14-year-olds in a very affluent village in Gloucestershire.
  The after-school clubs will give them something to do and somewhere to go out of school hours. It will be a start. It will make a difference, offering opportunities for young people to learn, do homework, relax, mix, take up sports

  201
  and games, and just do what they want to widen their experience and enrich their lives. The clubs will be available before and after school, at lunchtimes, weekends and holidays— those times when kids need something to do.
  The lottery has been successful for the Forest of Dean. We have received £3.5 million—not the level of some constituencies that have received a lot more, but we have done well. I hope that the imbalance suffered by the Forest of Dean will be addressed through the improved strategic approach to distribution.
  I should like to mention two projects in the Forest of Dean that have had an impact. The first is the gym at Coleford, which the Minister for Sport recently launched—he had an enjoyable evening, I understand. That £1 million project, principally funded by the lottery, gave us a magnificent centre of excellence for gymnastics and first-class provision for wider access throughout the community—for mums and toddlers, people doing yoga, fitness centres and people with learning difficulties learning to dance. A variety of people are using this lottery-funded activity. However, it is a building—the finance did not go to people. For the building to be effective in the long term, we need skilled coaches.
  At the other end of the scale, there is a very small project of a few thousand pounds in a little hamlet in Brockweir—the Mackenzie hall. The project involved the replacement of the old floor to allow bowls to be played. That village hall is a vibrant centre of the community, offering opportunities for dance, amateur dramatics and a host of community events. The floor made a difference, but we won these projects only because determined people drove them through and because of a strong partnership involving organisations such as the local council, which provided the support to carry forward the application.
  Many other ideas and projects in the Forest of Dean have not been so fortunate, and, due to the lack of expertise in the application—or because those involved were not so well connected—they have failed. Undoubtedly, the changes to the people's lottery in the Bill will benefit a wider group of people in rural areas such as the Forest of Dean. Particularly beneficial is the fast-track mechanism for the small grants scheme, and a simpler procedure for such schemes. There is renewed emphasis on more lottery money going to people and activities, rather than large-scale building projects. The Bill will deliver opportunities from lottery money, and it will make the lottery more effective. Money will be more widely disbursed and more strategically delivered. Communities such as the Forest of Dean will surely benefit from the reforms in the Bill and will welcome it, as I do.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Peter Brooke: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ), to whom I apologise for my intervention. The look on the Secretary of State's face told me that I had misunderstood the situation, and I lay the blame on myself. I clearly misunderstood the figures
  202
  in the Library briefing, and I will enter into private correspondence with the Secretary of State to clarify the matter.
  Mr. Chris Smith: For the sake of courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman, I should say that the 90 per cent. figure runs right through all responses on all aspects of the Bill. Some among the 600 responded on different aspects of the Bill, but the 90 per cent. figure was consistent.
  Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State, who has saved us a piece of mutual correspondence. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Forest of Dean, just as it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman). I personally approve of the measures that the Secretary of State has taken in the context of widening access to the lottery across the country. That was reflected in the speeches of both the hon. Members to whom I have referred.
  I am grateful also to the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) for drawing attention to the fact that some of the figures attributed to Westminster have a wider ambit. On the eve of the White Paper, I was sent figures about the distribution within my constituency. I picked up £55 Million which clearly did not belong in the constituency at all—although I acknowledge that £50 million of that was for the Tate at Bankside, which could be regarded as an ambiguous case. Projects in four other parts of London—and seven in other parts of the country—were attributed to Westminster.
  A little over five years ago, I had the privilege of moving the Second Reading of the National Lottery etc. Bill. I took 22 interventions in 59 minutes, and one of your predecessors in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, took any number of points of order. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) will remember the course of events. It was a detailed, but genial occasion—a good omen for the lottery itself.
  Understandably, there was concentration on additionality, the arm's-length principle and the percentage distributions to good causes. At that stage, there were concerns—to which the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde referred—about the effect of the lottery on the pools, and its effect on charities.
  We knew that the Millennium Commission's future demise—which was allowed for in the Bill—would afford an opportunity to revisit the percentages for good causes at some date in the future. I indicated that Parliament would have an opportunity in each Parliament —at least while my party was in power—to consider the percentages. If change was desired, there was a mechanism by order in the Bill to effect that change.
  The first of those 22 interventions was—to his credit—from the present Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who asked me for assurances on the issue of additionality. He came back with a later intervention—he was among the 22— and was an enthusiastic contributor to the debate. As he did not repeat his first question, I can only assume that he received some reassurance from my answer.
  I can only say that the lottery has been a success. I next revisited the subject as a Government Back Bencher, when the noble Lord Attenborough was good enough to invite me to what appeared to be a Labour party rally in

  203
  the Mansion house in my constituency—new Labour, new venues—at which the then Leader of the Opposition, the present Prime Minister, made a more enthusiastic speech about the arts and artists than he has so far managed in government. He removed several of the veils of NESTA on that occasion, as the Secretary of State may recall—I do not know whether he was there.
  I have not compared the cast list of those who applauded the speech at that luncheon warmly with the cast list at the meeting on 24 March to discuss the opera house dilemma, when the reactions were also warm—but, on the whole, not in a direction favourable to the Government.
  The Labour party manifesto indicated that the party would, if elected, create a new good cause to succeed the Millennium Commission when that lapsed. That pre-empted the opportunity to increase the amounts potentially available for charities which would have served to protect the arm's-length principle.
  On 21 July last year—the day that the Secretary of State published the White Paper —I asked the Minister for Film and Tourism what his current definition of additionality was. I apologise for not having warned the right hon. Gentleman that I would say this, but I thought that he would be here. He replied, a little bizarrely:
  "I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is planning to contest the Glasgow, Govan constituency, or is he asking a question relevant to a Department he once headed?— I do not recall that he did much about it when he was in government. If the right hon. Gentleman manages to catch your eye when my right hon. Friend makes his statement, Madam Speaker, I am sure that he will not be disappointed."—[Official Report, 21 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 677.]
  Whatever that answer meant, it was not an answer to the question I had asked. It occasioned me some presentiments of anxiety which were not relieved when the Secretary of State made his statement, by which, I fear, I was disappointed.
  It was, I suppose, inevitable that the Secretary of State should that day have had the striking originality to call it "the people's lottery". I mentally promised myself to re-read "1984". Happily, the Secretary of State's shamelessness has not stretched to incorporating that tired phrase in the Bill, and I wholly applaud what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on that subject.
  Fiona Mactaggart: The former Prime Minister.
  Mr. Brooke: The former Prime Minister. Habits and loyalty die hard.
  On additionality, the arm's-length principle and the 20 per cent. distributions, the news was universally bad. The opportunity for Parliament to debate the percentage distributions had not been taken, and the Millennium Commission's demise was not so much anticipated as disregarded. At Second Reading of the National Lottery etc. Bill, Labour Front-Bench Members had said that no more than 15 per cent. of national lottery revenues should be devoted to tax, but by Third Reading, at which the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde spoke from the Labour Front Bench—by which time the tax figure of 12 per cent. had been announced —the hon. Gentleman said that the 12 per cent. tax yield to the Treasury was far too high. I suppose that I should have regarded consistency as an unlikely element in the present Government's planning.
  On 25 November 1997, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the cost of £300 million over five years to set up 30,000 new out-of-school clubs would be
  204
  shared between the Exchequer and the New Opportunities Fund—words which the Secretary of State for Social Security echoed on 10 December 1997, speaking on the lone parents issue at the Report stage of the Social Security Bill. She prefaced that echo of the £300 million coming from the national lottery and the Exchequer with the words:
  "the Government have made the biggest ever investment in child care."—[Official Report, 10 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 1087.]
  Additionality seems difficult to identify in those words.
  When I was in the Whips Office, I recognised that the price of a Back-Bench vote to take through a controversial European Union directive concerning heavy lorries might well be a constituency bypass, but at least on that occasion it was the Government's money that we were spending. When the present Government, confronted with a rebellion, played the child care card on the lone parents issue, a lot of the money was the lottery's, even if the Bill was not yet law.
  The Bill was presented for First Reading in the Lords at the start of December 1997. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), to a series of well-targeted questions, received a series of answers from Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education and Employment about current Government expenditure on projects that the lottery new good cause is scheduled to fund. I especially liked the answer by the Minister for Arts on 5 December 1997, that the budget of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport did spend money on librarian training, but that the sums involved were relatively small—the classic sad account of the parlour-maid' s pregnancy.
  On 18 December 1997, at Second Reading in the Lords, the Government's spokesman, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, spoke of the Libraries and Information Commission report, "New Library: The People's Network", which my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) mentioned, and prided himself on the Government's response to the request for a further £50 million.
  I was reminded, especially by the words "The People's Network", of the principle of Danegeld. I remind the House of the account of Danegeld in "1066 and All That":
  "Rather than wait for"
  Ethelred the Unready,
  "the Danes used to fine him large sums called Danegeld, for not being ready. But though they were always ready, the Danes had very bad memories and often used to forget that they had been paid the Danegeld and came back for it almost before they had sailed away."
  For Ethelred the Unready—who was on the throne at the last millennium—read the Secretary of State; for the Danes, read spending Departments short of a bob or two.
  All of that is said to be theology. In Liz Forgan's article in the Evening Standard on 17 December 1997, she asked:
  "in what way is this spending on health, education and the
  environment different from the Government's normal spending on health, education and the environment? Send for a Jesuit."
  But Treasury theology is usually erected as a Treasury defence against spending Departments. Here we have a spending Department conniving with the Treasury in the deployment of the theology.
  I acknowledge that it needs to be emphasised that the Secretary of State's role is largely metaphysical. A wise man once said of ghosts that appearances are in their favour. I imagine that, in this instance, the Secretary of State will not wish to be quite so forthcoming.

  205
  The percentages are a separate issue. When Labour was in power between 1929 and 1931, the British Government were offered what became the Aramco concession in Saudi Arabia for£ 20,000, provided that the money was paid in gold. Mr. Snowden, the present Chancellor's predecessor, declined the offer, on the ground that paying in gold would reflect adversely on sterling.
  It was in that era that Calouste Gulbenkian earned his title of Mr. Five Per Cent. He knew that a constant percentage is a better long-term bet than an absolute sum, which is what the Secretary of State has decided that the existing distributors really wanted. The distributors have, of course, seen their percentages cut. I find it distasteful that the Government should imply that the distributors are not the losers.
  I have narrated once before in the House the episode in the Brussels embassy when Ernest Bevin was Foreign Secretary and there was concern about whether he would be able to get through the doorway between the main spare bedroom and main spare bathroom in the embassy. A telegram was sent to the Foreign Office in London saying, "Please verify Secretary of State's diameter", to which the telex came back—those who know and love the Foreign Office are not surprised that it is more literate than numerate—"Unable to verify diameter, but circumference is 60 inches". For the Foreign Office not to understand geometry is perhaps forgivable; for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport not to understand arithmetic is less so.
  These losses have struck distributors at exactly the moment when resources for the individual training of athletes are proving their worth; when the Arts Council cannot afford to sustain the highly important south bank centre's forward plans; and when the Budget's foreshadowing of changes to the access rules for works of art of museum quality retained under inheritance tax threatens that major works will flood on to the market—constituents have already advised me of that.
  The present Lord Chief Justice, as a young barrister, when defending the Three Hands Disinfectant Company in a public health case, resisted the temptation of advancing the defence that this was a case where the first two hands did not know what the third hand was doing; but, at this juncture, the inheritance tax changes look like a case where the third hand did not know what the other two hands were up to.
  I make a final comment on the penalties that the lottery operator may have to pay. I appreciate that the former director general asked for them; I do not oppose them, but I believe that they need to be clear. The Government were a little confusing and contradictory on that subject in the Lords. As a clarification, I found tautologous Lord McIntosh's reply to Lord Redesdale's amendment in Committee:
  "We believe that the sensible and reasonable application of the power to impose financial penalties is the most appropriate way of ensuring that any penalties imposed are fair." — [Official Report, House of Lords, 19 January 1998; Vol. 584, c. 9.]
  I am reminded of the definition of an Act of God in Blackstone's law dictionary—an act that no reasonable man would expect God to commit.
  I close with a verdict on the Bill, said in both sorrow and anger—to the latter of which I am not usually prone. It was described in the Lords as the thin end of the wedge.
  206
  I think that it is the thick end, and I speak of its intellectual content. However, to go further down its road leading into public expenditure substitution is to be counter -productive in terms of popular support for the lottery.
  In the run-up to the publication of the National Lottery etc. Bill in 1992, we said that, now that Albania had a lottery, we were the only country in Europe not to have one. Coming so late, we were able to create the best lottery in the world, and the former director general should have his own share of the credit for that. I am personally sad that the Bill takes us a small distance away from that pinnacle, and in an Albanian direction.
  6.37 pm
  Laura Moffatt: I am thrilled to be called to speak in this important debate. It is something of a transformation for me, because I was never a supporter of the national lottery; I was deeply worried about it. I was deeply worried that my local charities would find it difficult to raise money; I was deeply worried about regulation; and I was deeply worried for those who might bid and find themselves in difficulty later, unable to guarantee revenue for the projects for which they had received lottery funding.
  I had many anxieties about the national lottery, but I am now standing here, in the House of Commons, saying that I was wrong. I was wrong to think that the lottery would not be part of our national ethos, and that we would not embrace it as we have. It is now very much part of the ethos, at least of my constituency. I am very pleased that we can see many of the things that I was concerned about being dealt with so efficiently and effectively.
  I am involved with an important organisation in my constituency called Crawley Furni-aid, which delivers good-quality second-hand furniture to people who have very little. The organisation was struggling with a second-hand van and no premises, so we put our heads together and made an application for lottery funding. We received £140,000, which has totally transformed the organisation. We are now able to serve the people of Crawley efficiently and effectively. That is proof that the lottery is good for people.
  The most exciting thing about the Bill is the New Opportunities Fund. I am thrilled to see that there will be information technology training for teachers and out-of-school clubs. As a nurse, I am most interested in the healthy living centres. They will certainly switch on people in Crawley to the fact that the Government are dealing with the issues that they have raised. I hope that we will not return to the silly, pedantic debate about additionality. Before and after the election, people have come to our surgeries and stopped Members of Parliament in the street to ask, "When will the Government allocate some lottery funding to education and health?" That is all that people are interested in, and the Government will ensure that it happens. I am very excited about that prospect.
  It was claimed earlier that the schemes could be funded from elsewhere. How many healthy living centres did the previous Government establish? Those centres will play an important part in what it means to be an active citizen who makes good choices. Mention was made of people buying too many lottery tickets. Healthy living centres will promote a sense of well-being: they will encourage

  207
  people to make choices about health, money, and so on. They will make people feel better about themselves. People do not have to spend lots of money on lottery tickets to enjoy the benefits of the lottery. They should enjoy it for what it is: a bit of fun.
  Mr. Green: I am fascinated by the hon. Lady's line of argument. If healthy living centres will discourage people from buying lottery tickets, the money will not be available to fund the healthy living centres. That is surely a paradox.
  Laura Moffatt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because it gives me an opportunity to ask him a question. Is he saying that it is okay to encourage people to buy lottery tickets when that is well beyond their means? I suspect that he is not. We are trying to say that the lottery should be good fun and that people should be able to afford and enjoy it. That is how we shall promote it.
  I am a little sad to report that Crawley is in the bottom 80 both in terms of the cash amounts received and the number of bids. That is not because the people of Crawley are stupid or rich—and Opposition Members may laugh all they like—but because people want to be able to make their own bids. They want the proceeds of the lottery to come to them. It is not, as was claimed earlier, for Members of Parliament to ensure that all the bids are in. That is not how the system should operate. People should have the wherewithal and the ability to make lottery bids on their own, with the support and care of their Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, as she referred to my intervention the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman). With respect, I think that she has misunderstood my point. As the hon. Gentleman said, when there is a shortage of support for bids, hon. Members from all parties can become involved—the hon. Lady gave an example of that earlier in her speech—and work with organisations in their constituencies.
  Laura Moffatt: That is true: of course we must get involved. However, people should be able to make bids and feel that they have ownership of the lottery. If they need help and advice, they will receive it as a result of this legislation. We will ask what communities need. We will tell organisations how to make bids and how we shall assist them in that process. In that way, I believe that Crawley will be able to secure more lottery money for the town. I look forward to that day.
  I must admit that I have never bought a lottery ticket—but, if I am honest, it is because I do not know how to fill out the form. Any assistance in that regard will be greatly appreciated. With the passage of the Bill, people will be able to feel secure and happy that the lottery now meets their needs.
  6.44 pm
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I took over as Secretary of State for National Heritage after my predecessors had done all the work. The initiative was proposed by the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), and three
  208
  Secretaries of State were involved before I arrived at the Department. Like the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), I had some reservations about the national lottery. It was a time of scare stories and debate about whether we would become a nation of gamblers, whether the lottery would have an adverse effect and how the 540 millionaires created by the lottery would cope—would it be bad for their personalities or their health? Each week or month, there was another development and another wave of adverse comment.
  The fact is that the national lottery has been the most extraordinary and spectacular success. I intervened, rather unkindly, on the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) in order to emphasise the enormity of the sums that have been generated for good causes. The Secretary of State crowed about giving the Arts Council an additional £5 million. It has received an additional £1 billion in the three-plus years that the lottery has existed. The figures are truly remarkable. Heritage has received almost £1 billion and the charities—the hon. Lady referred to Crawley Furni-aid in her constituency—have received additional spending of £750 million.
  When individual projects are amassed, we can see the way in which the great flagship projects are bringing social and economic regeneration to rundown areas in cities such as Newcastle, Bristol, Leeds and Sheffield and to the South Bank. Cultural investment is often the focus of regeneration: it encourages jobs, promotes tourism and, most dramatically, turns around people's sense of pride in their regions. It has been the springboard for the present Government's references to "cool Britannia" with the massive expansion of, and investment in, the arts. The lottery has proved the most remarkable success.
  Credit for that success must go not only to politicians—the former Prime Minister and my predecessors as Secretary of State—but to the distributing bodies which have worked relentlessly, remorselessly and tirelessly, some from a standing start, to get the distribution systems in place. I pay particular tribute to my noble Friend Lord Rothschild at the Heritage Lottery Fund, who has recently retired and will hand over to Eric Anderson. Following its early bumpy ride and the publicity surrounding the purchase of the Churchill papers, the heritage fund has developed strategies incorporating urban parks and countryside landscapes as well as the built heritage. About 225 museums so far have received help from the heritage fund, which has already moved into the development of access, education and the promotion of participation.
  Hon. Members must take seriously the anxiety expressed by Lord Rothschild who, at the time of the preparation of the annual report, complained that the fund stands to lose £200 million from heritage resources under the Government's new proposals. The Arts Council said in the material that it issued before the debate that 70 per cent. of its capital awards had been for less than £100,000. Through its "Arts for Everyone" scheme, it has concentrated on young people, access and innovation.
  Frankly, much of what the Secretary of State said today was an exercise in rebadging initiatives that are already well under way. The directions to lottery distributors that he announced had a familiar ring—if he had consulted the speeches of former Secretaries of State, he might have come across the phrases "people not buildings", "access for all", "children and young people" and "the use of volunteers". I do not begrudge rebadging of established

  209
  initiatives, but I think that he could have been more generous in attributing credit for the origin of some of his proposals, which are evolutionary—they build on what has gone before.
  I also pay tribute to the Sports Council, which has allocated about £750 million. Of its projects, my favourite always used to be the bowls clubs—I understand from the Library that 305 bowls clubs have received lottery awards. The hon. Member for Crawley mentioned healthy living centres, but I often thought that bowls clubs were a very good substitute for them.
  Alongside the great icons, bowls clubs are part of the tapestry of provision that builds communities and binds people together. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon said that he wanted fast bowlers, and I wish that he could have been with me last Saturday, when the village of Grayswood in my constituency celebrated receiving £12,500 from the Sports Council for its new cricket nets and scoreboards.
  Such small projects have provided the sense of cohesion that is so important in people's lives—as work and families become more individualised and fragmented, stable societies need places in which people can congregate and activities in which they can participate. So often, it is the lottery which has provided such facilities.
  I share the deep anxiety over some of the proposals. As I said, some are evolutionary. I welcome the establishment of a commission—that is a sensible next step—and the fact that distributing bodies will be encouraged to develop strategies. I also welcome the fact that more soliciting—as it is so delicately called—will be allowed. When I was Secretary of State, the law would allow one to coach applicants, but not to solicit them. The Secretary of State said that joint schemes would be encouraged—the wonderful arts scheme at Salford is one of many examples—to promote greater flexibility. All those are sensible, evolutionary steps.
  It would be an enormously retrograde step, however, if the lottery became centralised and controlled by the Department. Envious eyes have looked menacingly at the lottery ever since it was established. Local authorities, for example, want to take it over and municipalise it. The Secretary of State must resist the temptation to take over and control the distributing bodies.
  Like any Finance Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has found such a flow of money irresistible—he could not bear not to get his hands on it. During the last spending round when I was Secretary of State, the thumbscrews were applied and my nails were almost extracted from my fingers, but I did not succumb—I was not prepared to hand over the lottery to the Chancellor. My advice to the Secretary of State is that, once a precedent has been established, it is almost impossible to shut the door. The jackpot winner of the Bill is undoubtedly the Chancellor.
  After such a massive raid on the funds, the Department will have to work extremely hard to restore its good name with the distributors. Given that the Secretary of State has deprived the funds of £200 million, it beggars belief that he should crow about a measly £2 million of Government money in relation to museum charges, along with £7 million from the Heritage Lottery Fund, and claim great credit for the £5 million for the arts—that is simply unsatisfactory.
  210
  I believe strongly that the Government should make it clear that the percentage share of the lottery proceeds for the different bodies will be safeguarded. The Bill represents a sad step in terms of the opportunities of those who were already investing in our heritage, arts and sport across the country. It is depressing beyond belief that the Government should disregard the detailed points that were raised in the House of Lords. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) said, the Government have been helping themselves to the New Opportunities Fund before the Bill has even been enacted. The excessive control and interference, the means of approval and the introduction of new pet causes are all far from satisfactory.
  When the Department of National Heritage—as it was—was established, the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, said:
  "Man cannot live by GDP alone… A country can only be strong, healthy and contented if it burnishes its heritage, encourages its citizens to pursue excellence in sport and cultivates widespread appreciation of the arts. I set up the Department of National Heritage in that spirit. Its creation was a sign that Government should take such activities seriously—for millions of people, they are not optional extras, they are worth valuing in their own right."
  As a result of the former Prime Minister's vision, a Department was established with precisely those issues at its heart—the national lottery was set up to provide the resources to make that vision possible. It will be a sad day if the results of the Bill are that the additionality principle is forgotten, the arm's-length arrangements are overlooked, the Chancellor is the beneficiary and the world's most successful lottery is nationalised.
  6.57 pm
  Mrs. Joan Humble: I follow the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) with pleasure. Although I agree that the lottery has been a success, I believe that it will be an even greater success as a result of the Bill—I do not share many of the concerns that she outlined.
  I speak with some trepidation, however. Having heard two of my hon. Friends say that they have not bought lottery tickets, I must admit that I have, that I do and that I have won —[HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"] I am more than happy to offer my advice on filling in the forms. The first time I won, I received £10, but the second time, I had four numbers right—I went with my younger daughter, who was acting as a kind of Securicor guard, to the shop to collect my winnings, which amounted to the princely sum of £43.
  That probably qualifies me as a small-scale winner, but, more important, my constituency is also only a small-scale winner in the lottery stakes. There has been precious little fairness in the allocation of lottery grants to Blackpool, North and Fleetwood—whereas the Churchill papers were bought for £13 million, my constituents have received less than £1 million. Of the 659 United Kingdom constituencies, Blackpool, North and Fleetwood is ranked 620th. I thought that it would be bottom of the list until I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) said—his constituency is apparently even lower down the ranking order than we are. Like him, my

  211
  constituents and I want more, please, and I am attracted to the Bill because I believe it will allow more equitable distribution.
  Mr. Richard Spring: The hon. Lady is discussing needs in her constituency. What is the likely impact on the confidence of her constituents of the Labour party withdrawing its conference from Blackpool?
  Mrs. Humble: One of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues came to my constituency and announced that he had come to advise the good people of Blackpool, "as part of his tour of Yorkshire and the north-east." If Conservative Members cannot even get their geography right, they cannot advise me on the Labour party conference or any other matter.
  Although I am concerned about the poor allocation to my constituency, the awards that we have had have been valuable and well received. One was to develop a money advice unit at the Wyre District citizens advice bureau in Cleveleys. I have visited it and seen the vital work that it does in offering support and advice to people in debt and from disadvantaged neighbourhoods—indeed, it has prevented people from getting into far worse problems, by reordering their debts and negotiating with banks and utilities. It has been able to provide an essential service for so many people only because of a lottery grant.
  A second lottery grant awarded in August was for an all-weather pitch at Blackpool and The Fylde college, which is an excellent example of partnership—in this case, between the college, Blackpool council and local youth football clubs. The pitch is used by students in college term time and by the community at weekends and outside term time. It is the only facility of its kind in Blackpool, North. Those are just two excellent examples of lottery funding. Seeing those examples makes my constituents want a much fairer allocation of the substantial resources available for distribution.
  I especially support the fast-track mechanism for small community grants. Local people and groups will have far more opportunities to work together to cut through the bureaucracy and to access those grants. I therefore welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that those allocations will be re-examined to ensure that the constituencies that are at the bottom of the pile get more.
  The New Opportunities Fund is an exciting initiative. My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ), who has now left the Chamber, drew attention to the special needs of rural areas. However, everything that she said about young people in rural areas applies equally to those in urban areas. Schemes that help children are vital wherever the children live. As education is the Government's priority, the Bill recognises that out-of-school-hours activities are an important ingredient of a child's overall education. The range of possibilities is enormous. Many of the children whom I represent go back to crowded homes where, because they cannot do their homework, their educational achievement is damaged. A simple measure such as providing a quiet room for children to do their homework can be of enormous educational benefit. Complementary learning activities may include drama, sport or multi-media activities. I cannot even switch on a computer, so I am always surprised at schoolchildren's competence. Many after-school-hours clubs build on the education that children receive during the day.
  212
  When we discuss child care, some of us forget that, while it is fairly easy for parents to organise child care for pre-school children—it may be expensive, but parents can organise their day—once children start school, parents encounter the problem of who will take them to school and pick them up when school finishes. After-school clubs provide vital support for many parents, some of whom have to give up jobs because they cannot organise their working time around school hours. Although many schemes provide examples of good practice, I welcome the proposals in the Bill to solicit applications. Many organisations that run such schemes are either reluctant to apply for lottery funding or are unaware of the different aspects of lottery funding available to them. I hope that more funding will be available to them in the future.
  Through my personal links with the Lancashire Area West association of out-of-school clubs, I know the excellent work that such organisations do, and that they look forward to an expansion of the current provision. Although I welcome that aspect of the Bill, I urge the Minister to ensure that child care providers receive on-going support, training, advice and guidance. Networks such as the Lancashire Area West association provide support, but it is vital to ensure that good practice continues and that provision is of a high quality, because everyone agrees that that is vital for young children.
  I am also concerned about provision for children with special needs. An increasing amount of special needs education now takes place in mainstream schools. If we are to expand out-of-school-hours provision for mainstream schools, we must consider the problems of special needs children within those schools.
  I welcome the Bill, especially the proposals for fairer distribution. I hope that Blackpool, North and Fleetwood will jump up the rankings and that all the good causes covered by the New Opportunities Fund will contribute to important local initiatives and meet the people's priorities.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. David Prior: Unlike some Labour Members, I have played the lottery, but not very often. When I first started playing it, I was convinced that I would win—we all were, to start with—but now I play only on roll-over days, and even my children have stopped nagging me to buy tickets.
  Despite the fact that some of us have become bored with it over time, the lottery has been a huge commercial success. An astonishing 30 million people—65 per cent. of all adults—play the lottery each week and spend on average only £3. Independent research has confirmed that our lottery is the most efficient in the world and returns the highest percentage to the Government and good causes. By 2001, some £10 billion will have been raised for good causes, which is a remarkable record by any standard, particularly given the misgivings that many of us had when the lottery was first put in place several years ago.
  The lottery was designed to revitalise and stimulate capital investment in many unfashionable areas. In my constituency, many small local charities have benefited and small projects throughout Norfolk have received funding. Examples from my constituency include a new football pavilion at Wells and the extension of a rugby club. Such projects would never have received support from central Government. Norfolk youth music theatre put on "The

  213
  Hunchback of Notre Dame" and "The Wind in the Willows". I am thinking, too, of the £ 300,000 grant to restore the Hickling broad for wildlife purposes; the Fakenham children's day care centre; and a small foundation in north Norfolk for the mentally ill. None of those projects would have attracted central Government funding. That is the essence of what we mean by additionality. These are the projects that will always get squeezed out by the high-spending Government Departments.
  There has always been disagreement about exactly how the money should be spent and on what project—it would take the Archangel Gabriel to secure agreement from all parties —but there have been two key underlying principles: first, that the money should be spent by people independent of the Government; and, secondly, that the money should be spent on projects that would not otherwise be financed from taxation.
  There was an exchange between my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) and the Secretary of State about clause 12. We should make it clear in Hansard that clause 12 gives the Secretary of State far more control over the distributing bodies. He has the power to instruct them to prepare and adopt a strategic plan, and it must be such
  "as to demonstrate how the body is taking into account or, as the case may be, complying with the directions mentioned in subsection (3)(a)",
  which refers to
  "a statement of any directions given to the body by the Secretary of State".
  So it is quite clear that the Secretary of State's powers over the distributing bodies will be much greater in future.
  Mr. Levitt: Has the hon. Gentleman also read clause 12(5)(d), which says that
  "after consultation with the Secretary of State,"
  the award-giving body shall
  "make such modifications to the draft as it"—
  not the Secretary of State—
  "considers necessary or expedient."?
  Mr. Prior: There is clearly some conflict between clause 12 and subsection (5)(d), and that is something we shall no doubt discuss in Committee.
  As my right hon. Friend pointed out, clause 18 states quite clearly that the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts
  "may not spend their endowment, or any part of their endowment, without the approval of the Secretary of State."
  It is quite clear to me that, in future, the money raised for good causes will not be as independent of Government as in the past, and that is a great pity. I very much hope that we in this country will not descend into the pork barrel politics into which other countries have descended, and that various Government Ministers will not compete with each other to spend the money from the "people's lottery".
  214
  On the second principle—that money should be spent on projects that would not otherwise be financed by taxation—the Prime Minister put it unequivocally when he said:
  "we don't believe it would be right for the Lottery money to pay for things which are the Government's responsibility".
  That is precisely what the Bill proceeds to do.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister, who said that Conservative Members are not Luddites. We are not saying that there are no changes that could be made. It would be amazing if there were none—after all, the lottery is an entirely new concept for this country. I am sure that we shall be open to changes to the regulatory regime. We shall certainly be open to switching some of the money away from capital to revenue spending.
  There are a number of issues that should be looked at. What is the evidence that under-16s are buying lottery tickets, and what more could be done to stop them? Is there any evidence that certain people are becoming addicted to buying scratchcards? Is there any evidence that charities have been hit particularly hard as a result of the lottery? There have been questions about the large capital donations that have been given to big projects, and about the regulatory regime. Opposition Members would have been quite happy to address some of those questions.
  In whatever way the Government wish to portray them, the new opportunities set out in the Bill—education, health and the environment—are at the centre of traditional Government spending. They cannot, by any definition, be seen to be additional. Many of them are worthy projects. They include out-of-school initiatives, child care centres and healthy living centres. We are not arguing about the worth of such projects; we are arguing that they should not be financed from the lottery.
  The Government appear so eager to raise the money that on 14 October they started to set money aside for the new causes. That strikes many Opposition Members as outrageous. Had the Government wished to be honest about it, they could have delayed setting aside money and brought in a higher percentage to be paid to the new causes. That would at least have had the merit of being transparent. Instead, they are effectively ratifying an action retrospectively, which is not something that hon. Members would in general support.
  The Government have rebranded the lottery as the "people's lottery". I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon that people are becoming to sick to death of the term, "the people's", which is used to stifle debate. Our lottery is clearly now a Government lottery, to be spent on the Government's priorities, on projects that should properly be financed by tax receipts that are raised and allocated democratically.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: My Welsh nonconformist background has, I fear, inhibited me from taking advantage of the lottery on many occasions—that, coupled with the fact that I have never won anything on the lottery. Although I have never won anything, I well understand the sense of elation that comes from winning it, having won an allegedly safe seat from the Conservatives last year.
  I am delighted to support the Bill, which will undoubtedly refocus the national lottery, improving both its regulation and distribution arrangements, but,

  215
  most important, ensuring that the lottery funds a wider range of good causes. I will take no lessons from Conservative Members about ducking and not using the phrase, so, in short, the Bill will complete the process of turning the national lottery into truly the people's lottery.
  The lottery has been a remarkable success, generating considerable sums for a number of important projects. In my borough, these range from the refurbishment and redevelopment of a heavily used leisure centre to the funding of a scheme to help disabled people to access work placements. I look forward to an early announcement on the much-delayed outcome of a heritage lottery fund bid for Headstone manor in my constituency.
  Mr. Lansley: If the hon. Gentleman is so keen on reflecting the priorities of the players of the lottery in the distribution of good causes money, has he contemplated the proposal, of which I am sure he is aware, that players should be able to mark a lottery ticket to indicate to what purpose they wish the money to be given?
  Mr. Thomas: Lottery players indicated all too well at the last general election that they supported the priorities of the Labour party for the lottery. That scheme is fine.
  Mr. Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Thomas: I should like to move on.
  There is a growing body of evidence, outlined by many of my hon. Friends, that the distribution of awards is seriously skewed not just by region but in terms of project size. The concentration is on bricks and buildings, as opposed to people and activities. The lack of clear and explicit distribution strategies has generated considerable frustration and concern.
  There is also widespread support for our commitment to creating the New Opportunities Fund. As I said earlier, increasing the number of activities funded by the lottery will more accurately reflect the priorities of all who buy tickets. The New Opportunities Fund is probably the most exciting aspect of this excellent Bill, creating a sixth good cause— health, education and the environment—to be financed from the extra £1 billion that the lottery will generate over and above original expectations, and enjoying the overwhelming support of the British public. Following the publication of the White Paper, 91 per cent. of respondents said that they were in favour of the fund.
  Mr. Spring: How many of those responses came from members of the public, as opposed to organisations?
  Mr. Thomas: Most of the organisations that responded represented a considerable number of individuals. I realise that it is difficult for Conservative Members to recognise the support that the New Opportunities Fund is receiving, but I urge them to join the mainstream on this issue at least.
  More than half the 91 per cent. argued that the fund would act as a natural and obvious extension of the existing good causes, helping to deal with charges of imbalance and concern about the exclusion of health and education issues. In retrospect, it appears perverse that those issues were originally excluded. I do not think anyone has suggested that the first three initiatives announced by the Government under the auspices of the
  216
  New Opportunities Fund will not be of considerable benefit to the country. Opposition Members have tried to argue that they somehow violate the additionality principle, but they clearly do not.
  There is no doubt that the Government have considerable health, education and environment responsibilities, along with considerable arts, heritage and sport responsibilities. There is also no doubt that, within those areas, substantial areas of expenditure are core responsibilities of Government, to be publicly funded. But there will always be more that we would like to do, which the taxpayer cannot afford. That means desirable, as opposed to critical, expenditure, building on existing core expenditure. The three initial initiatives clearly fit into that category.
  Healthy living centres have been variously described as the national lottery's first big idea, as long overdue and as a brilliant concept. I share that enthusiasm. Numerous reports have made it clear that there is a link between areas of deprivation and greater ill health, and it is nothing short of a scandal that the previous Government refused to acknowledge that link or to do anything about it.
  Healthy living centres provide a powerful opportunity to improve the health of people of all ages, complementing existing services and reaching out to those who have been deprived of opportunities for better health. They will stimulate a range of additional services dealing with, for instance, stress management, healthy eating and drug and alcohol recovery, side by side with mainstream services and providing advice, self-help groups and opportunities for physical activity. Healthy living centres are an inspired choice for a share of the first tranche of money from the New Opportunities Fund, and I am not surprised that more than 96 per cent. of respondents supported them.
  I especially welcome the commitment that, while there will be quality standards, there will be no central blueprint for projects. Healthy living centre schemes should come from within a community. They should be put together by those who will use the services—by the social entrepreneurs who exist in many communities, whose ideas have been ignored too often in the past by bureaucracies and professionals who believed that they knew best.
  Healthy living centres must be high-class holistic partnerships, involving health professions and the local community, delivering services—perhaps with education and sporting bodies—in new and innovative ways. Their philosophy should encourage people to take responsibility for their personal physical and mental well-being.
  There are already isolated examples of services that could provide models for healthy living centres. Later this month, the Peckham Pulse centre will open—an initiative bringing together the local community, some health services and some sporting facilities in a single high-quality modern centre. New sporting facilities will be "moulded in" with high-quality consulting rooms, a cafe, a fully staffed children's play area and meeting rooms for the local community.
  The centre will bring together sport and health in a way that will not be off-putting, catering for those who—like many of us present tonight—may not yet be high-class performance athletes, and delivering improvements in the health of all people, whatever their capacity, and however fit they are.

  217
  I pay tribute to all those involved in the Bromley-by-Bow centre in Tower Hamlets, which I was privileged to visit recently. Creative arts projects and football teams stand side by side with community care projects and a community cafe. They are fully integrated with a health care centre and numerous religious organisations, not to mention an environmental project that is transforming the previously dilapidated local park. It is run by the community, pulling together statutory and non-statutory services. It was provided because the community wanted those services, and it is transforming the expectations of young and old alike.
  The funding for out-of-hours schools-based activity is also welcome, as some of my hon. Friends have said. In my constituency, only a few schools have been able to establish some effective after-school provision so far. Pinner Wood first and middle schools in the north and Welldon Park first and middle schools in the south provide excellent out-of-school clubs, offering a wide range of activities to diverse groups of pupils. The Pinner Wood club has been so successful that it now has a growing waiting list. Welldon Park's list is also growing, and I was delighted to attend its very successful end-of-term entertainment last week.
  I emphasise, however, that those two clubs are isolated examples. Many other schools and parents look on enviously. After-school clubs offer an excellent opportunity to combine child care with further education and play opportunities, enhancing children's social, intellectual and emotional development. They, too, are highly desirable projects, complementary to the core education provision in schools. The start-up money from the New Opportunities Fund will help to spread the excellent practice that exists in clubs such as those in my constituency.
  Another interesting and welcome aspect of the Bill is the establishment of the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. One of the successes of the lottery to date has been the lottery sports fund's championing and funding of our own world-class performance athletes. We need a similar fund that can champion the talented in the creative, scientific and technological worlds. It is little short of a scandal that, partly because of the absence of such a fund, other countries have had to step in to develop into commercially successful projects the ideas, inventions and new products of our science community.
  Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman is explaining the essential character of the various projects that the Government propose to fund from the lottery. If they are so integral to the performance of their respective tasks, why does the hon. Gentleman conclude that the Government considered it wrong for them to be funded by taxpayers' money? Why did the Government not think that they were so valuable that they should be financed by mainstream programmes?
  Mr. Thomas: With respect, it is a bit rich to be asked that question by a Conservative Member. The Conservative party claims that such provision is core provision. Why have three quarters of pupils in my constituency no access to after-school clubs? I accept that
  218
  that is partly due to the incompetence of the Liberal Democrats who currently run the council, but I fear that it is mostly due to the fact that the Conservative party never demonstrated any intention of funding such clubs. The funding, therefore, is clearly additional.
  The White Paper refers to the high quality of our scientists, but our continuing inability to translate their talent into business ideas is a powerful raison d'etre for NESTA.
  I also welcome the changes in practice for existing distributors. The ability for distributors to lay down clear strategies based on need and to set out how they intend to distribute funds will enable more efficient use of lottery funds to develop initiatives where they are needed and where they will be of most benefit.
  Mr. John McDonnell: Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been a distribution problem, not for inner-city areas or leafy suburbs, but for peripheral urban areas, such as his constituency and mine? For 18 years, such areas were neglected by central Government funding, and neglected in the allocation of awards, sometimes because of a lack of applications. Does he also agree that there is a need for capacity building in such communities to elicit applications, and for special concentration on peripheral areas?
  Mr. Thomas: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I welcome the requirement for distributor boards to prepare strategies so that they can focus on and address the needs of peripheral areas.
  The ability of lottery distributors to solicit applications to support their strategic aims is a sensible innovation. It will help to ensure that lobbying by the new army of lottery consultants does not mean that only the loudest, largest and most articulate groups win funding.
  We must refocus lottery distributors so that their structures are more effectively in contact with local communities, and so that decisions can be taken more quickly, feedback and advice can be given more effectively and people and activity can be concentrated on, rather than bricks and mortar.
  Small sporting clubs do not need new club houses; they need access to good coaches or small amounts of crucial equipment. The Bill will allow distributors to provide vouchers, which might help clubs and community groups to develop the talents and skills of leaders, be they coaches or scout leaders, and, in turn, enable them to develop the skills and talents of club members.
  There is widespread public support for changes in the lottery. The public want a more equitable distribution of lottery funds. At present, there are serious disparities in funding, by locality and by size and type of project. Health, education and the environment have been excluded for no logical reason, when they are what the' people of Britain care about most passionately.
  The lottery has been a tremendous success, but its flaws are readily apparent, and are already beginning to detract from its popularity. The Bill will put the national lottery firmly back on track. It will improve the distribution, regulation and direction of lottery funding, and ensure that it is in tune with the people's priorities. I warmly welcome it.
  7.32 pm
  Mr. Peter Viggers: I suppose that someone has to say it: I dislike the national lottery. It puts decisions about public money into unelected hands, and introduces a random hand in expenditure, which is unaccountable—within limits: if an allocation of funds in not particularly popular, Ministers have nothing to do with it; if an announcement is popular, Ministers are always in the photograph.
  I should much prefer no lottery at all. It was originally argued that we had to have our own state lottery because other gambling and other state lotteries would come into the United Kingdom and take British money if we did not. I was unpersuaded by that argument, and still feel distaste for the British Government's sponsorship of a lottery, which lowers the tone of government by putting the authority of the state behind the concept of gambling.
  And gambling it is: 30 million people a week—two thirds of households—take part. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) referred to an average bet of £3, but £5 or £6 per household per week goes into this vast money machine, which gives gamblers a negligible chance of winning.
  In December 1992, the Secretary of State for National Heritage said:
  "The lottery will not attract the gambler. We expect it to attract a new section of the population, people who are willing to have a flutter knowing that—win or lose— money will be going to good causes."
  Some flutter: £15,000 million is spent, often by people who can ill afford £5 or £6 a week per household. It saddens me that the turnover in lottery tickets is busiest in the most deprived areas. Self-evidently, people hope for a miracle to escape financial disadvantage—it is tax by another name.
  The profile of those who pay shows an emphasis on those with lower incomes and capital, and the analysis of those who benefit shows a heavy slant to the more privileged. The lottery is redistributive, and I regret that.
  I should have preferred the Government to have the courage years ago to decide on good causes, to find the money, and to come to the House of Commons to explain what major projects they proposed to support. Projects such as the magnificent one at the Louvre in France deserve support, but I should prefer hon. Members to debate them in the House.
  The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) referred to the development of the new and burdensome industry of advisers and consultants, who assist local authorities and others to make lottery bids. Applicants are encouraged to shape their bid to make it more attractive to those who might provide the money, and advisers even encourage institutions to reorganise and restructure, so that they are more likely to be an acceptable bidder. Many bidders spend good money to reshape themselves, and that dead money is of value to no one.
  If we are to have a lottery, how should it be structured? The 1978 royal commission defined worthy causes as those which
  "however desirable, would not ordinarily be financed by Government"
  because
  "they would distort the priorities the Government had set itself."
  220
  The commentator, Sir Robin Day, said that the idea was worthy because it would support projects that would
  "bridge the gap between public funds and private philanthropy in those many areas of national life where additional expenditure may be described as desirable but not essential."
  My noble Friend Lord Baker, when Home Secretary, said of the money from the lottery:
  "I must emphasise that this will be additional funding. The Government do not intend that the money provided by the lottery should substitute for existing expenditure programmes."
  Following those principles, I cannot imagine a better cause than the Millennium Commission's sponsorship of the plan to redevelop the entrance to Portsmouth harbour and the Gosport area in my constituency. One does not have to stuff presents from Father Christmas back up the chimney because one does not believe in him. The plan is imaginative; it is a sweeping vision, with promenades for Gosport and for Portsmouth, new open and leisure areas and spectacular water features, which will be dominated by a tall, elegant tower reminiscent of a sailing spinnaker.
  The planning stage has gone through, and building work will proceed later in the year. This £86 million project has £40 million of support from the lottery. I should have much preferred it to come out of public funds rather than lottery funds, but the project is exactly in accordance with the original test of additionality.
  What is planned under the Bill? The siphoning off of £1 billion, which is in excess of the original expected lottery yield of £9 billion, has been justified by the Prime Minister, who said:
  "It is the people's lottery. It should address the people's priorities."
  On message as always, the Secretary of State for Social Security said:
  "It is the public's money, and the public want it spent on high-quality child care."
  I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who attacked the "people's this, people's that" attitude; an increasing number of people find such extraordinarily cheap populism offensive.
  The Government propose the New Opportunities Fund and the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, and they will spend the money as they think fit. They are also tightening their grip on every aspect of expenditure of lottery funds. Clause 12 provides that the Secretary of State will give instructions about a strategic plan, which must be submitted to the Secretary of State for consultation, after which a body must
  "make such modifications to the draft as it considers necessary or expedient."
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) said, the Secretary of State will tighten his control over the distribution of lottery funds. The Secretary of State will discover that, in the annual bilateral meetings with the Treasury, it in turn will tighten its control over him. The Treasury will lean on him, and, as always, it will win. The lottery will become a voluntary tax paid substantially by poorer people, and promoted by the Government as a game. I find that very sad.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. Tom Levitt: There seems to be general agreement that the projected £9 billion of lottery income could be £10 billion, and there is even speculation

  221
  that the figure will be higher. I hope that my colleagues on the Front Bench will not be too perturbed, and will not get their statisticians to recalculate their projection when they discover that I am yet another hon. Member who has never bought a lottery ticket in his life. I am £176 better off than anyone who has bought one ticket a week. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) said that she has won more than £50 on the lottery. If she had bought a ticket a week, she would now be £120 out of pocket.
  By not paying that £176, I have deprived the good causes of only £40 over the three and a bit years that the lottery has been in operation. That would have been spread among all the different good causes in the lottery structure. I am not being sanctimonious when I say that I have given considerably more than £40 to good causes in that period, with the added advantage that, for every pound I have given, the good cause has had £1-worth of benefit.
  I had some gut sympathy with the arguments of the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), but they were the arguments of four years ago. They were pertinent to the establishment of the lottery, but not to the position now. The lottery is well established, and is undoubtedly successful by any measure. We must move forward, and no one except the hon. Gentleman seriously wants to go back four years to a time when we did not have a lottery.
  I noted that the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) said that being a millionaire can damage one's health. Perhaps she was referring to some of her hon. Friends.
  The arguments of the hon. Member for Gosport tell us something about the way in which the lottery is operated. Concerns have been expressed about under-age gambling, the promotion of gambling, the size of the profits made by Camelot and the size of its directors' pay packets, and the damage that may have been done to charitable giving. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) said that the Football Trust had lost about 60 per cent. of its funding, although it may now have got that back. Many other charities will have got their funding back, but some will not, and we must give them consideration.
  Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman referred to concerns about the pay of the people at Camelot who run the lottery. Does he subscribe to those concerns, and, if so, why? The good causes do not lose, regardless of the level of their pay. The Treasury does not lose any duty, and the players do not lose on prizes. The pay of its directors is a matter between Camelot and its shareholders.
  Mr. Levitt: That was not the view of the previous Government when the Greenbury committee reported on excessive salaries. They should have heeded its recommendations.
  There are also concerns about the size of the payouts. The huge roll-over figures suggest that there is some scope for putting limits on prizes. The highest payouts could be reduced without lessening the attraction of the lottery to those who participate, and the money could be used to supplement the donations to good causes.
  We shall deal with those problems, and we shall continue to ensure that the lottery is run according to the highest ethical standards. Those who have received lottery
  222
  funding in the past three years have felt the benefit. The Bill provides massive potential benefit from the new funds and from the existing good causes.
  I am one of the vice-chairs of the all-party group on the voluntary sector. It has met leaders of the National Lottery Charities Board and has discussed funding from the lottery as it affects the voluntary sector and charities. The group has made submissions as part of the consultation process.
  During the year before I entered the House, I took soundings from the voluntary sector and charities in my High Peak constituency about how they operate, what problems they have and how they could be best addressed. Funding from the lottery loomed large in their calculations. They were concerned that only 6p in every pound given to the lottery was going to each good cause. They were particularly concerned that there should be transparency in funding decisions. They wanted decision making to be decentralised, and judgments on funding to be made by their peers rather than by faceless bureaucrats on high. The strategic planning required by the Bill will provide opportunities for greater transparency and decentralisation.
  I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) about the comparative lack of success of bids from rural areas. Although we have had some successes in my constituency, the Peak District rural deprivation forum, which is a worthy cause, has had three bids rejected. Organisations that fail to win lottery funds should be given feedback, so that it is easier for them to submit future bids. I understand that that provision, not hitherto available, is anticipated in the Bill, and that is very welcome.
  I want to raise the issue of co-ordination between different bids made to different good causes that involve a particular project. The Buxton opera house in my constituency is looking for both heritage and arts funding. Theatre projects have to be planned well in advance, because the theatre may have to close, and may not be able to put on performances. Changes to disabled access need to be made without disturbance to audiences. Co-ordination between the different funding bodies has proved difficult, and the original timetable has not been followed. The evidence suggests that co-ordination between the funding bodies needs to be better.
  Another subject raised by the voluntary sector organisations, especially the small bodies, was the huge amount of time and effort required to construct a bid. Some organisations almost cease to do the job that they were set up to do because one or two employees or those who are at the heart of the organisations spend their time putting a bid together, rather than getting on with their work. I hope that that problem can be addressed.
  The Government have already made some changes, and there have been local initiatives to assist organisations that are seeking grants. In my area, High Peak borough council and Derbyshire county council have designated officers to advise organisations on the putting together of bids. In addition to assistance, they provide an assessment of possible success and application forms. Derbyshire council was strapped for cash a couple of years ago, but it was able to place a substantial sum in an account to support organisations with matched funding.
  The gearing of some elements of lottery funding is such that, if there is no core funding, there can be no matched funding. However, a small contribution from another

  223
  source, such as a local authority, can enable a bid to attract considerable matched funding and allow a project to go ahead. That is a good use of public funds, and it allows more investment in the services that people require. It has proved successful, and it highlights a problem that hon. Members have mentioned. It is that many areas have low lottery funding because they had difficulty putting together matched funding to make a bid. Matched funding ensures a greater chance of success.
  I am pleased to see the abolition of the minimum grant, and I welcome the practice that started in January of permitting open-ended bid periods, so that organisations can make bids when they are ready, rather than having to abide by an imposed, artificial and arbitrary timetable.
  I should like to deal with two issues that were raised by Opposition Members. I mentioned one of them in my intervention on the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), when I spoke about additionality, a concept which is easier to understand when viewed in terms of substitution. I gave as an example the funding that will be provided to train teachers on information technology for the new millennium. There is a world of difference between substitute funding for day-to-day, in-service or pre-service training, and training on information technology. Substitution in the former case would replace Government and local authority provision.
  Information technology provides new opportunities for schools, and the national lottery may grant funds for investment in the internet and in the hardware that is required to access it. A huge one-off investment in training teachers over a short time in addition to the ordinary requirements of teacher training is not substitution: it is additionality.
  There is an alternative to such funding, but local authorities find it difficult to take on big, one-off, new commitments. In any case, it would not be possible through the current local authority funding process, even if we wished to do it that way, for local authorities to spend large amounts on the training of teachers in high-technology skills. In such situations, one-off, intensive lottery funding is justified.
  The second issue is strategic planning. Clause 12 puts into effect what the Secretary of State has said. I noted what he said. He said that he was issuing letters today on new directions for funding that would take it away from the capital and revenue debate and towards social value, people, access, children and young people. It will be a move towards a fairer geographical spread, and will include in-kind funding and sustainable development.
  Those are the criteria which my right hon. Friend has set, and it is right that strategic planning should relate to them. The funding bodies will be told, "Here are the criteria for funding. How do you plan to meet them?" That is certainly not political intervention in individual lottery bids. It changes the direction of the framework along the lines that we have made plain all along.
  As I have said, the results of the lottery so far are worth celebrating, and there will be a great deal more to celebrate in future. I welcome the fact that the first sod was turned last week on the Tideswell sports centre, which is a £1 million investment in a Derbyshire village. The Pavilion gardens in Buxton are well on the way to being refurbished, and the lake will be revitalised. Some brass bands in my constituency have received new funding. They include the Fairfield brass band, of which I have the honour to be an honorary vice-president.
  224
  Like the case quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), a furniture project in my constituency has had lottery funding. It did not receive as much as the one in her constituency, but it supports a valuable new initiative, which not only recycles furniture and passes it to people who need it, but provides many training opportunities. Funding for Glossop women's aid and the award of another couple of winning bids were announced last week, and they are welcome.
  Buxton is an historic town, and we shall seek heritage funding for three of its local buildings—the opera house, the Crescent and the former Devonshire royal hospital. Those are magnificent buildings with a high architectural value, but perhaps the more important aspect of the funding is that it will be for what happens in the buildings. The hospital will become vacant in the middle of next year, and we seek a sensitive and publicly accessible use for it. If anyone has any good ideas, I should be pleased to hear them. It has the largest existing dome in the country.
  I applaud the Bill, and not just for the reasons that I have given. Hon. Members have spoken about NESTA and the New Opportunities Fund, and about the commitment, repeated time and again in the consultation documents, that there will be no substitution. We are debating additional funding.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Does my hon. Friend welcome as I do the comments by the former Cabinet Minister William Waldegrave that were published in The Daily Telegraph on 23 March? He described NESTA as a welcome, imaginative and wise project. Does my hon. Friend further agree that that contrasts markedly with the grudging and mealy-mouthed attitude of Opposition Members, and that, just as electoral defeat has improved William Waldegrave's attitude, a period of defeat might improve the attitude of Conservative Members?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman should not make another speech.
  Mr. Levitt: I shall merely say that it looks as though the wrong half of the Conservative party failed to get re-elected last year. My hon. Friend cites the good example of NESTA in connection with additionality—if it is so important for the Government to get involved, why did not the previous Government do so?
  I look forward to the Bill's unhampered passage through the House, and its rapid evolution into the establishment—yes, I use the phrase again—of a true people's lottery, which is what we intend to have.
  7.59 pm
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) and I share a common interest in sport, although I do not agree with some of what he has just said. We have both been trying to get ready for the coming cricket season and, although we are not trying to be the first-class athletes whom the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) was talking about, I hope that we have some profitable and hard-hitting partnerships when the season gets under way.

  225
  The hon. Member for High Peak may not have realised that he was on dangerous ground when he referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) and her comments about millionaires. Perhaps he did not realise how much hilarity he caused us—
  Fiona Mactaggart: I am sorry to intervene, but I watched the hilarity, and I have to say that it is very irritating when the only thing to which Conservative Members will respond is the amount of money with which one is born. Since I was elected to the House, there are two matters on which I have been lobbied by the sort of people among whom I was born and brought up—one is the defence of their right to hunt furry foxes, and the other is the defence of their right to be overpaid consultants to bodies that have been milking the lottery until now, but which will not be able to do so in future.
  Mr. Hawkins: The extraordinary thing is that I had not mentioned the hon. Lady. On another occasion, she might wait until she has been mentioned before she intervenes; it really is a case of:
  "The lady protests too much, methinks."
  I shall look back for a moment to the time when my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), the former Secretary of State for National Heritage, moved the Second Reading of the National Lottery etc. Bill just over five years ago. Reading Hansard from that period is particularly instructive.
  Perhaps the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons might like to reflect on the importance of revisiting subjects about five years after they first come up, because one of the most fascinating things about that Second Reading debate was that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster had been on his feet for only a few minutes, the first intervention that he took was from the Minister for Sport, who was then the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. The hon. Gentleman asked:
  "What assurances can the Secretary of State give the House that the money from a national lottery, if one is instituted, will not be used to replace central Government funding for a number of the areas that he has designated? If the Government no longer publish their forward plans for funding the arts, how can we ever know whether they have taken the national lottery money into consideration when making a settlement for the arts and other areas?"—[Official Report, 25 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 715.]
  I am tempted to say that the Minister was then just a humble and radical Back Bencher, but, after further consideration, I have to say that he was never that humble, although he was absolutely right to say what he did. His long experience of this place had made him aware of the rapacity of the Treasury, and he raised the very concerns about additionality that we have raised again tonight.
  If hon. Members look back to that debate in 1993 and to the entire Committee proceedings, they will find that hon. Member after hon. Member from what was then the Opposition was pressing the Government about additionality and its sacrosanct nature. The vast majority of those Labour Members are now either Ministers or Whips, apart from the then hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton who, sadly, could not find a Labour seat to fight.
  226
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) for piloting the original Bill through its Committee stage. He was in the Chamber earlier today, and I know that he has taken a great interest in these proceedings. I add my recognition of the work that he did to the tributes that have already been paid to my right hon. Friends the Members for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), for Cities of London and Westminster and for South-West Surrey.
  The fact that the Government are undermining the principle of additionality in the Bill is of particular concern to the distributive bodies. My particular concern, as the Minister well knows, is about sport. At this stage, I must apologise to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) for the fact that, because of a long-standing commitment to constituents, I shall not be here for all the winding-up speeches, although I hope to hear some of them and will certainly read them with great care in Hansard.
  The Minister will be aware that the English Sports Council has expressed particular concern about the proposals. It said that it was important that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport recognised that the new commitment—the New Opportunities Fund—would impact on the English Sports Council by reducing the percentage share allotted to sport. It went on to say that although the White Paper confirmed that the existing good causes would receive the same amount as envisaged when the lottery was originally established, it would none the less result in an estimated downturn of approximately £40 million per annum to English sport compared with what had been received to date.
  The council was further aware that, on examination, it was clear that lotteries in other countries had tended to start by bringing unique new resources to areas such as sport, but then permitted that position to be eroded. The council urged the Government to restate their commitment to the long-term funding of sport through its share of lottery income.
  I know that the Minister has a sincere commitment to sport—I had the opportunity to act temporarily as his shadow for a few weeks after the election. When he was an Opposition Back Bencher in the previous Parliament, we worked together on several matters. I do not for a moment query his personal commitment, but he is aware of the danger of the Treasury grabbing money.
  Reading the Sports Council's words about the world-class performance programme shows why lottery support is crucial to support top performers. Each year, the English Sports Council carries out public attitude surveys. We have been talking about "the people", so it is important to note that the surveys show that three quarters of adults think it is important that the country achieves international sporting success; seven out of 10 adults think it is important that lottery money is spent helping the country achieve international sporting success; and nine out of 10 adults who think international sporting success is important also think it is important that lottery funding should be spent helping the country achieve that success.
  The summer Olympics are seen as the most important event in which the country should achieve success, followed closely by world championships in many sports and by the Paralympics. Again, the Minister knows that I have been involved, as he has, in much fund raising for sport for the disabled, especially Paralympic athletes.

  227
  The Minister and I agree that many more people care about sport than care about politics. When we are talking about lottery money being spent on sport, we must remember that that is what people who might not be interested in our debates do care about. As everyone acknowledges, there is a continuing and increasing financial need for additional support for our top British performers. That is highlighted by the concern about our falling performances at recent summer Olympics. In the past five games, the British Olympic placing has dropped successively from ninth place in Moscow in 1980 to 36th place in the medal table in Atlanta in 1996.
  The lottery-funded world-class performance programme was launched by the previous Government on 14 November 1996, with the first awards announced the following spring after comprehensive consultation with national governing bodies and sports organisations, including the British Olympic Association and the Central Council of Physical Recreation. The Minister knows that that programme is strategically geared to support the nation's most talented sportsmen and sportswomen, to help them to win medals and trophies in international competition. To date, in the first year of the programme, some £23 million has been awarded to 30 sports, including £1.9 million for rowing, £2.26 million for athletics and £2 million for one of my favourite sports, swimming. To date, more than 1,622 athletes and performers have received support directly or indirectly from the lottery.
  I echo the comments by many hon. Members on both sides of the House about the importance of supporting sport locally. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey mentioned her pleasure in the improvement of cricket nets at Grayswood in her constituency —I know that club well, because a cricket club that I played for used to have an annual tour and Grayswood was one of the teams that we played every year. I certainly welcome that, and congratulate the club on the success of its lottery bid.
  Sports lottery bids in my constituency and others that I support have already been completed. One in particular involves a swimming pool that is to have total public access; it is based at the successful Tomlinscote county secondary school in my constituency. However, I am concerned that groups in all our constituencies may not succeed so easily in those bids and that cricket clubs, rugby clubs, swimming pools and many other sporting events will not receive support.
  There is no doubt that our top international competitors recognise the importance of lottery support. For example, one of our medal winners, Paul Palmer, nearly retired from swimming after winning the silver medal for Great Britain in the 400 m freestyle final in Atlanta. He now acknowledges that lottery support, which provided for his training facilities, contributed substantially to his gold medal in last year's European championships in Seville. The four-man bobsleigh team that won a bronze medal at Nagano trained and won the race in a bobsleigh that was provided by a capital grant from the lottery. Such support is essential.
  The Sports Council knows that its funding and the funding to individual athletes is likely to diminish as a result of the Government's proposals. I am particularly concerned about that. There are other concerns about the Government's proposals, many of which have been touched on by my right hon. and hon. Friends and which I do not intend to repeat, but they were perhaps summed
  228
  up by Lord Inglewood, who, in the debate on the Bill in another place, quoted my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey saying about the lottery:
  "It's only a matter of time before it is all used for nurses' pay."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 December 1997; Vol. 584, c. 754.]
  The hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) mentioned that she was a nurse and explained that she supported the Government's proposals, particularly the way in which the money was going into the health service. We all want successful health and education services, but it was the Labour party that said time after time in opposition, "We must not allow substitution of money from the lottery for general taxation revenue."
  Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hawkins: I am coming to an end, so I will not give way to the hon. Lady again.
  The Labour party pressed time and again to avoid the substitution of money from the lottery for general taxation revenue, in such sectors as health and education. Having called for bans to stop that happening, the Labour party is doing it itself. The Bill may contain some helpful things, but that is the foremost reason why the Government's main proposals undermine the additionality principle, which is greatly to be deplored. Labour said one thing in opposition and is doing something entirely different now that it is in government.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. Jim Murphy: I am pleased to participate in the debate. I have listened with interest to many of the comments by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am particularly pleased to follow the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who made some interesting comments. He has an affinity with sport, which I share. However, I had not been aware that he had a keen interest only in swimming, because I understood from the records that he was also quite keen on running: in the build-up to the election, he ran from the marginal seat of Blackpool, South to the Tory safe seat of Surrey Heath.
  Mr. Fraser: My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) must be good at running.
  Mr. Murphy: I have no idea. Blackpool, South has now changed hands and is a Labour seat.
  I am unashamed to say that I participate in the lottery. I think that I have participated in almost every weekend draw except one, and I participate regularly in the midweek draw. I use the word "participant" instead of "player". Perhaps "gambler" is more appropriate, but I do not feel that "lottery player" is the appropriate term, as I do not believe that participation in the lottery is a sport. Support from the lottery should go towards sport, but the lottery is not a sport, so I am a participant or a gambler in the lottery.
  I represent Eastwood, which is one of the 50 areas throughout the United Kingdom that receive the least in terms of the sums granted through the National Lottery Charities Board. I hope that the debate is not simply about right hon. and hon. Members who feel that their

  229
  constituencies may have had a raw deal in lottery allocation and who complain about that. The debate is about much more than simply arguing the case for one's constituency and for many of the worthy causes, charitable and otherwise, there.
  However, that so far this evening, five or six hon. Members have identified the fact that their constituencies are at the bottom of the league table of lottery allocation. My constituency is no different. However, like many others, it benefits from lottery grant allocations to constituencies that it borders. It is on the outskirts of Glasgow. Although Eastwood and the local authority of East Renfrewshire may have a low place in the league table of lottery allocation, many of their citizens benefit as a consequence of the larger grants to the greater conurbation of Glasgow. That point should not be missed. The tables themselves miss that qualitative analysis of the benefit that people gain.
  Why does Eastwood have a low place in the league table? There are two major reasons. One is that the constituency is made up of large areas of prosperous communities. It is a new community where, in some cases, perhaps a charity ethos has not yet fully developed, because there is a regular turnover of people who come and go. Because of that sense of prosperity, schools, Churches and other groups have an opportunity to raise their own charitable funds, rather than rely on the lottery board. Perhaps that explains why the part of the constituency that is relatively prosperous is a low attainer in respect of lottery grants.
  The second part of the constituency is less prosperous, but has nevertheless been less capable of capturing much-needed lottery grants. It is partly because of the perceived distance between those who wish to gain funds and those who distribute the funds: the perceived inaccessibility of the process and the procedure.
  I welcome the idea in the Bill of reducing complexity; of minimising the gap between those who seek lottery funding and those who provide it; of reducing that feeling of distance and perhaps increasing the sense of ownership of the whole process and procedure among people in the less prosperous areas in my constituency. I am not arguing that we have to dumb down the entire process to make it entirely simplistic, because that would be patronising, but we must strike a balance between qualitative information gathering and the idea that one has to have support from a lobbying organisation, access to solicitors, previous experience or expert advice.
  Hon. Members throughout the country, regardless of which party they represent, have that experience. I have boys' football clubs in my constituency that perform very well in their leagues, but which could nevertheless benefit from moderate increased funding through the lottery. When I suggest to the volunteers who run those boys' football clubs that they should seek lottery grants, they say that they do not have time and do not understand the procedure. That is primarily because they are volunteers and do not have access to lobbyists or to expensive solicitors. That is the case for clubs at Busby and Barrhead.
  Earlier in the debate, it was suggested that Members of Parliament should provide such advice. That is a valid argument. As a new Member of Parliament with a keen
  230
  interest in the issue, I should like advice on how to facilitate that. We need to be trained, to ensure that we can advise our constituents on the most effective way to gain lottery funding.
  Some Labour Members have admitted not only to not being regular participants in the lottery draws, but to having some trepidation about even filling in a lottery ticket. If some Members of Parliament have difficulty in filling in a lottery ticket, it would be surprising if there were not greater numbers who would find it difficult to fill in a lottery grant application form. If Members of Parliament are to advocate and champion broader participation and increased access to lottery funds, it would be helpful for us to receive information about how we can help.
  During a debate on the Scotland Bill last week, I admitted that I was a keen follower of gambling in the recreational sense. I mentioned some horses whose names symbolised Conservative success or failure in Scotland. I hope that you entertain me in this argument, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because there is a logical train of thought running through to the lottery. The horses that I mentioned were—
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Tell it again. Tell it again.
  Mr. Murphy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that encouragement. A horse called Parliamentarian was ridden by my namesake, Mr. Murphy. I said that the only factor that would prevent me from gambling on it was the presence of another horse in the race called Mr. Sleazy. On the same day, there was another horse called Blue Desert. I was heckled by a sedentary Conservative Member—not the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on that occasion — about how the horses performed. I should like to inform the House that they came first and second.
  That was an unusual way for me to pick horses and predict the outcome of a race. With that experience in mind, I shall inform the House of my lottery numbers, in anticipation of a similar outcome.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman did not make it clear which horse came first and which came second. Will he clarify that?
  Mr. Murphy: I would not intentionally mislead the House by trying to offer which way in the forecast they came round. The hon. Gentleman will know that if he had put on a reverse forecast, it would not matter which way round the horses came in, because the money would still be paid out on first and second.
  In the hope of continuing that new quirk of fate in prediction, I shall tell the House my lottery numbers. I see that the hon. Member for New Forest, West has his pen ready. The numbers are: 7, 8, 17, 18, 30 and 44. I have selected those numbers religiously since the start of the lottery. If the hon. Gentleman wins the lottery this week, I shall expect at least a half share. I have been wonderfully successful so far. I have won with those numbers three times. Hon. Members will understand from the fact that I am still here that I did not win the jackpot. On three separate occasions, I have won the princely sum of £10. I hold out hope for future success.

  231
  I welcome the Bill. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides are aware of the perceived imbalance and London bias in the distribution of lottery money. I understand that there is a need for investment in central London, because London is the capital. However, my constituents perceive an imbalance towards London and a proximity between those who receive the funds and those who distribute them. I am glad to see details in the Bill of ways of improving the awarding of grants through a strategy based on need and policy directions by the Secretary of State. I should like further details tonight or in Committee on how that will operate.
  Conservative Members have made some unusual comments about cronyism. That is strange, coming from a party which tried to create a quango state based on cronyism. We shall take no lessons from them. There is understandable cynicism in the country because of the previous Government's performance in huge areas of public life. There will be genuine concern that we should not indulge in cronyism.
  I also welcome the opportunity of greater proactivity. Rather than awaiting applications, we can initiate or solicit them. I have mentioned the volunteers in my constituency who perform valuable tasks, often with very little thanks. If they were encouraged, they would get involved in the process, but they lack the initial spark. Perhaps it is my responsibility as their Member of Parliament to provide it.
  A number of organisations in Eastwood and east Renfrewshire—as in other parts of the country—have failed in their applications because of a technicality or because of a lack of clear analysis of what they wanted to do with the money. I should welcome more detailed feedback and clarification on why certain bids do not succeed. My constituents would then know why they had not been successful and how they could improve their bid for a future application. That would be appropriate not just for the bowling clubs, rugby clubs and tennis clubs at Crofthead, Shanks and Whitecraigs in my constituency, but for organisations that are partially successful—or even those that are completely successful, to enable them to repeat their success.
  I should like to mention two organisations from my constituency; one because it is unusual and the other because of the brilliant work that it does. The first is Wummin Drummin. Having grown up in the same city as me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will understand the name of that organisation. For those who have not lived in Glasgow, Wummin Drummin is ladies playing musical instruments. It exists to enable mothers on low incomes to become involved in the arts and performing with musical instruments. The organisation plays a great role in the community life of Barrhead.
  The other successful organisation is the Eastwood mental health forum. Those who experience mental difficulties and those who care for them very much welcome that lottery funding. Those organisations and others—all too few—in my constituency that have been successful in their bids would like continued feedback on why they were successful and how they and organisations of a similar ilk can continue to be successful.
  Before I address two areas that do not directly relate to the Bill, I shall refer to the New Opportunities Fund. Feedback on that in my constituency has been positive. Conservative Members have said that it simply replaces
  232
  public expenditure and that general taxation should be used. That is not a coherent argument, on the basis that the Conservatives failed to provide so many of the opportunities that the new fund will set about providing. It will radically transform the lives of so many people.
  Much comment has already been made about child care opportunities and healthy living centres. Such expenditure and investment might not be made and such opportunities might not be provided without the New Opportunities Fund. I welcome the fund, and my constituents welcome it. If all hon. Members were honest, they would recognise that our constituents welcome the imaginative approach to using what is, after all, the people's money to target the people's priorities.
  I now come to the role of sport. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath, who I understand had to attend a constituency engagement, talked about the role of sport and commented on the view of the English Sports Council on the legislation. Today, I have been in contact with the Scottish Sports Council. I discussed the Bill with it, as I did with many organisations, including voluntary organisations, in Scotland.
  I do not wish to set the Scottish Sports Council against the English Sports Council in any way—heaven forfend, I have already created competition between Scottish and English Members of Parliament, by helping to organise a football game between the two groups at Wembley on 11 May. However, perhaps that is not competition enough, as the Scots are guaranteed success at Wembley for the first time in more than a decade.
  The comments of the Scottish Sports Council are not markedly different from the concerns expressed by the English Sports Council in respect of priorities and the role of sport in the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. I echo the comments made to me by the Scottish Sports Council, with which I know the Minister will agree, that it is crucial that, as we continue to invest in science, technology and the arts, sport is not in any way forgotten. In many people's minds, sport is a form of art anyway.
  The New Opportunities Fund provides a great opportunity to promote the role of sport. I should welcome comments either this evening or in Committee about the role of after-school clubs and healthy living centres. After-school clubs can be about homework, helping in the community or simply schoolwork—all of which are important—but they can also provide an excellent extra-curricular opportunity, to encourage young people to become involved in a sport in the safety of the school and the community, which is crucial if we are to invest in stars of the future. I hope that healthy living centres profile the importance of personal fitness and the role that sport provides. I should welcome a commitment from the Minister about the absolute importance of sport in all those areas. With such assurances, the concerns of the Scottish Sports Council and, indeed, of the English Sports Council, can be overcome.
  Finally—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This is the first time that I have heard Conservative Members say that during one of my speeches.
  Although the issue of international grants is not directly addressed in the Bill, it is important for the House to declare its opinion on it. Organisations based in the United Kingdom that work abroad have the opportunity to access grants, and it is crucial that that continues. In a previous

  233
  incarnation, I combined the concept of international aid, grants and support from the arts when I was fortunate enough to organise a tour of a play throughout Scotland, which supported international aid projects, especially in southern Africa, Namibia, Mozambique and Angola. In its very, very small way, that was helpful to the small number of people who were fortunate to gain from it. That is an example of art dovetailing well with international aid.
  I should like to put it on record that the concept of British lottery funds supporting other countries is crucial. The ethos of Live Aid and Comic Relief should be maintained in the distribution of lottery funds. In preparing for the debate, I took the opportunity to ask about some of the grants that are provided for British organisations that work internationally. Many such grants are consistent with the charity drive of Live Aid, Comic Relief and many other organisations, such as Actionaid and the many reputable organisations of which hon. Members on both sides of the House are patrons. The concept of providing primary education in Mozambique is consistent with the idea of Live Aid and Comic Relief, and the desires of people in the UK. Providing health care in Kenya is important, as are grants to Actionaid that support education in Uganda.
  Such an approach to lottery funding and support is in keeping with the British spirit of giving. In that spirit, I very much welcome the Bill and hope that it creates once and for all the people's lottery, which meets the people's needs.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. Christopher Fraser: I shall confine my comments to the Bill rather than giving a Cook's tour of my extra-curricular activities, as the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) did. I should tell him, however, that I have just won a bet on the length of his speech. If he would like to exercise his talents in other ways, I strongly recommend him to join the all-party racing and bloodstock group. I would welcome him willingly, considering the tips that he has given us in the debate.
  No one questions the success of the national lottery. More than 94 per cent. of the adult population have played it. More people regularly take part in the lottery than voted in the general election. Labour Members who have said otherwise and have commented on the general election should be reminded of that; life did not begin on 1 May.
  Not only has the lottery become a national institution, but it has a major impact on the quality of life in Britain by raising significant sums for the five original good causes, strengthening community ties by improved access to cultural and leisure activities, and promoting economic regeneration. According to a recent report by the Royal Bank of Scotland, the lottery has created and safeguarded 13,000 jobs. Of course, it boosts retail trade, too.
  At the end of 1997, 22 national lottery awards had been made to projects in my constituency. Since then, a major award in excess of £85,000 has been made to Dorset Wildlife Trust to acquire 100 acres of heathland at Upton, which will be managed as a nature reserve. Smaller grants made to charities and to heritage, sports and arts budgets have benefited from the £4.9 billion that has been raised for good causes.
  234
  I cannot say whether any of the 544 new millionaires created since the lottery began live in my constituency, but I can say that thousands of my constituents enjoy a flutter, and an occasional win. They embrace the principle that the national lottery was set up to restore our heritage and to promote projects that will become a source of national pride.
  The Government are happy to pay tribute to the great success of the national lottery. I suppose that it would be churlish to say that the lottery is yet another Conservative achievement which they are now happy to embrace. Now, however, they propose to tamper with it and undermine it, as they have with other national institutions. To them, making things new seems as important as making things work.
  Yet again, the initiative is Treasury led. Proceeds from the lottery will be diverted to Treasury so-called good causes, in addition to the money that it already receives from ticket sales, because the Government do not have the political will to raise taxes.
  The Bill will turn the national lottery into a state lottery. Mainstream public spending projects will now be funded in that way, despite the Prime Minister's affirmation in the White Paper, "The People's Lottery". That has been referred to many times, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) has already quoted from it, so I shall not do so again.
  Thus, important principles of the national lottery are overturned at a stroke. Despite the Secretary of State's earlier comments, I am sceptical of his assurances about the additionality principle. The principle that lottery funds should be distributed by bodies operating independently of Government is in jeopardy. A proportion of the local initiatives that strengthen communities will be replaced.
  That is another example of the Government's determination to centralise power, under the cloak of the description, "the people's". As has been said, that phrase has been used in many other areas throughout the world, especially in the eastern European communist regimes, so it is interesting to hear Labour Ministers and their official spokesmen using that phrase in the context of the present Government.
  It is no good the Government's claiming that the New Opportunities Fund initiatives are optional or additional to the initiatives currently funded from the public purse. Despite what the Secretary of State said, I believe that, as my hon. Friends have already said, they fall within the normal Government spending responsibilities of health, education and the environment—all areas in which the Labour party, which now forms the Government, made manifesto pledges before the election.
  Spending programmes are constantly evolving, but, even applying the most creative accounting, the Government cannot rightly transfer to the national lottery the cost of such evolution. If the only changes being introduced are new social aspects of spending programmes, such as the training of teachers and librarians in information technology, the Government are not doing their job properly if they fund them from the lottery. I had intended to say that that was the thin end of the wedge, but I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who has already said that it is the thick end of the wedge.

  235
  I question some specific aspects of the Bill. For example, what will the healthy living centres be? I have written down several ideas for what they might be, but we must ask how they will compete with the services already offered by the national health service. Do they represent another way in which to reduce the expenditure of taxpayers' money on GP services, pharmacists' charges and preventive medicine? I look forward to hearing the Minister's response later. A network of such centres is promised—a strategic plan, no doubt, for the Secretary of State promises to acquire the power to exercise greater control over how lottery money is spent, not only on its pet projects, but geographically.
  I admit that the south-west has done well, and my area has participated in that; 10.3 per cent. of awards, excluding countrywide awards, have come the south-west's way. That is less than the proportion for London, of course. None the less, the awards made in the south-west represent a tribute to the people who have devoted time, effort and imagination to the submission of applications for funds.
  I have first-hand experience of that. I was a district councillor before becoming a Member of Parliament, and I applied for a lottery grant for the improvement of a council estate in my ward that had been neglected for 55 years while it had had a Labour councillor. I am pleased to say that in the first year after I was elected, we applied for a grant. With great success, we achieved what we set out to do on the second occasion, with support from local people who cared about where they lived. That experience is relevant to the Bill.
  If, as I suspect, the Secretary of State wishes to tackle what some in the House see as a regional imbalance in the distribution of lottery money, he is in danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water and getting rid of the diversity inherent in the voluntary and community initiatives that come forward.
  The national lottery was set up to stimulate community activity by creating opportunities for local people to form groups to apply for grants and find matching funding. That opportunity has been seized and turned to best advantage throughout the country. It is interesting to note that most of the grants go to London, which temporarily has a majority of Labour-held seats. Any Labour Member who says that he or she does not see the benefits of the lottery is misinformed.
  Now, it seems, the Government believe that local initiatives can be imposed from the centre. The lottery sports fund has committed £680 million to 2,500 capital projects, resulting in enormous benefits. More than 90 per cent. of all the schemes approved have been for community-level projects, most of which have cost less than £100,000. That is laudable.
  The key to ensuring equitable distribution has been the adoption of two policies—the priority areas initiative, through which increased support is given to the most deprived areas of greatest social need, and the school community sport initiative, through which increased support is given to school projects that also provide guaranteed access for the local community out of school hours.
  Despite what the Secretary of State said, independent monitoring of the first 320 completed projects has shown that for sport, investment in bricks and mortar is really investment in people. For example, participation by the
  236
  under-18s has tripled, as has participation by women, and participation by people with disabilities has doubled. Schools are opening up for the community out of traditional hours, playing time has been extended and coaching opportunities have been increased.
  In my constituency, the community in Alderney is looking forward to the opening of a splendid new sports centre at the Martin Kemp Welch school, which incorporates a competition-sized swimming pool, a trampoline facility and a centre of excellence for gymnastics. That magnificent development at a school making great strides to improve its image within the community that it serves—I am pleased to say that I had a preview of the facilities when I visited the school last month—has been built with a grant from the national lottery equating to £2.5 million. It will be open to the community out of school hours and it will provide a much-needed centre for local people, young, old and disabled alike.
  That lottery application, submitted by the borough of Poole before the establishment of the school community sport initiative, will benefit an area much in need of such facilities. In other parts of the country, by using deprivation indices as a measure of assessment, the Sports Council has been able to ensure that the areas of most need achieve lottery support. Surely that is more important than pure geography, in the form of a map covered in equidistant coloured pins, which seems to be what is proposed.
  By permitting the distributing bodies to solicit bids, and requiring them to produce strategic plans, the Government not only increase their own power, but discourage the initiative of local people, which has been the backbone of the lottery's success in supporting grassroots sport at community level.
  Demand for grants from the lottery sport fund exceeds supply by a ratio of 4:1. The financial instructions to the fund stipulate how much information the distributors have to collect, the partnership funding that applicants have to provide, and how the distributing bodies are to monitor lottery awards.
  That approach has worked well, but now the Secretary of State wants to move the goalposts. He seeks to solicit applications, although there is no shortage of applications. Awards will be made on a whim and a fancy, irrespective of whether there is community support for a project.
  The present model of awards is transparent and, I believe, free from accusations of political gerrymandering. It would be interesting to hear how the Minister—neither he nor any of his ministerial colleagues is present in the Chamber—intends that positive characteristic to continue.
  The national lottery has exceeded expectations. The good causes expected to benefit, as they have, from public enthusiasm and support, and to receive their fair share of the £1 billion excess that is projected over the next seven years of the lottery's operation; not least, they expected the Government to keep their election promise that the New Opportunities Fund would be introduced to replace the millennium fund.
  Now, we are presented with a sixth good cause, as well as the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, so everybody's relative share will fall. Good causes will lose out. The Secretary of State tried to talk

  237
  his way out of that broken promise by suggesting that they will get at least as much as they would have done had the national lottery been less successful.
  The White Paper said:
  "although the existing good causes will be receiving a smaller share of lottery revenue, the success of the lottery means that they can still plan on receiving the same amount as envisaged when the lottery was set up."
  The House should dwell on this point: in essence, the Secretary of State is saying to the good causes that they will get less in the future, but that they should try to forget that, because the Government expect them to get the same amount as was predicted when the lottery was still a paper concept. He is telling them, "Close your eyes, forget the experience of the most successful lottery in the world and be grateful for getting less."
  Some people use words to illuminate their message; others to emasculate it. I shall leave it to the House to judge into which category Ministers—none is present—have fallen tonight. Were the matter not so serious, it would be laughable. The Heritage Lottery Fund, in particular, fears for its ability to undertake larger projects in future, when it could be considered the very essence of the lottery's existence to restore our heritage and create projects of which Britain will be proud.
  Somehow, the Government manage to blame the people for their reforms, suggesting that responses to the consultation exercise represent the views of a cross-section of society or of those who play each week. Many hon. Members have talked about that, and, when pushed, Government Members have not been able to put their finger on the figures. In fact, only 92 individuals took the trouble to reply. The support of the 496 lobby groups, local authorities and schools, all of which stand to gain from the Bill's proposals, apparently gives the Government a mandate to meddle and to blunder.
  The Secretary of State said that he sees one of his roles as "restoring public confidence" in the national lottery—"the people's lottery—"but the numbers playing and the amount awarded to good causes have never been greater. All the evidence points to the fact that the people are happy with their lottery.
  The Secretary of State is playing politics with the lottery. He will be seen as the great plunderer of the 20th century—dare I say a Robin Hood in reverse, taking from the people to supplement and pay for the Government? If he gets his way, and the Bill is enacted, he may find that his abiding contribution is to be remembered as the Minister who undermined confidence in the most successful lottery in the world.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Michael Connarty: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser), because it gives me the chance to take on some of the big mythologies that Opposition Members have peddled tonight. They suggest that redistributing lottery money to the people and getting it down to smaller organisations that do not have the necessary resources at present to back up their applications by matching funding will benefit only the Government and not the people.
  I do not understand how Conservative Members can continually peddle that logic; perhaps they hope that if they say it often enough, it will stick. The people know
  238
  that when we redistribute the lottery money in accordance with the Bill, we shall allow access to people who were denied it before.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole made great play about our heritage crumbling away. For 18 years, his party was responsible for our heritage and allowed it to crumble away. The previous Government used the lottery to do things that they were unable to do through their own policies because they had made such a mess of the economy.
  The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) spoke well. He spoke about the five original causes that were listed and that he thought were correct, but the Secretary of State informed us that, before the general election, the right hon. Gentleman himself talked about the possibility of using lottery money to bring teachers back into schools to teach sports. That was clearly an intention to move.
  Why do we have to get into this ridiculous posturing, when we want simply to move sensibly from where we are to where we want to be? The three matters that are outlined to be added to the lottery's five functions—access, excellence and education—should be applauded. There is nothing wrong with trying to move in the right direction.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole suggests that we can give people absolutely more than they thought they would get, simply because there is more money in the coffers, but that it is somehow wrong to have another cause. When any funding or fundraising agency creates more money, we should not simply keep going on in the same way, giving more to the original ideas, when there are some new ideas to which the money can be applied.
  If we are to get an estimated £10 billion up until the time when Camelot goes— or its licence is renewed—we should use it in a different way, and that is what we intend to do. The Bill and the White Paper set that out. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole should have read the document: it tells us what healthy living centres are. They are new and important, and were not provided for in expenditure by the previous Government.
  Mr. Lansley: In the same breath, the hon. Gentleman talks about the possibility of £10 billion being obtained for good causes from the lottery and speculates about Camelot losing its licence. What contribution does he think Camelot has made to the fact that we will get not the £8.8 billion that it forecast, but perhaps £10 billion or more? Perhaps he would like to give a bit of credit where it is due.
  Mr. Connarty: The hon. Gentleman should have listened and responded to what I actually said. I corrected myself when I talked about when the Camelot licence runs out, and added that it might be renewed. If he looks at Hansard, he will see that I said, "or it is renewed". The licence may well be renewed. I do not want to be involved in a competition between Camelot and any other provider.
  We will work on the basis set down in the White Paper and try to get the maximum amount for good causes, with efficiency, and Camelot could be the organisation to do that. I have no axe to grind with any organisation that

  239
  may run the lottery, but I applaud the fact that Camelot has bought out GTech and taken away some of the smell that surrounded its operation.
  Mr. Fraser: You made reference to what I said about healthy living centres. If you were listening to my comments so carefully, perhaps you would like to stand up—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)rose—
  Mr. Fraser: Perhaps you—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down if I am on my feet. He should remember that he is addressing the Chair when he says "you".
  Mr. Fraser: If the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) was listening so intently to my comments earlier—which I doubt—perhaps he would like to give a direct response to a couple of questions about the healthy living centres.
  Mr. Connarty: I refer the hon. Gentleman to pages 14 and 15 of the White Paper and suggest that he reads it for himself.
  It is important to see the new good cause for what it is: something additional that people want. They want what is being offered in health, education and the environment. They want the New Opportunities Fund, which has been applauded. To slight the 400 organisations that took the trouble to write in and may gain something for the people whom they represent or work with is to do down many good voluntary organisations that will benefit from the new use of the fund.
  It is right to take the new direction that is on offer: to people and not to bricks and mortar. I want to put a couple of examples on the record, because it is worth letting people know. Many people think not that the lottery is doing anything wrong, but simply that it needs to do some other things.
  I certainly applaud the Millennium Commission's decision to give £32 million to the canal link project, which will link the Forth and Clyde canals and open up the waterway once again from Grangemouth on the Forth in my constituency right across to Glasgow and the Clyde. It will also link the Union canal through an imaginative large wheel that will lift boats and barges into the Forth and Clyde canal. It will link Edinburgh to Glasgow. There is potential for 4,000 jobs in the long term, particularly in tourism and hospitality.
  Mr. Lansley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Connarty: I will not give way because I know that other hon. Members want to speak.
  Such projects are imaginative and important for the economy. They are to be applauded. It is not a matter of saying that what is done, when it is done, is not being done well; it is that other things can be done. A good example is YOGI, the Youth of Grangemouth Initiative. It is a SOBAR—a soft drinks only bar, which was given lottery funding. It was thought up by young people, and is run by young people for the benefit of the young in Grangemouth, the main port in my constituency.
  240
  There is also Laurieston senior citizens' welfare hall, which has applied three times for lottery funding to do something with the hall. It is run by volunteers, purely on subscriptions and charity, for the older people in the village, who have not been able to get access to funding. It is important that the New Opportunities Fund gives such small organisations a chance of access.
  Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Connarty: No, other hon. Members want to speak and I do not want to take up too much time.
  It is important that such people get access. It is clear that the way in which the Government are looking at the lottery in the Bill, which we will debate in detail in Committee, will allow access and open up opportunities. There were many criticisms of the lottery, not necessarily for what it did, but for the structures that surrounded it. We are going to deal with regulation. The pressure on one Oflot regulator will be spread over a commission. That is to be applauded because it is what the people want. People are happy to see GTech leave Camelot. Perhaps people will reassess how Camelot works. The main thing is to give access to the money to the many places in Britain, many of which were mentioned today, that have not yet had access in proportion to their need or to what would be justified. Other important causes have taken much more of the money than people feel happy with.
  I am sure that the constituents of Conservative Members feel the same way. It is disingenuous to pretend that they do not have constituents like mine who want a different distribution so that different causes get the money. I am sure that when the Bill is passed and we are running the lottery as we plan, Conservative Members will line up with their organisations to get access to the New Opportunities Fund, healthy living centres and after-school facilities, just as I will. It is time they stopped all this dog-in-the-manger, yah-boo politics and realised that we are trying to make the lottery better. We are not trying to steal from it for any purpose that would not be applauded by the public. Whether the Opposition like it or not, it is the people's lottery. I am not embarrassed by saying that. It is important that more people get some lottery money for the causes that they work for.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Damian Green: The Secretary of State said one unarguably right thing in his opening speech: the Bill symbolises the Government and all their works. I whole-heartedly endorse that because, apart from a few welcome touches around the edges, the salient facts about the Bill are that it is a centralising measure which takes power away from individuals and gives it to the Government; it is designed by and for the Treasury, not the people; and it relies on a huge gap between rhetoric and reality to try to make the political points that the Government seek to make by introducing it.
  That point was well illustrated by many of the speeches of Labour Members. Several talked about the benefits of greater access to sport. I was especially interested by the contribution of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), with his well-known enthusiasm for football and other sports, who gave a very guarded welcome to the Bill. I agree with his caution and concern, but he did not go far enough. All Labour Members who have pleaded

  241
  the cause of sport and agreed that the lottery has been good for it seem not to have noticed that the Bill is a direct hit on the interests of sport as well as of the arts, heritage and charities. It is designed to reduce the lottery resources available to the original good causes. Those who seek to pray in aid the Bill in support of those good causes are dead wrong.
  Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend listened with care to Labour Members. Did he notice that several of them admitted that they did not purchase lottery tickets? Does not that remind him that they are keen to decide how money should be spent but have not contributed to it? That is at odds with their claim to understand the priorities of the players of the lottery.
  Mr. Green: It was ever the case that Labour Members were better at spending other people's money than buying their way to success.
  One can admire the Secretary of State's ability as a performance artist. Keeping a straight face while trying to tell the House that this is not a convenient way for the Chancellor to indulge in some off-balance sheet spending requires true thespian abilities. He should apply for an Arts Council grant for his acting skills, but the Bill means that such grants will be more difficult to get.
  The Secretary of State falls down, and his presentation lacks credibility, because the Bill fails the old fashioned duck test. If it looks like a duck, waddles and quacks, it is probably a duck. If the people were asked whether spending on schools and the health service is core public spending that should be funded by the Government, they would say yes. This spending is clearly mainstream public spending. It does not pass the duck test. The Government's tortuous attempts to claim that it meets the additionality principle patently go against common sense.
  It is important to be clear where the Government are being most disingenuous, to use what I think is the parliamentary word for what I want to say. The first claim, which is particularly risible, is that their proposals put decision making further down the chain and devolve power and influence away from the centre to local communities. That is not slightly wide of the mark; the exact opposite is the truth.
  According to the Bill, the New Opportunities Fund will distribute funds for initiatives
  "specified by the Secretary of State."
  It could not get much more centralist than that, and that is precisely what the Bill is meant to achieve. The Secretary of State will decide which initiatives should be supported by the fund. I beg to differ with what the Bill says will happen. In fact, as we all know, the initiatives would be specified by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, depending on the stage of the electoral cycle. That is only one example of where the Secretary of State is being disingenuous.
  The Secretary of State also attempts to claim that the existing good causes—which have received widespread public assent in the four years since the lottery was introduced— will not suffer. That is a patent absurdity. The share which the good causes receive of the lottery funds will fall from 20 per cent. to 16⅔ per cent.—all of them except, by some deep coincidence, the good cause
  242
  which is being run personally by the Minister without Portfolio which, by processes of enormous analysis, has been kept at 20 per cent. That is a shrewd move by the Secretary of State and his ministerial team.
  The reason why the Government are being disingenuous is the simple fact that we cannot spend the same pound twice. The pound that is being spent on the new good cause created by the Government will not now be spent on sport, arts or heritage. To attempt to claim that existing good causes will not suffer simply will not wash. That is not just because of what anyone in the House says—it will not wash because real sportspeople will suffer. People will make applications for grants that would have been given before, but which may not be given in future. Village halls will not be improved, and historic buildings will not be repaired. The areas of life where people now regard lottery money as important will be affected, and people will hold the Government responsible for that.
  There will be more disappointment for applicants as time goes on, partly because of the increase in the awareness of the lottery and partly because the quality of bids has naturally improved as people have become more used to making applications. Originally, the Sports Council lottery fund was granting two out of three of the applications it received. Now, that figure has dropped to one in four, partly because it gets more applications and partly because the quality of applications has improved. Already, large numbers are being disappointed. Through the Bill, the Government will ensure that a larger proportion of people are disappointed.
  That is disingenuous because the Government have suggested today that this is somehow a pain-free procedure—that we can create a sixth good cause, and that nice things will happen in schools and healthy living centres without anybody being hurt. That is patently not true, and the Government are being dishonest in claiming that it is.
  Mr. Lansley: Earlier, my hon. Friend asked the Secretary of State to speculate on whether, in the view of the acting director general, GTech will be a fit and proper person to act as a service provider. If we follow through that hypothesis and if, as a result, lottery revenues were to be interrupted for a period and to fall below the £10 billion figure for good causes, the Secretary of State has given no assurance that the amount provided to each of the first five good causes would not fall below £1.8 billion.
  Mr. Green: My hon. Friend raises a good point which I hope the Minister for Sport will address when he replies. It is a genuinely ticklish problem. We do not know what the acting director general will recommend. If he recommends that GTech should be thrown out of the lottery, clearly that will pose a severe danger to the revenue-raising capacity of the lottery. If he does not recommend that, all well and good. I want an assurance from the Minister that there will be no political interference in the decision by the acting director general.
  I mentioned the Sports Council fund, and the Heritage Lottery Fund has suffered as well. There have been various sneering references to the Churchill papers, but most awards given by the Heritage Lottery Fund are small. A typical example from my constituency is the

  243
  Little Chart village hall. It is situated in a conservation area and, although it is not of major heritage merit, the parish council and the Heritage Lottery Fund believed that its repair would benefit the community. It received a grant of more than £13,000, which paid for 90 per cent. of the cost of repairs. The hall now provides an important meeting place for local groups. That is exactly the type of grant which, I am sure, all of us have had in our constituencies and have welcomed.
  The Secretary of State also claimed that this is a long-term programme, but this is initiative-itis. The programmes will last for two or three years and, by the end of the third year, the bids under the New Opportunities Fund programme will be building up. However, there will then be a new Secretary of State who will be told by the Treasury that he needs new initiatives, and the existing ones are likely to wither on the vine.
  The long-term effect on the good causes is equally serious. Once the percentage has been cut once, it can be cut again—the Government know that. I hope that the Minister will give the commitment asked for by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), that there will be no further cut in the percentage for a considerable time.
  The Secretary of State's worst claim is that there is an extra £1 billion to play with, so it does not matter that money is being taken away from the existing good causes. The reason why some of my right hon. and hon. Friends feel strongly about that is the complete reluctance of any Labour Member to pay any tribute to Camelot for running an efficient lottery for the past four years. There is £1 billion extra for Ministers to dip their hands into, because we have had an extremely well-run national lottery. The Secretary of State managed to get his lips to pay tribute to the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), for setting up the lottery. [Interruption.] I am happy to accept the Minister's sedentary assurance that it was a genuine tribute. However, in this debate and previous discussion of the lottery in the House, it has been observable that Ministers have expressed nothing but contempt for and disparagement of Camelot.
  I should be genuinely grateful if the Minister could bring himself to admit, with a genuine smile on his face, that Camelot—by and large—has done a good job, that the national lottery was not necessarily going to be a success and that one reason for its success has been the fact that it has been run by some efficient people.
  Mr. Lansley: Does my hon. Friend agree that not only has Camelot already delivered £4.9 billion by way of revenue to good causes, compared to a forecast of slightly more than £4 billion, but it accepted the downside risk of, for example, penalties of £1 million a day if it did not deliver a successful national lottery on the day that it pledged in the contract, over a very short time scale? No doubt the Secretary of State is introducing a further risk of penalties—unlimited financial penalties, which were not in the contract that was entered into at the start of the franchise.
  Mr. Green: That is absolutely right. The lottery is still a risky business, and it was especially risky four years ago. Of course, Guy Snowden had to go, and Camelot may well have been sensible to buy out the GTech share.
  244
  I do not believe that Opposition Members would say anything in defence of the improper behaviour that went on, but it seems to me that we have lacked balance, and that the Government quietly ignore the fact that we have the world's most successful lottery.
  That leads me to comment on another wrong claim by the Secretary of State—that the lottery was set up so badly that he needs to change it radically. That sits very ill with the fact that hon. Members on both sides of the House admit that, instead of the projected £9 billion that Camelot was going to raise throughout its licence period, the figure is now projected to be at least £10 billion, and it is a pretty open secret in the world of those who are most interested in the lottery that that could increase to £10.5 billion.
  Opposition Members would like hard information about what the Government plan to do if that figure exceeds £10 billion. Will the money be siphoned off to new, exciting good causes to be invented by the Secretary of State or the Chancellor, or will it be given to the existing good causes?
  There is genuine danger in this constant campaign of denigration. So far, apparently, it has had no effect on people playing the lottery; even at the height of the rows that have affected Camelot and the lottery generally, people's willingness to play the lottery does not appear to have been affected. However, a consistent campaign by Labour Members of denigration of the lottery operator is likely gradually to reduce people's willingness to play the lottery, which will reduce the amount of money for good causes. I cannot believe that any hon. Member on either side of the House would welcome that.
  The idea that the lottery needs to be rebalanced to make it fair is curious. I was interested to hear Labour Members, including the hon. Members for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) and for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), say that their constituencies had done badly out of the lottery and that they were happy that there would be new arrangements, giving more power to the Secretary of State, which would make possible a fairer distribution. That is interesting, for several reasons.
  If there is a change in the distribution, there will be losers. If all the constituencies whose hon. Members say have done badly are going to do better, obviously many hon. Members' constituencies will do worse. It is especially apposite that the Minister for Sport is replying to the debate because, for all we know, he could be next week's "Stop Ken" candidate for the mayor of London, and we know that the part of the country that has done best out of the lottery is London. I shall be happy to hear him say whether he believes that less lottery money will be spent in London in future, and whether that is the aim of the greater fairness that many of his hon. Friends appear to want.
  I am also slightly disturbed that Labour Members seem to accept that, by being nice to the Secretary of State, they may begin to win more lottery money for their constituencies. It gives rise to the horrendous idea of new types of sleaze, such as lottery grants for creepy questions at Question Time or possibly the creation of a seventh good cause, the Whips' narks fund. The Government could award money from that fund to any Labour Member who was particularly bright towards the Prime Minister at Question Time.

  245
  The Government are not fooling anyone with this legislation: it is the Treasury's first dip into the honeypot. I am sure that the Government will come back for more. The good causes are right to be worried, and so are Britain's sportspeople, artists, heritage lovers and charity workers. The Bill marks the transformation of the national lottery into a Government lottery. That is why it deserves, and will get, strong opposition from the Conservatives.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. Richard Spring: When the national lottery was introduced, it had the support of both sides of the House. That point was ably made today by that great champion of sport, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). I also congratulate all those hon. Members who have contributed to the debate today.
  In 1993, both sides welcomed the creation of a distinct source of funding for the arts, sport, heritage, charities and projects to mark the millennium. It was as though a fairy godmother had come to the aid of the Cinderellas of public spending. By total contrast, this Bill fundamentally and intentionally flouts the basis on which the lottery was originally established.
  The Government's case will be summed up by the Minister for Sport. In his own words, he is evolving from a
  "bar-room sage to a world statesman".
  Perhaps tonight the final piece of his personal jigsaw puzzle will fall into place. Will the hon. Gentleman be accepted by the most ludicrous group in the country, Labour's precious luvvies? We await his words with bated breath. We know that he will have finally arrived when his name is mentioned with approval over gleaming plates of foie gras in large and expensive houses in north London. What an opportunity for the Minister tonight.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) pointed out, within three minutes of the commencement of the Second Reading debate on the National Lottery etc. Bill in January 1993, one Back Bencher hit the nail on the head in an intervention when he sought crystal clear assurances about the key and critical issue of replacing central Government spending. What extraordinary prescience. That Back Bencher was the Minister who is to reply this evening. We have heard much lately about thinking the unthinkable. Tonight, the hon. Gentleman should, by any standards, be squirming in his shoes when he must defend the indefensible.
  The National Lottery etc. Act 1993 was passed with real integrity of purpose. I salute my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) in that regard. It was carried through effectively by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and maintained in the same spirit by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley). What a contrast with the Labour party tonight. In a speech before the election, the then Prime Minister said:
  "what the"
  arts
  "sector has a right to expect from government is clarity, commitment and consistency".
  However personally agreeable the Secretary of State may be, he, his Ministers and his Back Benchers know full well of the genuine anger that is directed towards him
  246
  in the arts community. The reason is twofold. First, all the nods and winks before the election about financial support have proved hollow. Secondly, among those who work to preserve and promote our heritage and those in the caring charities and in sport, there is dismay at the way in which the Secretary of State, through the Bill, is letting down the very people whom his Department was set up to help. The national lottery was put under the control of the then Department of National Heritage and not the Treasury, so that the Department could fund the areas for which it had actual responsibility. Not all the money was to come from the lottery, but it was never the intention that the lottery should be used to subsidise the budgets of other Departments. As we have heard today, however, that is exactly what is proposed in this shoddy Bill.
  Mr. Bernie Grant: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's case. He claims that arts bodies are annoyed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which is a serious charge. I know the Secretary of State, and I know arts bodies; I know that my right hon. Friend is very popular. Will the hon. Gentleman name three organisations that are at odds with my right hon. Friend?
  Mr. Spring: The hon. Gentleman has only to pick up the newspapers to see that, every day, articles are written by those in the arts community who are disgusted at the way in which the Government are failing to carry out the nods and winks commitments that they made before the election. If he has not observed that, I fear that he is reading the wrong newspapers.
  We vigorously oppose the Bill, which has no purpose other than to make a shabby and unprincipled raid on the lottery. As many respondents to the White Paper observed, the Government are breaching the additionality principle—they should at least have the courage to own up to it.
  The English Sports Council summed up the problem in a letter that it wrote to me yesterday. It said:
  "The ESC is aware that on examination existing international Lotteries have tended to start by bringing unique new resources to areas such as sport, then this funding has been eroded in favour of areas more closely related to core policy areas.
  The ESC seeks assurances from the Government to restate the commitment to the long term funding of sport through its share of Lottery income."
  The ESC may have to wait a very long time.
  We utterly reject the Secretary of State's assertion that he is adhering to the principle of additionality as set out by the Prime Minister in the White Paper. I do not for a moment think that the public—or the people, as the Secretary of State is so fond of referring to them—will be fooled. They know that health, education and the environment are core Government responsibilities. They will not be convinced by his shifty explanations of additionality. They will see that the Government are brazenly using the lottery for their public spending programmes.
  Mr. Chris Smith: The hon. Gentleman says that health, education and the environment are core Government responsibilities. Of course they are, but are not the arts and sport also core Government responsibilities?
  Mr. Spring: For the edification of the Secretary of State, I shall read what the Prime Minister said in the White Paper:
  "We don't believe that it would be right to use Lottery money to pay for things which are the Government's responsibilities."
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) said, of course the public want improvements in health, education and the environment. Increasingly, however, they know that they were deceived before the general election.
  "Education, education, education" has, in practice, meant fewer people in higher education, bigger class sizes and cuts in school budgets. "Fourteen days to save the national health service" has, in practice, meant anything from the removal of ambulance cover to soaring waiting lists throughout the country. Perhaps the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) should discuss those issues with his constituents.
  The public will quickly discover that the money is being diverted from elsewhere. When the lottery money for capital projects in sport and the arts, for schemes to improve access to our heritage and for financing the work of small charities begins to dry up, they will know what the Government have done.
  Will the Secretary of State tonight guarantee the percentages for the good causes beyond 2001? If not, he will be sending out the most negative message. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) said, the confidence of the distribution bodies hangs on that.
  The irony of Labour's proposals and of all their rhetoric about "the people" is that the Bill will do nothing to empower individuals or groups of people to make a difference to their lives. The Bill is all about empowering Government. Nasty, authoritarian Governments have always centralised power in the name of the people. There was certainly nothing democratic about the so-called "people's democracies" of eastern Europe. Instead of enhancing the role of the public, the Bill seeks to centralise the power of the Secretary of State like some aging people's commissar.
  Part of the lottery's triumph has been its success in strengthening the local loyalties that are essential to civic society. It has reinforced local institutions and made possible the creation of new ones. I am not talking about the grand projects that have benefited from the lottery. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) said, we are talking about small projects: village halls that have received money for new roofs; community groups that have received money for new minibuses; sports clubs that have received money for new equipment; and brass bands that have received money for new musical instruments. None of that has been to fulfil an election pledge or take forward a political agenda; it has been the public's money, without political strings attached. How shameful and narrowly partisan that the Government should put that at risk.
  Even worse, the Government's contempt for parliamentary authority is such that they have not even waited for the Bill to become law, so eager were they to get their hands on lottery money for their own purposes. They started to set money aside for the New Opportunities Fund last October, even though they had no power to do so under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. In that
  248
  regard, would the Secretary of State care to publish the voluntary agreements that he made with distribution bodies with respect to the "shadow" accounts?
  What the Government have done is unlawful. The Bill includes provisions to amend the 1993 Act retrospectively to legitimise what the Government have done, but make no mistake: in their rush to get their hands on lottery money, the Government have clearly acted outside the law. Conservative Members have noted the Secretary of State's irritation on that point and his attempts to brush off criticism that what he is doing is illegal and that the retrospective provisions in the Bill are oppressive. I challenge the Secretary of State to come up with a comparable precedent for that retrospective action. He failed to do so today.
  The Government have made great play of the idea that their proposals are endorsed by the people. I wish to make two points on that. First, the plan to deprive the original good causes of some of their percentage share of the lottery pot is not a manifesto commitment. Labour's manifesto commitment was to create the Government's health, education and environment fund to replace the Millennium Commission only when that body had been wound up. So much for the credibility of the manifesto.
  Secondly, the notion that the Government's proposals have been endorsed in their consultation exercise is patently absurd. I urge hon. Members to look at the Government's analysis of the consultation exercise. It is not the people who have endorsed their proposals but the organisations that stand to benefit from them. Most of them are Government agencies and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-orset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) said, 496 of the 588 responses received in the consultation process came from local authorities, schools, campaigning and professional groups, which all stand to gain from the Government's proposals. Only 92 responses were from individuals. More than five times as many were from organisations with an actual and direct interest in the lottery.
  Even those who stand to gain from the Government's proposals are under no illusions; the Government are using the lottery to replace taxation and to implement their agenda.
  Mr. Lansley: While my hon. Friend is recalling the Labour party's manifesto promises, does he agree that Labour also made great play of seeking out a not-for-profit operator? The Government now propose to rest on the 1993 Act, which places on the director general an obligation to maximise the sums paid to good causes, but whether or not the operator is profit making is not a relevant consideration under the Act.
  Mr. Spring: As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the Government have been all over the place on this issue. It is critical that the maximum amount goes to good causes. That is the essential point at issue.
  The organisations that have looked at the proposals rebutted the Government's claim that the original good causes will get the money that they expected. The White Paper's explanation that the allocation of money to the New Opportunities Fund and NESTA would not involve any change to the original funding expectations of the existing good causes left many sceptical. They pointed out that the existing good causes have adjusted their programmes to take account of the increased lottery revenue. And what of possible lottery fatigue?

  249
  The Government are making possible the Treasury annexation of the lottery—by the sprinkling of a range of powers throughout the Bill—to bring under the direct control of the Secretary of State the existing good causes and the new bodies that the Bill will set up. The special order-making power in the Bill is designed to allow the Secretary of State to use the New Opportunities Fund to pay for Labour manifesto pledges. A similar degree of control will exist in relation to the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, which the Bill proposes.
  It is characteristic of the mania for control by the Government that the Secretary of State will be able to hire and fire the board members of NESTA. He will have the power to set its objectives and to dictate how they should be met. He will have the power to interfere in how the organisation is run, and, of course, he will control the purse strings. The Government plan to place a duty on NESTA to seek gifts of assistance, money and land from other organisations.
  Mr. Maclennan: Is not the hon. Gentleman using somewhat hyperbolic language in talking about the mania of control, bearing in mind the fact that it was his party which decided that the Millennium Commission should be chaired by one of its own Ministers? When the former Secretary of State for National Heritage gave money directly to the English National Opera, for the Coliseum, on the eve of an election, nobody described the Government as exercising a mania of control.
  Mr. Spring: That situation was temporary, and the members were independent. There is no doubt about that.
  Labour's pre-election document claims that NESTA will turn bright ideas into successful and innovative businesses. NESTA is the bright idea that has been turned into something all too familiar. In 1996, the Secretary of State for National Heritage announced that the rules governing the distribution of lottery money would be changed to allow lottery distributors to support the careers of talented sportsmen and artists. That is the genesis for NESTA. Sadly, NESTA will effectively simply be another arm of government, with a remit to regenerate Britain's industrial base. As such, it is another example of the subversion of the lottery to purposes other than those for which it was set up.
  Much of the Bill reflects the diminishing credibility of the Secretary of State. What happened to all those newspaper reports of £80 million in the Budget to guarantee free access to museums? How much was it in the end? Was it £80 million? Was it £40 million? Was it £20 million? No, it was a pathetic £2 million, supplemented by money raided from the lottery, and it was the clearest possible indication that the Secretary of State has no departmental credibility with the Chancellor whatever.
  In November, the Chancellor announced that our net payments to the EU would be some £400 million lower than budgeted. Not a penny of that was the Secretary of State able to secure for his Department. Regrettably, time and again it has been the lottery which has had to ride to his Department's rescue, not his powers of persuasion.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) said, we are asked to authorise a Treasury-inspired £1 billion raid on the national lottery. The Bill is
  250
  plainly for party political exploitation: to use lottery money for what should be core funding activities by the Government. It gives unprecedented powers of control and interference to the right hon. Gentleman.
  The blunt truth is simply this: the Bill is the thin end of the wedge. If it becomes law, it will undoubtedly lead to a rake's progress of taking money from good causes to prop up the Government's political objectives. It deserves the total contempt of the House.
  9.39 pm
  The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): I thank all who have taken part in tonight's spirited debate.
  Let me say to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) that, although he is a real smoothie, he is absolutely wrong. I accept that I have not yet completed my odyssey from the snug to the pantheon of world leadership, but if I complete it tonight, I do not want anyone—luvvies or no—to celebrate my metamorphosis with foie gras. I think that it is cruel and beastly, and I would rather die than touch it. [Interruption.] Only if I had the hon. Gentleman's company.
  The idea that the shadow accounts are illegal is ridiculous. The hon. Member for West Suffolk must know that the Secretary of State could not possibly have been allowed to include in a Bill something that was illegal. If he still thinks that it is illegal, let him go to the courts and seek a judicial review of the Secretary of State's action—but I suspect that he would not be able to do that.
  I welcomed the introduction of the lottery. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble)—and unlike my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) and for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), shame on them—I have not missed a week since the start of the lottery. I must say, however, that I am still waiting to win the big fat one. I hope that, when that happens, hon. Members will be able to share my delight. There will be street parties in West Ham, and money will be paid to the animal welfare movement and the Labour party before I clear off to Benidorm, or some other suitably tasteful resort, in order to drink pina coladas all day.
  Mr. Grant: I do not wish to tax my hon. Friend unnecessarily; I know that he has a lot on his mind. Does he recall, however, that when we were in opposition he told the then Minister —I think it was Iain Sproat—that he wanted the lottery first prize to be extended and increased by some four or five times? Is he still of that mind, and will he confirm that he has been playing the lottery regularly in the hope of winning the big one?
  Mr. Banks: In the words of Henry V, I know you not, old man. Of course I have not changed my position, and it is unfair to suggest that I have. Let me tell my hon. Friend what that was about. It was about the question of stopping the roll-overs. Many people said that the roll-overs should not be allowed to become so large, for the simple reason that people would not be able to handle the money. I remember saying at the time, "Give me the opportunity of handling a great big fat roll-over, and I will show you what you can do with it." In the circumstances, I think my hon. Friend must accept that I have not changed my stance.

  251
  Conservative Members have ignored the real benefits for ordinary people that the Bill will introduce. The sixth new good cause, which will benefit from the New Opportunities Fund, will not siphon money from the lottery; the money will have come through the second weekly draw. Existing good causes will receive the money—£1.8 billion—that they were led to expect within the licence period. [Interruption.] No, as a matter of fact I was not writing my speech. I was put off by the glasses of the hon. Member for Mid-ussex (Mr. Soames). I do not know why; perhaps it is something to do with the fact that he seems to have borrowed them from Dame Edna Everage.
  The Bill takes a strategic overview of the lottery, which is what is needed. A lot of people have said that we should pay tribute to Camelot. I think that we should pay tribute to the propensity of people in this country to gamble. However, criticisms have been made by hon. Members. I have received 268 letters from hon. Members on both sides of the House, complaining that a lottery grant has not been given to a particular project in their constituency or asking why their area had not received more. Hon. Members know that there are imbalances, but the Bill will change the way in which things are done.
  The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) mentioned not-for-profit operators. The Government remain committed to improving the system of operation for the lottery and to ensuring the greatest possible return to the good causes. A not-for-profit operator is one way of achieving that, and if such a bid came forward, we would welcome it. There is no question of our retreating from our election commitments on the matter. The Bill does not contain a clause that explicitly provides for a not-for-profit operator because existing legislation allows for it.
  Mr. Maude: We could have told the Minister that.
  Mr. Banks: I do not have to ask the right hon. Gentleman; there is nothing useful that he could tell me.
  The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) mentioned my feelings on additionality and read out my remarks absolutely correctly. I said that lottery money should not be used to replace mainstream Government money, which remains the case.
  Mr. Spring: That is sophistry.
  Mr. Banks: It is not sophistry; they are carefully crafted words. If the Government used lottery money instead of spending a block of public expenditure, we would be breaching additionality rules, which we are not prepared to do—there is no question of our replacing mainstream Government money.
  I have studied the grants to the constituency of the right hon. Member for Horsham— they are good. Worth Abbey lay community is providing a week-long programme of residential counselling and support for teenagers who are in crisis because of alcohol or drug misuse. The grant is provided over two years, which is perfectly okay. But one
  252
  could argue that it should be provided by central Government funding; it is not being provided by central Government funding, so it is right that—
  Mr. Maude rose—
  Mr. Banks: Hang on, I have not finished. The right hon. Gentleman has made his speech, nipped out for a jolly good dinner and returned to the Chamber to interfere with me, in a manner of speaking.
  Mr. Maude: You should be so lucky.
  Mr. Banks: The right hon. Gentleman should be so lucky.
  The information shop for young people in Horsham, which provides an outreach service for rural areas and neighbouring towns, has no existing provision, but the grant is paid over three years and covers salaries. A day centre provides specialised leisure opportunities for disabled children and adults. We could all argue that central Government should pay for such things, but they do not. Our Bill will ensure that such services can be provided.
  Mr. Maude: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the last thing in my mind is to interfere with him.
  The Prime Minister's own words set out the criteria for the lottery. He said:
  "We don't believe it would be right to use Lottery money to pay for things which are the Government's responsibilities."
  If they are the Government's responsibilities, they should not be paid for by the lottery. If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that such matters are the responsibility of central Government, they should be paid for by central Government funding.
  Mr. Banks: We know that lottery money has been spent where an element of funding is provided by central Government; we are not replacing current central Government expenditure with lottery money, which Conservative Members clearly have not understood or have deliberately or mischievously ignored.
  The right hon. Member for Horsham mentioned the arm's-length principle for NESTA. We have struck a balance between ensuring that NESTA is properly accountable for its use of a large sum of public lottery funding and giving it the freedom to determine its own policies. Those two principles have been identified for NESTA since the beginning. The Bill sets the remit for NESTA, but leaves the delivery of its programmes to it. The Secretary of State has no power to direct NESTA's policies; he can change its objects, but only at its request. The idea that a commissar wearing jackboots will tell NESTA what it must do is simply nonsense.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) spoke far more sense in his speech than Conservative Members did in all their speeches. He gave his full support for the lottery when it was established and has done a great deal for sport in this country. I compliment him on his work as chairman of the Football Trust. He asked about lottery funds for sport and about a watering down of the commitment. He wanted to know what will happen after 2001 and whether sport will be made a permanent good cause. Nothing in the Bill or

  253
  in the original legislation gives any indication of that, but I would find it wholly strange and quite remarkable if, after 2001, we did not continue to fund the existing good causes, particularly sport. [Interruption.] I would love to be able to give a commitment. I may be a Minister, but the right hon. Member for Horsham must know by now that I cannot bind a future Parliament. I cannot say what Parliaments or Governments will do in the future, even those in the long-distance future that may be formed by Conservative Members. I would find it remarkable and unacceptable if sport was not a long-term beneficiary of lottery funds.
  The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) made a very good speech. The Secretary of State said so, and he meant it. We pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution to the establishment of the lottery. I am sure that he would pay tribute to Labour Members who supported his proposals when we were in opposition. However, I was intrigued about where the hell he went after he made his speech. He kept enticing me into thinking that there was a special event to which I was not invited. I have spent all evening trying to work out where he was. He said that it was a great event. According to tonight's Evening Standard, Huntingdon train spotters held their annual tupperware party at the Neasden Happy Eater, so that is where he must have been all evening. I hope that he had a jolly good time.
  When the right hon. Member spoke, I felt that I had dropped into a time warp in which spinsters were cycling to church and we were all drinking warm beer while listening to the gentle smack of leather on willow. That is what he used to talk about. Like me, the right hon. Gentleman lived in Brixton. Where on earth did that take place in Brixton? I certainly do not remember it.
  The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that the lottery should evolve. The Bill is about evolution not revolution: after all, this is new Labour. Under the circumstances, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the Bill is in conformity with the proposals that he made in the original legislation. We have not siphoned off the money.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked specific questions about the anticipated £10 billion, although it may be more than that according to the projections. I cannot say what will happen to the excess if the figure is over £10 billion. All I can say is that, as long as I am Minister for Sport, I will fight for a fair share of that extra money for sports. [Interruption.] I will be the Minister for a lot longer than that. That is the best I can do, and there is no point bothering with those who ask what would happen if there is less than £10 billion.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked about the guaranteed percentages for good causes. No changes are proposed in this legislation other than a reduction from 20 per cent. to 16 per cent. for four of the existing good causes. However, we are dealing with a much larger pot. I have said that none of the existing good causes will' get any less money than they were led to expect over the Camelot licence period. Opposition Members are trying to stir up problems that do not exist. The costs of the new set-up will be borne by the New Opportunities Fund. [Interruption.]
  254
  I am being specific in my replies. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon asked about further endowments to NESTA. There will be no further endowments in the current period of the lottery. He spoke about what he would have done if he were still Prime Minister, and rightly said that he would have sought to put more money into sports and arts coaching. The right hon. Member for Horsham accused us of wanting to do that and said that it was a breach of the additionality principle. However, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon has said that if he were in government he would have breached that principle. I do not think that we would have revolted against such a proposition because in many ways the determination of additionality is becoming metaphysical.
  Mr. Maude: The Minister is on page 8.
  Mr. Banks: I took notes during the debate and I would like to have more time to reply. I listened carefully to every speech, and I shall write to those hon. Members to whom I am not able to reply now. There is not much opportunity in a winding-up speech to do credit to all those who have spoken.
  The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) said that he was agnostic about the Bill as a whole, and that he would not vote for it or against it. That reminded me of the man who sat on the fence waiting for the iron to enter his soul. The right hon. Gentleman warned about raiding the lottery to fund essential services and said that it would be better to raise direct taxation. In fairness, the right hon. Gentleman said that during the election campaign, which was one of the reasons why the Liberal Democrats did not do particularly well. There is no question of raiding the lottery for essential services. That is emotive language.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) spoke about the gymnastic centre in Coleford. It gave me great pleasure to open that centre. My hon. Friend spoke about an issue that many hon. Members have mentioned—the way in which the lottery has been able to fund small but significant projects within constituencies.
  The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) said that the lottery has been a remarkable success. As I have said, that probably has more to do with the propensity of people in this country to gamble than with the foresight of the proposals. The right hon. Lady mentioned the Churchill papers. That issue still rankles. If the national heritage memorial fund can spend £13.2 million on those papers it can certainly buy the Bobby Moore collection of England caps and medals and his 1966 World cup medal. I had better not say any more about that because we are debating the arm's length principle.
  There is much that I could mention, but I should like to refer to a speech that shone out—that by the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). He reminded me of a character in a Bateman cartoon—"The man who did not like the lottery." I respect the hon. Gentleman's controversial views, but they ran against the views of hon. Members throughout the House. Even those who do not do the lottery said that they benefit from it and that it is good.
  The hon. Member for Gosport spoke about money being spent by people who could ill afford it and said that sales were busiest in areas where people are poorest.

  255
  That is true, and it certainly applies to areas such as West Ham, but if it was not the lottery it would be bingo, horse racing or greyhound racing at the betting shop, or fruit machines. None of the profits from any of those activities come to West Ham or to any constituency. Although I agree that, in terms of the percentage of their disposable incomes, poorer people have a greater propensity to play the lottery, at least they know that they get something back and that not all the profits are creamed off by the bookies. I must also mention that the hon. Gentleman is an underwriter for Lloyd's—is not that a form of gambling? It might be a sophisticated form of gambling, but it is gambling, so I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can afford to get too pious.
  There is a lot more that could be said, and a lot more that will be said in Committee, but, for the moment, I rest my case. The Bill is a wonderful improvement on a very good lottery, and I urge the House to give it a Second Reading.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 135.

  Division No. 246]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Chaytor, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clapham, Michael

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Allen, Graham

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clelland, David

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clwyd, Ann

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Coaker, Vernon

  Banks, Tony

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Barnes, Harry

  Cohen, Harry

  Barron, Kevin

  Coleman, lain

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Colman, Tony

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Connarty, Michael

  Benton, Joe

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cousins, Jim

  Berry, Roger

  Cranston, Ross

  Best, Harold

  Crausby, David

  Betts, Clive

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cummings, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Borrow, David

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  (Copeland)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dalyell, Tam

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Darvill, Keith

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Browne, Desmond

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Burden, Richard

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Burgon, Colin

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Dobbin, Jim

  Byers, Stephen

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Caborn, Richard

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Doran, Frank

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Drew, David

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Edwards, Huw

  Cann, Jamie

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Caplin, Ivor

  Ennis, Jeff

  Casale, Roger

  Fatchett, Derek

  Caton, Martin

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  256

  Flynn, Paul

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Follett, Barbara

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McCabe, Steve

  Foulkes, George

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Fyfe, Maria

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Gerrard, Neil

  McDonnell, John

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McIsaac, Shona

  Goggins, Paul

  McLeish, Henry

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McNamara, Kevin

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McNulty, Tony

  Grant, Bernie

  MacShane, Denis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Grocott, Bruce

  McWalter, Tony

  Grogan, John

  McWilliam, John

  Gunnell, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hain, Peter

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Marek, Dr John

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hanson, David

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Healey, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Meale, Alan

  Heppell, John

  Merron, Gillian

  Hesford, Stephen

  Michael, Alun

  Hill, Keith

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Milburn, Alan

  Home Robertson, John

  Moffatt, Leura

  Hood, Jimmy

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hope, Phil

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mountford, Kali

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Mudie, George

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hurst, Alan

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hutton, John

  Norris, Dan

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Olner, Bill

  Jamieson, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jenkins, Brian

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Picktham, Colin

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pond, Chris

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Pope, Greg

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewishham E)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kidney, David

  Purchase, Ken

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Radice, Giles

  Laxton, Bob

  Raynsford, Nick

  Leslie, Christopher

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Levitt, Tom

  Robertson, Rt Hon George

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  (Hamilton S)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Rogers, Allan

  Linton, Martin

  257

  Rooker, Jeff

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Rooney, Terry

  (Dewsbury)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Roy, Frank

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Ruane, Chris

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Timms, Stephen

  Salter, Martin

  Tipping, Paddy

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Todd, Mark

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Touhig, Don

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Trickett, Jon

  Sheerman, Barry

  Truswell, Paul

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Singh, Marsha

  Wareing, Robert N

  Skinner, Dennis

  Watts, David

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  White, Brian

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  (Swansea W)

  Snape, Peter

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Spellar, John

  Wilson, Brian

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Winnick, David

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wise, Audrey

  Stevenson, George

  Wood, Mike

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Woolas, Phil

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Worthington, Tony

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wray, James

  Stott, Roger

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Stringer, Graham

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mr. John McFall and

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mr. Jim Dowd.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Amess, David

  Faber, David

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Fabricant, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Fallon, Michael

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Flight, Howard

  Baldry, Tony

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bercow, John

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fraser, Christopher

  Blunt, Crispin

  Gale, Roger

  Body, Sir Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Boswell, Tim

  Gibb, Nick

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Gill, Christopher

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Brady, Graham

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brazier, Julian

  Gray, James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Green, Damian

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Greenway, John

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Burns, Simon

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Butterfill, John

  Hammond, Philip

  Cash, William

  Hawkins, Nick

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hayes, John

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Heald, Oliver

  Chope, Christopher

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Clappison, James

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Horam, john

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Collins, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Colvin, Michael

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Johnson, Smith,

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Key, Robert

  Duncan, Alan

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  258

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Ruffley, David

  Lansley, Andrew

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Letwin, Oliver

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillan

  Lidington, David

  Shepherd, Richard

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Loughton, Tim

  Soames, Nicholas

  Luff, Peter

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spring, Richard

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Streeter, Gary

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Swayne, Desmond

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Syms, Robert

  Madel, Sir David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Tredinnick, David

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Trend, Michael

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Moss, Malcolm

  Viggers, Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Walter, Robert

  Norman, Archie

  Wardle, Charles

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Page, Richard

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Paice, James

  Wilkinson, John

  Paterson, Owen

  Willetts, David

  Pickles, Eric

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Prior, David

  Woodward, Shaun

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Yeo, Tim

  Robathan, Andrew

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Tellers For the Noes:

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Mr. Nigel Waterson.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  NATIONAL LOTTERY BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purpose of any Act resulting from the National Lottery Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenditure of the Director General of the National Lottery which is attributable to the Act;

  (b) any expenditure of the National Lottery Commission established by the Act; and

  (c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment; and

  (2) the making of payments into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

  The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 14.

  Division No. 247]

  [10.13 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Banks, Tony

  Ainger, Nick

  Barnes, Harry

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Barron, Kevin

  Alexander, Douglas

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Allen, Graham

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Benton, Joe

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Berry, Roger

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Best, Harold

  259

  Betts, Clive

  Foulkes, George

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Fyfe, Maria

  Blizzard, Bob

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Boateng, Paul

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Borrow, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Goggins, Paul

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Grant, Bernie

  Browne, Desmond

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Burden, Richard

  Grocott, Bruce

  Burgon, Colin

  Grogan, John

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Gunnell, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Hain, Peter

  Caborn, Richard

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hanson, David

  Canavan, Dennis

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Cann, Jamie

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Caplin, Ivor

  Healey, John

  Casale, Roger

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Caton, Martin

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Chaytor, David

  Heppell, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clapham, Michael

  Hill, Keith

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Home Robertson, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clelland, David

  Hope, Phil

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Coaker, Vernon

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Coleman, Iain

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Colman, Tony

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Mrs Joan

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hurst, Alan

  Cousins, Jim

  Hutton, John

  Cranston, Ross

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Crausby, David

  Illsley, Eric

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jamieson, David

  Cummings, John

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  (Copeland)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  (Perth)

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dobbin, Jim

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Doran, Frank

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Drew, David

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kidney, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Edwards, Huw

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Ennis, Jeff

  Laxton, Bob

  Fatchett, Derek

  Leslie, Chirstopher

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Levitt, Tom

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Flynn, Paul

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Follett, Barbara

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  260

  McCabe, Steve

  Rooney, Terry

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Rowlands, Ted

  Macdonald, Calum

  Roy, Frank

  McDonnell, John

  Ruane, Chris

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Salter, Martin

  McNulty, Tony

  Savidge, Malcolm

  MacShane, Denis

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McWalter, Tony

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McWilliam, John

  Singh, Marsha

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Marek, Dr John

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Snape, Peter

  Martlew, Eric

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Spellar, John

  Meale, Alan

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Merron, Gillian

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Michael, Alun

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Stevenson, George

  Milburn, Alan

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stott, Roger

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stringer, Graham

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Swinney, John

  Mountford, Kali

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Mudie, George

  (Dewsbury)

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Norris, Dan

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Timms, Stephen

  Olner, Bill

  Tipping, Paddy

  O'Neill, Martin

  Todd, Mark

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Touhig, Don

  Pearson, Ian

  Trickett, Jon

  Pendry, Tom

  Truswell, Paul

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pickthall, Colin

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pike, Peter L

  Wareing, Robert N

  Plaskitt, James

  Watts, David

  Pollard, Kerry

  White, Brian

  Pond, Chris

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Pope, Greg

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wilson, Brian

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Winnick, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Wise, Audrey

  Purchase, Ken

  Wood, Mike

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Woolas, Phil

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Worthington, Tony

  Radice, Giles

  Wray, James

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Robertson, Rt Hon George

  (Hamilton S)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rogers, Allan

  Mr. John McFall and

  Rooker, Jeff

  Mr. Jim Dowd.

  NOES

  Amess, David

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Butterfill, John

  Lansley, Andrew

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Faber, David

  Loughton, Tim

  261

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Woodward, Shaun

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Syms, Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Mr. Owen Paterson and

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Dominic Grieve.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  COUNCIL TAX BENEFIT
  That the Council Tax Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 911) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.] Question agreed to.
PETITION

  Green Belt Land (Harborough)
  10.24 pm
  Mr. Edward Garnier: I beg leave to present a petition promoted and organised by Dr. Kevin Feltham of Kibworth Harcourt and signed by almost 2,000 residents of the parishes of Kibworth Beauchamp, Kibworth Harcourt and Smeeton Westerby in the Harborough constituency, expressing concern about the threat of large-scale new development in the green belt and countryside.
  The petition states:
  The petition of the residents of Harborough declares that we are concerned about the decisions to sanction plans for new development throughout the countryside.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to ensure that more homes are built in city areas instead of the countryside or green belt, to breathe new life into our cities and to protect valuable countryside for future generations.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Benefits Agency (Tayside)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
  10.25 pm
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I want to make it clear at the outset that the centralisation of social fund operations in Tayside is part of an overall trend in the Department of Social Security to centralise services in order to generate efficiency. I am aware that the problem is not particular to Tayside, but may be occurring elsewhere.
  The sale of Benefits Agency estates is resulting in a sharp reduction in the number of local offices—around a third are to be shut immediately. The Department will rely more on call centres and less on local offices to provide services. Area directorates are responsible for allocating service provision, so the degree of centralisation will vary across the country. I understand that there were plans in Wales a year and a half ago to centralise all the benefit services and close all the local offices; those plans, no doubt thankfully for the Welsh, were abandoned.
  My particular concern this evening is the situation in Tayside, which affects my constituents among others. I recently received a letter from the Benefits Agency, Tayside district, informing me that, as of 2 March, community care grants and budgeting loans are dealt with by the Arbroath agency; funeral and maternity payments are dealt with by the Dundee agency; and crisis loans and reviews continue to be processed at Perth, Dundee and Arbroath as before.
  I am concerned that the Tayside agency's decision to centralise the way in which it deals with benefits will be a backward step, in terms of both the service provided to claimants and the working conditions of staff.
  The letter that I received announcing the changes proudly proclaimed that the agency had carried them out to
  "maximise efficiency by concentrating expertise in a given area".
  It had apparently been done
  "at no expense to our mutual customer and with the intention of providing an improved customer service",
  but, frankly, I do not see how moving the people dealing with claims further away from the claimants can be described as an "improved customer service". That is a case of, "Whatever I say means the exact opposite."
  Increasingly remote decision making results in a detachment from local conditions, and builds unnecessary barriers between the agency and the people it is supposed to serve. In the past month, we have seen a stark example of the dangers of depending on computers and ignoring the human side to benefit entitlement.
  Under the winter payments scheme, pensioners living alone were to receive £20, and each person living in a household with more than one pension was to get £10. That situation, while not strictly relevant to this debate, underlines the problems caused when we forget that the Benefits Agency deals not with a series of entries in a computer but with real people.
  If a claim is straightforward, there will not be a problem. The form can be completed, handed in to the local office and sent off for processing. I do not know how many hon. Members have had personal dealings with

  263
  the benefits system, but I am sure that they have all shared my experience in occasionally having to take up the cases of more than one constituent with the agency. That is not necessarily a criticism of the Benefits Agency, but a recognition that personal problems do not always fit the standard presumed in the forms that it produces. Nor are the forms always straightforward to complete.
  A significant number of claimants will want—indeed. need—assistance with their applications. Take one of my constituents in Perth, who needed to speak directly to the person dealing with their claim for a community care grant or a budgeting loan. Instead of going to the local office, that would now involve at the very least a telephone call. Increasing dependence by the Benefits Agency on telephone contact favours the young, the educated and the articulate against the poor and the disadvantaged. Many claimants do not have telephones, and have to call from phone boxes armed with pockets full of change.
  What about people who can at present in a face-to-face interview get more general advice by speaking to someone in the benefits office, who will, I hope, be sympathetic, knowledgeable and able to guide them in the correct direction? What about people who cannot afford to keep feeding money into a call box as they sit on hold, waiting for someone to find their files? If claimants are dissatisfied with how their claims are handled, they should have the opportunity to discuss it face to face with the person who decided it. In the case of community care grants or budgeting loans for someone in Perth, that would now mean a journey to Arbroath.
  I am not talking about a small inconvenience. Someone from Crieff, the second biggest centre of population in my constituency, who wanted to sit down with the person dealing with their application, would in the past have had to come to Perth. That would have involved a bus journey and some expense and nuisance. Obviously, it would be better if there were an office in Crieff, but that is a piece of cake compared with the lengths that my constituent would now have to go to. On top of the 17 miles from Crieff to Perth, they would have to travel the extra 40-odd miles to Arbroath, a round trip of 120 miles.
  Instead of one bus journey of 40 minutes on an hourly service, the trip involves changing at Perth, walking past the Perth Benefits Agency office to get from one bus stop to another, and spending 70 minutes on the bus to Arbroath. To catch the first bus from Perth to Arbroath, one has to leave Crieff at 7.5 am, hang about Perth bus station for 45 minutes, and arrive in Arbroath at 9.40 am. Allowing an hour to get the problem sorted out, one would then rush to catch the 10.47 am back to Perth for midday, and rush through the centre of Perth to catch the 12.11 pm to get back to Crieff for 12.50 pm.
  That is six hours in all, assuming no traffic hold-ups and that the problem was sorted out in under an hour. More significantly, instead of a return fare of £4.40, it would cost a whopping £11.20. Telephone or travel, either way my constituents have to spend more money than ever before chasing up benefits at the time that they are in most financial need.
  We are talking about people who may be among the poorest in our society, those whom the welfare system is supposed to help, but we are making it ever more difficult for them to speak to the people who take decisions that could significantly affect their lives. I do not understand
  264
  how, by any stretch of the imagination, that could constitute an improved service for my constituents. I mean no offence to my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh), who cannot be here tonight, or to the good people of Arbroath whom he represents, but why should my constituents be forced to trail all the way to Arbroath to get their benefits sorted out?
  Again, with the benefits transferred to Dundee, I refuse to accept that the increased distances involved can in any way improve the service received by my constituents. With all the other things that people arranging a funeral have to cope with, do they really need the added hassle of a trip to Dundee? Surely we should look at ways of reducing rather than increasing the distances that expectant mothers have to travel to sort out their maternity payments.
  As well as the effect on claimants, there is also an effect on staff, and I am concerned about the disruption and the inconvenience caused to staff by these changes. Perhaps from a long way away, the gap between a couple of dots on the map in Scotland may not look like an enormous distance, but the reality of transport infrastructure in areas such as mine and surrounding areas can make life very awkward for people working in the offices, as well as for claimants.
  The union that represents the Benefits Agency staff is extremely concerned at the changes which are taking place. I am grateful to the Public and Commercial Services Union for its assistance in giving me the information for this debate tonight. I am keeping my speech as short as possible, because I want the Minister to address the issues and not simply repeat some of the clichés in the letter from the Benefits Agency.
  So far as the staff are concerned, I can see how the decision could make some sense if it were looked at on a purely financial basis. However, as with the effect on claimants, we ought not to forget that we are dealing with real people and real responsibilities. A transfer to Arbroath for an employee of the Benefits Agency based in the office in Perth who specialises in community care and grants will affect all areas of his life, including child care arrangements and the travel costs involved in a transfer to an office which is some considerable distance from his home.
  These changes in the operation of the Benefits Agency have raised genuine concerns about the future of those offices—such as the one that remains in Perth—which have not been identified as centres for any specific benefit. I have referred to the fact that one third of Benefits Agency offices are to be immediately shut. Will the Minister address those remaining offices which are now non-specialist centres? Will he give guarantees that, in future, a need to find more efficiency will not result in these non-specialist offices being closed, making life even more intolerable for my constituents? Effectively, if the Perth office goes, there will not be a Benefits Agency office in my constituency.
  I can appreciate the desire to maximise efficiency within the Benefits Agency, but that drive to cut costs must never be at the expense of the service provided to claimants. I cannot remember this House taking a decision to change the ethos of public service to become a flawed parody of commercial values. Frankly, that is what seems to be happening.

  265
  I hope that the Minister will not simply repeat the nonsense about this being an "improved customer service." I hope that he will address the substantive problems raised by the reorganisation. At the very least, I hope that he will acknowledge that, instead of providing an improved customer service, closures disadvantage huge numbers of people.
  10.37 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Keith Bradley): The hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) has expressed concern about organisational changes in the Benefits Agency, particularly in terms of how she sees them affecting standards of service delivery in her constituency.
  Let me begin by reassuring the hon. Lady that the Government are fully committed to achieving the highest standards of customer service. Indeed, we wasted no time after coming into office in defining and charting a new course for the delivery of social security services. In December, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security launched the active modern service programme, which spells out clearly our aims for the quality of service that we want to see delivered.
  The Benefits Agency constitutes the front line of service delivery for most of the Department's business. It will have a leading role to play in taking forward active modern service initiatives. However, active modern service is not simply about initiatives driven by the centre of the Department. It also sets out a framework within which local initiatives, innovation and efficiency improvements in quality and service delivery can thrive.
  The Government have pledged to live within the spending plans that we inherited. Those plans require year-on-year improvements in administrative efficiency. The Benefits Agency, as the largest of all Whitehall agencies, has an administrative budget of almost £2.5 billion a year. It is incumbent on the Benefits Agency, therefore, to operate in the most efficient and cost-effective way possible, consistent with delivering requisite standards of customer service.
  The Benefits Agency delivers its services mainly through its district offices. Each district office comprises several local offices. That is why, in this case, the main offices located at Dundee, Perth and Arbroath, as well as smaller offices at Blairgowrie, Forfar, Montrose and St. Andrews, all constitute a single district.
  The grouping of individual offices into districts took place in 1991. Since then, some adjustments to the make-up of districts have taken place, but the creation of districts has enabled significant efficiency and customer service improvements to be achieved.
  Those improvements have been made possible by the opportunities to rationalise operations and by taking advantage of improved telecommunications and information technology in Benefits Agency districts. For example, all offices in each district now have a single telecommunications network. Also, each office has access to the entire case load for the whole district. That means that a customer can call in person at any office in the district to make a claim or to seek advice on his or her individual benefits, or telephone a single number and
  266
  speak to any member of staff at any office in the district, regarding their claim. That is the case throughout the country, including Perth.
  Each year, the Benefits Agency takes steps to improve its efficiency and effectiveness. Last week, publication of its business plan for 1998–99 was announced in the House. Several of the efficiency improvements planned are based on evidence not only of a successful reduction in operating costs, but of improvements in standards of customer service.
  The hon. Lady specifically drew attention to the organisational changes to social fund work in Tayside district. The point at issue seems to be whether those changes have impacted adversely on customer services in the district. I have mentioned our wider strategy for delivering an active modern service. That aim cannot be achieved by preserving existing functions in existing locations when there is a clearly identified opportunity to improve the standards and quality of customer service, by reorganising the handling of the work load.
  A more efficient and better-quality customer service is the motivation behind the centralisation, by application type, of social fund activities in Tayside. Were such centralisation plans to run counter to the aims of the active modern service programme, I would not countenance them. To ensure that those aims are met, I have laid down a series of criteria against which Benefits Agency managers must now test each proposal for change to service delivery. Those criteria require that such proposals should demonstrate, first, wider access to services by office interviews, post, telephone or home visits; secondly, improved quality of services, including handling, where possible, an integrated service at the point of contact; thirdly, a proper balance between the needs of staff and changing the policy of operational needs; and fourthly, improved efficiency in the handling of customer claims and inquiries.
  I am satisfied that the centralisation of funeral and maternity payments at Dundee, and of community care grants and budgeting loans at Arbroath, satisfies those criteria.
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Is the Minister effectively saying that there will be no requirement for people to make a round trip of more than 100 miles on any occasion, or is he saying that, if they have to do so, he considers that appropriate?
  Mr. Bradley: I have made it clear that the processing of claims has been centralised, but that access to information and advice can be obtained at any office, as integrated information on each case is available. That overcomes the fear that the hon. Lady has identified and highlighted in her press releases, about people having to travel to get that information. That is not the case.
  As I was saying, rather than spreading staff across three locations and expecting them to deal with all types of applications, there is now a pool of expertise—which will continue to grow—in relevant subject areas in the locations where each part of the work is now based. Customers will benefit from the expertise of staff in dedicated processing centres. That will mean improved speed, accuracy and quality of decision making. I repeat that advice on all aspects of the benefits system may still be obtained from any one of the offices concerned.
  Mr. John Swinney: My constituency borders that of my hon. Friend, and claimants from my

  267
  constituency also deal with the Perth office. Is the Minister confident that, if claims for social fund payments are to be administered from Arbroath, my constituents who go to the Perth office will be met by staff members with sufficient competence to handle their inquiry? Our experience of initiatives such as the benefit integrity project, for example, suggests that not all Benefits Agency staff are trained to the requisite level and can deliver the quality of service to which I recognise the Minister aspires.
  Mr. Bradley: If your constituents' case files are held within the district of Tayside, the access that I have identified will be available to your constituents as well as to those of the hon. Member for Perth. I clearly cannot comment on the wider implications for your constituency—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The Minister is not referring to my constituents.
  Mr. Bradley: The hon. Gentleman may wish to write to me about the part of his constituency that is not covered by Tayside district.
  Mr. Swinney rose—
  Mr. Bradley: I have answered the question, and I must make progress.
  As I have said, customers will benefit from the new arrangement, and queries on any particular claim or application can be dealt with locally. There will be no need whatever for any customer to travel further than the office nearest to him. Alternatively, a telephone call to any office will be sufficient for the customer to be put through to the person dealing with his or her case, regardless of where that person is located.
  Social fund application forms will continue to be available from each office. Customers can then choose whether to hand them back to the office nearest to them or send them directly to the office nominated for that particular type of application for immediate processing. All three offices will still deal with crisis loan applications and reviews. All reviews, of whatever type, will continue to be conducted by personal interview at each of the three main offices or, where necessary, by home visit.
  268
  Funeral and maternity payment claim forms are available from all offices and can be handed or sent back to any one office. Specialist adjudication and processing of those claims— which amount to a comparatively low number—will then be undertaken at Dundee and decisions notified accordingly. I can therefore reassure the hon. Member for Perth that there will be no diminution whatever of customer service as a result of the changes—in fact, quite the contrary.
  The changes have not been introduced on a whim: they are consistent with a tried and tested approach to improving social fund service delivery across the country. Some 111 districts out of a total of 129 have organised their social fund operations in this, or a similar, way. However, I recognise from what I have been told about the handling of particular changes that more should have been done to consult relevant Members of Parliament—including the hon. Lady—and other interested parties. Notwithstanding the fact that none of the local welfare agencies has expressed concern about the changes, I regret that appropriate consultation was not carried out and that the hon. Lady did not have a proper opportunity to make her representations before the changes took place. I hope that she will be reassured to know that I have instructed Benefits Agency officials to undertake the fullest possible consultation before any similar organisational changes affecting service delivery take place in future.
  I can also reassure the hon. Lady that, contrary to what she said, no members of staff have had to transfer from one office to another, although three people have moved offices at their own request. Staff levels in each of the importing offices were already sufficient to cope with the net changes in work load. Where the changes have resulted in fewer staff being required on social fund work, those reductions are being dealt with through redeployment to other duties or through natural wastage.
  I reiterate the Government's commitment to high-quality standards of social security service delivery and confirm, once again, that the changes in Tayside have been designed with exactly that aim in mind. The changes will not, as the hon. Lady suggested, reduce standards of customer service. Instead, they will bring about real improvements in how the social fund is administered in Tayside district and in the quality of customer service that her constituents will receive.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Eleven o ' clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Stolen Art Treasures
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the procedures used by national museums and galleries in relation to stolen art treasures; and if he will review those procedures. [37279]

  Mr. Fisher
  The national museums and galleries take the greatest care to ensure that objects being acquired for their collections have not been stolen. I have no reason to believe that their procedures need to be reviewed. However, if the hon. Member has evidence to the contrary, I would be grateful if he would write to me about this.

  Creative Industries
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the total annual contribution of cultural activities to gross domestic product in each of the last three years. [37129]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 31 March 1998]The current total revenues of the UK creative industries are estimated at over £55 billion. There are no reliable historic data on the contribution of the creative industries to gross domestic product. In 1995, the last year for which such information is available, the contribution net of inputs ("valued added") was around £25 billion, approaching 4 per cent. of gross domestic product.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list those organisations responsible for awarding National Lottery grants, indicating the categories of grant they cover and their contact telephone numbers and addresses. [37253]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]The National Lottery etc. Act 1993 established five areas to benefit equally from the Lottery: sports, the arts, heritage, charities and projects to mark the year 2000 and the beginning of the third millennium. The responsibility for distributing these proceeds rests with a number of independent distributing bodies. These are the four national Arts Councils, the four national Sports Councils, the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the National Lottery Charities Board and the Millennium Commission.

  The Arts Councils aim to help people across the UK enjoy, and take Part in, broadest Possible range of arts activities. Arts Lottery money is being spent on a wide range of capital projects, including the renovation and
  140
  re-equipping of arts venues. The Arts Councils also fund revenue Projects designed to enable more people to Participate and take part in arts activities and to encourage more new plays, music and other work. The addresses ofthe Arts Councils are:

  The Arts Council of England

  14 Great Peter Street

  London

  SW1P 3NQ

  Tel: 0171 312 0123

  The Arts Council of Wales

  9 Museum Place

  Cardiff

  CF1 3NX

  Tel:01222–388288

  The Scottish Arts Council

  12 Manor Place

  Edinburgh

  EH3 7DD

  Tel: 0131–226–6051

  The Arts Council of Northern Ireland

  MacNeice House

  77 Malone Road

  Belfast

  BT9 6AQ

  Tel: 01232–667000.

  The Sports Councils fund capital sports projects for all designated sports. They also fund revenue programmes under the themes of coaching and leadership, talent identification and development. The addresses are:

  The English Sports Council

  16 Upper Woburn Place

  London

  WC1H 0QP

  Tel: 0345–649–649

  The Scottish Sports Council

  Caledonian House

  South Gyle

  Edinburgh

  EH12 9DQ

  Tel: 0131–339–9000

  The Sports Council for Wales

  Sophia Gardens

  Cardiff

  CFI 9SW

  Tel: 01222–300500

  The Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  House of Sport

  Upper Malone Road

  Belfast

  BT9 5LA

  Tel: 01232–382222.

  The aim of the National Heritage Memorial Fund's Heritage Lottery Fund is to Preserve, restore or acquire the nation's most treasured heritage which makes up the fabric of the Britain's history and culture.The Fund is

  141
  able to award funds to organisations and volunteers who care for the countryside, buildings, museums, industrial heritage, archives and parks. The address is:

  The Heritage Lottery Fund

  7 Holbein Place

  London

  SW1W 8NR

  Tel: 0171–591–6000.

  The National Lottery Charities Board distributes grants to help those at the greatest disadvantage in society and to improve the quality of life in the community. The Board distributes Lottery funds to both registered charities and organisations with a philanthropic aim and allocates funding on a themed basis. The initial rounds have been based on themes of poverty, youth issues and low income; health, disability and care; improving people's living environment; and voluntary sector development. The address is:

  The National Lottery Charities Board

  St. Vincent House

  16 Suffolk Street

  London

  SW 1 Y 4NL

  Tel: 0171–747–5300.

  The Millennium Commission supports projects to mark the year 2000 and the beginning of the third millennium. Millennium Commission awards fall into three categories: capital projects, the Millennium Awards scheme to assist individuals who help in the community and the Millennium Exhibition and festival. The Commission are supporting a nationwide programme of events which will take place throughout 2000. The aim is to bring communities together, while reflecting religious, ethnic and cultural groups. The address is:

  The Millennium Commission

  Portland House

  Stag Place

  London

  SWIE 5EZ

  Tel: 0171–880–2001.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he plans to publish draft statutory directions to the National Lottery distributing bodies. [38115]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]I intend to publish to day drafts of the revised Policy Directions for the Arts Council of England, the English Sports Council, the National Heritage Memorial Fund and the National Lottery Charities Board. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland plan to publish drafts of revised Policy Directions for the Arts and Sports Councils of those countries at the same time. Drafts of revised Financial Directions for all existing Lottery distributors will be published in the early summer. I will publish drafts of Directions to the New Opportunities Fund for consultation with its board after Royal Assent to the National Lottery Bill but hope to make available a preliminary draft soon.

  Sport (UK Presidency)
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action he has taken on sport during the United Kingdom Presidency. [38432]

  Mr. Banks
  I arranged a meeting with my counterparts from Luxembourg and Austria last Thursday. This was the first opportunity that I and my European colleagues have had to discuss the important contribution that sport can make to social and economic development within Europe.

  We agreed that the first ever Green paper on sport in the European Union should aim in particular to:
  identify a better model of coordination between all the agencies involved so that more resources are released and existing resources used more effectively;
  encourage and develop imaginative and practicable sports schemes aimed specifically at achieving measurable results against social exclusion;
  consider scope for using Eurathlon to support projects aimed at reducing social exclusion, as part of its review of the Eurathlon Programme;
  focus on youth unemployment and the ways of creating secure jobs in the sport sector, by stepping up the exchange of experience at national and local level; and examine the way European law is impacting on the day to day business of sports governing bodies.

  These proposals are a further example of the progress being made during the UK Presidency of the European Union.

  I am delighted that my Austrian colleague Dr. Peter Wittman has expressed his firm intention to pursue these issues during his country's Presidency in the second half of 1998. The European Commission is expected to publish its Green paper on sport around the turn of the year.

PRIME MINISTER

  Competition Bill
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what factors he will take into account in reaching a decision on whether to seek to(a) reject and (b) amend those amendments to the Competition Bill [Lords] made in the House of Lords with regard to competition policy and media shareholdings. [37048]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 30 March 1998]The new clause added to the Bill in the House of Lords is unnecessary because the Competition Bill already contains a prohibition of abuse of dominance which will apply across the economy and newspapers will not be exempt.

  Israel
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister which representatives of the British Government will be present at the celebrations to mark the 50th Anniversary of Israel. [37962]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are participating in a range of activities in Britain to mark the 50th anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel. We have not yet confirmed who will represent the Government at celebrations in Israel.

  Anthrax
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what communication Her Majesty's Government have had from the Government and Government agencies of Israel about information received by the Home Office about the threat of anthrax in the UK received on 5 March. [37328]

  The Prime Minister
  It is not the Government's policy to disclose the nature of discussions with other countries on intelligence matters.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the other members of the UN who have received threats pertaining to the spread of anthrax by Iraq. [37329]

  The Prime Minister
  It would be a matter for the countries concerned whether to disclose information of this kind.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on discussions between Scotland Yard and the CIA, FBI and agencies of the Department of Defense in Washington about the threat of the infiltration of anthrax spores into the United Kingdom. [37330]

  The Prime Minister
  The Metropolitan Police regularly discuss matters of shared interest with their counterparts in the United States, including the threat from weapons of mass destruction where appropriate.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Vehicle Registration Year Identifier System
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce the arrangements for the introduction of the revised vehicle registration year identifier system, and the format of the succeeding systems; and if he will make a statement. [37286]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We hope to make an announcement soon.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the Eurostar traffic forecasts submitted to him by those organisations bidding to(a) construct the Channel Tunnel rail link and (b) run the Eurostar franchise. [37781]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No. These forecasts comprise information which is commercially confidential to the companies concerned.

  Recycling
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many(a) local authority collection schemes, (b) collection banks and (c) sorting and baling facilities are available in England and Wales for the recycling of plastic bottles; and how many properties have household or kerbside collection of plastic bottles; [37729]

  (2) how many collection sites there are in England and Wales for the recycling of plastic vending cups; [37730]
  144
  (3) how many banks there are in England and Wales for the collection of (a) glass bottles and (b) paper. [37728]

  Angela Eagle
  The provision of bring sites and separate collection for any recyclables is for each Waste Collection Authority to determine within the resources they have available. The latest available figures are from the 1995–96 Municipal Waste Management Survey, published in December 1997. These show that:Glass: there were 11,424 bring sites provided by local authorities and in addition 570 civic amenity sites also accepted glass for recycling; 265,647 tonnes of glass were collected for recycling from these sources.
  Paper: there were 6,344 bring sites provided by local authorities and in addition 410 civic amenity sites also accepted paper for recycling; 289,857 tonnes of paper were collected for recycling from these sources.
  Plastics: there were 1,058 bring sites provided by local authorities and in addition 127 civic amenity sites also accepted plastic for recycling; 2,457 tonnes of plastic were collected for recycling from these sources. No figures are available that show the number of separate household or kerbside collection schemes which collect plastics. In total in 1995–96, bring sites, civic amenity sites and separate collection schemes yielded 3,500 tonnes of plastics for recycling.

  No figures are centrally available on the number of sorting and baling facilities available for plastics. No central data of how many collection sites there are for the recycling of plastic vending cups are held.

  Agencies (Relocation)
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many Government agencies have relocated from London to the regions in the last 10 years. [38295]

  Angela Eagle
  In the last 10 years, the Marine Emergencies Organisation and the Surveyors General Organisation which together now form the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, were relocated from London to Southampton, and the Driving Standards Agency was relocated from London to Nottingham. A further four of the Department's Next Steps agencies have headquarters outside London.

  Civil Servants (RDAs)
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if civil servants transferred to the regional development agencies will retain their Civil Service status. [38303]

  Mr. Caborn
  In keeping with the majority of executive Non Departmental Public Bodies, Regional Development Agencies will not be Crown Bodies, and their staff will therefore not be Civil Servants.

  Nottinghamshire County Council (Structure Plan)
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the present Nottinghamshire County Council Structure Plan was agreed by the Secretary of State; and what is the earliest date it could be reviewed. [38233]

  Mr. Caborn
  Following legislative changes introduced in 1991 the Secretary of State is no longer responsible for agreeing local authority development plans, other than
  145
  in very exceptional circumstances. The current Nottinghamshire Structure Plan Review was adopted by Nottinghamshire County Council in November 1996.

  Since the reorganisation of Nottingham City as a unitary authority on 1 April, any review of the plan and its timing is the joint responsibility of Nottingham City and Nottinghamshire County Council.

  Road Charging
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to undertake trials of the viability of an urban system of road user charging as a means of reducing urban congestion. [37861]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]Small scale trials involving volunteers are in progress in Leicester and Bristol. These are assessing behavioural responses to road user charging. Whether the Government consider commissioning further work will depend on the proposals for dealing with urban congestion that they set out in the forthcoming integrated transport White Paper. New primary legislation would be needed to enable trial or pilot schemes in which drivers were compelled to pay road user charges.

  Local Government Staff Commission
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Local Government Staff Commission for England will be wound up. [38435]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Local Government Staff Commission for England has completed its duties resulting from the 1992 Structural Review. Yesterday we laid before the House an Order winding up the Commission on 12 May. I am very grateful to the Commission for all the work it has done to safeguard the interests of local authority staff during the Structural Review.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his capping principles for 1998–99 and the list of authorities which he intends to designate; and if he will make a statement. [38517]

  Mr. Prescott
  Derbyshire County Council is the only authority (out of 433) for which I am proposing a cap limit, which would require it to reduce its budget requirement. Other authorities have set budgets and council taxes within the provisional limits which I set.

  I have proposed a cap for the Council which I consider, on the basis of all the information available so far, to be reasonable, appropriate and achievable in all the circumstances of the authority.

  The capping principles for 1998/99 are set out in the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts 1998/99 (2 February 1998). They are subject to a general proviso that no authority is to be designated if its budget requirement is no more than £15,000 above the limit
  146
  implied by these principles. I have placed copies of this document in the Library of the House. The main points are:

  (i) The City of London, Inner London boroughs, and Shire Districts are able to increase their budget requirements by 1.5 per cent. or the increase in their SSAs for all non-police services, whichever is the greater;

  (ii) Outer London Boroughs, Metropolitan Districts, Unitary authorities and the Isles of Scilly and Shire Counties are able to increase their budget requirements by 3 per cent. or the increase in their SSAs for all non-police services, whichever is the greater;

  (iii) Fire and Civil Defence Authorities are able to increase their budget requirements by 4.5 per cent.;

  (iv) Police Authorities are able to increase their budgets by 3.2 per cent.

  Authorities budgeting more than 12.5 per cent. above SSA are subject to a cash freeze.

  In accordance with section 54 and 56 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, 1 have therefore decided to designate Derbyshire County Council. The amount that I am proposing should be the maximum amount calculated by that authority as its budget requirement for 1998/99 is £468.757 million.

  This decision demonstrates that we are taking our commitments on spending very seriously. The authority now has 28 days, starting today, in which to inform us whether or not it accepts its proposed cap. If it accepts, the cap will be confirmed by notice and the authority can set a revised lower budget. The budget we are proposing means £3.9 million reduced expenditure for Derbyshire so Band D council tax bills will be cut by around £17 million.

  If the authority challenges, it must propose an alternative amount together with its reasons for doing so and will have the opportunity to meet with Ministers to explain its case.

  Once we have considered all the available information we shall propose a final cap which will be included in an Order, a draft of which will be debated by the House of Commons. If the draft Order is approved, a final cap is set by notice and a revised budget and council tax must then be set by the authority.

  Electricity Industry (Swanwick)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will assess the advantages of selling to the National Grid excess power generated at the New En Route Centre at Swanwick. [38391]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No. The New En Route Centre does not normally generate electricity, and relies on power supplied via the National Grid. It does have two standby generators, but for safety reasons these would be used only when the main power supply failed.

  Greater London Authority
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what provision has been made for expenditure in 1998–99 on preparing for the Greater London Authority; and when these resources will be spent. [38319]
  147
  Mr. Raynsford
  The Main Estimates published today include provision on Class VI, Vote 4 (Local Government and regional policy, England) of £2 million in 1998/99 for preparing for the Greater London Authority. This sum reflects the best forecast that can be made at this stage of the total costs in 1998/99 as a whole. No expenditure can be incurred before the Main Estimates are approved in July. No spending will take place unless Londoners vote in favour of the proposals for a Greater London Authority in the Referendum on May 7. There will be no significant expenditure on preparing for the Greater London Authority until Parliament has approved the principle of the legislation providing for the new authority's establishment.

  Spending Plans
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the spending plans of the(a) Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, (b) Ordnance Survey, (c) Office of Passenger Rail Franchising, (d) Office of the Rail Regulator and (e) Office of Water Services for 1998–99. [38518]

  Mr. Prescott
  Today I published the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' Annual Report for 1998. It sets out in detail the outcome of the July 1997 and March 1998 Budget Statements, as it affects my areas of responsibility. The Report provides an overview of how my Department, Ordnance Survey, the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising, the Office of the Rail Regulator and the Office of Water Services have discharged their functions over the past year. It provides a background to each spending programme and sets out our achievements to date with plans for the future for securing integration between the policies and services and functions of the two former departments.

TREASURY

  National Insurance
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons the forward cost of raising employee's national insurance contributions threshold to £81 per week is not included in the Financial Statement and Budget report. [36082]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 24 March 1998]As the Chancellor made clear in his Budget Statement on 17 March 1998,Official Report, columns 1097–112, raising the employee's national insurance contributions threshold to £81 is a measure which he intends to bring forward in the future. As such, it would not have been appropriate to include this measure in the Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Road Fuel Duty
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the effective annual increase in road fuel duty following the July 1997 and March 1998 increases. [36357]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Following the March 1998 Budget, road fuel duty rates are 8.8 per cent. higher in real terms than the (volume weighted) average of the rates in 1997–98.
  148
  The above increase is additional to the increase in RPI, currently 3.2 per cent. per year.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on expenditure in the United Kingdom under European Communities budget line A-3501, Preparatory and Support Operations for the Achievement of Economic and Monetary Union. [36962]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Expenditure under this EC Budget line, which amounts to about £720,000 in 1998, is the Commission's own administrative expenditure. It does not involve expenditure in the United Kingdom. It covers support and evaluation studies and activities across the European Union relating to the implementation of economic and monetary union.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the long-term effect of Economic and Monetary Union on the fiscal independence of Government policy for acceding states. [37567]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Fiscal policy will remain the responsibility of the Member States that participate in stage 3 of EMU, subject to the constraints of the Stability and Growth Pact.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the findings of the European Monetary Institute on the suitability of member states for inclusion in European economic and monetary union, in respect of future enlargement of the Union. [36547]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The convergence report of the European Monetary Institute was published on 25 March. The Government are now considering this report alongside the convergence report produced by the European Commission, and the European Commission's recommendation on which countries should proceed to stage 3 of Economic and Monetary Union. Once we have considered its findings we will report to Parliament in line with the usual scrutiny procedures.

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the future meetings to be held during the UK presidency of the EU concerning European Monetary Union. [36564]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Throughout the UK Presidency of the EU, the Ecofin Council will meet to consider preparations for Stage Three of EMU.

  The key decisions on which Member States will join the single currency will be taken over the first weekend in May. The Commission and EMI convergence reports and the Commission's recommendation will form the basis for these decisions.

  On 1 May Ecofin will assess which Member States fulfil the necessary conditions for the adoption of a single currency and will recommend its findings to Heads of State and Government (Article 109j(2) of the Treaty). On 2 May, Heads of State and Government will confirm, on the basis of the Ecofin recommendation, which Member States shall proceed to stage three of EMU.

  Mortgage Sales
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he intends to take to review the effectiveness of the regulation of the sale of mortgages through the code of the Council of Mortgage Lenders. [36765]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government have been considering how best we can carry forward our manifesto commitment for fair dealing in mortgages, the most significant transaction many ordinary people undertake.

  As part of a series of decisions on the future scope of regulatory reform, I am announcing today that the proposed legislation to establish the Financial Services Authority (FSA) as a single regulator will include powers enabling it to regulate mortgage business. We will be monitoring the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) Mortgage Code which was introduced in July 1997, to see if that, on its own, is capable of protecting mortgage borrowers to the standard the Government are determined to see achieved.

  The Treasury will be discussing the arrangements with the CML, but the main elements are likely to consist of:

  i. a baseline (verified by the Office of Fair Trading) against which to monitor the Code;

  ii. regular information and reports from CML;

  iii. independent information from other sources;

  iv. an on-going consultation process with CML itself about how the Code is working; and

  v. a formal review in 1999, then, if the Government decide not to legislate, an interim review in the year 2000, with reviews every two years after that—ie in 2002, 2004, and so on.

  The Government will be monitoring the Code's impact on the whole mortgage package, ie the mortgage itself, the tying-in products such as insurances, as well as repayment vehicles like endowments, even though the latter are already regulated by the FSA.

  Whether the reserve power is activated will depend upon a number of factors, including the extent to which the Code secures good quality advice for prospective borrowers; promotes good practice in lenders' dealings with borrowers in difficulty; and provides remedies for borrowers' legitimate grievances. The Treasury will ask the CML to report on the impact of the Code, and provide statistical background, before the legislation is brought into effect. The Treasury will also look to the Department of Trade and Industry and the Office of Fair Trading to monitor the guidelines for non-status market lenders and brokers, and agreements under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. In addition, the Treasury will look to the FSA for an assessment of the likely costs of activating the reserve power, to assess whether they would be commensurate with any potential benefits. Others with knowledge of the mortgage market would also be consulted before any decision is made.

  Fuel Tax (Rural Motorists)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of the increase in fuel tax on motorists in rural areas. [37073]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government recognise that many people, especially in the more isolated rural areas, have become increasingly dependent on car ownership. But all motorists must also make a contribution in tackling 150
  global warming caused by greenhouse gases. To help provide alternatives to the car, the Government are spending an extra £50 million a year on rural transport. They are also spending an additional £40 million to increase the rebate paid to bus operators.

  Euro
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer from what sources metals for the single currency coinage will be acquired; and what environmental impact assessment has been undertaken in respect of that acquisition. [37789]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The principal metals planned to be used for the euro coinage are steel and copper. As these metals are in plentiful supply, no significant environmental impact is expect to arise from the demand forecast to be generated by the euro coinage.

  Electronic Cash
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the creation of electronic cash, and on the criteria for bodies to be allowed to operate electronic cash systems. [37765]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]The Government see electronic cash having enormous potential in a wide range of areas. But as that potential is still underdeveloped and the technologies involved are undergoing continuous change, it would be premature to lay down criteria now for the sorts of bodies who are likely to participate in this market.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Inland Revenue's definition of millennium conversion expenditure, with particular reference to whether the definition includes the development of new systems. [37581]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]The Inland Revenue's expenditure on its Year 2000 project covers all capital, manpower (management and technical) and running costs necessary to review, convert and test the computer systems which support its business.

  Since the start of the Year 2000 project all new systems are being developed to be fully millennium compliant and their costs are not included in the Year 2000 project costs.

  All the Department's expenditure on Year 2000 conversion, including the Year 2000 project and work to deal with embedded technology, is being met from within existing funding limits.

  Pensioner Taxpayers
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of taxpayers who are pensioners. [38067]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]It is estimated that in 1998–99 there are 3.3 million individuals aged 65 and over who pay income tax.

  Lloyd's of London
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the United States' authorities regarding litigation in the United States of America relating to Lloyd's of London. [38180]

  Mrs. Liddell
  None. However, my officials have regular contacts with state insurance commissioners in the United States to discuss a range of issues relating to Lloyd's. An official from the British Embassy in Washington has also met in the last year with the Securities and Exchange Commission to discuss matters relating to Lloyd's.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what circumstances papers held by his Department in relation to Lloyd's could be released to a grand jury in the United States of America investigating the affairs of Lloyd's of London. [38181]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The disclosure of confidential information provided for regulatory purposes is restricted by European and domestic legislation. Whether or not disclosure would be permitted would depend on the specific circumstances of the case. However, disclosure to a Grand Jury in the United States would not generally be permitted without the consent of the person from whom the information was obtained, and where different, any person to whom it relates.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the Securities Exchange Commission in the United States of America regarding Lloyd's of London since 1 May 1997. [38179]

  Mrs. Liddell
  None.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the future scope of regulation by the Financial Services Authority. [38430]

  Mrs. Liddell
  As has already been announced, we propose to publish for consultation this Summer draft legislation to reform the structure of financial services regulation. This will bring together regulation of investment business, deposit-taking and insurance business under a single regulator, the Financial Services Authority. The legislation presents an opportunity to ensure that the Financial Services Authority has the powers it needs to regulate effectively, and to provide for the scope of statutory regulation to be extended to new activities in the event that self-regulatory mechanisms fail to deliver the standards that the Government and consumers expect.

  The Government have been considering how best we can carry forward the Government's manifesto commitment for fair dealing in mortgages, the most significant transaction many people undertake.

  I have decided that the proposed legislation to establish the Financial Services Authority as a single regulator will include powers for the Treasury to extend the scope of activities regulated by the Financial Services Authority. The activities that could if necessary be regulated will include mortgage business. The case for regulating
  152
  mortgage business will be regularly reviewed by Ministers. The first review will take place before the Bill comes into force.

  In the meantime the Treasury will monitor the Code introduced by the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) in July 1997 to see whether it can deliver the Government's objectives without statutory intervention. The Council of Mortgage Lenders is currently bringing intermediaries within the Code's scope, and introducing appeals arrangements. It is too soon to decide whether the Code, on its own, is capable of protecting mortgage borrowers to the standard that the Government are determined to see achieved.

  Whether statutory mortgage regulation is introduced will depend upon a number of factors, including the extent to which the Code secures good quality advice for prospective borrowers and provides remedies for borrowers' legitimate grievances. The Treasury will ask the Council of Mortgage Lenders to report on the impact of the Code, and provide statistical background. The Treasury will also look to the Department of Trade and Industry and the Office of Fair Trading to monitor the impact of recent changes in the guidelines for non-status market lenders and brokers, and the upper limit to which these consumer credit agreements apply from £15,000 to £25,000. In addition, the Treasury will look to the Financial Services Authority for an assessment of the likely costs of activating the reserve power, to assess whether they would be commensurate with any potential benefits. Others with knowledge of the mortgage market would also be consulted before any decision is made.

  The draft Bill will also make it possible to extend statutory regulation to include the conduct of retail banking and non-life insurance business. We have no plans at present to extend the scope of regulation in these areas, but standards of conduct and the risks faced by consumers will be kept under review. Regulation would be extended only after consultation, including an appraisal of the costs and benefits.

  The Government have also decided to consult on the future of the Insurance Brokers Registration Council. A consultation paper has been published today by the Treasury. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Financial Services Authority's rule-making powers. [38431]

  Mrs. Liddell
  We intend that the draft legislation will give the Financial Services Authority wide enabling powers to make rules. The rules will have the force of law, and be capable of imposing binding obligations upon firms. The rule-making power will enable the Financial Services Authority to lay down requirements anywhere along the spectrum from broad principles to detailed requirements.

  The Financial Services Authority will also be able to issue guidance on the interpretation of its rules and other regulatory matters.

  The rule-making power will be exercisable for the purpose of protecting the interests of customers of financial services businesses. Consistent with the need for differentiated levels of regulation for wholesale and retail

  153
  business, the Financial Services Authority will be required to ensure that its rules take account of the fact that rules appropriate to business conducted with some classes of investor may be inappropriate in the case of others.

  We also intend that the Financial Services Authority will be able to impose financial resources rules, supplemented by additional requirements on individual entities by means of administrative notifications.

  The Financial Services Authority will be able to grant waivers, to disapply its rules on a case by case basis (subject to tests similar to those in the Financial Services Act 1986). The Financial Services Authority will be under an obligation to publish waivers, subject to considerations of commercial or regulatory confidentiality.

  We intend that a right of action for damages for private persons will attach to the Financial Services Authority's rules, except financial resources rules and others specified by the Financial Services Authority. The draft legislation will create a presumption that the rules confer no right of action for damages on non-private persons, unless the Financial Services Authority were to stipulate otherwise.

  We intend that the power to make rules will be reserved to the Board of the Financial Services Authority. The Financial Services Authority will be obliged to consult on any proposed rules unless the delay created would be prejudicial to the interests of existing and potential investors, policyholder or depositors. The Financial Services Authority will be obliged to publish cost benefit appraisals of its proposals and other options as part of the consultation exercise unless the Financial Services Authority reasonably believes that the proposals on which it is consulting will reduce the costs of compliance incurred by those to whom the proposals will apply or are neutral in terms of such costs or that any increase in compliance costs will be of marginal significance only. More generally, we intend that exercise of the Financial Services Authority's rule-making powers will be informed by its statutory objectives.

  The Financial Services Authority has today published a consultation document with initial proposals concerning the exercise of these powers. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Benchmarking Project
  Mrs.Organ
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he ill make a statement about the pulblic sector benchmarking project [38515]

  Dr.David Clark
  I am launching today a new phase of the Public Sector Benchmarking Project,designed to help public bodies share best practice more systematically with each other, with the Private sector and,ultimately, with the most successful government bodies in other countries. This Project uses the widely recognised European Business Excellence Model. Self-assessment asgainst the Model Promotes continuous improvement and customer focus,and facilitates benchmarking with the wide variety of other organisations using the Model.
  154
  I have placed copies of the evaluation report on the first two years of the project in the Libraries of the House and it is also available on the Cabinet Office Internet site, at www.gtnet.gov.uk/co/cohome.htm. It is clear from the report that participation has brought great benefit to the 100 organisations involved in the project so far, and has enabled comparison particularly with the private sector in a way which was previously impossible. Six organisations involved have already achieved a score of over 450 points against the Model, which is comparable to those achieved by winners of the several regional quality awards. 60 organisations have already expressed interest in participation in this new phase, even before details could be circulated.

  The project has so far primarily targeted Next Steps executive agencies and the larger non-departmental public bodies. Experience with a range of other public bodies has demonstrated that the Model can be of equal value in other sectors. The new phase is therefore open to any organisation in the wider public sector, and my officials will be working closely with other departments and representative bodies to encourage uptake of the project, for example among police forces, local government, and the health and education services. We will develop and emphasise the clear links between the Business Excellence Model and agencies' ministerial targets; with other quality schemes used in the public sector, particularly Charter Mark, Investors in People and ISO 9000; and with the White Papers and guidance recently or shortly to be published on Better Government, Best Value, market testing and contracting out in central government, Opening Up Quangos, The New NHS, and Excellence in Schools.

  There has been considerable international interest in the project. I am keen to promote this and build on the work already done, so that we can share best practices between national public sectors. My officials will work with their counterparts abroad and in the European Commission to facilitate international comparisons, and with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in its setting up of an International Benchmarking Network for the public sector.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Oil and Gas Industry
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what quantity of alkylphenolic substances was discharged by the offshore oil and gas industry in each of the last five years; and what assessment he has made of the reliability of the figures. [32387]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 5 March 1998]Data on discharges of alkylphenolic substances for the years 1993 and 1997. Discharges for those years are as follows:

  Year

  Tonnes

  1993

  34.35

  1994

  32.18

  1995

  25.20

  1996

  48.09

  1997

  54.36

  155
  The figures are supplied by the oil and gas industry to Government under the provisions of the Offshore Chemical Notification Scheme. Both industry and Government make every effort to improve the accuracy of the data supplied and it is possible that one reason for the apparent increase in recent years is as a result of these efforts. In addition, my offshore inspectors make spot checks of chemicals held and used offshore.

  Calor Gas
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) for what reasons the price of calor gas is not regulated; [33743]

  (2) if she will seek to regulate the price of calor gas. [33744]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 12 March 1998]Given the level of competition in LPG supply generally, I see no need to regulate prices.

  The Director General of Gas Supply regulates the supply of gas "through pipes". The supply of LPG in cylinders and tanks does not come within this definition.

  The Director General of Fair Trading is responsible for keeping this industry, along with others not subject to specialist oversight, under review in order to detect monopolies and exploitation of market power.

  OFT reviewed the price increases in LPG supply last Winter to see if they were an indication of such exploitation. It was concluded that they were not.

  OFT is currently negotiating with the LPG supply industry, with DTI encouragement, with a view to establishing code of conduct covering charges for the removal of rented tanks. This would make switching by consumers easier.

  Offshore Chemicals
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the application and implementation of the harmonised mandatory control system for the use and reduction of the discharge of offshore chemicals with particular reference to the operation of the CHARM model. [35903]

  Mr. Battle
  Over 500 products have been assessed by the UK under the provisions of the harmonised notification format, and of these more than 100 have been

  Table 1:Commodity codes for which all goods contain some chrysotile asbestos

  Commodity code

  Description

  Imported by UK in 1997?

  Produced in UK in 1996?

  Fabricated asbestos fibres; asbestos mixtures articles of such mixtures or of asbestos, whether or not Classification heading 663.81)

  6812 1000

  Fabricated asbestos mixtures; mixtures with a basis of asbestos or with a basis of asbestos and magnesium carbonate

  Yes

  Yes

  6812 3000

  Cords and string, Whether or not plaited

  Yes

  6812 4000

  Woven or knitted fabric

  Yes

  6812 5000

  Clothing, clothing accessories, footwear and headgear

  Yes

  6812 2000

  Yarn and thread

  Yes

  Yes

  6812 6000

  Paper, millboard and felt

  Yes

  Yes

  6812 9010

  Other, for use in civil aircraft

  No

  6812 9090

  Other

  Yes

  6812 7000

  Compressed asbestos fibre jointing, in sheets or rolls

  yes

  yes

  156
  assessed using the CHARM model. The model promotes informed decisions on the use of offshore chemicals by quantifying the combined hazard and risk associated with their use and discharge. In collaboration with other contracting parties to the Oslo and Paris Convention, the UK has identified that some modifications will be required before full implementation of the CHARM model will be possible.

  The trial period for the Harmonised Mandatory Control System will be reviewed in 1999 as agreed by the Oslo and Paris Commissions.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the tonnage of asbestos imported into the European Union from Canada in each of the last three years. [36147]

  Mrs. Roche
  Data on EU imports of asbestos from Canada are given in the table.

  EU1 imports of asbestos2 from Canada

  Year

  Tons

  1994

  71,355

  1995

  71,744

  1996

  46,087

  January-July

  1997

  13,617

  1EU 15 countries throughout.

  2Code 278.4 of the Standard International Trade Classification (SITC) Revision 3.

  Source:

  Eurostat Intra and Extra EU Trade.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what specific products containing chrysotile asbestos are(a) imported into the United Kingdom and (b) manufactured in the United Kingdom; what is the annual tonnage of asbestos incorporated in such products; and if she will make a statement. [36748]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 2 April 1998]Some of the commodity codes used in official statistics do not distinguish products containing asbestos from those containing potential replacement materials. That is, they cannot be distinguished from potential substitute products.

  Table 1 shows the position for those commodity codes where there is no ambiguity; all goods contain some chrysotile asbestos.
  157
  Table 2 shows the position for commodity codes which can include both goods containing chrysolite asbestos and goods containing alternative materials.

  Table 2: Commodity codes within which goods may contain some chrysotile asbestos

  Tariff code

  Description

  Imported by UK in 1997?

  Produced in UK in 1996?

  Articles of asbestos cement, of cellulose fibre-cement or the like (Standard Industrial Trade Classification heading 661.83)

  6811 1000

  Corrugated sheets

  Yes

  Yes

  6811 2011

  Sheets, not exceeding 40 x 60 cm, for roofing or walls

  Yes

  6811 2080

  Panels, tiles and similar articles

  Yes

  6811 3000

  Tubes, pipes and tube or pipe fittings

  Yes

  Yes

  6811 9000

  Other articles

  Yes

  Yes

  Friction material and articles thereof, not mounted, for brakes etc. with basis of asbestos, cellulose or other mineral substances, whether or not combined with textile or other materials (Standard Industrial Trade Classification heading 663.82)

  68131010

  Brake linings and pads, for use in civil aircraft

  Yes

  Yes

  68131090

  Other brake linings and pads

  Yes

  6813 9010

  Other, for use in civil aircraft

  Yes

  Yes

  6813 9090

  Other

  Yes

  In some cases, the sales information on which the final column is based is collected only for combinations of products. Goods sold without being subjected to any manufacturing process have been excluded in deriving this column.

  Information on the detailed composition of products imported or manufactured is not available.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade from which countries chrysotile asbestos fibres imported into the United Kingdom originate and what was the total annual tonnage of chrysotile asbestos fibres imported into the United Kingdom from each country in each of the past five years; and if she will make a statement. [36747]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 2 April 1998]Chrysotile asbestos is not separately identified in the system under which United Kingdom trade is recorded. However, since 1986, trade in all other forms of asbestos has been prohibited. The figures in the table, therefore, relate to chrysotile asbestos.

  UK imports of asbestos1 1993–97

  Tonnes

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Austria

  73

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  21

  39

  26

  0

  0

  Brazil

  0

  23

  0

  0

  0

  Canada

  8,348

  8,767

  8,519

  6,134

  3,915

  Irish Republic

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Slovakia

  0

  20

  0

  0

  0

  Germany

  15

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Japan

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Africa

  360

  450

  553

  602

  496

  Switzerland

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  USA

  123

  51

  84

  20

  149

  Zimbabwe

  740

  2,117

  980

  342

  261

  Totals

  9,681

  11,466

  10,164

  7,099

  4,820

  1 Asbestos is defined as code 278.4 of the Standard International Trade Classification, Revision 3, (SITC Rev 3). This does not include asbestos cement and manufactures containing asbestos.

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise
  158
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which United Kingdom owned companies are engaged(a) in the mining of amphibole asbestos fibres and (b) in the manufacture of products containing such asbestos fibres; and if she will make a statement. [36740]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 2 April 1998]I am not aware of any United Kingdom owned companies engaged in mining of amphibole asbestos fibres or engaged in the manufacture of products containing amphibole asbestos fibres.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total annual tonnage of chrysotile asbestos fibres incorporated into products sold by United Kingdom companies in each of the past five years; and if she will make a statement. [36739]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 2 April 1998]Information on the detailed composition of products is not collected.

  Trade Fairs
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list (i) the companies involved in and (ii) the locations of trade fairs or exhibitions(a) supported and (b) organised by her Department in 1996–97. [36189]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 26 March 1998]In 1996–97 there were 8,972 participants from UK firms and organisations at 342 trade fairs and exhibitions throughout the world under the terms of the Trade Fair Support Scheme (TFSS). Lists of participants and events have been deposited in the Library of the House. Details of which participants were subsidised are commercially confidential. The TFSS is open to all UK companies; Scottish Trade International, the Welsh Office and the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland offer support under different terms.

  In addition at least 173 companies have benefited from DTI support under other schemes. Full information is available in the Library of the House.

  Export Credit Guarantees
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list ECGD exposure in each of the last five years for(a) China, (b) Indonesia, (c) Nigeria, (d) Saudi Arabia, (e) Turkey, (f) South Africa, (g) India, (h) Iraq, (i) Philippines, (j) Vietnam, (k) Pakistan, (l) Qatar, (m) Iran and (n) Algeria; if she will list the value of defence business supported in each case; and if she will make a statement. [37010]

  Mrs. Roche
  ECGD is not in a position to provide such detailed figures for exposure for past years, because of disproportionate cost.

  ECGD's current exposure in these markets is as follows:

  £ million

  Current exposure

  Of which defence equipment

  China

  2,621

  0

  Indonesia

  1,773

  654

  Nigeria

  1,657

  0

  Saudi Arabia

  986

  975

  Turkey

  742

  255

  South Africa

  695

  0

  India

  503

  0

  Iraq

  625

  0

  Philippines

  731

  0

  Vietnam

  64

  0

  Pakistan

  206

  0

  Qatar

  704

  402

  Iran

  120

  1

  Algeria

  229

  96

  British Standards Institution
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what representations she has received relating to the role of the BSI; [37477]

  (2) if she will undertake a full review of the functions and activities of the BSI; [37475]

  (3) when (a) she and (b) her Ministers last met representatives of (i) the BSI and (ii) the standards certification industry apart from BSI. [37476]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 2 April 1998]I have received a number of representations concerning the role of the BSI. These have been mainly from the standards certification industry. They have mostly been related to the proposed amendments to the BSI's constitution.

  The Department does not intend to undertake a full review of the functions and activities of the BSI. BSI is independent of Government. The Department recently co-ordinated a cross Government consultation with regard

  Region

  Company

  Payment of grant1

  Ownership

  North West

  Vauxhall

  £1,000,000—August 1997

  USA (GM)

  West Midlands

  Rover

  £6,000,000—December 1997

  Germany (BMW)

  West Midlands

  Jaguar

  £5,500,000—March 1998

  USA (Ford)

  £1,500,000—September 1997

  £5,000,000—March 1997

  £400,000—June 1995

  West Midlands

  Peugeot

  £400,000—September 1997

  France

  £500,000—October 1996

  1 Regional Selective Assistance (RSA)—applicable to UK assisted areas

  160
  to proposed amendments to the BSI constitution. I support the amended constitution that was overwhelmingly approved by BSI's members at an Extraordinary General Meeting on 27 February convened for the purpose.

  I met representatives of BSI on 17 February. I have not met representatives from the standards certification industry apart from the BSI, but my officials are in regular contact.

  Petrol Prices
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what statistics her Department collates relating to petrol prices throughout the United Kingdom; what analysis it makes of regional trends; and if she will publish this information. [38381]

  Mr. Battle
  National petrol, and diesel, price data are collected and published by my Department monthly in Energy Trends one month in arrears. Provisional estimates, for the previous month, are published earlier at the beginning of each month in the Advance Energy Statistics Press Notice. Longer runs of data and information relating to duty rates are published annually in the Digest of UK Energy Statistics. The very localised nature of petrol pricing means that meaningful regional analyses has to be based on very small regions. As such it is not cost effective for my Department to collect and publish such detailed information. My Department does, however, monitor the top level regional data produced by private sector organisations.

  Leaded Fuels
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made towards setting a British standard for(a) additived lead replacement fuels and (b) over-the-counter additives for use when leaded fuels are phased out. [37990]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]The British Standards Institution started working to develop a British Standard for lead replacement petrol in 1996. No British Standard is proposed for over-the-counter additives.

  Motor Car Companies (Inward Investment)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the payments which have been made to foreign motor car companies to encourage inward investment in the last five years, the size and timing of such payments and the regions which have benefited. [37570]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The number of aid payments made by DTI to foreign owned UK motor car manufacturers in support of investment over the last 5 years was as follows:

  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if, under the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, initiatives in one local authority area will be considered discriminatory against investors in that area if similar initiatives are not in place elsewhere. [37351]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 2 April 1998]No. Policies towards investments, including local authorities' policies, may vary from area to area for legitimate reasons. Provided that a local authority's initiative does not disadvantage investors of one country compared with those of another in similar circumstances, it will not be considered discriminatory.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what plans she has to promote the target for the installation of solar roof and facade systems in the EU set out in the European Commission draft White Paper on Renewable Energy; and if she will make a statement; [37903]

  (2) what plans she has to promote the adoption of the European Commission draft White Paper on Renewable Energy; and if she will make a statement; [37902]

  (3) what plans she has to ensure that the renewable energy target for the EU set out in the European Commission draft White Paper on Renewable Energy is developed into achievable goals for each member country. [37904]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government have welcomed the European Commission's Renewable Energy White Paper. The UK Presidency is currently working towards a positive Council Resolution on the White Paper which can be agreed by all Member States. Although there are a number of reservations about the White paper, all Member States appear to recognise the need to prepare positive, practical and workable plans to provide a substantial increase in the use of renewables. I am optimistic that this will be reflected in a Council Resolution.

  The UK is currently reviewing its renewables policy, examining what needs to be done to achieve the aim of 10% of the UK's electricity needs from renewables by the year 2010 and how renewables can make an effective contribution to meeting requirements for future greenhouse gas reduction commitments. The Review is considering all forms of new and renewable energy, including solar power. I am expecting officials shortly to present me with a number of options. I will make an announcement later this year. In the meantime my Department will continue with its assessment of different solar PV systems in a variety of buildings, under its New and Renewable Energy Programme. We are also supporting the Foresight SCOLAR programme, which aims to put a variety of PV arrays into 100 schools and colleges across the country.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the recent TUC forecast of the level of job losses in the manufacturing industry. [37700]
  162
  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]The TUC calculation is based on an assumed relationship between output growth and employment. The prospects for manufacturing and the precise relationship between output growth and employment will depend on a range of factors.

  This Government are committed to providing an environment in which all businesses can prosper. We are pursuing policies to deliver a high and stable level of employment over the long term.

  Energy Sources Review
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the cost of employing International Mining Consultants Ltd. to review energy sources. [37697]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]The work being undertaken by International Mining Consultants is on the basis of a fixed price. That price is a commercial matter for the company.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade for what reasons the review of energy sources was not conducted by the Energy Division of her Department. [37698]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]The review is being carried out by a team within my Department's Energy Policy and Analysis Unit.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what factors underlay the delay in the appointment of consultants to review energy sources for power generation. [37699]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]Consultants have been appointed to provide expert input on specific topics covered by the review. They were appointed when the particular matters had been identified on which independent expert advice was required.

  Gas Pipes
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what formula is used by Transco to assess the need to replace gas pipes; and if she will make a statement. [37379]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]Transco' s pipeline replacement strategy is principally aimed at ensuring that their gas distribution system continues to operate safely, and meets the requirements of the Health and Safety Executive's Pipelines Safety Regulations 1996. I understand that Transco's methodology for replacing gas mains is based on a points system, building on principles developed by the Institution of Gas Engineers, and that this methodology is currently under review by Transco.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the Government's response to the European Commission's proposals for the reform of the European structural funds. [36551]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) on 2 April 1998,Official Report, columns 662–63.
  163
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations her Department has made to the European Commission over reform of EU structural funds. [36537]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have met Commissioner Wulf-Mathies twice to discuss reform of the EU Structural Funds, on 8 January in London and 19 March in Brussels. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has met Mrs. Wulf-Mathies four times, on 13 October 1997 in Brussels, 8 January 1998 in London, 25 February in Brussels and most recently on 26 March in London. Officials are also in regular contact with the Commission. In all these meetings, we have pressed the Government's position that the Structural and Cohesion Funds should be affordable, durable and fair.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the European Commission's proposals to reform the European structural funds. [36535]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) on 2 April 1998,Official Report, columns 662–63.

  Environmental Impact Assessment Directive
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when regulations will be made to implement the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive as it applies to the offshore oil and gas industry. [38556]

  Mr. Battle
  I have today laid Regulations to implement the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC) as it applies to the offshore oil and gas industry. The Regulations will come into effect on 30 April 1998.

  Iraq
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which of the pathogen strains that Iraq purchased from the United Kingdom between 1985 and 1989 had origins in the British biological weapons programme. [34847]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  I undertook on 2 April 1998, Official Report, column 1445, to look into a number of points raised by the hon. and learned Member about the possible supply of UK origin anthrax spores to Iraq via the US, and will provide such information as is available in answer to this question in my reply.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Annual Results
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the hon Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the significance of the Commissioners' 1997 annual results for the wider Church. [38519]

  Mr.Stuart Bell
  For the fourth successive year the total return on the Commissioners' investments has exceeded the independent benchmark. Provisional figures 164
  for 1997 show the total return on the Commissioners' assets was 19.7% against the WM All Funds benchmark of 16.5%. This reflects sound strategic and tactical investment choices as well as the current high market values of UK equities. The value of the assets at 31 December 1997 was £3,481 million (£2,976 million in 1996). Income was £135 million (£146 million in 1996) which represented an underlying increase after taking into account special dividends and other one-off items of £3.9 million in 1997 compared to £15.1 million in 1996. The Commissioners' total expenditure in 1997 in support of the Church was £130.6 million (136.2 million in 1996).

  With the support and cooperation of the rest of the Church and, in particular, because of the generosity of the parishes, the Commissioners have been able to restore a balance between assets and distribution levels. They have also been able to rebalance their investment portfolio towards long term total return with a broader spread of risk. Both these factors have underpinned the strong investment performance of recent years.

  A six year programme of reducing distribution levels was completed in 1997 and parishes now bear a greater responsibility for the financial support of their clergy. Parishes now meet 62% of the clergy pay bill (£160 million in 1997) with the Commissioners meeting only 15%. Parishes started to contribute towards clergy pensions from 1 January 1998 following the introduction of the new pensions arrangements made possible by the Pensions Measure which was passed by this House last year.

  This continuing acceptance of responsibility and extra generosity from the parishes will enable the Commissioners to continue to fulfil their core responsibility of supporting the Church's ministry in poorer areas of the country for this and successive generations.

SCOTLAND

  Surplus Property and Land
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the properties and land owned by his Department which he has identified as surplus to requirements, giving in each case their estimated value. [30326]

  Mr. Dewar
  (holding answer 23 February 1998]The list is set out in the table.

  Department/Agency

  Property

  Estimated value (£)

  Scottish Prisons Service

  1.025 ha of land at Barlinnie

  70,000

  Scottish Prisons Service

  0.6 ha of land at Noranside

  20,000

  Scottish Prisons Service

  4.42 ha of land at Polmont

  620,000

  Scottish Office Home Department

  0.77 ha of land at Clovenfords

  60,000

  Scottish Office Agriculture Environment and Fisheries Department

  1.0 ha of land at Auchincruive

  10,000

  Scottish Office Agriculture Environment and Fisheries Department

  2.44 ha of land at Stonehouse

  400,000

  Scottish Office Accommodation Division

  56 High Street, Lossiemouth

  25,000

  Scottish Office Development Department

  12.185 hectares of land at Rosyth

  72,000

  165

  Department/Agency

  Property

  Estimated value (£)

  Scottish Office National Roads Directorate

  13 properties

  179,639

  Scottish Office National Roads Directorate

  c400 areas of land at various locations1

  1c1,700,000

  Scottish Office Home Department

  Disused Civil Defence bunker at Cultybraggan

  17,500

  Scottish Office Home Department

  Former depot at Stirling

  340,000

  1As at 1 April 1997.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pulblish the estimated costs of the options for the temporary housing of the Scottish Parliament after it is elected in 1999. [34280]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 13 March 1998]: In preparing assessments of options for interim accommodation for the Scottish Parliament,my officials made outline estimates of the comparative capital and running costs of solutions based on the Church of Scotland Assembly Hall on the Mound, Edinburgh; and the former Glasgow High School complex at Charing Cross, Glasgow. These estimates included capital costs of necessary upgrading of the buildings and rent and rates over a two year period. The costs covered office accommodation required by the Parliament. For the

  NDPD

  Places

  Places currently unfilled

  Resigntions since 1/5/97

  Retirements since 1/5/97

  Contracts not renewed since 1/5/97

  Number remaining in place since 1/5/97

  Number appointed since 1/5/97

  Executive

  The Accounts Commission for Scotland

  15

  0

  0

  2

  0

  13

  2

  Scottish Agricultural and Biological Research Institutes:

  Hannah Research Institute

  2

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Macaulay Land Use Research Institute

  15

  1

  0

  1

  0

  14

  0

  Moredun Research Institute

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  Rowett Research Institute

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  Scottish Crop Research Institute

  14

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  3

  Crofters' Commission

  8

  1

  1

  0

  0

  7

  0

  Deer Commission for Scotland

  13

  0

  0

  0

  0

  13

  0

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  6–12

  0

  0

  4

  0

  8

  4

  National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland

  11

  0

  0

  1

  0

  10

  1

  National Galleries of Scotland

  12

  0

  0

  0

  0

  9

  3

  National Library of Scotland

  1—

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  National Museums of Scotland

  15

  1

  0

  0

  0

  14

  0

  Parole Board for Scotland

  18

  1

  0

  3

  0

  14

  6

  Royal Botanic Garden

  9

  0

  0

  0

  0

  9

  0

  Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland

  10

  0

  0

  1

  0

  9

  1

  Scottish Agricultural Wages Board

  5

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  1

  Scottish Arts Council

  14

  1

  0

  0

  0

  13

  0

  Scottish Children's Reporter Administration

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  0

  Scottish Community Education Council

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  4

  Scottish Conveyancing and Executry Services Board

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  0

  Scottish Council for Education Technology

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  Scottish Enterprise

  8–12

  0

  1

  0

  0

  9

  2

  Scottish Environment Protection Agency

  12

  2

  2

  0

  0

  10

  0

  Scottish Further Education Unit

  7

  1

  1

  1

  0

  3

  3

  Scottish Higher Education Funding Council

  15

  0

  1

  3

  0

  1

  1

  4

  Scottish Homes

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  0

  Scottish Hospital Endowments Research Trust

  10

  1

  0

  0

  0

  8

  1

  Scottish Legal Aid Board

  13

  0

  1

  0

  0

  12

  1

  Scottish Medical Practices Committee

  6

  1

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0

  Scottish Natural Heritage

  12

  0

  1

  2

  0

  9

  3

  166
  Assembly Hall option, the office accommodation element was based on buildings currently occupied by the City of Edinburgh Council at George IV Bridge and Parliament Square. The respective estimated costs were as follows:

  £ million

  Old Royal High School, Edinburgh

  5

  Assembly Hall

  6

  Charing Cross, Glasgow

  3

  The estimates did not include heating, lighting, security or other building-related services.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish(a) the number of places on each of his Department's non-departmental public bodies, (b) the number of places that are currently unfilled on each non-departmental public body, (c) the total number of members that have resigned since 1 May 1997, (d) the total number that have retired since 1 May 1997, (e) the total number that have not had their contracts renewed since 1 May 1997, (f) the total number that have remained in place since 1 May 1997 and (g) the total number that have been appointed since 1 May 1997. [35279]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 19 March 1998]The information is set out in the table. The figures relate to Ministerial appointments only; a few appointments are made by others.
  167

  NDPD

  Places

  Place currently unfilled

  Resignations since 1/5/97

  Retirements since 1/5/97

  Contracts not renewed since 1/5/97

  Number remaining in place since 1/5/97

  Number appointed since 1/5/97

  Scottish Qualifications Authority

  20

  2

  2

  0

  0

  18

  0

  Scottish Screen

  13

  0

  0

  0

  0

  13

  0

  Scottish Sports Council

  12

  0

  0

  2

  0

  10

  2

  Scottish Tourist Board

  7

  1

  0

  2

  0

  5

  1

  Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers Council

  8–12

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  1

  Advisory

  Advisory Committee on Dental Establishments

  11

  0

  0

  0

  0

  9

  2

  Advisory Committee on Scotland's Travelling People

  2—

  9

  0

  2

  0

  8

  1

  Advisory Committee on Sites of Special Scientific Interest

  7

  0

  0

  3

  0

  2

  5

  Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland

  16

  0

  0

  0

  0

  12

  4

  Building Standards Advisory Committee

  14

  0

  0

  0

  0

  14

  0

  Central Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace (Scotland)

  18

  0

  0

  0

  0

  18

  0

  Extra Parliamentary Panel

  20

  0

  0

  0

  0

  20

  0

  General Teaching Council for Scotland

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  Health Appointments Advisory Committee

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0

  Hill Farming Advisory committee for Scotland

  16

  0

  0

  1

  0

  16

  0

  Historic Buildings Council for Scotland

  12

  0

  0

  2

  0

  10

  2

  Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  1

  Local Government Property Commission

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Scotland

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  Police Advisory Board for Scotland

  5

  0

  0

  2

  0

  3

  2

  Post Qualification Education Board for Health Services Pharmacists in Scotland

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  0

  Royal Fine Art Commission for Scotland

  12

  0

  0

  0

  0

  12

  0

  Scottish Advisory Committee on Drug Misuse

  19

  1

  1

  0

  0

  18

  0

  Scottish Advisory Committee on the Medical Workforce

  17

  0

  1

  0

  0

  15

  2

  Scottish Agricultural Consultative Panel

  15

  0

  0

  0

  0

  15

  0

  Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum

  20

  0

  0

  0

  0

  20

  0

  Scottish Crime Prevention Council

  12

  1

  1

  0

  0

  11

  0

  Scottish Economic Council

  31

  0

  2

  7

  0

  23

  8

  Scottish Industrial Development Advisory Board

  12

  3

  0

  3

  0

  9

  0

  Scottish Police College Board of Governors

  18

  0

  0

  2

  0

  16

  2

  Scottish Records Advisory Council

  12

  1

  1

  1

  0

  11

  1

  Scottish Standing Committee for the Calculation of Residual Values of Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  1

  Scottish Studentship Selection Committee

  10

  0

  0

  3

  0

  7

  3

  Scottish Valuation and Rating Council

  11

  0

  1

  0

  0

  8

  3

  Secretary of State for Scotland's Advisory Group on Sustainable Development

  2—

  0

  1

  0

  0

  9

  0

  Secretary of State's Advisory Panel of Economic Consultants

  2—

  0

  0

  2

  0

  5

  4

  Secretary of State's (Electricity) Fisheries Committee

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  0

  1Life appointments

  2 Not specified.

  Fish Farming Colleges
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the Drumbeat report and addendum into the future of the Seafield Centre fish farming college at Kishorn, Ross-Shire; if he will list all those industry companies consulted over its compilation; and if he will make a statement; [37882]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the projected annual balance sheet of the Seafield Centre fish farming college at Kishorn, Ross-Shire; and if he will make a statement. [37883]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Drumbeat Report was commissioned by Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I understand that it is already publicly available and will make arrangements to place copies in the Libraries of both Houses.
  168
  The Seafield Centre is a faculty of Inverness College. The latest audited annual accounts for Inverness College are for 1996–97. The college budget for 1998–99 is still in preparation.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those facilities approved by the Scottish Qualifications Authority in marine aquaculture; what plans he has in respect of the fish farming college at Kishorn, Ross-Shire, Dunstaffnage, Argyll and the North Atlantic Fisheries College at Scalloway, Shetland; and if he will make a statement. [37884]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Scottish Qualifications Authority approves the following centres to deliver education and training leading to qualifications in various aspects of marine aquaculture.

  Aberdeen College

  Angus College

  The Barony College

  Banff and Buchan College of Further Education

  169

  Borders College

  Dumfries and Galloway College

  Dundee College

  Elmwood College

  Lews Castle College

  Inverness College

  Shetland College of Further Education

  Fish Industry Training Association

  Marine Harvest McConnell

  North Atlantic Fisheries

  Rural Pursuits Ltd

  Scottish Aquaculture Training Association

  Shetland Fisheries Training Association.

  Responsibility for the Seafield Fish Farming Training Centre at Kishorn rests with the Board of Management of Inverness College. The Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory

  Numbers and rate per 100,000 of new cases, aged under 16 years, where a diagnosis of Legg-Calves-Perthes Syndrome was recorded, by area of residence, 1991–1995

  Numbers of discharges

  Rate per 100,000

  Health board of residence

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Argyll and Clyde

  6

  5

  11

  4

  4

  6.7

  5.6

  12.3

  4.5

  4.5

  Ayrshire and Arran

  8

  8

  5

  7

  11

  10.3

  10.3

  6.4

  9.0

  14.2

  Borders

  1

  3

  1

  1

  1

  5.1

  15.2

  5.0

  5.0

  4.9

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1

  1

  3

  6

  1

  3.5

  3.5

  10.3

  20.5

  3.4

  Fife

  8

  9

  4

  4

  8

  11.2

  12.6

  5.6

  5.5

  11.1

  Forth Valley

  0

  3

  4

  1

  2

  -

  5.5

  7.3

  1.8

  3.6

  Grampian

  3

  3

  4

  2

  2

  2.9

  2.8

  3.7

  1.8

  1.8

  Greater Glasgow

  20

  19

  12

  21

  24

  11.0

  10.4

  6.6

  11.4

  13.1

  Highland

  5

  2

  5

  2

  2

  11.4

  4.5

  11.3

  4.5

  4.5

  Lanarkshire

  10

  10

  7

  5

  9

  8.3

  8.3

  5.8

  4.2

  7.5

  Lothian

  11

  7

  8

  7

  11

  7.9

  5.0

  5.7

  4.9

  7.6

  Orkney

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  Shetland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  Tayside

  5

  0

  3

  2

  3

  6.6

  -

  3.9

  2.6

  3.9

  Western Isles

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  31.9

  -

  -

  16.3

  -

  Scotland

  80

  70

  67

  63

  78

  7.6

  6.8

  6.5

  6.1

  7.5

  Source

  ISD Scotland

  Futher and Higher Education
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 17 February 1998,official Report, column 578, What discussions he has had with individual principals of Scottish(a) universities,(b)colleges and(c)further education colleges regarding the possibility of increasing the proportion of non-Scottish United Kingdom students who are given direct entry into second year; what conclusions were reached; what estimate he has made of the cost to Scottish educational institutions of the reultant reduction in annual full-time equivalent places; and if he will make a statement. [38340]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have not met the Principal of any Scottish university, higher or further education college specifially to discuss the possibility of increasing the proportion of non-Scottish UK-domiciled students who are given direct entry into second year

  The Report of the Scottish Committee of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (the 'Garrick Report')recommended to higher education providers that they should clearly specify their requirements for combinations of A levels which will lead to entry with
  170
  is funded and managed by the Natural Environment Research Council and the North Atlantic Fisheries College is managed by an independent charitable trust. I have no locus to intervene in the future plans for any of these facilities.

  Legg-Calves-Perthes Syndrome
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of new cases of Legg-Calves-Perthes syndrome in each of the Scottish health board areas for each of the last five years, indicating the percentage of the population which each of these figures represent. [36812]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The latest available information by Health Board area, on the number and rate per 100,000 of population of new cases, under 16 years, of Legg-Calves-Perthes Syndrome for each year from 1991 is provided in the table.

  advanced standing within the new qualifications framework. In our response to the Garrick Report, published on 25 February and available from the Library of this House, we welcomed this recommendation. The Government believe that higher education providers should give more consideration for entry into second year for candidates with appropriate combinations of A levels and, in due course, Advanced Highers. However, as this is for the institutions themselves to consider and take forward, no estimate has been made of the cost.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Drug Abuse
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what programmes and funding are being made available this year by the Government to provide education in schools on the dangers of drug abuse; and if he will indicate the respective contributions of his Department and the Department for Education and Employment. [37367]
  171
  Mr. George Howarth
  The National Curriculum sets out the minimum requirements for drugs education in schools. Beyond this, it is for individual schools to decide on their drugs education programmes in the light of their needs and circumstances.

  The Department for Education and Employment is making £7 million of support available to all local education authorities in England in 1998–99, through the Standards Fund programme, to assist primary and secondary schools and the youth service to deliver effective education about drugs, including alcohol and tobacco. In addition, as part of its £1.9 million annual grants programme, the Home Office Drugs Prevention Initiative is supporting work in a limited number of schools in developing their drugs education programmes. The results of this work will be disseminated nationally over the course of this year.

  Youth Justice
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the responses received(a) to the draft Crime and Disorder Bill and (b) from local authorities on the proposed duty to produce a youth justice plan. [37365]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government's proposal to place a duty on local authorities with social services and education responsibilities, to formulate and implement an annual youth justice plan covering the provision of youth justice services and youth offending teams, was set out in the consultation paper "New National and Local Focus on Youth Crime", published in October. Sixteen local authorities commented specifically on the proposal for a youth justice plan. Overall, they gave a broad welcome to the proposal and commented on the need for proper links between youth justice plans and other local plans, in particular, the children's services plan drawn up by local authorities and the policing plan issued by police authorities. A summary of the responses to the consultation paper was placed in the Library on 15 December 1997.

  The proposal for a youth justice plan was reflected in the White Paper "No More Excuses—A New Approach to Tackling Youth Crime in England and Wales", published in November, and is now contained in clause 37 of the Crime and Disorder Bill.

  The preparation of youth justice plans and their relationship with other local plans will be addressed in guidance to local authorities and the other relevant local agencies.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to whom the proposed youth offending teams will be accountable. [37363]

  Mr. Michael
  Clause 36 of the Crime and Disorder Bill places the responsibility for establishing youth offending teams on the local authority with education and social services responsibilities in the area. Youth offending teams will therefore be accountable to that local authority for the way they discharge their statutory duties.

  In practice, we expect youth offending teams to be accountable to a group of chief officers from the local authority and from those agencies placed under a duty by clause 36 to co-operate with the local authority in
  172
  establishing a youth offending team. They are the police, the probation service and the health authority. This group will in turn account to the local authority, the police authority, the probation committee and the health authority. It is expected that where there are two tiers of local authority, there would be consultation with the District Authorities and to ensure coherence with the work of Crime Prevention Partnerships and the work of Drug Action Teams.

  Clause 37 of the Bill also places a duty on local authorities, after consultation with the police authority, probation committee and health authority, to formulate and implement an annual youth justice plan covering the provision of youth offending teams and youth justice services. This plan will be published and submitted to the Youth Justice Board established under clause 38, which will be able to hold the local authority and the other agencies to account for the arrangements for teams and services in their area.

  Security Industry
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to regulate the security industry; and if he will make a statement. [37526]

  Mr. Michael
  We intend to introduce statutory regulation of the private security industry as soon as possible but pressures on Parliamentary time constitute an obstacle to early legislation, as we warned would be the case when we pressed the last Government for early legislation before the election. We have recently completed a consultation exercise with the industry and others on the best way to provide a comprehensive, effective and streamlined system for the whole of the private security industry. It is clear from the responses that there is general support for our approach from the industry itself, as well as from other respondents, and we hope to put forward firm proposals for regulation later this year. Our aim is to build a consensus behind legislative proposals in order to be able to move more quickly and effectively as soon as Parliamentary time becomes available.

  Airline Liaison Officers
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training or guidance is currently received by airline liaison officers; and how this is provided. [37724]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Airline liaison officers are selected from within an Immigration Service management grade (Chief Immigration Officer) on the basis of experience and suitability against well defined criteria. After selection and before posting, airline liaison officers attend a training course devised and run by the Immigration Service Carriers Liaison Unit, the office responsible for managing the airline liaison officer network. They are also provided with a manual which contains operational guidance and instructions. Airline liaison officers are instructed to contact the Carriers Liaison Unit for advice and guidance whenever necessary.
  173
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many airline liaison officers are currently in post overseas; and in which countries they serve. [37722]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Home Office currently has five airline liaison officers based overseas at the British High Commissions in Ghana (Accra), Kenya (Nairobi), India (New Delhi), Sri Lanka (Colombo) and Bangladesh (Dhaka).

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the annual cost is of maintaining airline liaison officers overseas; and what assessment he has made of this expenditure in terms of value for money. [37723]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The budget, including the initial costs of providing the necessary support services for the network of five airline liaison officers, is £925,000 in the first year of operation and £575,000 annually thereafter. The estimated annual saving to the United Kingdom after the first full year of operation is just under £19 million.

  Passports (Children)
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on passports for children. [38434]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Following a policy review, I have accepted the Passport Agency's recommendation that, on the grounds of improved security, of making child abduction more difficult, of facilitating travel and of maintaining the Agency's efficiency and effectiveness, all children should be required to hold their own passport. This change in policy will take effect from 5 October 1998, when the Agency plan to begin introducing a new, more secure British passport. Children already included on their parents' passports will not be affected by this change until the passport is changed.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people are currently detained by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; how many have been detained in each of the last five years; and at what annual cost; [38163]

  (2) how many of the people detained by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate have been detained for longer than three months in each of the last three years. [38165]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]Information on persons detained under sole Immigration Act powers in the United Kingdom for longer than three months is available only for the position as at 31 March 1998. As at that date, 350 such persons were recorded as having been detained continuously for over three months.

  The available information relating to all persons detained under Immigration Act powers in immigration detention centres and prisons in the United Kingdom at given points in time, is contained in table 1.
  174
  The annual costs of detention to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate are given in table 2.

  Table 1: Persons recorded as being detained1 solely under Immigration Act powers in immigration detention centres and prisons in the United Kingdom2

  As at:

  Detained in immigration detention centres

  Detained in person establishments

  28 February 1998

  3,4373

  5496

  31 December 1997

  383

  465

  31 December 1996

  4493

  6487

  31 December 1995

  4371

  6532

  31 December 1994

  7n/a

  6445

  31 December 1993

  7n/a

  6545

  1Persons recorded as being detained under Immigration Act powers on the dates given.

  2 Data exclude persons detained in police cells.

  3Data exclude persons detained at Dover.

  4Data exclude persons detained at Harwich.

  51998 prisons data are provisional.

  6Data exclude persons detained in prisons in Northern Ireland.

  7Data are not available.

  Table 2: Annual costs to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of detention1,2 1992–93 to 1996–97

  Year

  Cost1 (£ million)

  1992–93

  4.57

  1993–94

  7.46

  1994–95

  11.35

  1995–96

  13.12

  1996–97

  17.8

  1Costs are net costs calculated on an accruals accounting basis. They include staff, accommodation, overheads and full running costs, and take account of depreciation of fixed assets.

  2The data exclude costs to the Prison Service.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the daily average cost to public funds of detaining a person by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [38162]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]The current average daily cost of detaining a person within the Immigration Service detention estate is £76. Some immigration detainees are held in Prison Service accommodation where the average daily cost in 1996–97 was £68, although these costs are not passed on to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. The quoted costs include headquarters overheads.

  Immigration Advisory Service
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what factors underlie the number of staff at the Immigration Advisory Service, Scottish Office; [38158]

  (2) what factors underlie the proposed reduction in the number of staff at the Immigration Advisory Service, Scottish Office. [37910]

  Ms Quin
  The staffing arrangements of the Immigration Advisory Service are a matter for the Trustees.
  175
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum cases are dealt with in the Immigration Advisory Service Office based in(a) Birmingham, (b) Cardiff, (c) Central London, (d) Gatwick, (e) Glasgow, (f) Hounslow, (g) Leeds and (h) Manchester. [37911]

  Ms Quin
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Asylum appeals disposed of by the Immigration Advisory Service, by office

  March 1997-February 1998

  Birmingham

  53

  Cardiff

  8

  Central London1

  423

  Glasgow

  19

  Hounslow

  536

  Leeds

  10

  Manchester

  48

  1Includes Detention Unit

  There is no Immigration Advisory Service office at Gatwick.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the availability of free advice on immigration and asylum law in Scotland. [38159]

  Ms Quin
  The Immigration Advisory Service receives a grant from the Home Office under section 23 of the Immigration Act 1971. It is open to appellants in Scotland to seek free advice from the Immigration Advisory Service or from any other voluntary organisation.

  Internet Watch Foundation
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 1998,Official Report, column 516, who will undertake the review of the Internet Watch Foundation; what arrangements are being made to allow interested parties to submit their views to the review team; and if the report will be published. [37142]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]The review will be undertaken by outside consultants. The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has the lead in taking forward the review in view of that Department's responsibility for regulation of the industry, and has the full support of the Home Office. DTI officials will be meeting representatives from the Home Office, Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and National Children's Homes (Action for Children) after Easter to discuss the finer details of the review. However, it is envisaged that the review will focus on:Progress on the removal of illegal material, including the number of reports received, time taken to turn them around, compliance of Internet Service Providers with IWF advice and the possibility of establishing a system to provide more reliable feedback on results;
  Structure of the IWF and representation of interested parties.
  Next priorities for IWF—a broader focus than child pornography. New priorities might include adult pornography, racism, breaches of copyright and protection from legal but potentially harmful material;
  176
  Awareness of the Internet industry and consumers of the IWF and or rating and filtering tools for self protection and how far this awareness translates into usage.

  Once the full specification of the review has been agreed, applications will be invited from interested parties who may wish to carry out the review. It will be open to anyone who wishes to do so to submit views to the team which is appointed. The report of the review is likely to be published in the Autumn.

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 1998,Official Report, column 516, if he will extend the review of the operations of the Internet Watch Foundation to include an assessment of the effectiveness of the current procedures of (a) the Metropolitan Police, (b) other police forces and (c) the National Criminal Intelligence Service, in responding to reports on potentially illegal child pornography from the IWF. [37141]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]The focus of the review announced by the Government on 3 March will be the work of the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), its structure and composition, the effectiveness of its arrangements for dealing with reports of potentially illegal material, extension of its priorities for action and promoting awareness of its work.

  The review will look at the effectiveness of the administrative procedures for passing on information about potentially illegal material to individual police forces and for collating information about the use to which the information has been put, including resulting prosecutions. Any procedural difficulties will be highlighted in the report. The operational effectiveness of the Metropolitan Police, other police forces and the National Criminal Intelligence Service in responding to reports which they receive from the IWF on potentially illegal child pornography is beyond the scope of the current proposals.

  The efficiency of the police response to the information received from IWF is a matter for the force concerned.

  British Horseracing Board
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the British Horseracing Board. [37745]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]My right hon. Friend has not met the British Horseracing Board (BHB). The Home Office has regular contact with the BHB at official level. I expect to be meeting Board members soon and I have had several informal contacts with members of the Board.

  Fraud
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ask the Law Commission to review the law on fraud. [38520]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today asked the Law Commission to undertake a review of the law on fraud. The terms of reference for this review are:"As part of their programme of work on dishonesty, to examine the law on fraud, and in particular to consider whether it
  is readily comprehensible to juries;

  177
  is adequate for effective prosecution;
  is fair to potential defendants;
  meets the need of developing technology including electronic means of transfer;
  and to make recommendations to improve the law in these respects with all due expedition. In making these recommendations to consider whether a general offence of fraud would improve the criminal law."

  Fire Safety
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the report of the Community Fire Safety Task Force in relation to fire safety in England and Wales. [38521]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I am pleased to announce today that the Government have accepted all the main recommendations of the Community Fire Safety Task Force.

  We have pledged quite clearly our determination and commitment to providing safer communities. The fire service has a vital role to play in helping to achieve a safer society, not just by "fighting fires, but by reducing the number of fires, deaths and casualties.

  The Community Fire Safety Task Force were established to advise on a new strategy for England and Wales to reduce significantly the incidence of fire in the home. The report they produced last November was welcomed as an enormous opportunity both for the Government and the fire service to reduce the pain and suffering caused by dwelling fires.

  I made it clear when the report was published that we wanted to hear the views of chief officers, fire authorities and the Unions, all of whom have a crucial role to play in translating the strategy into action. I am pleased to say that the response to the Task Force report has provided a strong mandate for almost all of their key proposals and for a refocusing of effort towards prevention and safety.

  I am writing to those same organisations today to explain how we intend to take the strategy forward. In particular, I want to see the efforts of Government, fire authorities and other local agencies integrated and co-ordinated as the Task Force recommended, so that the whole effort achieves more than the sum of its parts. We shall be taking steps to put these arrangements in place shortly. I also accept, with the strong endorsement of the fire service, the recommendation that community fire safety should be made a statutory duty.

  Community Fire Safety must become a core activity of the fire service, and we must work in partnership with other agencies and with business to eliminate preventable fires. The success of this approach will mean a safer society for us all.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to publish a Management Statement for the Criminal Cases Review Commission. [38522]

  Mr. Michael
  The Management Statement for the Criminal Cases Review Commission has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library. The Statement sets out the mission and objectives of the 178
  Commission, its accountability to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and, through my right hon. Friend to Parliament, and the division of responsibilities between the Commission and the Home Office. The Management Statement is a key document for any non-departmental public body, and I commend that for the Commission to the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Firearms
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to ban handguns in Northern Ireland. [32572]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) on 2 April 1998,Official Report, column 608.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she will publish legislative proposals arising from the review of the Firearms (NI) Order 1981. [32811]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 11 March 1998]I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) on 2 April 1998,Official Report, column 608.

  Irish Medium Education
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council has discussed Irish-medium education; and if she will make a statement. [33593]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Education and Culture Sub-Committee of the Anglo Irish Intergovernmental Council regularly discusses Irish-medium education. At its meetings on 7 February, 8 May and 14 November, it discussed the inclusion of the Irish language in the National curriculum in English schools.

  The Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference has discussed Irish- medium education at 6 meetings since the beginning of 1995. The Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference was established under the framework of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council.

  Housing Development
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on her policy with respect to(a) building on green belt land and (b) the proportion of brownfield sites to be used for future housing. [37161]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Policy on buildings on green belt land in Northern Ireland is set out in the publication "A Planning Strategy for Rural Northern Ireland", published in September 1993, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  The draft Regional strategic Framework will be issued for public consideration within the next few months and this document will address, among other matters, the question of the use of recycled land.

  Staff Appointments
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which staff appointments in(a) her Private Office, (b) the Northern Ireland Office and (c) the Northern Ireland Civil Service are subject to her personal choice. [37164]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Appointments made in the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Civil Service are made on the basis of merit and through fair and open competition.

  As Secretary of State I do not engage in the process by which staff in the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Civil Service are selected for appointment. However, my approval is obtained before some selections for appointment are finalised. These posts include those at NI Permanent Secretary level, some in my Private Office (as recommended by Dr. Maurice Hayes in his 1997 report on "Staff Deployment in the NICS"), where the nature of the work and the working relationship involved make it appropriate to do so.

  The post of Head of the NI Civil Service and the three most senior posts in the NIO are subject to approval by the Prime Minister.

  Incomes
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the average(a) annual income and (b) hourly rate of pay in Northern Ireland. [37264]

  Mr. Ingram
  In 1996–97 the average annual income in Northern Ireland was £9,530. The latest earning figures available are for April 1997 at which date the average hourly rate of pay for adult employees (both full and part-time) was £7.58.

  Source:
  Incomes—Northern Ireland Family Expenditure Survey 1996–97
  Earnings—Northern Ireland New Earnings Survey, April 1997.

  Mr. öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of those employed in Northern Ireland earn less than £4 per hour; and if she will make a statement. [37265]

  Mr. Ingram
  The latest figures available are for April 1997 at which date 17.8 per cent. of adult employees (both full and part-time) earned less than £4.00 (excluding overtime) per hour.

  Source:
  Northern Ireland New Earnings Survey, April 1997.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of the impact of a minimum wage in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement. [37266]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government have appointed the Low Pay Commission to gather evidence, assess it and make recommendations in relation to the National Minimum Wage. The Commission visited Northern Ireland in October for that purpose. My Department has also contributed fully to the UK-wide Government evidence presented to the Commission. The Commission has received the recent NIEC report on the extent and nature 180
  of low pay in Northern Ireland. The report shows Northern Ireland to be significantly more affected by low pay than other UK regions. The National Minimum Wage will therefore have particular importance for Northern Ireland.

  Peace Line, Belfast
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will take measures to reinstate those sections of the peace line in north and west Belfast which have been taken down in recent months; and if she will make a statement. [37784]

  Mr. Ingram
  No sections of the peaceline in north and west Belfast have been taken down by the security forces in recent months. Any sections removed or damaged by unauthorised persons are repaired immediately.

  Housing
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of the Housing Executive's capital programme each year since 1987–88 has been spent on accommodation in(a) Catholic/nationalist and (b) Protestant/unionist areas. [37783]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Housing Executive capital schemes are developed on the basis of targeting those in greatest need through an objective assessment of housing requirements. No information is recorded on a religious apportionment of those programmes.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Housing Executive dwellings in Belfast are currently unoccupied by tenants to whom the Housing Executive has let these properties; and if she will make a statement. [37782]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive whose Chief Executive has advised me that, at 31 March 1998, the Executive is aware of 93 properties let to tenants, but unoccupied. Of these 72 are temporarily unoccupied while major improvements are carried out. The remaining 21 are the subject of Abandonment Notices, the Executive having evidence that the properties are not being used by the tenant as their main home. Abandonment Notices are served following a thorough investigation and are the culmination of a legal process to recover the property.

  Paramilitary Activity (Collusion Allegations)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will seek the advice of the UN Special Rapporteur on Extra-Legal, Summary and Arbitrary Executions on the conduct of an investigation into allegations of collusion between members of the security forces and paramilitary groups. [37740]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  No. We have national experts well placed to offer any necessary advice and to make recommendations on the issues that a UN Rapporteur would be likely to cover.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average RUC call out and response time over the past four years for each category of reported incident. [37807]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is not currently available. However the Command and Control system is designed to provide such information; its installation is ongoing and should be completed province-wide by October 1998.

  Referendum Campaign
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she plans to sanction her Department's Director of Information's proposals relating to a possible referendum campaign, with particular reference to the involvement of the Archbishop of Armagh; if she will place a copy of the proposals in the Library; and if she will make a statement. [37820]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The proposals drawn up in relation to a possible referendum campaign will be considered in the light of events. If a referendum is to be held, some of the proposals will be implemented and others will be considered.

  However, as I have made clear, Dr. Eames had no knowledge of the communications document. I have also assured Archbishop Eames that at no stage was there any intention or suggestion that anyone in the NIO was seeking to bring any pressure on him or any other church leader in terms of what they might say about the talks process or anything else. I greatly respect Dr. Eames and his independence as a Church leader as I do his integrity and that of the other Church leaders.

  The main point of the paper was to develop a strategy for informing the Northern Ireland public about the content of any agreement so that individual voters can make up their own minds. A public information telephone line has already been set up for this purpose.

  As the leaked document was an internal working paper I do not intend to place it in the Library of the House.

  Mediation Network
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her answer of 23 March 1998,Official Report, column 27, what evaluation she made, prior to granting funding to Mediation Network, of evidence that one of its advisers is a member of a United States religious sect. [37822]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None.

  "Women Seen and Heard"
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will place a copy of the document "Women Seen and Heard" in the Library. [37178]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]I have made arrangements to have copies of this Report placed in the Library.

  Life Sentence Prisoners
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the reasons for the revocation of licences for each of the 18 former life sentence prisoners for whom this is applicable. [37181]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]Statute provides that the licence of an indeterminate sentence prisoner can be revoked at any time by the Secretary of State. In each case, the overriding reason for licence revocation was for the protection of the public.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the members of the Life Sentence Review Board, indicating their profession, qualifications and perceived religious/community background and the declarations of interest each has registered. [37175]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]The Life Sentence Review Board is not a statutory body and there is no formal registration requirement on its members.

  The Life Sentence Review Board is chaired by the Permanent Under Secretary of the Northern Ireland Office, Mr. Joe Pilling, and includes among its members senior Northern Ireland Office officials, a psychologist and a medical officer of the Department of Health and Social Services. The Chief Probation Officer and a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist attend the Board in a professional advisory capacity. The Governors of HMP Maze and HMP Maghaberry also attend.

  The identities of the members of the Board, with the exception of the Permanent Under Secretary, are not made public for security reasons. The members of the Board are all full-time civil servants drawn from both the Home Civil Service and the Northern Ireland Civil Service. Their membership is by virtue of the posts they hold within the Northern Ireland Office, including the Northern Ireland Prison Service.

  It would be inappropriate to disclose the perceived community background of the individual members of the Review Board. The confidentiality of monitoring information is protected under the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.

  As already indicated, among the members of the Board, are a professionally qualified Psychologist and medical practitioner.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what dates the two life-sentence prisoners released on licence were subsequently reconvicted for scheduled offences; and what their present position is as regards sentence. [37180]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]Of the two prisoners re-convicted for serious terrorist offences, one was sentenced on 17 December 1993 and the other on 18 May 1995. Following licence revocation each has resumed the status of an indeterminate sentence prisoner. The stage at which each case will be reviewed by the Life Sentence Review Board will be determined by means of periodical review in accordance with normal life sentence review procedures.
  183
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times, and on what dates, the Life Sentence Review Board has met in the last three years; and how many cases it has considered on each occasion. [37174]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]The Life Sentence Review Board meets five times per year. The other information requested is set out in the table.

  Date of meeting

  Number of cases

  7 February 1995

  5

  4 April 1995

  10

  6 June 1995

  9

  17 October 1995

  9

  12 December 1995

  8

  20 February 1996

  7

  23 April 1996

  5

  11 June 1996

  12

  22 October 1996

  13

  10 December 1996

  10

  18 February 1997

  7

  29 April 1997

  6

  9 June 19971

  8

  14 and 15 October 19971

  19

  9 December 1997

  12

  1 One individual case was considered at two successive meetings during 1997 as the Board requested additional information.

  Note:

  Some cases will, of course, have been considered more than once during this 3 year time span where the Board deferred them for periods of one or two years.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate she has made of the cost of resolving the millennium computer problem in the National Health Service; how much money has been spent on this to date; and if she will make a statement. [37933]

  Mr. Worthington
  The cost of resolving the millennium computer problem in the Northern Ireland Health and Personal Social Services currently stands at £5 million in respect of Information Management and Technology (1M&T) systems. No estimates are yet available for non-IT equipment.

  There are as yet no records of what has been spent to date. This will become clear in the next returns due from HPSS organisations in May 1998.

  The HSS Executive has been promoting awareness of HPSS Year 2000 issues since 1996. The HPSS programme is broadly in line with the GB timescale and the requirement for regular updates on progress will fall into line with GB from the next return date which is due in June 1998. It is not expected that compliance of all equipment will be achieved by the December 1998 target date. Preparations should however be complete in time for the millennium.

  Water Service
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what was the perceived religious affiliation breakdown of the persons who were 184
  interviewed by the last promotion board of the Northern Ireland Water Service for professional and technical staff; [38097]

  (2) how many persons appeared before the last promotion board for the Northern Ireland Water Service; and how many of those have since been promoted; [38138]

  (3) by how much she intends to increase water charges to each class of consumer; what sums she intends to raise in total; and for what purposes such sums will be used; [38083]

  (4) how many officers of each professional and technical grade are employed at Northern Ireland Water Service Headquarters; [38096]

  (5) how many persons at what grades are employed in design in (a) the Northern Ireland Water Service Headquarters and (b) in each division; and from where and by whom the persons working in the divisions are supervised; [38090]

  (6) if she will publish a table to show the religious affiliation breakdown of each grade of staff in each of the Northern Ireland Water Service divisions and at Northern Ireland Water Service Headquarters; [38091]

  (7) what checks are carried out on claims made as to qualifications held by persons employed in each professional and technical grade and in each administrative grade in the Northern Ireland Water Service; [38092]

  (8) if she will publish a table to show for each of the Northern Ireland Water Service divisions the number of (a) professional and technical officers,(b) higher professional and technical officers and (c) senior professional and technical officers employed, indicating the equivalent figures for the administration in each division and giving the dates of the last promotion board for these posts; [38093]

  (9) what reports on the Northern Ireland Water Service have been published by (a) the Fair Employment Agency and (b) the Fair Employment Commission; [38094]

  (10) how many persons are employed at Northern Ireland Water Service Headquarters; and at what grade. [38095]

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

  Letter from H. R. F. Plester to Mr. William Ross, dated 7 April 1998:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about Water Service staffing and charging issues.
  I shall answer each in the order of their receipt, and because some are very closely interlinked and worded I think it is necessary, to ensure clarity, that I should set out the question in full before each answer.
  1. To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what was the perceived religious affiliation breakdown of the persons who were interviewed by the last promotion board of the Northern Ireland Water Service for professional and technical staff.

  185
  Because of its duties of confidentiality to its staff the Department does not publish data on individual promotion competitions from which their religious affiliation could be deduced. Unauthorised disclosure of such information would constitute an offence under Section 19 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. However, aggregated information is available in the Sixth Report of the Equal Opportunities Unit. A copy of this is available in the House of Commons Library.
  2. To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how many persons appeared before the last promotion board for the Northern Ireland Water Service; and how many of those have since been promoted.
  Five people were interviewed for the post of Telemetry Operations, Supervisor Professional Technical Officer level within Northern Division and one has since been promoted into this post.
  3. To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, by how much she intends to increase water charges to each class of consumer; what sums she intends to raise in total; and for what purposes such sums will be used.
  The annual revision of the Water Service's metered water charges, paid by industrial commercial and agricultural users, and trade effluent charges paid by dischargers, has just taken place. The proposed new rates for 1998/99 are as follows:

  Metered Water Charges
  The proposed volumetric charge for 1998/99 is 72.34 pence per cubic metre. This is an increase of 6.28% on the 1997/98 charges of 68.13 pence. The standing charges for metered supplies have not been increased. They remain within the annual charge rate of £46 for a supply pipe of 15 mm or less, up to £1502 for a supply pipe greater than 100 mm.

  Trade Effluent Charges
  The proposed standard trade effluent charge for 1998/99 remains at the level for 1997/98. This is 37.06 pence per cubic metre. While the standard charge has not altered overall there has been re-adjustment of the components that make it up under the "Mogden Formula", which is the standard water industry methodology for calculating this charge. These charge components are reception and conveyance, volumetric treatment, biological treatment, sludge

  Grade 6

  PPTO

  SPTO

  HPTO

  PTO

  O'level trainee

  TG1

  Belfast

  1

  3

  5

  23

  15

  6

  ⋆2

  Ballymena

  1

  3

  3

  2

  Craigavon

  1

  1

  6

  4½

  2

  Londonderry

  1

  4

  3

  3

  ⋆Technical Grade 1

  6. To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if she will publish a table to show the religious affiliation breakdown of each grade of staff in each of the Northern Ireland Water Service divisions and at Northern Ireland Water Service Headquarters.
  Because of its duties of confidentiality the Department does not publish information at the level of disaggregation requested. However, information on composition by grade at Departmental level is available in the Sixth Report of the Equal Opportunities Unit, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library. The Northern Ireland Civil Service is an equal opportunities employer and is committed to appointment and progression on merit.
  7. To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what checks are carried out on claims made as to qualifications held by persons employed in each professional and technical grade and in each administrative grade in the Northern Ireland Water Service.
  Upon recruitment, or when gaining qualifications in-service, Water Service staff are required to submit for inspection the original certification relating to their qualifications.
  186
  treatment and disposal. These adjustments could affect the bills of trade effluent dischargers upwards or downwards depending upon the volume and strength of their effluents.
  It is estimated that the sums raised by these charges during 1998/99 will be approximately £30 million for metered water and £3.9 million for trade effluent. These charges are levied to ensure that those businesses using these facilities pay proportionately for the services they receive and that cross-subsidisation amongst consumers is reduced. A portion of the metered water charge increase is designed to continue the phased reduction of an historic element of cross-subsidy of metered water users by regional ratepayers.
  4. To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how many officers of each professional and technical grade are employed at Northern Ireland Water Service Headquarters.

  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Number

  Grade 3

  1

  Grade 5

  3

  Grade 6

  3

  Principal Professional Technical Officer

  7

  Senior Professional Technical Officer

  18

  Higher Professional Technical Officer

  9

  Professional Technical Officer

  4

  Senior Principal Scientific Officer

  1

  Principal Scientific Officer

  3

  Senior Scientific Officer

  3

  5. To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how many persons at what grades are employed in design in (a) the Northern Ireland Water Service Headquarters and (b) in each division; and from where and by whom the persons working in the divisions are supervised.
  Design staff are not grouped within Water Service Headquarters or within its operational Divisions. They all come under Water Service's Development Directorate and its senior level management. They are located on either a team or ½ team basis at 4 centres, Ballymena, Belfast, Craigavon and Londonderry. Each team, or½ team, is supervised by its senior officer at the location. Details of the staff by grade and location are tabled below.
  8.To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if she will publish a table to show for each of the Northern Ireland Water Service divisions the number of (a) professional and technical officers, (b) higher professional and technical officers and (c) senior professional and technical officers employed, indicating the equivalent figures for the administration in each division and giving the dates of the last promotion board for these posts.

  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Division

  PTO/executive officer 1

  HPTO/staff officer

  SPTO/deputy principal

  Northern

  54

  2

  19

  2

  7

  1

  Southern

  54

  2

  18

  2

  7

  1

  Eastern

  94

  4

  35

  3

  14

  11

  Western

  52

  2

  19

  2

  7

  1

  1 Vacant

  187
  The dates of the last promotion boards for these grades are as follows:

  Date

  SPTO Civil Engineer

  September 1996

  HPTO Civil Engineer

  June 1997

  PTO Civil Engineer

  September 1996

  SPTO Mechanical and Electrical

  August 1996

  HPTO Mechanical and Electrical

  June 1997

  PTO Mechanical and Electrical

  September 1996

  Deputy Principal

  May 1992

  Staff Officer

  May 1993

  Executive Officer I

  September 1993

  9. To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, what reports on the Northern Ireland Water Service have been published by (a) the Fair Employment Agency and (b) the Fair Employment Commission.
  The Fair Employment Commission, which succeeded the Fair Employment Agency in 1989, has advised that it does not produce reports on individual Departments or Agencies but takes the Northern Ireland Civil Service as a whole for monitoring purposes.
  10. To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how many persons are employed at Northern Ireland Water Service Headquarters; and at what grade.

  The information requested is listed below:

  Professional and Technical

  Number

  Chief Executive

  1

  Grade

  5

  3

  Grade 6

  3

  Principal Professional Technical Officer

  7

  Senior Professional Technical Officer

  18

  Higher Professional Technical Officer

  9

  Principal Technical Officer

  4

  Senior Principal Scientific Officer

  1

  Principal Scientific Officer

  3

  Senior Scientific Officer

  3

  Administrative

  Number

  Grade

  5

  2

  Grade

  6

  0

  Grade 7

  6

  Deputy Principal

  8

  Staff Officer

  11

  Executive Officer

  1

  10

  Executive Officer

  2

  21

  Administrative Officer

  39

  Administrative Assistant

  17

  Support Grade Band 1

  2

  Support Grade Band 2

  4

  Typing Manager

  1

  Senior Personal Secretary

  1

  Personal Secretary

  3

  Typist

  6

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of those promoted in each of the professional and technical grades since the last Northern Ireland Water Service promotion board fall into each religious affiliation category. [38137]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  For reasons of confidentiality, information on religious affiliation is not published at the level of disaggregation requested. However, aggregated information on the outcome of promotion boards by 188
  occupational group can be obtained from the Sixth Report of the Equal Opportunities Unit, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Parades Commission
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the names and addresses of the persons appointed as facilitators to aid the Parades Commission, indicating the level of payments to be made to them and the areas which have been allocated to them. [38087]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are currently 7 authorised officers acting in a part-time capacity on behalf of the Parades Commission. Their task is to gather information on disputes surrounding parades across Northern Ireland and to monitor developments within various locations. They will also assist with attempts to achieve local accommodation.

  The authorised officers are employed, trained and monitored by the Mediation Network for Northern Ireland and act on behalf of the Parades Commission, which is charged for this service. Their names are known to various groups in particular locations where they are currently assigned, but, given the sensitive nature of their work, I do not consider it appropriate to publish a list of their names and addresses.

  Authorised officers are currently working in the following areas:

  Belfast

  Pomeroy

  Bellaghy

  Dunloy

  Strabane

  Newtownbutler

  Roslea

  Armagh

  Keady

  Newry

  Lurgan

  Ballycastle

  Crumlin.

  Utilities (Charges)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the percentage by which the cost of(a) water, (b) household coal, (c) gas and (d) electricity for (i) domestic and (ii) industrial consumers in Northern Ireland varies from the average cost of (a) to (d) in Great Britain. [38084]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information is as follows:(a) The regional rate contribution to water and sewerage services for the average domestic ratepayer in Northern Ireland 1997–98 was approximately 4 per cent. higher than the equivalent average figure in Scotland and approximately 46 per cent. lower than the average for England and Wales.
  The charge to industrial consumers for metered water was 68.13p/m3 in Northern Ireland in 1997/98 compared with regional charges ranging from 38.5p/m3 to 109.15 p/m3 in GB.
  (b) An average figure indicating the percentage by which the cost of household coal in Northern Ireland varies from that in GB is not available.

  189
  (c) Domestic gas prices in Northern Ireland are approximately 8 per cent. higher than the corresponding average price in Great Britain.
  (d) Domestic electricity prices in Northern Ireland and approximately 22 per cent. higher than the corresponding average price in Great Britain.
  Comparisons of gas and electricity prices for industrial consumers are not possible as they are subject to confidential contracts between gas and electricity suppliers and consumers in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions the IDB has taken persons and firms considering inward investment to Northern Ireland to(a) each parliamentary constituency and (b) each council area in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years or each of the last three financial years if more convenient. [38086]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information required to answer part(a) is not available and would incur disproportionate costs to extract. Visits arranged by IDB to Northern Ireland District Council Areas for potential inward investors in the years 1994–95, 1995–96, 1996–97 are as follows:

  Visit to district council areas by potential inward investors

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Antrim

  26

  18

  34

  Ards

  5

  3

  10

  Armagh

  1

  1

  4

  Ballymena

  13

  3

  0

  Ballymoney

  3

  1

  3

  Banbridge

  2

  3

  1

  Belfast

  65

  55

  62

  Carrickfergus

  13

  7

  22

  Castlereagh

  1

  8

  6

  Coleraine

  5

  3

  7

  Cookstown

  4

  17

  10

  Craigavon

  12

  16

  15

  Derry

  18

  30

  32

  Down

  10

  2

  3

  Dungannon

  13

  9

  4

  Fermanagh

  3

  11

  15

  Larne

  6

  4

  1

  Limavady

  3

  2

  7

  Lisburn

  19

  41

  31

  Magherafelt

  3

  4

  0

  Moyle

  0

  0

  0

  Newry & Mourne

  15

  16

  9

  Newtownabbey

  17

  19

  22

  North Down

  4

  9

  3

  Omagh

  2

  6

  8

  Strabane

  2

  9

  10

  Total

  265

  297

  319

  CRISP Scheme, Dungiven
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the cost of the CRISP scheme presently being carried out on Main Street, Dungiven; and how much of the total cost falls to(a) the IFI, (b) the DOE, (c) the Roads Service, (d) Limavady Council, (e) NIE and (f) BT. [38082]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  DOE's contribution from CRISP funds and its environmental improvement budget was £121,500. Roads Service costs were £25,000. The local group, who let the contract for the CRISP scheme,190
  negotiated contributions from IFI, Limavady Council, NIE and BT but the precise amounts contributed are for these bodies to disclose.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons in Northern Ireland hold a driving licence; what percentage this represents of all persons of the age of 17 years or over, broken down into those age bands used by the licensing authority. [38085]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to Driver and Vehicle Licensing of Northern Ireland, under its chief executive, Mr. Brendan Magee. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Brendan Magee to Mr. William Ross, dated 6 April 1998:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question requesting information on the number of people in Northern Ireland holding driving licences.
  As at 3 April 1998 there were 1,082,936 licence holders on DVLNI's Driver Licensing computer system. This figure included provisional and full licences, individuals who have moved from Northern Ireland but where we have not been notified of the move, and some deceased where we have not been informed of their death.
  The figure of 1,082,936 represents 88.7% of the population of Northern Ireland who are over 17 years of age.
  The age bands used by DVLNI are above and below age 70. There are 987,466 licence holders aged below 70 and 95,470 above 70 years of age.

  Banks
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will investigate allegations of overcharging practices in Northern Ireland banks. [38088]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no plans to investigate such allegations. The Northern Irish bank, against which most of the allegations of overcharging have been made, has announced that it will carry out its own investigation and that it will make the results public. If evidence of overcharging is found it will take appropriate action and the customers involved will be compensated.

HEALTH

  Health Records (Access)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will assess the advantages of recommending a reasonable level of photocopy charges to be paid by patients seeking access to their records under the Access to Health Records Act 1990; and if he will make a statement. [27827]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Access to Health Records Act 1990 requires that charges should not exceed the cost of making a copy and posting it, and guidance to National Health Service organisations has made it quite clear that the actual cost is the maximum that should be charged. The actual cost will differ from case to case and can be determined only by the specific organisation involved. Recommending a charge greater than the actual cost in
  191
  any particular case would contravene the requirements of the Act, and recommending charges consistently lower than actual costs would increase NHS costs. Therefore, the responsibility for determining reasonable charges must remain with individual organisations.

  Departmental Energy Use
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the quantity of(a) oil, (b) gas and (c) electricity purchased for the heating, lighting and powering of all accommodation occupied by his Department within the United Kingdom in each year since 1989–90; and what was the total cost in real terms for (a) to (c) in each year. [36167]

  Ms Jowell
  Since 1990 the Department has monitored and recorded its energy consumption and costs on a basis agreed with the former Department of the Environment. The figures cover the majority of the administrative estate for which the Department has been directly responsible. They are reported annually to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and are set out in the table.

  Year

  Electricity kWh

  Gas kWh

  Oil kWh

  Total cost(£)

  1990–91

  7,733,992

  4,771,754

  7,427,420

  730,828

  1991–92

  12,397,391

  4,576,815

  11,525,359

  1,142,684

  1992–93

  8,304,219

  4,461,932

  6,904,257

  813,902

  1993–94

  18,351,290

  10,389,944

  2,972,420

  1,293,000

  1994–95

  16,917,569

  7,834,399

  3,236,470

  1,037,544

  1995–96

  12,358,600

  5,422,533

  1,732,100

  801,192

  1996–97

  11,781,418

  4,934,916

  1,371,640

  722,641

  Information for 1997–98 is not yet available.

  Asbestos-related Diseases
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of mesothelioma and asbestos-related diseases have been reported during each of the last three
  years. [37061]

  Mr. Boateng
  Neither condition is reportable under a system of statutory notification but several sources of data are available which are indicative of the numbers suffering from these diseases.

  The Department collects data in the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) on the number of hospital admissions and day cases per year classified by disease. They will not accurately reflect the number of new cases in that year because some patients will have readmissions following diagnosis in earlier years, some have multiple admissions in a year, and some are treated as hospital out patients or may not go to hospital at all and so do not feature in HES data. The table gives information on hospital admissions and day cases for the three most recent years available for mesothelioma and asbestos-related disease.

  Additional data on new mesothelioma cases are available from the national cancer registration system which strives for complete case ascertainment. The most recent data available are for 1989–91.
  192

  Total number of new cases of mesothelioma, England and Wales, 1989–1991

  Year

  1989

  835

  1990

  855

  1991

  941

  Source:

  ONS

  The Department of Social Security has data on the number of new claims for industrial injuries disablement benefit made each year but they will exclude those who have these diseases but do not claim benefit.

  Figures of the numbers of diagnosed cases of asbestos-related diseases, made in connection with claims to industrial injuries disablement benefit are shown in the table:

  Year

  Mesothelioma

  Other asbestos-related diseases1

  1994

  583

  649

  1995

  685

  670

  1996

  642

  698

  1 For Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit, it is accepted that, (apart from mesothelioma), the other asbestos-related diseases are pneumoconiosis (where the causative agent is asbestos), carcinoma of the lung and bilateral diffuse pleural thickening.

  Source:

  DSS (Analytical Services Division) 100 per cent. count.

  Ordinary admissions and day cases: completed episodes primary diagnosis in NHS hospitals, England 1993–94 to 1995–96

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  ICD 9 code:

  158 Malignant neoplasm of:

  1588 Specified parts of peritoneum

  250

  213

  -

  1589 Peritoneum, unspecified

  204

  222

  -

  163 Malignant neoplasm of pleura

  1,906

  1,893

  -

  501 Asbestosis

  178

  186

  -

  England

  2,538

  2,513

  -

  ICD 10 code:

  J61 Pneumoconiosis due to asbestos and other mineral fibres

  -

  -

  154

  J92.0 Pleural plaque with presence of asbestos

  -

  -

  61

  C45.0 Mesothelioma of pleura

  -

  -

  972

  C45.1 Mesothelioma of peritoneum

  -

  -

  74

  C45.2 Mesothelioma of pericardium

  -

  -

  3

  C45.7 Mesothelioma of other site

  -

  -

  178

  C45.9 Mesothelioma, unspecified

  -

  -

  944

  D19.0

  Mesothelial tissue of pleural

  -

  -

  29

  England

  -

  -

  2,415

  Note:

  Data in this table are grossed for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve the availability of care for those suffering from mental illness. [37258]
  193
  Mr. Boateng
  We have established the independent reference group to consider long stay hospital closure plans to ensure no more hospitals are closed without proper or alternative services being available.

  Breast Screening
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many breast units using two view mammography at all breast screening rounds(a) reached and (b) failed to reach the national expected standard for breast cancer detection last year; [37527]

  (2) how many breast units using single view mammography at incident breast screening rounds (a) reached and (b) failed to reach the national expected standard for breast cancer detection last year. [37528]

  Mr. Boateng
  All of the eight breast screening units in the United Kingdom currently using two-view mammography at all breast screening rounds met the target standardised cancer detection ratio last year. Of the 87 breast screening units in the UK using single view mammography at incident breast screening rounds, 62 achieved the target standardised breast cancer detection ratio.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the cost per cancer detected of single view mammography at incident breast screening rounds last year; [37530]

  (2) what was the cost per cancer detected of two view mammography at incident breast screening rounds last year. [37532]

  Mr. Boateng
  The National Health Service breast screening programme has commissioned a study to look at the cost effectiveness of both single-view and two-view mammography. The results of this study are expected later this year.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the number of additional breast cancers which would be detected per year if two view mammography were undertaken at incident breast screening rounds in all breast units; [37529]

  (2) what plans he has to review national guidance on the use of two view mammography for breast screening. [37542]

  Mr. Boateng
  All breast screening units currently take two mammographic views of the breast at a woman's first visit to the screening programme, and it is open to them to use two-view mammography at subsequent screening rounds.

  The cancer screening evaluation unit, which is funded by the Department, is currently reviewing the advantages of two view mammography for all screening rounds. This review is due to be completed later this year. We will assess the case for requiring all units to take views at every screening round in the light of the findings of this review. This assessment will also take account of the outcome of research currently being carried out into other changes that might be made to improve the quality of the service offered to women. This research covers extending
  194
  the breast screening programme to invite women aged 40–50, routinely inviting women aged 65 and over, and reducing the interval between screens.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors underlie the higher standardised detection ratio for the first round of breast screening relative to subsequent rounds. [37832]

  Mr. Boateng
  The breast screening programme was introduced in 1988, and so far it has greater experience of taking and reading mammograms at a woman's first screen than at subsequent screens. In addition, since August 1995 all breast screening units have been required to take two mammographic views of the breast at a woman's first screen. Both these factors are likely to underlie the higher standardised detection ration for the first round of screening relative to subsequent rounds.

  NHS Heating Fuel
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of expenditure on heating fuel in the NHS for(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99. [37839]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department's National Health Service Estates agency collects information on fuels used for energy in the NHS. This includes gas, oil, coal and electricity used to provide NHS trusts total energy requirement for lighting, heating and ventilation, power etc. Information is not collected separately on heating fuel.

  The estimated cost of energy for NHS trusts in England for 1997–98 is £190,220,554. For 1998–99 it is £184,042,841.

  Community Hospitals
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the community hospitals which are currently the subject of a consultation process with a view to their closure. [37849]

  Mr. Milburn
  It is difficult to define comprehensively what is meant by "community" or "cottage" hospital. They differ from place to place in the scale, range and volume of services they offer. What characterises nearly all is that they provide a local service and admit patients under the care of a general practitioner.

  The following community hospitals are currently the subject of a consultation process:

  Anglia & Oxford

  Burford and Wallingford/Watlington Community Hospital, Oxfordshire

  Bartlett Hospital, Felixstowe

  North Western

  None

  North Thames

  William Julian Courtauld Hospital (part of Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust)1

  Northern & Yorkshire

  None

  South Thames

  None

  195
  South & West

  Winsford Hospital

  Fowey Hospital2

  Edward Hain Hospital, St. Ives2

  St. Barnabas Hospital, Saltash2

  Poltair Hospital2

  Trent

  Bourne Hospital, Bourne3

  Horncastle War Memorial, Horncastle3

  Johnson Hospital or Welland Hospital, Spalding3

  West Midlands
  None.
  1This hospital is proposed to close but a new one, going by the same name would be built on a different site.
  2Part of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authority proposals.
  3Have been the subject of formal public consultation which has now ended, although the Health Authority is still consulting local Community Health Councils about the final details.

  Abortion
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many medical students undertaking training in obstetrics and gynaecology have refused to be involved in abortion procedures on grounds of conscience in each year since 1990; [37800]

  (2) how many general practitioners have refused to be involved in referrals for abortion on grounds of conscience in each year since 1990; [37801]

  (3) how many consultants in obstetrics and gynaecology have refused to take part in abortion procedures on grounds of conscience in each year since
  1990. [37799]

  Ms Jowell
  This information is not collected centrally. We have no reason to believe that the current arrangements for conscientious objections are not in general working well. We have received very few complaints about the operation of the conscience clause, which indicates that the issue is being dealt with sensitively and sensibly.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what actions general practitioners with a conscientious objection must take to fulfil their duty of care when a patient requests referral for abortion. [37802]

  Ms Jowell
  In 1991 the General Medical Services Council of the British Medical Association issued guidance to general practitioners through local medical committees, reminding them of their obligations under their terms of service. This guidance remains extant and general practitioners who have a conscientious objection to abortion should refer the patient to another doctor as soon as possible.

  Children
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to amend guidance under the Children Act 1989 on care plans and reviews applied to children placed in respite care services, with particular reference to disabled children; and what recent research on such issues his Department has evaluated. [37673]
  196
  Mr. Boateng
  The Children Act and guidance set out local authorities' responsibilities in respect of drawing up care plans for, and reviewing the care of looked after children, including disabled children. In August 1995 the Department announced easements to the Arrangements for Placement of Children (General) Regulations 1991 which govern a series of short-term respite care placements. The easements address the frequency of reviews, the timing of the first visit, and the number of placement days allowed in any 12 month period.

  The safeguards review of children living away from home stresses the importance of care planning and review and emphasises the particular vulnerability of disabled children. The Government have established a Ministerial Task Force to consider issues raised by the report and will take account of current research on related areas.

  The Department has received the following research studies relevant to care plans and reviews for disabled children:
  Robinson, C., Weston C. and Minkes J. (1995) Making progress: change and development in services to disabled children under the Children Act 1989, Bristol, Nora Fry Research Centre;
  Grimshaw, R. and Sinclair, R. (1997) Planning to Care: Regulation, procedures and practice under the Children Act 1989, London, National Children's Bureau;
  Morris, J. (1998) Still Missing?, London, Who Cares? Trust.

  New Variant CJD
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if all the victims of nv-CJD have the same genetic change in the prion protein. [37871]

  Ms Jowell
  In all cases of new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (nvCJD) where a genetic analysis has been carried out, the prion protein gene has the same genetic make-up. The significance of the genetic make-up in relation to susceptibility to disease, to the length of incubation period or to the changes seen in the brain on histopathological examination is not yet known.

  All nvCJD cases tested share the same protein-subtype. It is not known whether this is related to the genetic make-up of the person affected. It may be related to the strain of the infectious agent.

  Northumbria Healthcare NHS Trust
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the names of the new appointees to the Northumbria Healthcare NHS Trust, giving their(a) political affiliation and (b) remuneration. [38099]

  Mr. Milburn
  The names of the chairman and non-executive appointees to the Northumbria Healthcare National Health Service Trust will be announced shortly.

  Non-executive directors of NHS trusts and health authorities are entitled to remuneration of £5,000 a year. The chairman of Northumbria Healthcare NHS Trust is entitled to £19,245 a year.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who were the members of the Northumbria NHS Trust Project Board when it chose the name which it is proposed should be used by the new trust. [38315]
  197
  Mr. Milburn
  The Northumbria National Health Service Trust Project Board comprised the chairmen, chief executives and medical directors of the three merging trusts: Cheviot and Wansbeck NHS Trust, North Tyneside Healthcare NHS Trust and Northumberland Community Health NHS Trust.

  Hospital Consultants
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the system of hospital consultants' merit bonus awards; and if he will make a statement. [38089]

  Mr. Milburn
  I met the chairman and medical director of the Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards (ACDA) on 2 April. We had a constructive and wide ranging discussion regarding the Government's concerns about imbalances in the distribution of awards and other aspects of the existing scheme. I welcomed the action that had been taken to date to address these imbalances and ACDA's commitment to continued action in this area. We discussed what more could be done to address the Government's concerns. The chairman and medical director agreed to submit their detailed proposals on further action to ensure fairness, greater transparency of process, and better recognition of the achievement of service goals. I also asked the chairman and medical director to consider whether any changes in the size and composition of ACDA might be necessary to make it more effective, and to discuss this with the Academy of Royal Colleges in the first instance. We will consult fully with representatives of the professions and other relevant interests before any decisions on changes to the existing scheme are taken, with a view to implementing any such changes in the 1999 awards round.

  Cholesterol (Treatment)
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), of 23 March 1998,Official Report, columns 49–50, on cholesterol treatment, what estimate he has made of the additional cost of general practitioners following the instructions contained in the executive letter on lipid-limiting drugs and the health care bulletin. [36792]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 30 March 1998]: The overall expenditure on the statins group of drugs by general practitioners in 1997 was £115 million, compared with £20 million in 1993. It is currently rising at the rate of approximately £3 million each quarter. Expenditure on all lipid-lowering drugs totalled some £136 million in 1997.

  The Executive Letter, accompanying statement and table gave advice, inter alia, on the use of the statin group of drugs in people with, or at high risk of developing, symptoms of coronary heart disease. Estimates of the additional general practitioner prescribing costs resulting directly from the issue of the Executive Letter are not available as it is difficult to differentiate between these and increased costs which would have been incurred anyway as more trial results became available and were published in the professional press.

  However, the best information available suggests that the total cost could reach £240 million by 2002. This estimate depends on the degree of patient compliance, as
  198
  well as on the particular product which is prescribed and the dosage. It also depends on the outcome of further trials currently in progress which may affect the applications for which these drugs may be used. This figure excludes lipid-lowering drugs prescribed by doctors other than general practitioners.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Arms Sales
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish his revised proposals for an EU code of conduct on arms sales. [36548]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are engaged in negotiations with EU partners on a draft text. Holding these discussions in public would not improve our chances of reaching agreement on an effective Code. We will of course publish the Code once it has been adopted.

  Ethical Foreign Policy
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what systems of measurement he has introduced against which to assess the implementation of his ethical foreign policy. [36549]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Our commitment to an ethical foreign policy is clear from the many things we have already achieved. The best system of measurement comes from transparency and accountability. We have therefore committed our performance to the scrutiny of public, Parliament and NGOs with an Annual Report on Human Rights.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what part the Government's ethical foreign policy has played in the Strategic Defence Review.[36556]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  As the Government made clear in their manifesto, the Strategic Defence Review is foreign policy led. The FCO Mission Statement made it clear that the security of the United Kingdom and its Dependent Territories was a principal benefit which the Government would pursue through their foreign policy and that an ethical content was a key part of that policy.

  Syria
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Syria. [36550]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I had useful discussions on regional issues with President Asad and Foreign Minister Shara'a. We agreed on the need for movement on all tracks of the Middle East Peace Process.

  Iraq
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to meet his United States counterparts to discuss matters relating to the Basra enclave. [36553]
  199
  Mr. Fatchett
  We keep in constant touch with all Security Council Members, including the United States, about the implementation of Security Council Resolutions.

  Exports
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to promote British exports. [36554]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams).

  Indonesia
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on UK relations with Indonesia. [36555]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have a bilateral relationship with Indonesia which enables us to discuss a range of economic and political issues.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received regarding the situations of Pius Lustrilanang and Desmond J. Mahesa in Indonesia. [37503]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have received a letter from the Indonesian Human Rights Campaign (TAPOL) and three notes from Amnesty International about Pius Lustrilanang and Desmond J. Mahesa.

  Common Foreign and Security Policy
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what goals remain to be attained in the area of the EU CFSP under the British presidency. [36557]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Making the Common Foreign and Security Policy more effective and operational remains a key Presidency objective. Under our Presidency lead, the EU has responded rapidly to crises, including in Algeria and Kosovo; has agreed balanced policies on China and Iran; and raised the EU' s profile and input into the Middle East Peace Process. Important outstanding goals include agreement to an EU Code of Conduct on arms exports.

  Middle East
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the EU has contributed to support the middle east peace process since 1993. [36558]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The EU has contributed £464 million (700.95 million ecu) to support the Middle East Peace Process since 1993. In addition, Member States have also contributed a substantial amount of bilateral aid.

  Under the UK Presidency, the EU has agreed to extend the current aid package when it expires at the end of 1998.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the prospects for progress in the peace process in the middle east. [36562]
  200
  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson).

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on recent efforts to promote the peace process in the middle east. [36567]

  Mr. Fatchett
  During my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's visit to the Middle East on 15–18 March, he met with the key players in the region. These included President Mubarak and Foreign Minister Moussa of Egypt, PM Netanyahu and Defence Minister Mordechai of Israel, Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan, PM Hariri and Foreign Minister Bouaz of Lebanon, President Assad and Foreign Minister Shara of Syria and President Arafat of the Palestinian Authority. He discussed with them ideas for ways in which the EU can play a more prominent role in reinvigorating the Middle East Peace Process.

  Since his return, he has met a number of interested parties, including the Israeli Ambassador to London and the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. We look forward to the Prime Minister's visit later this month.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the situation in Kosovo. [36559]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are deeply concerned by the potential for further violence in Kosovo. The use of excessive force by the Serbian police in recent weeks against Kosovar Albanians will have widened support for the terrorists. We call on President Milosevic to act quickly to launch the meaningful dialogue necessary to strengthen the hands of moderates on both sides.

  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with representatives of Albania and Macedonia about the situation in Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [36560]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Fo0reign Secretary chaired a meeting in Bonn on 25 March of Contact Group, EU Troika and regional countries including Albania and Macedonia, at which the situation in Kosovo was discussed. My right hon. Friend also had a separate bilateral meeting on this occasion with Prime Minister Nano. We remain in close touch with Albania and Macedonia.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take to protect the Albanian community in Kosovo. [38182]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The United Kingdom has played a leading role in the concerted international response to the violence in Kosovo in recent weeks. We shall continue to work with our international partners to underline that repression in Kosovo will not be tolerated and to encourage meaningful dialogue without preconditions on the future status of the province.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the consequences of the decision of the Contact Group
  201
  to postpone the implementation of the recommendations set out in its statement of 9 March; and if he will make a statement. [38183]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Members of the Contact Group have already implemented measures against Belgrade in accordance with their agreement in London on 9 March. In addition the European Union decided on 19 March to continue its arms embargo against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), not to supply repressive equipment, to introduce a visa ban against certain named individuals and to apply a moratorium on export credits to Serbia. The United Nations Security Council adopted a comprehensive arms embargo against the FRY on 31 March.

  Contact Group Ministers meeting in Bonn on 25 March urged Belgrade to engage in a meaningful dialogue without preconditions with the Kosovar Albanian leadership. They agreed that the Contact Group would meet again after four weeks to review progress and consider the need for additional measures.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make reform of the CAP his priority for the Heads of Government meeting in Cardiff in June. [36561]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  CAP reform is a major priority for the Government, and we will continue to work hard to achieve radical reform. Now that the Commission has tabled draft regulations, the UK Presidency will seek to make as much progress as possible before Cardiff.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to encourage the Nigerian Government to hand over to civilian rule by October this year. [36565]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), and assure the House that we take every opportunity to reiterate our concerns to the Nigerian regime.

  Baltic States
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new proposals he has to improve relations between the United Kingdom and the Baltic states. [36532]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We have good bilateral relations with the Baltic States. We shall continue to work to strengthen trade, security and cultural links and to help these countries meet the criteria required for membership of the European Union.

  Revolving Credit Fund
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the UN Revolving Credit Fund, proposed by the Secretary General of the United Nations, as part of his UN reform proposals. [33302]
  202
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 11 March 1998]: A Revolving Credit Fund could help to ease the UN's severe cashflow problems, and the Government will consider the idea carefully. But a long term solution requires that all member states pay their contributions promptly and in full.

  EU Funds
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those European Communities budget lines from which funding may be applied for in respect of information projects in the United Kingdom relating to(a) Economic and Monetary Union and (b) the European Communities. [36956]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Title B3–3 of the Community Budget covers information and communication. The Commission also makes grants to certain European organisations under Chapter A-30 of the budget, which may include support for information activities.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what grants, pursuant to European Communities budget lines A-3024 and A-3104, are available for Projects Organised By Associations and Federations of European Interest operating in the United Kingdom; which bodies received awards in the last financial year; what activities are intended for targeted support under the category Reflection at European Level on the Ethical and Spiritual Foundations of European Integration; what part his Department plays in the awards; and if he will make a statement. [36948]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  In 1998 a total of 1.35 mecu is available under Community budget lines A-3024 and A-3104 for projects organised by federations of European interest. This budget is not broken down by Member State. Criteria and decisions on awarding grants are a matter for the Commission.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what activities are undertaken by the Our Europe Association listed in the European Communities budget, lines A-3020 and A-3100; what is that body's remit in the United Kingdom; what role his Department plays in determining its remit; and if he will make a statement. [36888]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Our Europe association is a study and research group which sponsors and organises seminars on European issues. My Department has no role in determining its remit, which is Europe-wide.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to European Communities budget lines A-3029 and A-3109, what grants are available for support of non-Governmental youth organisations; what criteria govern qualification; which bodies in the United Kingdom received awards over the last financial year; what input his Department provided on their selection; and if he will make a statement. [36969]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  In 1998 a total of 1.1 mecu is available under the Community budget lines A-3029 and A-3109 to support international non-governmental youth organisations. This budget is specifically for international
  203
  bodies and is not broken down by Member State. Criteria and decisions on awarding grants are a matter for the Commission.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to European Communities budget lines A-3037 and A-3117, what grants are available for the European Women's Lobby; what is the purpose of that organisation; what role his Department plays in the determination of direction of funding; and if he will make a statement. [36949]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  In 1998 a total of 600,000 ecu is available under Community budget lines A-3037 and A-3117 to support the European Women's Lobby, an organisation which lobbies on issues of concern to women in Europe. How this money is directed is a matter for the Commission.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to European Communities budget lines A-3025 and A-3105, what grants are available for the project Journalists in Europe; what is the purpose of that organisation; what input his Department has into its running; how many journalists from the United Kingdom have taken part over the past financial year; for which newspapers they work; and if he will make a statement. [36970]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  In 1998 a total of 250,000 ecu is available under Community budget lines A-3025 and A-3105 to support Journalists in Europe. This organisation runs an annual training programme for young journalists from around the world, focusing on the EU and on political, economic and social developments in Europe. My Department has no role in determining the activities of this organisation and we have no information about which UK journalists have taken part.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the purpose of projects undertaken under European Communities budget line B3–302, Information Programmes for Non-Member Programmes; what are the target audiences; which countries are concerned; and what input his Department provides. [36965]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Projects under Community budget line B3–302 are intended to inform people outside of the EU about the Union's work and to promote understanding of the EU's role, in particular, as a provider of aid and as a trading partner. Information activity is not limited to any particular countries, but there is a focus on states which have association agreements with the EU. Programmes under this budget line are run by the Commission.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what grants, pursuant to European Communities budget lines A-3021 and A-3101, are available to Organisations Advancing the Idea of Europe operating in the United Kingdom; which bodies received awards in the last financial year; and what criteria are used by his Department in awarding grants. [36974]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  In 1998 a total of 2 mecu is available under Community budget lines A-3021 and A-3101 to support organisations advancing the idea of 204
  Europe. This budget is not broken down by Member State. Criteria and decisions on awarding grants are a matter for the Commission.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the information outlets in receipt of funds in the United Kingdom for 1997 under European Communities title B3–301 for 1997; what role his Department plays in the supply of information to such outlets; and if he will make a statement on the purpose of the International Federation of Europe Houses. [36961]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The following information outlets in the UK receive funding from Community budget line B3–301. European Document centres in university libraries (45); European Information Centres providing business intelligence on operating in the EU (21); rural carrefours providing information for the rural community (6). The information held in these various centres generally includes UK Government publications, as well as EU documents and academic and commercial literature and databases.

  The International Federation of Europe Houses is an umbrella grouping of Europe Houses, which provide a one-stop-shop for information about the EU in some countries.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the projects in receipt of funds in the United Kingdom for 1997 under title B3–300, General Information and Communication Work Concerning the European Union; and if he will make a statement on the part his Department plays in the determination of such. [36966]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Community budget line B3–300 covers a range of information measures including opinion polling, impact assessments, sponsored visits, publications, TV productions and internet sites. This budget is not broken down by Member State.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what activities are undertaken by the European Union Youth Forum under European Communities, Budget lines A-3022 and A-3103; what is that body's remit in the United Kingdom; what role his Department plays in determining its remit; and if he will make a statement. [36940]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The European Youth Forum is an umbrella grouping of national youth organisations. It lobbies on EU issues affecting young people and organises various conferences and events. My Department has no role in determining the Forum's activities.

  Prince Programme
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the redirection of the Prince Programme after ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam. [36955]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The PRINCE programme currently provides for information activities on citizens rights under the single market, on the single currency and on the future shape of the European Union—"Building Europe Together". Building Europe Together is currently focused on the Amsterdam Treaty, but it also covers
  205
  information on the future enlargement of the EU. The existence and priorities of PRINCE are reviewed every year under the annual budgetary procedure.

  EU Information Projects
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much money is available from European Union budget lines for information projects on the European Union in applicant countries; and if he will deposit in the Library a list of those projects in operation. [37559]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Essen European Council of December 1994 agreed on the"need among member states of the EU and the associated countries to have a better knowledge of each others' societies. Therefore expansion and deepening of information efforts are necessary."

  Much of this work forms an integral part of the European Union's technical assistance programme for Central Europe (Phare).

  In addition to these integrated activities, there is also a specific programme for 1998 of 6.6 mecu for an information strategy among the applicant countries. This is designed to stimulate greater interest and understanding of EU affairs among the general public in these countries.

  European Commission
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the (i) role and (ii) current budget of a European commissioner's cabinet; what guidelines exist as to its composition and function; and if he will list the special advisers currently working in the Commission. [37770]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I will write to the hon. Member in due course. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  European Voluntary Service (Mr. Hans Koschnick)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of Mr. Hans Koschnick, as a special adviser to the European Commission in connection with the European Voluntary Service. [37932]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My answer to the hon. Member of 31 March 1998,Official Report, column 457, based on information from the European Commission, recorded that Mr. Hans Koschnick was not employed by them. However, I now understand from the European Commission that, although Mr. Koschnick is not their permanent employee, he has been working under contract as an adviser to DG XXII (Education, Training, Youth) with activities in the field of the European Voluntary Service.

  We understand that his remit includes developing voluntary service projects and establishing links between voluntary service organisations in different Member States.

  We recommend that the hon. Member ask the European Commission if he requires further details of Mr. Koschnick's role.

  Turkey
  Dr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Turkish Government; and if he will make a statement.[36533]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe).

WALES

  Social Service and Health Departments (Co-operation)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his assessment of the quality of co-operation between social service departments and health authorities; and if he will make a statement. [36459]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Evidence available to the Welsh Office suggests that following Local Government re-organisation good progress is being made in establishing effective joint working between Social Service Departments and Health Authorities.

  I attach the greatest importance to good joint working and, indeed, discussed this with representatives of the Welsh Local Government Association on 16 March. My officials are working closely with colleagues in other Health Departments on initiatives to tackle this UK-wide issue and are also taking forward action with authorities in Wales.

  The Welsh Office is funding a project through the North Wales Health Authority to identify good practice in collaborative working with social services departments. The report of this work will be made available for wider dissemination. In October 1997 I announced an additional £9.548 million to tackle the pressures of emergency hospital admissions and to reduce delays in discharging patients. The management of these additional resources has meant that health authorities and social services have needed to work more closely together to address local priorities and improve joint planning and co-ordination of service delivery.

  In the light of the Audit Commission report "Coming of Age" the Welsh Office has recently issued advice to health and local authorities, seeking better collaboration at a local level to improve the quality and range of services provided for vulnerable and older people. This will be followed up by meetings with joint Health and Local Authority teams on the progress being made in implementing the report's recommendations.

  I expect authorities to work towards effective joint planning arrangements which will include improvement in multi-disciplinary assessment procedures and the development of health and social care services to enable vulnerable people to optimise their independence through timely recuperation and rehabilitation opportunities.

  Out-of-town Developments
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will introduce an automatic rate review for town centre shops whose trade is affected by out of town developments. [37024]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Ratepayers have the right to make a proposal to the valuation officer to alter the rateable value of their property if there has been a material change in circumstances which they believe affects the value of the property. Local authorities can also make proposals to take account of changes they believe to affect property values.

  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many out-of-town supermarkets have been given planning permission in Wales since 1 May 1997.[37031]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The information requested is not held centrally. However, during the period 1 May 1997 to 1 March 1998 my right hon. Friend received details of 18 retail applications comprising 9 calls in requests, 2 departure references, and 7 shopping direction referrals. Of these 1 case was called in for the Secretary of State's own determination.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many complaints have been registered by children in care regarding the way that they are treated, in the last three years. [37056]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Information on the number of complaints prior to local government reorganisation is not available. However, we are aware of 55 complaints since 1 April 1996. A breakdown is as follows:

  Number of complaints since 1 April 1996

  Local Authority

  Anglesey

  0

  Blaenau Gwent

  0

  Bridgend

  1—

  Caerphilly

  2

  Cardiff

  3

  Carmarthenshire

  1

  Ceredigion

  1—

  Conwy

  0

  Denbighshire

  1

  Flintshire

  5

  Gwynedd

  10

  Merthyr Tydfil

  1

  Monmouthshire

  0

  Neath Port Talbot

  1

  Newport

  7

  Pembrokeshire

  1

  Powys

  1

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  3

  Swansea

  3

  Torfaen

  0

  Vale of Glamorgan

  10

  Wrexham

  6

  1Information currently not available

  Substance Misuse
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives are being pursued to educate young people in Wales about substance misuse. [37370]
  208
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  "Forward Together", a five-year strategy to combat drug and alcohol misuse in Wales, has been in place since 1996. A Welsh Advisory Committee on Drug and Alcohol Misuse advises the Secretary of State on the implementation of the strategy. The Welsh Drug and Alcohol Unit, on contract to the Welsh Office, assists in the implementation of the strategy. The Unit provides practical and administrative support to those involved in combating drug and alcohol misuse.

  Within the framework of "Forward Together", a Strategic Prevention Action Plan (SPAP) has been developed and widely disseminated in Wales. The SPAP will raise awareness and increase the level of preventive action for the population as a whole as well as targeting specific groups such as parents, young people and children. All schools, drug and alcohol agencies and other relevant organisations have been encouraged to work to support the Plan.

  As part of the overall strategy several free bilingual resources are being distributed to those working in the field of prevention with young people. These include "50/50"—a bilingual magazine designed for young people and their parents; "The A Files"—a CD size alcohol leaflet for young people; and "Let's Talk"—a series of collectable postcards with a complimentary poster for young people.

  The Department has issued circular guidance to Schools, "Drug Misuse: Prevention and Schools" (Ref 54/95). In partnership with health and social services, police and the community, schools have a responsibility to consider their response to drug misuse through appropriate education, including the teaching of certain aspects as part of National Curriculum, and through appropriate management of incidents on school premises. In support of this work, the circular guidance advocates that each school should have a drug prevention policy, to ensure that young people know and understand the risks of drug taking and alcohol misuse and have the knowledge and skills to resist.

  Hospital Services (Porthmadog)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the health care implications for people in the Porthmadog area of the provision at Bangor of accident and emergency services for them. [37677]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  None. The planning of healthcare for people in North Wales is a management issue for the North Wales Health Authority and its provider units.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he estimates construction of the community hospital at Porthmadog will(a) begin and (b) be completed. [37598]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  No progress can be made on this scheme until the North Wales Health Authority has considered the outcome of its review of community hospital provision.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received in respect of the construction of the new community hospital in Porthmadog. [37602]
  209
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Since 1 May 1997 we have received 12 letters on the subject and I have met with the right hon. Member and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd).

  Welsh Language Courses
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to reduce the drop-out rate among adults on Welsh language courses. [37600]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Welsh language provision is an integral part of my proposals for lifelong learning in Wales as set out in the Green Paper"Learning is for Everyone" which I published on 2 April. Individual further education institutions are responsible for monitoring student retention/completion rates on Welsh for Adults courses and for taking any necessary action. Student retention/completion will continue to be monitored in the context of all quality assessments, and during 1998 a specific study will be undertaken by OHMCI on behalf of the Further Education Funding Council for Wales.

  Community Hospitals
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many new community hospitals have been built in Wales since 1992; and if he will list them. [37675]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Six community hospitals have been built since 1992. They are:

  Barry Neighbourhood—The Vale of Glamorgan

  Cefni—Llangefni, Isle of Anglesey

  Deeside—Flintshire

  Ebbw Vale—Blaenau Gwent

  Torfaen—Pontypool

  Penrhos Stanley—Holyhead, Isle of Anglesey.

  Blood Donation Service
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to encourage blood donation in Wales. [37601]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  It is the responsibility of the blood transfusion services to recruit blood donors. However, the Welsh Office has assisted the Welsh Blood Service in the production of publicity material and previously taken part in national publicity campaigns.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times he has met representatives of water authorities; and if he will make a statement. [38130]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Both my right hon. Friend and I have met representatives of the water industry in Wales on several occasions and will continue to do so as appropriate.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the new National Health Service trusts to begin their work; and if he will make a statement. [38290]
  210
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Project teams have been established to support local consultation on the proposals which I announced on 30 March. These teams will also do whatever is necessary to make contingent planning arrangements for the establishment of the new trusts. Subject to the outcome of consultation and detailed consideration, my right hon. Friend expects to announce his final decisions in the autumn. Board level appointments procedures and detailed planning will then commence to enable trusts to become operational on 1 April 1999.

  Badgers
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what records are maintained of the number of non-target species caught in snares set for badgers under his Department's tuberculosis control scheme. [38056]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The tuberculosis control policy for Great Britain is operated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Minister responsible for food safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), on 30 March 1998,Official Report, column 406.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated cost of the proposed badger culling experiment broken down to show each constituent element for(a) 1998 and (b) each subsequent year of the proposed experiment. [38055]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Minister responsible for food safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), on 30 March 1998,Official Report, column 406.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many badgers were trapped under his Department's tuberculosis control scheme in each year since 1985 by(a) snares and (b) cage traps; and if he will indicate the number of animals which suffered injuries in (a) and (b). [38057]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The day to day operational control for bovine tuberculosis is undertaken by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Minister responsible for food safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on 31 March 1998,Official Report, column 503.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department has spent on developing vaccines to prevent bovine tuberculosis since 1985; and how much investment is planned for each of the next five years. [38054]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  None. In the UK funding for the development of vaccines to prevent bovine tuberculosis in animals is provided by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Minister responsible for food safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), on 31 March 1998,Official Report, column 502.

  Hospital Beds
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by hospital the number of beds(a) made available since 1 May 1997 and (b) removed between 1 January 1992 and 1 May 1997. [38069]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on financial support to small scale abattoirs in rural Wales. [38077]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The provision of grant aid to abattoirs is prohibited by EC State Aid restrictions except under certain specific conditions, including the abandonment of 125 per cent. of existing capacity in the same region. This effectively means that it is very difficult for the Government to provide financial support to small scale abattoirs in rural areas.

  Officials (Regional Knowledge)
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to encourage Welsh Office officials(a) to visit and (b) to acquire further knowledge of the regions of Wales. [38079]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Many of my officials visit various parts of Wales in the course of their duties and are encouraged to do so. Staff are based not only in Cardiff but in Llandrindod Wells, Carmarthen, Caernarfon, Colwyn Bay and Aberystwyth.

  Awareness of Wales and Welsh issues will form an increasingly important part of the Welsh Office Training and Development Programme.

  Agricultural Subsidies
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will introduce measures to offset the reduction in payments in agricultural subsidies due to the increase in the value of the green pound. [37880]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The rules for agrimonetary compensation apply across the European Community and separate arrangements could not be introduced in Wales.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he is going to consult about possible changes to the local government capital finance arrangements in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [38436]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Copies of a consultation paper on local authority capital have been placed in the Library of the House today. This is the third consultation paper in the series "Modernising Local Government in Wales". Consultation papers on other aspects of the local government finance system and the new ethical framework will follow soon.

  Osteoporosis
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many health authorities have an osteoporosis strategy in place; and if he will list them. [37308]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 April 1998, c. 104]: I regret that the following paragraph was inadvertently omitted from the answer, and should have read:
  Typically these are based on the Barlow Report 1994 which contained wide ranging recommendations on such key issues as prevention, scanning, hormone replacement therapy and improved co-operation between the professionals delivering the service.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 31 March; and if he will make a statement. [37595]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I chaired the fourth meeting under the United Kingdom Presidency of the European Union Council of Agriculture Ministers on 31 March in Brussels. My noble Friend the Lord Donoughue, Parliamentary Secretary responsible for the farming and food industry, represented the United Kingdom. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), was also present.

  I convened the Council expressly to consider the Commission's proposals, published on 18 March, for changes to the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in the framework of Agenda 2000. The Council debate on this vital issue was held in open session, and was thus available in full to the media and to other interested parties. There was also an important political dimension to the debate: reforming the CAP in tandem with changes to the EU' s future financing provisions and to its regional and structural policies are essential steps to prepare for further enlargement of the European Union. It is significant that the formal opening of the enlargement negotiations with six applicant countries took place in Brussels on the same day.

  A wide range of views on the Commission's CAP reform proposals was expressed in the Council. No Minister denied that there was a need for reform to take place, or that the process should begin forthwith. I was able to conclude that the UK Presidency would now begin an intensive programme of technical examination of the Commission's proposals, leading to a further discussion in the Agriculture Council in late May.

  I was also able to establish, as President of the Council, that there was unanimous agreement amongst Member States to defer until 1 January 1999 implementation of last July's Commission Decision on Specified Risk Materials. During this period measures taken by Member States on a national basis to protect the health of their populations will be maintained.

  Over-thirty-months Scheme
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the latest
  213
  figures for (a) the number of cattle slaughtered under the over 30-months-scheme, (b) the amount of brown granular dust produced by the rendering of those cattle, (c) the number of carcases incinerated without rendering and (d) the amount of meat and bone meal awaiting incineration at the latest available date. [37571]

  Mr. Rooker
  Up to 29 March 1998, just under 2.2 million animals had been slaughtered under the Over-Thirty-Month Scheme (OTMS), of which some 128,000 were directly incinerated. The majority of cattle presented for the scheme are being rendered to produce two products, meat and bone meal (MBM) and tallow, which are being safely and securely stored pending destruction. To date, some 325,000 tonnes of MBM has been produced as a consequence of the rendering of OTMS animals, of which some 314,000 tonnes is currently in store, the remainder having been incinerated.

  Organophosphates
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has(a) commenced and (b) evaluated on the number of farmers who have contracted illness as a result of exposure to organophosphate pesticides. [38230]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) Pesticide Incidents Appraisal Panel (PIAP) considers all investigated incidents where the use of a pesticide (controlled under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986) may have affected the health of the user or a member of the public nearby. The Panel is chaired by a doctor, its members being drawn from the HSE, the Department of Health, and the National Poisons Information Service.

  PIAP assesses all information from investigations by HSE and local authorities, with any additional material from the National Health Service or others involved. The incidents are classified according to the likelihood of the ill-health being linked to the pesticide exposure and an annual report is published.

  The Suspected Adverse Reaction Surveillance Scheme (SARSS) is a voluntary reporting scheme for monitoring animal and human suspected adverse reactions (SARs) to all veterinary medicinal products. Farmers, doctors, veterinary surgeons and members of the public are encouraged to report any SAR involving a veterinary medicine to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD). Marketing authorisation holders are required to send reports of SARs to the VMD. Human SARs are considered by the Appraisal Panel for Human Suspected Adverse Reactions to Veterinary Medicines and reported to the Veterinary Products Committee (VPC). The reports of the Appraisal Panel are published and copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Bilderberg Group
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the influence of the Bilderberg group on world agricultural prices. [37924]

  Mr. Rooker
  No such representations have been received.

  Canadian Pedigree Friesians
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is his policy to allow meat from Canadian pedigree friesians into the United Kingdom food chain. [38065]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]: Provided the meat originates from approved establishments in Canada, is accompanied by the necessary official certification and is not rejected following completion of veterinary checks at a border inspection post, meat from Canadian pedigree fresians, and other bovine animals, will be allowed to enter the European Community. The sale of beef for human consumption from animals originating in Canada which are over 30 months old at the time of slaughter is, however, prohibited by the Fresh Meat (Beef Controls) (No. 2) Regulations 1996.

  Central Science Laboratory
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for the Central Science Laboratory sites at(a) Sand Hutton, York and (b) Colney Lane, Norwich the proportion of Central Science Laboratory work and income generated in 1997–98 from (a) research and development, (b) policy advice and surveillance and (c) technical support. [37946]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]: Information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. I am however able to provide the following analysis:

  £ million

  CSL York

  CSL Norwich

  Total

  MAFF R&D

  9.8

  2.6

  12.4

  Other MAFF

  7.0

  2.4

  9.4

  Commercial

  2.4

  1.4

  3.8

  Total

  19.2

  6.4

  25.6

  These figures are subject to financial year end reconciliation.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 31 March 1998,Official Report, column 504, what assumptions his Department has made of the redundancy costs for staff in non-mobile grades currently employed by the Central Science Laboratory in Norwich, if the Norwich laboratory were to be closed. [37987]

  Mr. Rooker
  (holding answer 6 April 1998]: In the previous relocation exercise, to initially occupy the Sand Hutton site, the Central Science Laboratory was successful in the redeployment of non-mobile staff at the various sites vacated. In the event of a decision to relocate the work undertaken at the Norwich laboratory to York every effort will be made to redeploy those non-mobile staff not relocating and it is not anticipated that there would be significant compulsory redundancies.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average cost of redundancy of a Central Science Laboratory, Norwich employee in a non-mobile grade; and by whom that cost will be borne. [37952]
  215
  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]: In the previous relocation exercise, to initially occupy the Sand Hutton site, the Central Science Laboratory was successful in assisting non-mobile staff to secure employment elsewhere. On this basis it is not envisaged that there would be significant compulsory redundancies should the decision be made to relocate the work undertaken at the Norwich laboratory to York. However, the average cost of redundancy for a non-mobile employee based at CSL Norwich would be £5,500 and such costs would be borne by the Department.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 3 March 1998, Official Report, column 597, if he will list for the Central Science Laboratory sites at (a) Sand Hutton, York and (b) Colney Lane, Norwich the total office and laboratory floor area which his Department considers not capable of practical use. [37984]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 6 April 1998): The total area of a building is usually assessed as the "Gross Internal Area". The usable space within a building is normally assessed as the "Net Internal Area". The former is a measurement of each floor plate whereas the latter is a measurement which excludes such areas as plant rooms, toilets, stairwells, corridors, internal structural walls and columns, and some other related service facilities.

  The estimated Gross Internal Area of laboratories and offices at the Central Science Laboratory in York is 26,500 square metres. The estimated Net Internal Area is 18,400 square metres. The usable space figure of 15,600 square metres given in my answer of 3 March 1998, Official Report, column 597, was the estimated Net Internal Area of laboratories and offices less some 2,800 square metres of additional very specialist facilities.

  An estimate of the Gross Internal Area of laboratories and offices at Colney Lane, Norwich is not available and obtaining one would involve disproportionate cost. However, the estimated Gross Internal Area for the whole Colney Lane site is 5,000 square metres. The figure of 2,200 square metres given in my answer of 3 March was the estimated Net Internal Area of laboratories and offices.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons his Department did not accept the view of the Prior Options Review, and the study by independent consultants, as set out by his Department on 9 December 1996, that consolidation of the Central Science Laboratory in York was likely to lead to(a) a breaking of beneficial scientific links with the Institute of Food Research and (b) a loss of business previously based at Central Science Laboratory, Norwich. [37945]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]: The Central Science Laboratory collaborates with institutes and universities in this country and within the EU. This demonstrates that geographical proximity is not a necessary requirement for productive collaboration.

  Previous experience has shown that the impact on income from MAFF customers, the wider public sector and the private sector, as a result of relocation, is minimal in the short term. In the longer term benefits have been realised from an increase in the customer base.
  216
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the net cash allocation initially agreed by his Department for the Central Science Laboratory for 1997–98 together with the final outcome cash allocation. [37941]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 6 April 1998): The net cash allocation originally agreed for 1997–98 for the Central Science Laboratory was £1.526m. This figure is subject to amendment throughout the year with approval from the MAFF Management Board. Financial year end reconciliation is presently in progress and the final outcome is not yet available.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the(a) current and (b) anticipated private sector tenants of the Central Science Laboratory at Sand Hutton, York, together with the annual rent payable. [37947]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]: There are no current leases but a lease is presently being negotiated with the Centre for Biomedical Accelerator Mass Spectrometry for occupation of a small part of the Sand Hutton site. There are no immediate plans to lease accommodation to other private sector tenants.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 5 March 1998,Official Report, column 728, what estimates he has made of the average downtime for scientific staff relocated from Norwich to York, including time spent decommissioning, moving and recommissioning equipment. [38151]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]: I have no reason to believe that the estimated down time would differ significantly from previous experience detailed in the answer to which my hon. Friend refers. The earlier major relocation to the new Central Science Laboratory site near York included the relocation of sophisticated analytical chemistry equipment similar to that at Norwich. The average down time for that relocation exercise was three weeks for each scientific team.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many staff, and how many scientists, were employed by the Central Science Laboratory at Torry, Aberdeen, in January 1995. [37767]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]: A total of 108 staff were employed by the Central Science Laboratory at Tony in January 1995. Of these, 67 were scientists.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 25 March 1998,Official Report, column 188, on the Central Science Laboratory, how many non fee-earning scientists are employed by the Central Science Laboratory at (a) Sand Hutton, York and (b) Colney Lane, Norwich. [37827]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]: There are 28 non fee-earning scientists employed at the CSL York laboratory and 2 at the Norwich laboratory. These staff are employed in management roles and support functions.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 2 April 1998,Official Report, column 656, if he will set out the reasons

  217
  for his Department's commitment of £170,000 of research resources to the York Laboratory of the CSL in 1998–99; and for the absence of any commitment for similar research to (a) York in 1997–98 and (b) Norwich in (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 1998–99. [38382]

  Mr. Rooker
  £170,000 was committed to CSL York as an interim arrangement following the relocation of the Microbiology Group from the Tony Research Station, Aberdeen. The purpose was to ensure continuing expertise at CSL York, delivering work of value to the Ministry, whilst CSL York secured additional sources of external funding. No such commitment was sought by York in 1997–98, or Norwich in 1997–98 and 1998–99.

  Food Science Research
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the food

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  11997–98

  Payments to producers

  37

  20

  10

  904

  439

  Aid to slaughter sector

  0

  0

  0

  82

  0

  Aid to renderers

  0

  0

  0

  87

  65

  Aid to hide industry

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  Total

  37

  20

  10

  1,077

  504

  1Provisional.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the reasons advanced by the UK's EU partners for the maintenance of intervention in discussions on the Common Agricultural Policy. [37594]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]: In discussions on the original Agenda 2000 proposals, the Agriculture Council agreed in November last year that maintaining the status quo in the CAP could lead to an increase in intervention stocks. In view of this, the Council called upon the European Commission to frame formal legislative proposals which would, amongst other things, reduce price-support measures. This would reduce the importance of intervention as a management tool, which is its main purpose.

  The Commission's proposals for reform, which were presented to the Agriculture Council on 31 March, included cuts in the beef, cereal and dairy support prices and the abolition of intervention for the beef sector. While accepting the need for reduced price support, some Member States have argued that, without full compensation, some of these price reductions go too far.

  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations his Department has made to the European Commission concerning reform of the CAP and the structural funds. [36566]

  Mr. Rooker
  Proposals for the reform of the CAP were presented to the Agriculture Council by the European Commission on 31 March. The Government will progress discussion of these proposals as far as possible during the 218
  science research contracts allocated by his Department in 1997–98, broken down by length of contract, value of contract and institution securing the contract. [37965]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]: The very extensive list of the food science research contracts allocated by the Department in 1997–98, broken down by length of contract, value of contract and institution securing the contract, has been placed in the Library of the House.

  BSE (Compensation)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 2 March 1998,Official Report, column 499, what was the total amount of compensation paid in relation to BSE in the last five financial years; and if he will provide a breakdown of compensation payments by each sector of the food industry. [37681]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]: The information requested is as follows:

  UK Presidency and will seek to negotiate an outcome which reflects UK priorities. The same applies to reform of the structural funds.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy; and if he will make a statement.[38313]

  Mr. Rooker
  The European Commission presented its formal legislative proposals for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy to the Agriculture Council on 31 March. In most respects, these proposals go very much in the direction that the Government have advocated. The Government will progress discussion of these proposals as far as possible during the UK Presidency and will thereafter seek to negotiate an outcome which reflects UK priorities.

  Pig Farming
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact on the competitiveness of UK pig farming in Europe of the UK ban on farrowing crates. [37575]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]: None, the use of farrowing crates is not banned in the UK. Sow stalls and tethers will be banned in the UK from 1 January 1999. While no assessment has been made of the impact of this ban, it does present the UK pig sector with marketing opportunities emphasising high welfare standards.

  Sheep Dips
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice his Department gives farmers on the disposal of sheep dip, with particular reference to that containing organophosphates. [38341]

  Mr. Rooker
  Advice is given in the Code of Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Water and the "Sheep Dipping" leaflet, AS29, copies of both of which are in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in which other EU countries dipping sheep for the treatment or prevention of scab is compulsory. [37844]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information available to the Department is that no other EU member state makes it compulsory to dip sheep for the prevention of scab. It is understood that some Member States require infested sheep to be treated but not necessarily by dipping.

  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when(a) Australia, (b) New Zealand and (c) the United States made the dipping of sheep for the prevention of scab compulsory. [37845]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is understood that there is no sheep scab in Australia, New Zealand or the United States and consequently no need for compulsory treatment, whether or not by dipping.

  US Visiting Forces
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the total number of US Visiting Forces based in the UK; and where they are located; [31917]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 2 March 1998, Official Report, column 490, how many of his Department's personnel are based at (i) Abbey Wood, (ii) RAF Alconbury, Molesworth and Upwood, (iii) RAF Bentley Priory, (iv) Boscombe Down, (v) RAF Bracknell, (vi) RAF Brampton, (vii) RAF Brize Norton, (viii) RAF Coltishall, (ix) RAF Cranwell, (x) RAF Croughton, (xi) RAF Digby, (xii) RAF Daws Hill, Hythe and West Ruislip, (xiii) Eastcote, (xiv) RAF Fairford, (xv) RAF Farnborough, (xvi) RAF Fylingdales, (xvii) RAF High Wycombe, (xviii) RAF Honnington, (xix) RAF Lakenheath and RAF Feltwell, (xx) RAF Leuchars, (xxi) Landwater, (xxii) RAF Lyneham, (xxiii) RAF Morham, (xxiv) RAF Menwith Hill, (xxv) RAF Mildenhall, (xxvi) RAF Oakhanger, (xxvii) RAF Spadeadam, (xxviii) RAF Uxbridge, (xxix) RAF Valley, (xxx) RAF Waddington, (xxxi) Waterbeach, (xxxii) RAF Wittering, (xxxiii) RAF Wyton, (xxxiv) Ipswich and (xxxv) London. [33574]

  Dr. Reid
  [pursuant to his reply, 2 March 1998, c. 490]: I regret to inform the hon. Gentleman that the information provided was incorrect. Accurate data are as follows: There are in the region of 13,500 members of the United States Visiting Force permanently based at some 30 locations in the UK. Precise information on personnel assignments is not held centrally. However, on the basis of the data that are available, total numbers of United
  220
  States Service and civilian personnel as at 20 March are listed against the sites where they are located, together with details of MoD personnel located at the same sites.

  Location

  US personnel

  MoD personnel

  RAF Alconbury/Molesworth/Upwood

  1,012

  308

  RAF Croughtori/Barford St John

  443

  203

  RAF Daws Hill/West Ruislip/Eastcote/USN London

  770

  76

  RAF Digby

  38

  970

  RAF Fairford/Welford

  214

  249

  RAF Feltwell

  132

  3

  RAF Fylingdales

  1

  257

  RAF Hythe

  5

  13

  RAF Lakenheath

  5,294

  655

  RAF Menwith Hill

  1,407

  373

  RAF Mildenhall

  3,858

  583

  Northwood

  16

  1,712

  RAF Oakhanger

  1

  255

  RAF Spadeadam

  4

  174

  RAF St Mawgan

  295

  803

  RAF Uxbridge

  1

  182

  Total

  13.491

  6,816

  In addition to the above, there are approximately 200 US service personnel present in the UK, mainly serving in singleton posts at a wide variety of locations who are either participating in UK/US exchange programmes or engaged in specific bilateral projects or operational posts.

  Officer Training Corps
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the membership of the Officer Training Corps in each institution in which it operates; [13757]

  (2) what percentage of members of the Officer Training Corps subsequently join the regular forces. [13756]

  Dr. Reid
  [pursuant to his replies, 5 November 1997, c. 254 and 24 November 1997, c. 394]: I regret to inform my hon. Friend that the figures for membership of the Officer Training Corps in Oxford and Cambridge were incorrect. They should be amended to read the following:

  Officer Cadets:

  Oxford: 192

  Cambridge: 192.

  The establishment figures remain unchanged at 224 for both institutions.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the cost to the armed forces of dealing with the millennium computer problem, including the embedded chip problem; how much has been spent to date; if he will break these figures down to distinguish between costs to(a) the Army, (b) the Royal Air Force and (c) the Royal Navy; and if he will make a statement. [37994]

  Mr. Spellar
  The predicted cost to MOD of dealing with the Year 2000 date change problem is £200 million. This is the same figure as that reported in November 1997 and includes the cost of addressing the embedded chip problem. The cost estimate for the problems found so far
  221
  is £150 million, but is expected to rise to £200 million as the remaining systems are assessed and rectification work on them costed.

  Some £4.4 million has been expended to date. This reflects only the cost of work so far completed. It does not include expenditure which has been contractually committed but not yet paid.

  The year 2000 cost figures are collected within MOD on a budget holder basis and not by Service. The costs provided include the total for all of MOD's budget areas.

  RAF Fast Jet Aircrew
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (i) actual and (ii) peacetime establishment RAF fast jet aircrew are allocated to(a) Tornado GR, (b) Tornado F3, (c) Jaguar and (d) Harrier. [37934]

  Dr. Reid
  The information requested, as at 3 April 1998, is set out in the table:

  Aircraft

  Fast jet aircrew

  Total aircrew1

  Tornado GR 1

  Peacetime establishment

  294

  Actual strength

  274

  Tornado F3

  Peacetime establishment

  265

  Actual strength

  250

  Jaguar

  Peacetime establishment

  60

  Actual strength

  55

  Harrier

  Peacetime establishment

  73

  Actual strength

  73

  1As at 3 April 1998

  Uranium Shells
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how (1) how many depleted uranium shells have been fired at the MOD/DERA base at Dundrennan, Kirkcudbrightshire, in each of the years since such firing started; [37611]

  (2) how many of the depleted uranium shells fired at the MOD/DERA base at Dundrennan, Kirkcudbrightshire, have subsequently been recovered. [37612]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA). I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Alasdair Morgan, dated 7 April 1998:
  As Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency I have been asked to reply to your questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about depleted uranium shells at Kirkcudbrightshire.
  The number of depleted uranium rounds fired at the Kirkcudbright range each year since the start of the CHARM programme are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1982

  9

  1983

  56

  1984

  179

  1985

  152

  1986

  118

  1987

  151

  1988

  272

  222

  Year

  Number

  1989

  434

  1990

  795

  1991

  666

  1992

  781

  1993

  982

  1994

  472

  1995

  280

  1996

  147

  1997

  749

  1998

  12

  Total

  6,255

  During this period four of the CHARM penetrators fired have been recovered.
  I hope this information is useful.

  Low Flying Training
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answers of 30 March 1998,Official Report, column 414, if the military exercises were carried out over the Sheffield area; what regulations govern (a) military and (b) other aircraft breaking the sound barrier; and if the sonic booms detected by Edinburgh University Seismology Unit above Sheffield, on 24 March 1997 were the result of aircraft breaking the sound barrier. [37991]

  Mr. Spellar
  It is not possible, twelve months after the date in question, to state precisely where military aircraft activity was being carried out. Records kept show only that aircraft were booked to carry out low flying over the Peak District between 2030 and 2107 hours local time on the evening of 24 March 1997. No low level flying is permitted over the Sheffield urban area, or any other major conurbation. Records of flying at medium level—between 2,000 and 24,000 feet—are not maintained so it is possible that there were aircraft in the area at medium level.

  The regulations governing military aircraft flying at supersonic speeds are contained in the Joint Service Publication entitled 'Military Flying Regulations', an extract of which was provided in the answer I gave her on 1 April 1998, Official Report, columns 547–48. The regulations which apply to civil aviation are a matter for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  As for the sonic event detected by the British Geological Survey at Edinburgh University, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave her on 30 March 1998, Official Report, columns 414–15.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of incapacity benefit are suffering from pneumoconiosis and emphysema in the areas covered by the Seaham and Peterlee Benefits Agency offices. [37909]
  223
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The administration of Incapacity Benefit is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. John Cummings, dated 6 April 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question, asking how many claimants of Incapacity Benefit are suffering from pneumoconiosis and emphysema in the areas covered by the Seaham and Peterlee Benefits Agency (BA) offices.
  Information is not available in the format requested. As at 31 August 1997, there were approximately 20 people in receipt of Incapacity Benefit (IB) for emphysema in the area covered by the Peterlee office and none for pneumoconiosis. No customers were in receipt of IB for either condition in the area covered by the Seaham office.
  Source DSS Analytical Services Division, based on a 5 per cent. sample of IB cases.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Focus Groups
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the companies he has commissioned to undertake focus group research indicating the individual projects they are undertaking and the companies that tendered for each contract. [38218]

  Mr. Field
  The Department publishes a Research Yearbook which contains details of contracts awarded in the relevant financial year.

  Organisations commissioned to undertake focus group research for the Department and the title of each contract are as follows:
  Newchurch and Company—Child Support Agency customer and compliance research.
  Market Opinion Research International—Attitudes towards welfare reform.
  Market Opinion Research International—Attitudes to disability benefits.
  British Market Research Bureau International—Attitudes towards housing benefits.
  Institute for Employment Studies—People management in DSS Headquarters.
  Social and Community Planning Research—On-going contract for qualitative research on welfare reform issues.
  Social and Community Planning Research—Survey of women; development work.
  Social and Community Planning Research—Preparation for Women's Juries.
  Social and Community Planning Research—Work Incentives and Intermediaries.
  Social and Community Planning Research—Take up of Income Support amongst Older Citizens.
  Centre for Research in Social Policy, Loughborough University—Earnings Top Up Staff Panel.
  Centre for Research in Social Policy, Loughborough University—Invalidity Benefit and the Contributory principle.
  Alan Hedges—Pensions and Retirement Planning.
  Alan Hedges—Behavioural Response to the evidence requirements.
  Andrew Irving Associates—Counter fraud publicity.
  Research Surveys of Great Britain—Awareness of counter fraud activity—benchmarking exercise.
  224
  One World—New Deal for Lone Parents: development of publicity work.
  Navigator—Fraud: attitudes to national benefit fraud hotline publicity.
  Reflexions—Fraud: reporting changes in circumstances.
  Michael Herbert—Pensions: approaches to information material.

  Research contracts are normally let by competitive tender, though the department also makes use of the Central Office of Information's framework agreement with approved suppliers. Single tender may be used for example where a supplier has special expertise or experience, is the sole supplier or has sole access to records or data, or in cases of extreme urgency. Details of organisations who have tendered unsuccessfully for contracts is commercial in confidence.

  Lone Parents
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will publish a leaflet informing lone parents what help they can expect, and when, if they obtain paid work. [38234]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  There are already leaflets available which give information on the benefits payable to families in work with low incomes, including lone parents. Leaflet NI261 is a guide to Family Credit and leaflet RR2 is a guide to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  Leaflet LP15 on the New Deal for Lone Parents outlines the help available for lone parents trying to get into work and gives a summary of the help available through benefits once the lone parent has obtained work.

  Benefits Agency staff and New Deal for Lone Parents personal advisers are also available to give information on the precise amount of benefit available in each individual's circumstances. In the New Deal for Lone Parents, that advice is a component of the package of tailored help and advice provided for individual participants.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 2 March 1998,Official Report, column 505, on lone parents, if she will update her earlier answer to cover the period from 23 July 1997 to 28 February 1998. [37593]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Information on the operation of the New Deal for Lone Parents is available up to and including 28 February 1998.

  As at 28 February 1998:
  22,127 lone parents have been contacted.
  5,249 initial interviews have been arranged, and 4,395 lone parents have attended interviews.
  3,936 lone parents have agreed to participate in the programme following initial interviews.
  1,289 lone parents have found jobs following agreement to participate in the programme.

  A full independent evaluation of the New Deal for Lone Parents is being undertaken, to report in Autumn 1999. This will assess the overall effectiveness of the programme in helping lone parents move into employment.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Primary Schools Funding
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to change the funding rules for primary schools whereby income is lost due to a transfer of parents from income support to family credit. [34236]

  Mr. Byers
  There are no plans at present to change the funding rules for primary schools in this respect. Under Local Management of Schools, Local Education Authorities are responsible for devising and revising the formula used to allocate funds to schools. Some Authorities use pupils' entitlement to free school meals, which is triggered when a parent is in receipt of income support or income-based job seekers allowance, to allocate additional funding to schools. Families transferring from income support to family credit lose their entitlement to free school meals. Authorities may therefore need to consider whether their formulae should reflect this.

  However, I understand that Oldham LEA's LMS formula uses entitlement to clothing grant rather than free school meals as the proxy for distributing additional funding to schools. Pupils from families in receipt of family credit or income support are automatically entitled to clothing grant. The change in benefit entitlement should not therefore affect Oldham schools' funding.

  Education Action Zones
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will list applications to run education action zones received from(a) local education authorities and (b) other organisations; [36068]

  (2) if he will list the private sector organisations which have applied to run education action zones; [36069]

  (3) if he will list applications to run education action zones where the proposed zone crosses local education authority boundaries. [36070]

  Mr. Byers
  We have received 60 applications and intend to announce details of those which have been approved in due course.

  Child Labour
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what support Her Majesty's Government are giving to the International Labour Organisation to eradicate child labour. [36541]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government strongly support the International Labour Organisation's proposal for a new Convention to eliminate the most intolerable forms of child labour. The UK will be actively involved in negotiating the new instrument during the ILO Conferences in 1998 and 1999. The UK has already committed £200,000 to the ILO's International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) to finance work in Asia to combat trafficking of women and children. The Government will announce further contributions to this worthwhile programme in the coming weeks.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are his plans for funding the activities of job clubs over the next three fiscal years; and how these have been affected by the New Deal programme. [37470]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 2 April 1998): Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 7 April 1988:
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your question on the funding of Jobclubs over the next three fiscal years and how this has been affected by New Deal. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Employment Service.Our planned expenditure on Jobclubs will be £24 million in each of the next three fiscal years.In some areas we have also been looking at the advantages of combining some of our programmes, such as Jobclub and Jobplan, and delivering them through Programme Centres, which provide a one stop shop with greater scope for the more efficient use of resources and individualised packages of help for people.The funding allocated to Jobclubs and Programme Centres reflects the likely demand among those people aged 25 and over who have been unemployed for six months or more. This takes account of the fact that many young people who might previously have depended on this provision will now be able to take advantage instead of the much more extensive extra help provided by New Deal.My District Managers have recently undertaken a consultation exercise with local New Deal partners, with regard to our mainstream programmes, to determine which types of provision will be most effective to meet the needs of each locality. Where local partnerships decide that Jobclub or Programme Centre places should form part of the New Deal Gateway, they can purchase additional places on these programmes using New Deal funding.I hope this is helpful.

  Open Access Project
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to widen the scope of the open access project; and within what timetable. [37582]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mrs. Theresa May, dated 7 April 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your question concerning the plans to widen the scope of the open access project; and within what timetable. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Employment Service.
  The Employment Service is currently piloting ten open access kiosks in Jobcentres in Newcastle, South Manchester and Wiltshire, and we will be evaluating the use of the kiosks over the next few months. We will be making a decision on the future use of open access kiosks in the light of our evaluation of the pilot schemes and the availability of resources. The Employment Service is keen to use new technology to improve its services, and I expect the open access pilot to make a key contribution to this.
  I hope this is helpful.

  School Inspections
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how the random sample of schools inspected in 1994–95 and to be re-inspected in autumn 1998 was chosen by Ofsted; what advice was given to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector on how to ensure a random, balanced sample of schools; and by whom that advice was given; [37683]

  (2) how many primary schools in England and Wales which were last inspected in 1994–95 are being inspected in autumn 1998; and what estimate he has made of the total cost of those inspections. [37684]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]: These are matters for HM Chief Inspector of Schools. I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend and to place a copy of his letter in the library.

  Literacy Strategy
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will list the external bodies involved in the drafting of the literacy strategy; and if he will publish details of the research work on which the(a) concept and (b) details of the literacy strategy are based; [37762]

  (2) if he will list the external bodies who were consulted prior to the development of the literacy strategy. [37763]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]: The literacy strategy is based on recommendations of the Literacy Task Force, established in may 1996 by the then Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment. Its membership was as follows: Professor Michael Barber (Chair), University of London Institute of Education; John Botham, Headteacher, Greenwood Junior School, Nottingham; Ken Follett, Novelist; Simon Goodenough, Chair of Governors, Queen Elizabeth Community College, Devon; Mary Gray, Retired Headteacher, Fair Furlong School Bristol; David Pitt-Watson, Deloitte & Touche; David Reynolds, Professor Education, University of Newcastle; Anne Waterhouse, Headteacher, Asmall County Primary School, Lancashire; and Diane Wright, a parent.

  The Task Force drew widely on evidence of what works in this and other countries and took account of evidence from inspection reports and surveys from OFSTED. It consulted very widely before recommending
  228
  that the National Literacy Project offered the best model for urgently achieving the improvement in literacy needed in our schools.

  Job Vacancies (Chelmsford)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the number of job vacancies in the(a) West Chelmsford parliamentary constituency and (b) Chelmsford Local Authority area in each of the last six months for which figures are available. [37877]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 6 April 1998]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Simon Burns, dated 7 April 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your question in which you asked for a list of the numbers of job vacancies in the West Chelmsford Parliamentary constituency area and the Chelmsford Local Authority area in each of the last six months for which figures are available. This is something that fall within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Employment Service.
  Vacancy data is only available by Jobcentre areas. West Chelmsford Parliamentary constituency and Chelmsford Local Authority area are both served by Chelmsford Jobcentre.

  Vacancies notified to this Jobcentre were:

  September 1997: 734

  October 1997: 587

  November 1997: 782

  December 1997: 584

  January 1998: 248

  February 1998: 591

  I hope this is helpful.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the annual cost to(a) higher education and (b) further education of the changes in employers' national insurance contributions announced in the Budget. [38316]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department is currently discussing estimates of these costs with the relevant Funding Councils. I will write to the hon. Member when these discussions have been completed.

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

Estonia: 80th Anniversary of Independence
The Earl of Carlisleasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to join the Republic of Estonia in celebrating its 80th anniversary of independence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)My Lords, we were glad to welcome President Men of Estonia to the United Kingdom in February. In addition the United Kingdom is taking part in a wide range of commemorative events in Estonia this year. These include a programme of ships visits and a British Week in Tallinn in October. Other events will be announced as they are confirmed. These events underscore the significant role played by Britain, and in particular by the Royal Navy, in Estonia's struggle for independence in 1918.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her delightful reply. Will she join with me in wishing HMS "Westminster", its captain, Commander Peter Walpole, and its crew bon voyage on their visit to Estonia in June? Is she aware that the last time the Royal Navy visited that part of the Baltic it went in force and destroyed with shellfire the one bridge over the River Narva? During their presidency of the European Union will Her Majesty's Government set in motion steps to rebuild a bridge over the River Narva so that trade with the Russian Federation can be improved and communications between Europe and Russia can also be enhanced?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I certainly join the noble Earl in his good wishes. I believe that his knowledge of Estonia is second to no other in your Lordships' House. His historical analysis of our relationship is of great interest. However, I am not in a position to make any spending commitments on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. The United Kingdom Government are doing what they can to further the application of Estonia to join the EU and using the know-how fund in the pre-accession arrangements that have been put in place.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, given that the Foreign Secretary has said that the main concern of the British presidency is to get the negotiations on European enlargement off to a flying start, what lead are the Government taking to ensure that other EU member
610
states are equally committed to the enlargement process by providing the financial assistance necessary to help countries such as Estonia and second wave countries like Bulgaria which may leapfrog the process?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have started the accession negotiations with the applicant countries. Those which are in the best position are starting first. Subsequent accessions will be dealt with as quickly as possible. Her Majesty's Government hope that enlargement will be a success, and we have a record for encouraging the enlargement process. To that end, we are using the United Kingdom's know-how fund to help countries which wish to join the EU to adapt their legislation and administration to meet the demands of EU membership. To that end, the know-how fund spent £86.5 million in the year 1995ߝ96. I believe that we are encouraging our partner countries to do the same by setting a very good example.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, since the Minister referred to Bulgaria, can she inform the House whether that country's admission will be subject to her abandonment of any claim to Romania in the future?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Foreign Office has equipped me with information on 50 possible supplementary questions. I regret to say that all of them deal with Estonia and not Bulgaria, but I shall write to the noble Earl on the point that he has raised.

Prisons Ombudsman
2.41 p.m.
Lord Hurd of Westwellasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to give statutory basis to the work of the Prisons Ombudsman.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the Government are sympathetic to the idea of covering the Prisons Ombudsman's role in primary legislation and will consider this further after a forthcoming review of the ombudsman's office.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. Does he agree that Sir Peter Woodhead does an admirable and necessary job but that he has to wrestle with a number of obstacles, one of which is that his office does not have a basis in law? Does he further agree that that weakens his standing and makes him subject to attempts by the Home Office to whittle away his terms of reference? As the noble Lord will be aware if he has researched the matter, this is not an idle point. If the Minister agrees with that—I believe that he does—will he now accept the recommendation of the Select Committee on the ombudsman in 1996 which criticised the present non-statutory framework? Will he go a little further than his reply so far and

611
undertake that the Home Secretary will insert this provision in the next relevant Bill that he brings before Parliament?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, certainly Sir Peter Woodhead does an extremely good job. He was appointed in 1994 and has a final extension until May 1999. The review to which I referred is likely to report not later than August of this year, so The Times cale is quite short. I recognise that under previous governments, not this one, there was a deal of whittling away, attempts being made to draw bogus distinctions between what was administrative and what was policy. As I believe my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees observed on an earlier occasion, "administrative" was when things went wrong and "policy" was when things went right.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I understand that few appeals by young prisoners reach the ombudsman, largely because it is not within their culture to be able to put matters down in writing, so much so that, although there is no lack of grievances, few young prisoners ever make a start under the formal complaints procedure. Is that a problem which the Minister recognises? If so, does he have any thoughts on a possible solution?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the ombudsman's regime does not begin until internal complaints procedures have been exhausted. At the moment, most complaints are on adjudications, lost property, transfers and recategorisations. Bearing in mind the terms of the noble Lord's question, I shall certainly research it to see whether further steps should he taken with regard to drawing the attention of particular groups to the opportunity of complaint to the ombudsman.

Agriculture and the Countryside
2.44 p.m.
Lord Geraintasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will set up a Royal Commission on issues concerning the countryside and the agricultural industry.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, the Government do not intend to set up a Royal Commission on issues concerning the countryside and the agricultural industry.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, many farmers will be disappointed by the Minister's reply to my request. Is he aware that many young farmers in this country do not realise that the Government have a policy to help them in any way, and what advice can he give those who are contemplating leaving the industry within the next few years?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we have policies to assist the farmers of Wales and the whole of the UK.
612
We do not believe that the setting up of a Royal Commission, which would inevitably take a long time, is necessarily the best way to help them. We have a whole range of policies to assist farming. I draw the noble Lord's attention and their attention to the two most recent packages of assistance: the package of £85 million of aid announced before Christmas, primarily to the livestock industry and hill farmers, of which the Welsh share was about £12 million; and the subsequent package to assist with various charges, particularly the setting up of the new cattle traceability system which totals nearly £40 million. We are of course currently reviewing all of our agriculture and countryside policies. We are aware of the problems facing the farming industry, particularly certain disadvantaged parts of it. That includes the hill farmers, the beef farmers and the sheep farmers, not just of Wales, although many of the problems are concentrated in Wales. That is why we are also considering reconstructing the industry and looking at ways to assist with retirement.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the organic farming industry would be delighted to have a Royal Commission? Does he agree that it might take three years for anything to happen to help it, and that is taking a rather long-term view? The industry would rather see something happen immediately. In the list of farming communities being helped that the Minister mentioned, he omitted to include the organic farming industry. Does he have any views on further assistance for it?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we are concerned to assist the organic sector of the industry, which we believe has been neglected in the past. As a percentage of farming, the British percentage of organic farming is still the smallest in the whole of Europe. We are currently actively and urgently looking at ways of improving that situation. The noble Earl will find that the time he has to wait will be much less than that taken by a Royal Commission.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Archbishops of Canterbury and York commissioned a major study of the countryside which in 1990 published the report entitled Faith in the Countryside? If he is, he will be aware that that commission, which was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Prior, was not concerned just with the rural Church but with a whole range of issues affecting the countryside—economic, social and environmental? Is he further aware that the report was, and is, still widely regarded as speaking with authority on those issues, not least because of the wide range of expertise among the commission's members and the thoroughness with which it undertook its researches?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for his question. I am indeed aware of the commission's distinguished report. It was a most impressive body, of which I believe the right reverend Prelate was deputy chairman. Faith in the Countryside is, in my view, as good as any existing publication on

613
the problems of the rural countryside. It is extremely helpful to us in the new Government, because we are trying to re-position our ministry and its concerns more broadly than just for farming. We are looking at the whole of the countryside, where there are many problems of deprivation. Those issues were well highlighted, and we shall attempt to follow the paths there set out.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, as the Government review their agricultural policy and the structures of the department, will the Minister accept that in the territorial departments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland there are already integrated countryside departments? Will he ensure that in future there is full access to European funds for those national and regional departments, so that the countryside policies in those regions within the UK provide a better framework, particularly for the livestock sector?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that question. The points that he made are well taken. There are integrated policies in all the territories and we are examining the position in Wales. Under the new devolution proposals, the Welsh will rightly have greater control.
At the most recent meeting of the Agriculture Council, which specifically considered CAP reform, I took as a colleague the honourable Member in another place, Mr. Win Griffiths, who is a junior Minister at the department with specific responsibility for Welsh rural affairs.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the problems of the countryside are not so much in terms of food production—indeed, hardly at all—but in terms of social deprivation? How many people in the farming industry are in receipt of family credit?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord an answer to that question. We are aware that the problems of the countryside are social. Much of the subsidy which goes into the agricultural industry is directly or indirectly diverted to assist social problems in the countryside. There are problems not only of food production but of housing, schools and access to health, in particular for people who do not have transport. We are extremely aware of the acute issues of rural deprivation and poverty.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, under the proposals for the national assembly for Wales, will the assembly be able to appoint a Royal Commission to look into Welsh agriculture without reference to Whitehall?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I cannot answer that question. I am tempted to point to my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn who in my experience has answers to everything.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the rally on rural affairs which took place in March
614
highlighted the problems in relation not only to farming? Bearing that in mind, will the Government consider setting up a department of rural affairs? If so, does the Minister agree that there would be room for that Minister in the Cabinet? Perhaps he or she could become the 23rd Member of the Cabinet instead of Alistair Campbell.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, Mr. Campbell can well look after himself. As regards ministerial representation of rural affairs, it is well known that that is under consideration. However, it is a matter for the Prime Minister. Those of us who attended the rally were made well aware of the need for someone to have prime responsibility for issues.

Prisoners' Board and Lodging: Payments
2.53 p.m.
Lord Marlesfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have considered the possibility of making those who can afford to do so pay the costs, which would otherwise fall on the taxpayer, of serving a sentence in one of Her Majesty's prisons.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, most prisoners come into prison with few personal assets and earn only pocket money—on average £7 a week—while there. Most who work outside the prison for real wages, as part of a resettlement regime, are charged for board and lodging. In some cases, they also pay contributions to other causes, such as victim support charities. Furthermore, a court may impose a fine in addition to imprisonment and make a confiscation order for certain crimes.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but it does not address the Question that I asked. Given that there is a shortage of resources and that in general it is necessary to give taxpayers' money to people who need it rather than to those who do not, how can the Minister justify people who, by free choice, commit an act which necessitates their confinement in one of Her Majesty's prisons expecting taxpayers to pay their hotel bill, which is some £25,000 a year? Is it not equitable that the people who have resources—I recognise that they are only a small proportion—should pay the cost of being kept in prison because they are there as a result of their own actions?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, courts have had the power to order the confiscation of assets in respect of non-drug crime since as long ago as 1989. There is no reason why in appropriate cases courts should not confiscate what I agree are sometimes large sums of money which could go to the public funds and thereby be used for defraying the charges to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Henley: My Lords, will the Minister give a slightly more sympathetic answer? Will he agree that

615
the proposal is a logical extension of the changes which we made when we introduced the powers to confiscate the ill-gotten gains of drug dealers and others who commit offences and make money out of them?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I cannot be more helpful. If a prisoner pays board and lodging it will go into the same fund as that which would benefit by the confiscation of assets in the way I have described. It is a matter for the court in each particular case; but I would have thought that there was a strong case to be made for confiscating substantial assets for public purposes.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the report published about two weeks ago about a prisoner who, with the use of his mobile telephone, was earning a large salary? Is that not totally unacceptable and should not the salary have gone towards his upkeep?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, of the total number of people in prison, only 227 are engaged in work of the kind described by the noble Lord. The prisoner in question is at Wealstun Prison. He was convicted of conspiracy to defraud Barclays Bank—and I do not put that forward as mitigation. He is earning a salary as a business procurement consultant. Contrary to some reports, he was not using a mobile telephone and he did not have a BMW. He pays £24 a week towards board and lodging and 10 per cent. of his earnings to Victim Support. The remainder is being kept for his release; but if his family is making a claim on public funds, the sum which he is earning will be taken into account.
I accept that that is an unusual case because the prisoner was earning £30,000 a year. However, thought is being given as to whether a proportion of similar sums ought not to be used in the way described. He will not be earning £30,000 a year for much longer because he will be out on 30th April.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, how many prisoners pay towards their accommodation and what percentage is that of the total prison population?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as I have indicated, the average prison earnings are only £7 a week. Only 227 prisoners work outside and therefore the opportunities for deductions to be made towards board and lodging are very limited.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, do the assets which are occasionally confiscated go into a fund to which the Prison Service have access or do they go directly to the Treasury?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, they go to the Consolidated Fund.
Lord Mackay of ArdbrecknishMy Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, has just indicated that the Minister knows all the answers to every question
616
with which we agree—can he tell me whether the Scottish parliament will be able to take on board the idea of my noble friend Lord Marlesford?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not see any reason at all why the Scottish parliament should not pay the most careful attention to anything that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, says. I am sure it will. In fact, in the earlier months, I am sure it will discuss little else. Added to which, it may be that north of the Border they will have an even keener eye to economy. I am also able to deal with any questions about Royal Commissions in Wales.
Lord Renton: My Lords, what about young offenders? Does it not cost more to keep young offenders in the modern institutions which have replaced Borstal than to send a boy to a good public school like, for example, Eton? Would it not be fair to get the parents of the young offenders to make a contribution towards their education?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, an enormous number of young offenders have no parents who care for them and when they do have parents who are interested in them, very often those parents are in the lowest section of our community in terms of earning power and wealth. The average cost per prisoner place in 1996ߝ97—I stress this is average—was £24,271. Some of your Lordships may be able to draw a relationship between that and the fees at Eton; but, alas! I am not.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, bed and breakfast establishments pay tax to the Government which they recoup from their visitors. Could there not be some similar arrangement for those detained at Her Majesty's pleasure?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I cannot see immediately the virtue of such a scheme.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I thank the Minister because I believe that we have made quite a lot of progress on this Question. Following on the general tenor of this matter, will he see whether administrative arrangements can be made so that it becomes fairly standard and people expect, if they can afford it, to pay the cost of serving a sentence in prison? That might he quite a useful deterrent for some. Of course, I recognise that the great majority will not be in a position to pay anything. But it should become standard administrative procedure, and not a matter of the court ordering it, if necessary with legislation, to enable it to happen.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the trouble is that the administrative procedures tend to be cumbersome, counterproductive and do not produce as much revenue as is directly available if the courts exercise their full powers. The noble Lord is quite right that it would require primary legislation. This

617
Government have such an admirably full programme of legislation pencilled in for the next Session that it looks unlikely that the noble Lord's idea could be given effect.

Mental Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

School Standards and Framework Bill
3.3 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. Last May the Government put forward a vision of a modern Britain which the people welcomed in overwhelming numbers. We made it clear then that education was at the centre of the vision.
We argued that everyone should have the skills and self-confidence to help build a successful economy and a healthy society. We promised everyone, not just a few, the opportunity to make their contribution. And we committed ourselves to working with others in a relentless pursuit of higher educational standards—providing pressure and support, identifying and spreading good practice, and, where necessary, finding more money.
We have already shown that we meant what we said. We have established the standards and effectiveness unit in my department, and the standards task force, and identified priorities for action. We have set challenging literacy and numeracy targets for all our 11 year-olds. We have exposed under-performing schools and LEAs to scrutiny, and worked to put things right. We have published excellent Green Papers on children with special educational needs and on lifelong learning.
We know that this requires cash as well as commitment, that is why last July's Budget announced an extra £1 billion for schools, compared with the £182 million increase planned by the last government. Over £500 million from the 1998ߝ99 standards fund will pay for more teacher and governor training, more books and more equipment. Building on our New Deal for Schools—worth about £2 billion over the life of this Parliament—this year's Budget provided a further £90 million for schools' capital to help reduce infant class sizes, and tackle obsolete boilers and outside lavatories.
The School Standards and Framework Bill before the House today complements all these efforts. With the Teaching and Higher Education Bill now in another place, it takes forward our manifesto commitments to strengthen education in England and Wales. Our consultations last summer on the Excellence in Schools White Paper and its Welsh counterpart made it clear that we really wanted to know what people thought. We emphasised our view that partnership and understanding are better than command and control. We listened, and learned, and responded.
618
The Bill is much the better for it. And as a result of those consultations, and scrutiny in another place, I know that it comes to this House more widely and warmly supported than any education Bill for many years. I shall be asking this House to endorse it so that the Government can get on with the important and exciting policies it proposes.
I now turn to the detailed contents of the Bill. Part I complements the substantial start we have already made on redeeming our historic pledge that by the end of this Parliament no five, six or seven year-old should have to learn in a class of more than 30. That objective is long overdue. All children need the best possible start to their school career. Getting the basics right will underpin their enthusiasm for learning and their prospects of achievement later on.
We shall fund the running cost aspects of this by transferring resources from the assisted places scheme. This is a policy for the many, not the few. We have already announced the allocation of £22 million in the coming academic year, which will benefit over 100,000 children. This will rise to £100 million a year by 2001 when we will deliver our pledge. The Budget last month provided £40 million extra capital to pay for the extra classrooms that LEAs will need to establish more and smaller infant classes.
Clauses 1 to 4 empower the Secretary of State to set limits on the size of infant classes; to set timetables for compliance with those limits; and to pay grants in support. They require LEAs to draw up plans to meet the pledge, and LEAs and governing bodies to exercise their functions so as to achieve them.
These clauses work with the admissions provisions later in the Bill. We have already made clear in another place that we will expect LEAs to use this opportunity to enhance, rather than to constrain, parental preference. We will expect them to expand provision in popular, over-subscribed schools. And children will not be forced to travel unreasonable distances to school because other schools are full. Where necessary, funds will be provided for extra teachers and, in some cases, extra accommodation. Taken together the extra resources we plan, our commitment to parental choice and the proposals in this Bill give us a historic opportunity to make a difference for young pupils. We intend to grasp it.
Clauses 5 to 19 implement other aspects of the Government's standards programme. Much, of course, does not need legislation, and is already well under way. Clause 5 places an explicit duty on LEAs to carry our their functions with a view to promoting high standards in schools. Let me make clear from the very beginning the balance we wish to strike here.
LEAs can encourage schools and challenge them to do better. They can help identify good practice, build partnerships and use their own resources effectively. We consider this a core role for LEAs—the contribution they can make has been ignored for too long. But high standards remain first and foremost the responsibility of individual schools. Every school can improve. Every school should be setting itself challenging targets. We expect LEAs to intervene only in inverse proportion to

619
success. Schools in difficulty need to be helped to improve. Good schools need only be allowed to prosper. Clause 119 of the Bill provides for a code of practice to clarify this relationship. We have now published a draft of this key document for consultation, and placed copies in the Library of the House and in the Printed Paper Office.
Clauses 6 and 7 provide the mechanism for reviewing and raising standards in each area. They require each LEA to prepare an education development plan, setting out how they will work to raise standards, based on consultation with schools and others. My right honourable friend will regulate the contents of plans to ensure that they cover the essentials—including clear targets for improvement—and monitor progress against them. They will provide hard evidence of the capacity of each LEA to get to grips with the issues in its area, in partnership with others.
Clause 8 empowers the Secretary of State to take action if the LEA is failing to perform any of its school responsibilities to an adequate standard. Where necessary, he will he able to direct the LEA's officers to take specified action; or direct them to transfer the function to others—for example, an improvement team, another LEA, or a private sector provider. He can specify the objectives to be met and require LEA members and officers to co-operate with whoever takes over the function. This is a robust provision: we shall tackle underperformance wherever we find it.
I particularly commend to the House the important and radical proposals on education action zones taken forward by Clauses 10 to 13 of the Bill. Education action zones will help raise standards in schools in challenging circumstances, rural and urban. They will provide new and exciting ways for clusters of schools, LEAs, parents, business and community organisations to work together. As test beds for new ideas in a properly controlled environment, zones will have priority access to departmental funding and initiatives. They will be able to adapt the national curriculum to meet local needs—more opportunities for work-related learning or a sharper focus on literacy and numeracy. Each zone will be run with the help of a forum which will set challenging targets and put forward ambitious, innovative plans for meeting them.
There has been considerable interest in this initiative. We have received 60 full applications and have, therefore, decided to accelerate our timetable for the introduction of zones. With an additional £10 million for the education action zones programme, that represents a fivefold increase on our original plan. Subject to the outcome of the comprehensive spending review, we hope to expand the EAZ programme during this Parliament.
It may help the House if I clarify something at this point. We welcome the strong endorsement of EAZs in another place at Second Reading last December. But nothing the Government have done since then to set up the first EAZs this autumn depends on parliamentary approval of this Bill. If Parliament agrees, however, the Bill will help schools make the most of this initiative. Clause 13 will allow zones to attract first-class heads
620
and teachers through the use of flexible contracts, which recognise the importance of experience and high performance. If they wish, governing bodies will be able to contract with a forum to provide specific services relating, for example, to staffing or the curriculum. They could also formally cede the majority of their powers to the forum.
We expect education action zones to identify much good practice. Some of it will have implications over time for the education service as a whole. Education action zones will help us invent the 21st century school.
Clauses 14 to 19 strengthen the capacity of LEAs, and ultimately of the Secretary of State, to intervene in schools causing concern.
In future, LEAs will be able to issue formal warnings to schools where standards are unacceptably low. LEAs can already appoint additional governors, or suspend the school's right to a delegated budget, where a school is failing. The Bill will now allow this where a school has serious weaknesses or has not responded satisfactorily to a formal warning—that is, before problems become so acute that a school fails. The Secretary of State will in turn be able to appoint additional governors—including the chair of governors—in a school requiring special measures. He will also be able to direct an LEA to close a school in these circumstances.
I repeat that responsibility for standards rests first and foremost with schools themselves. The powers are carefully graduated: prevention is better than cure, and gentle nudges early on will always be better than late recrimination. LEA action will need to be based on clear criteria, as the code of practice will emphasise. But these clauses provide necessary safeguards against drift and delay.
The Government, too, will play their part. Parents expect us to provide leadership and commitment, and create a culture of high expectations. So does the taxpayer. If there is to be more money for education, the levers must be in place to ensure that every penny counts: children get only one chance.
I turn now to Part II of the Bill and the new framework for schools. This is a modernising Bill. Parents and many others sent us a clear message both before the election and in response to our White Paper. They wanted us to move on from the divisions of recent years and concentrate on what really matters—raising standards and increasing opportunities for all. Of course, the framework within which schools and LEAs operate is relevant to that. But it had become the preoccupation of too many. We agree.
Clauses 20 to 22 establish three new categories of mainstream school—community, foundation and voluntary, as well as community and foundation special schools. Those categories will accommodate all existing state schools, including former grant-maintained schools.
All schools will have a choice of category to suit their circumstances and aspirations. To minimise disruption, that choice will be phased. GM schools will make their choice first, and move to their chosen category when the new framework is introduced. Parents will he able to steer that choice if they wish, and any disputes will

621
come to my right honourable friend for resolution. All other schools will initially be assigned to the nearest category to their current status. We would normally expect schools to be content with their allocated category, but they will be able to publish proposals to change it after a year's experience of the new framework.
We have worked hard to minimise unnecessary upheaval for individual schools while ensuring that basic principles of fairness and partnership apply. In particular, the new categories preserve the broad pattern now for Church, GM and county schools on the employment of staff, the ownership of premises, religious education and collective worship.
We have also worked to build understanding and support for what we propose. The whole House will wish to note the comments of the grant-maintained schools joint monitoring group on 10th March:
"We would like to take this opportunity to put on record our support for the constructive approach that the Government has adopted towards the Bill during its Committee Stage…We also support Ministerial statements that 'schools control schools' and that financial delegation should reflect the current GM model".
The draft code of practice has received the broad support of the GM interests, as well as of other key partners.
I am also very pleased that the Churches have worked closely with us on this, and accept that our proposals will safeguard their significant contribution to the education service. Within the voluntary category, existing aided and controlled schools will retain their present characteristics. We have agreed with the Churches sensible arrangements for the composition of Church school governing bodies, for admissions, staffing and other protections for the religious ethos of schools. We have amended the Bill on those points in another place, and will do more when we reach Committee stage in this place.
From now on, all maintained schools and LEAs will enjoy a new partnership in which the clear role of schools in running themselves is understood. The Bill's proposals for school funding and admissions demonstrate that we envisage a partnership of equals, based on good practice and good will.
Clauses 44 to 52 develop the local management of schools regime. All maintained schools will be funded, fairly and consistently, through LEAs. Accordingly, Clause 122 dissolves the Funding Agency for Schools.
Within this framework we intend to bring the level of financial delegation to all schools as closely as possible in line with the level currently enjoyed by GM schools, while ensuring that LEAs retain sufficient funding for their essential functions. This will give all schools equal freedom to use their funds in the drive to raise standards. We shall ensure that schools understand more clearly how their budgets are calculated and can buy back services from the LEA in a straightforward way. We shall issue a detailed consultation paper in due course, and will continue to listen as we develop the underpinning regulations and guidance.
622
On school admissions—Part III of the Bill—many parents have had to cope for too long with a bewildering patchwork of conflicting arrangements. They and their children deserve better.
Clauses 79 to 98 provide the framework for open and fair admissions to schools. Everyone must have regard to an admissions code of practice. LEAs and schools will have to consult each other every year on their admission arrangements. My right honourable friend will appoint independent adjudicators to decide disputes between admission authorities. Disputes over religious and denominational criteria will come to him for resolution.
For the benefit of parents, LEAs will publish information about local admissions. We look forward to parents once again having a single, sensible, mutually agreed timetable for making their applications to schools in their area. The constitution of appeals committees will be modernised, to make them completely independent of LEAs and governing bodies.
These clauses also prohibit schools in future from introducing selection by ability. The adjudicator, having regard to the code of practice, will have the power to end existing partial selection where he concludes that it is not in the best interests of other local schools, children and parents. The code will cover giving preference by aptitude—which the Bill will permit—in subjects to be specified in regulations, up to a maximum of 10 per cent. of a school's intake.
There is one further example of our commitment to local decision-making based on partnership. For decades many local proposals for opening, closing or changing the character of schools have come to the Secretary of State for decision. The process is often slow and less than transparent.
Clauses 23 to 33 provide for these decisions to be taken locally in future. They establish a school organisation committee for each LEA area in England. The committee will include representatives of the LEA, the Churches, the Further Education Funding Council for post-16 provision and schools. It will agree a school organisation plan for meeting emerging needs, adding or removing school places. LEAs will determine their own unopposed proposals, but the committee will decide the remainder in the light of the plan and of guidance from the Secretary of State. Where the committee cannot agree, the decision will be made by one of the independent adjudicators who also deal with admissions issues. In Wales, however, the Secretary of State will continue to consider contested proposals until the Welsh Assembly is in place.
I shall summarise briefly other proposals in the Bill. Parents and governors are essential partners in our work. Clauses 35 to 43 give parents more places on school governing bodies, simplify the constitutional arrangements of governing bodies, and emphasise governors' role in raising standards.
Clauses 99 to 102 implement our manifesto commitment that decisions on the future admissions policies of the 165 traditional grammar schools will be a matter for local parents. If a significant number of parents raise a petition, a ballot will follow. Where

623
parents vote for change that will be implemented through the new arrangements for school admissions and organisation. The Bill prohibits LEAs and schools from using public funds for propaganda purposes and will ensure that, where ballots occur, parents have access to balanced information.
Clauses 103 to 104 require all schools to have home/school agreements cementing the vital partnership between parents and schools. They will clarify expectations on attendance, discipline, homework and standards of education. They will not be used in the admissions process itself.
Clauses 105 to 106 strengthen the arrangements for 14 to 16 year-olds to undertake work experience and spend time in further education colleges. I hope the House will welcome this renewed emphasis on employability. Greater flexibility in the learning options available to young people will also support the Government's wider policies on social exclusion. We shall have more to say on social exclusion as this Bill goes forward.
Clauses 107 to 109 regulate school meals; I have heard them referred to as the "chips clauses". Children who have eaten properly are more likely to learn properly too.
Clauses 110 to 116 introduce sensible arrangements for nursery and other early years provision. We have already swept away the bureaucracy of the nursery vouchers scheme. We announced last month that every four year-old in all but one LEA will have a guaranteed nursery place by September this year. The other, Thurrock, will do so from January 1999. The Bill requires all LEAs, working in partnership with schools, voluntary and private sector providers, to secure sufficient nursery education provision for children in their area, rigorously inspected.
The Bill helps further education institutions and LEAs in Wales to work together effectively. It prevents LEAs from reintroducing the assisted places scheme at local level. It halts the steady loss of school playing fields in recent years. Finally, following a free vote in another place, it abolishes corporal punishment for all pupils in independent schools and children in nursery education.
This is a wide-ranging Bill which implements our manifesto commitments last May, taking full account of intensive consultations since then. It puts individual schools firmly at the front of our drive to create a world-class education service and raise standards for all. But it promises that LEAs and the Government will be there with them, to provide pressure, where necessary, investment and support.
It recognises the commitment of many to improve. But it also provides the levers for tackling underperformance and failure. It introduces a new school framework to end division, promote fairness and foster partnership, and give a stronger voice to parents. It is a framework which the Government are confident will stand the test of time. We are convinced that these proposals are the best way to release the enthusiasm and imagination we need to raise standards and tackle the
624
real issues that face us. Our children deserve no less. I look forward to our debates on this vital Bill. I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
3.27 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope the whole House will join with me in welcoming to our debate today the noble Lords, Lord Hattersley and Lord Dearing, who are to make their maiden speeches. Both noble Lords, in their very different ways, bring much experience to debates, particularly on this subject. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, will forgive me for describing him as a colourful character. I know that the subject of education has been an abiding passion of his, and indeed of his wife, for many years. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, is of course the architect of the considerable piece of work that underpinned the Bill that we discussed a matter of weeks ago, and will underpin many of the debates that we shall hold in the future.
If this Bill was subject to a test akin to the Trade Descriptions Act it would fail completely. The Government claim that the Bill is about raising standards and is not about structures. However, on any reading of this Bill, clause after clause deals with structures, not standards. There is a massive increase in bureaucracy and a massive increase in central control. It is now clear that new Labour has given way to old Labour in a big way. The politics of envy are back with a vengeance and, as has become the hallmark of this Government, mean-spirited politics abound.
Much that is best in education is at risk. The survival of grammar schools would be at the mercy of a biased balloting system. Over a thousand schools will lose their grant-maintained status and will be made subject to local government intervention, having democratically voted, school by school, for their own autonomy. If Ministers' responses in another place are anything to go by, selection is subject to an incomprehensible debate full of gobbledegook, which, on the one hand, is underpinned by the personal animosity towards selection of the Secretary of State and many of his old Labour colleagues and, on the other hand, by the confusion presented by the Bill, which appears to preserve the degree of selection which exists at the moment, until, that is, either the powers of the adjudicator are exercised and/or the one-sided balloting process is triggered.
If noble Lords want some amusing reading, I recommend the debates on the Bill in the other place on the distinction between ability and aptitude. If children can be selected on the basis of aptitude in order to match appropriate education, what is so evil about selecting children on the basis of ability? Can the Minister tell us whether, if a child has an aptitude for maths, science and technology, it is not true that that same child will also have an ability for those subjects?
People should be in no doubt about the policy behind the Bill. It is the socialist's dream: egalitarianism and statism. It means that some of the most successful aspects of our education system must be sacrificed on the altar of socialist dogma.

625
In the Bill 133 clauses and 31 schedules will give rise to 53 sets of regulations, 13 sets of guidance and two substantial codes of practice. The availability of draft versions of the codes of practice and drafts of many of the regulations are essential if this House is to perform its duty as a revising Chamber. In particular, where any regulations, when enacted, affect the future existence or future structure of a school or alter the provision of education for children at a school, the draft version of such regulations should be available to the House before Committee stage. That specifically includes the code of practice and regulations on admissions and all the regulations concerned with the future of grammar schools.
There are so many measures in the Bill that it is difficult to flag up all the areas upon which one would wish to comment. Some of my noble friends will concentrate on specific clauses. For example, my noble friend Lord Pilkington will address the issues of a burgeoning bureaucracy; my noble friend Lady Seccombe will speak to those clauses which deal with grammar schools; and my noble friend Lady Byford will address the issues which relate to governors.
I will say just a brief word on the subject of bureaucracy. I personally have never supported the taking of industrial action in education. However, it was significant that the reason for such disquiet among teachers who recently balloted for such action was the level of bureaucracy. The irony of the Government's response yesterday will not be lost on noble Lords. It was to promise a code of practice—yes, my Lords, another code of practice—to assist teachers in reducing the burden of bureaucracy. And yet, with the level of burdensome activity that will be spawned by this Bill, with its endless co-ordinating committees and numerous forums, where minutes will have to be kept and disseminated, and an educational development planning system which involves a paper chase starting with the school, via the local education authorities, up to the Secretary of State, then back to the local education authorities and back to schools—and all of this paper-chasing to be repeated if the Secretary of State is not satisfied with any aspect of those plans—it will take more than a code of practice to convince teachers that the Government mean business on this issue.
As far as Wales is concerned, I should welcome it if the Minister could list clause by clause all powers reserved to the Welsh assembly. The Minister kindly did that on the previous Bill and I hope that she will write to me on this matter. Meanwhile, the Bill gives us a foretaste of things to come. For example, as I understand it, the Secretary of State for Wales has the power to vary these provisions, so that it could become a very different system from that intended for England. Will the Minister clarify for the House whether the powers ceded to the Secretary of State for Wales are to be devolved to the assembly? Is it the Government's intention to apply to Wales any of the secondary legislation flowing from the Bill in advance of the assembly being established? Not only will I and my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy be deeply interested in the Minister's reply, but I suspect that so also will the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. I shall not take sides on the issue
626
of whether Wales should think differently, but it seems extraordinary that a Bill should come before the House which is apparently to apply to both countries and yet we are on the eve of the establishment of an assembly for Wales.
The interventionist nature of the Bill gives much cause for concern, not only for schools generally but especially among church schools. Why, for example, is it necessary for church schools to have to allow 14 days to elapse while seeking local education authority approval for candidates on a list for the appointment of a head or a deputy head? It is a ludicrous proposition. Are the Government suggesting, for example, that Lambeth, Islington or Hammersmith and Fulham local education authorities have a monopoly of wisdom in these matters? Are, for example, grant-maintained schools such as the Oratory, that highly successful school which is educating the Prime Minister's sons, and La Retraite, a Catholic girls' grant-maintained school in Lambeth which has gone from strength to strength since gaining its autonomy, not to be trusted to make staffing appointments without reference to local education authorities?
Has it not occurred to the Department for Education and Employment, and indeed to Ministers, that, where schools have been responsible for their own performance and their own management without reference to or interference by the local education authority, except by invitation, they have managed the appointments of staff remarkably well? Although there have been a number of helpful meetings between those representing Church schools and the department, some concerns still remain and we shall return to a number of detailed points at later stages of the Bill.
The Government's proposal to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven year-olds, while laudable in its aim, is not without its problems of implementation. So many questions on this were left unanswered in the other place. What does happen to the 31st child wishing to attend a village school which is many, many miles away from another school? What does happen to the 31st child wishing to attend a church school where there is no alternative church school in the area? Why could the Government not presume in favour of classes of 30 for five, six and seven year-olds while introducing some flexibility, even if it is controlled flexibility, for a school to accept one or two more children as long as it is underpinned by a consensus agreement of head, staff, governors and parents—or are they, too, not to be trusted?
Clauses 10 to 13, a mere four clauses, introduce proposals for the establishment of education action zones. I welcome the involvement of the private and voluntary sectors as partners in education. In fact, I am delighted that it was a Conservative government which pioneered such partnerships with the establishment of city technology colleges, which were the brainchild of my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking, who is, sadly, unable to be present today, and in the subsequent development of technology colleges and specialist schools under my noble friend Lord Patten and my right honourable friend Gillian Shephard. They have been

627
enormously successful, and I am delighted to say that the city technology colleges are to remain unaffected by the Bill.
However, I cannot remember such a wilful pre-emption of the will of Parliament as there has been over these proposals. This is one example in a long list of examples where power really has gone to the head of the Government. The contempt shown for Parliament and its processes is palpable. The Bill received its Second Reading on 22nd December. Bidding documents were sent out in January, not with the intention of informing interest groups which may he considering the proposals but inviting applications for the establishment of education action zones, with a closing date of 20th March. During that time, the Bill was still being considered by the other place. Extra finance for action zones was announced in the Budget, followed by a formal Statement to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Education, stating that five action zones would be in place by September this year, with a further 20 being up and running by January 1999.
I have asked on what authority that definitive Statement was made to both Houses, but to date I have not been told. This policy has yet to be discussed by this House and there are many questions to be answered about the implementation of what could be a far-reaching proposal which, if thought through properly and introduced on a more appropriate timescale, could be extremely exciting—although I have to admit to some reservations about a merger of such a large number of schools.
In just 18 weeks' time the first five action zones are to be in place, affecting up to 100 schools. Six of those weeks are taken up by school holidays. The Bill is unlikely to have received Royal Assent before July. Heads and staff will have to cope with planning for the coming academic year. Complicated contracts with private companies and/or other providers will have to be drawn up. New curriculum plans will need to be agreed. The action forum will have to be in place. The sharing and/or re-allocation of responsibilities will need to be determined. Plans for disapplication of teachers' pay and conditions will need to be drawn up; and parents, teachers and other school staff should be consulted. Much of this information should be worked out in outline and in some detail at the time of the application.
For example, what say will parents have, or have they had, in the drawing up of applications? I spoke to a parent recently in an area where I believe an application has been made and she was completely unaware of it. What assurance have parents been given that all this rushed activity will not interfere with the education of their children? Is the Minister really saying that all of this can be achieved in such a tight timescale without any disruption to the work of heads and their staff and the running of schools? If so, there must be a great deal of fallow time in the life of a teacher—a point I simply do not accept.
This is no way to introduce what could be an interesting approach to providing education with a view to raising standards. In fact we shall bring forward amendments to allow single schools to be run in
628
partnership with the private and voluntary sector but with the consent of parents and on a timescale which is appropriate for such a change.
One of the most incongruous aspects of the Bill is that, where education is failing, the Government are prepared to free schools from the national curriculum, from national pay and conditions of service, and even from local authority control; and yet grant-maintained schools or grammar schools which have proved beyond doubt that they not only can manage without intervention by local authorities but also produce high quality education are to be brought back under control. Where is the logic in that?
One has to take at face value that the Prime Minister is content with the education his sons are receiving at the Oratory School. If so, why is it that he is prepared to see the particular form of home school agreements, which I presume he signed, outlawed by the Bill? And why is it that the instruments and articles of government are not to be tailored to the needs of each school, with the option of adopting model forms only if schools so wish?
There are so many contradictions in the Bill. The Government claim that they want high quality education. Yet they set up mechanisms to destroy the most successful grant-maintained and grammar schools. They oppose selection on the basis of ability. They support selection on the basis of aptitude. They agree to allow selection to continue where it presently exists, hut then put in place measures to discontinue selection. What are we to make of that?
They allow parents within areas where there are grammar schools to petition and ballot for their demise but make no provision for parents to endorse proposals to change school structures, including the formation of action zones; and they deny the right of grammar schools to oppose a ballot. They exhort, quite rightly in my view, local authorities to pass more resources down to schools. Yet they have created a massive and costly increase in bureaucracy for local government with little promise of extra funding. They argue for greater simplicity. Yet they have created an unbelievably complex, convoluted and contradictory Bill. They argue that the Bill is about standards not structures, and yet, as we can now see for ourselves, it is about structures and bureaucracies.
Mr. Blair and Miss Harman have abandoned education in their respective local authorities and have sent their children to highly successful and autonomous grant-maintained and grammar schools. Yet they deny that right to future generations of children. What hypocrisy.
The Department for Education and Employment, LEA officials and egalitarians everywhere will rejoice in much of the Bill. The abolition of assisted places, which benefited many children from low income families preceded the Bill; and selection, the autonomy of grant-maintained schools and the very existence of grammar schools by the introduction of a rigged balloting system are all threatened.

629
It is a politically motivated Bill, egalitarian, statist and centralist in its philosophy: what cannot be done for everyone shall be done for no one. We shall fight vigorously to minimise its effects.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I begin, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, by looking forward to the maiden speeches. I happen to be the leader of a local education authority. The week before last we were privileged to have the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, open a new secondary school—the first secondary school built in my borough for over 30 years. He treated us to a splendid speech which addressed the parents, the teachers, the governors but most especially the pupils who were all present. If we are to hear half the speech today that we had then we are in for a treat. I suggested to the noble Lord that perhaps he should make his maiden speech in this debate today. His only concern was that as it was his maiden speech he was not allowed to be controversial. I should love to know what he would have said but feels unable to say.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, will feel no such inhibitions. If he wishes to be controversial, I am sure that we shall all—perhaps I should say all but one of us—look forward to his speech today.
I thank the Minister for the helpful and fairly detailed way in which she explained this massive Bill. It was no mean task to achieve in the relatively short time available to her. In responding for my party on the Bill, I am conscious that there will be many important aspects with which I shall not be able to deal today, although it is to be hoped that some of them will be referred to by my noble friends when they speak.
The Minister referred to the Bill having received a general welcome in another place. As I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I found it hard to detect any signs of a general welcome. The noble Baroness started by suggesting that old Labour had turned into new Labour and stated that the Bill was dominated by socialist dogma. I am not sure what dominates and distinguishes new Labour, but I am quite certain that it is not socialist dogma. The noble Baroness referred to a paper chase. I thought that that came rather rich from a party which introduced nursery vouchers. She referred to pre-legislative work in the introduction of education action zones. I thought that that, too, came a bit rich from the party which introduced nursery vouchers and extended the assisted places scheme to under 11 year-olds in the face of a general election which was virtually certain to reverse such a move.
My party gives a general welcome to the Bill. In another place we voted for it at both Second and Third Reading. I think that it is a better Bill as it leaves the Commons than when it arrived. But there are still many much needed improvements to be made, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that we have an important role to play in this House.
My honourable friend in another place, Don Foster, described the Bill at Second Reading as a mixture of the good, the bad and the ugly. I cannot think of a better
630
phrase so I shall borrow it. Our intention is to make the good in the Bill better, improve the bad, and at the very least give a facelift to the ugly.
Inevitably most of our considerations on the Bill will concentrate on issues about which we are not entirely happy and about some of which we are very unhappy. Therefore I wish to begin by referring to some of the issues in the Bill which come into the category of good. I welcome the emphasis on partnership and co-operation, components that are long overdue and very necessary. I welcome the recognition of the LEA's statutory role in raising standards; and the concentration on standards, although I shall say more about structure and framework later.
We welcome the drive to reduce class sizes. I shall say more about that later. We welcome the introduction of base line assessment; we welcome particularly the final end to nursery vouchers; and, last of all, we welcome the end of corporal punishment. We shall, I hope, hear no more on that subject following the passage of the Bill.
I turn to some of the general concerns we have about the Bill. Here, perhaps I do have a little more in common with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The Bill, once again, gives yet more powers to the Secretary of State. The Labour Party in opposition joined with us during the passage of the Education Reform Act 1988 in deploring the fact that the measure gave some 500 additional powers to the Secretary of State. I have not yet done the calculation on this Bill but I would guess that there are something approaching another 100 powers being given to the Secretary of State—yet more centralisation.
So much of the Bill is again left to regulations, to codes of practice, to guidance notes, and so forth. I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that that is not acceptable. If it is to happen, such documents must, at the very least, come before the House.
The other area typified by the Bill, but more particularly in the regulations, the codes of practice and so on, which will follow, is the tendency of this Government to be so prescriptive in what they are doing—telling people how to do things, not what they should do. As I have said previously in this House, the role of the politician in education is to provide the framework and the resources and to set the targets. But, above all, it is to let the professionals do the job for which they have been trained. I can reflect this in my own household. I happen to be married to an infant schoolteacher. I am the leader of her LEA. It is my job to provide the resources, and she does occasionally remind me of that. However, it is her job to teach her children how to read and I would not presume to tell her, as a politician, how she should do that-1 simply do not know. She has been trained and she does it very much better than I ever could.
I now turn to some of the specific provisions in the Bill; I shall omit quite a number. I have already referred to the desire to reduce infant class sizes, which we wholly support. I wonder what is the view of the Conservative Party on that now. I can remember, not so many months ago, being attacked from the Front Bench

631
of the Conservative Party when I proposed the reduction of class sizes and being described, I believe, by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who is to speak later, as "old Labour". That did wonders for enhancing my reputation on the Benches which are now opposite me, but I wonder whether there has been another change in Conservative Party thinking and whether these proposals are old Labour or new Labour or simply proposals which have always come from the Liberal Democrats.
We feel that the Government are not going far enough. We would wish to extend the drive to reduce class sizes to all primary school classes. I remind your Lordships that there are some 480,000 children aged under seven in primary schools but 780,000 aged over seven in those schools. We wish to see the programme extended, and in time, one hopes, it will be. In the meantime, although we strongly support the reduction in class sizes, we have concerns about the effect on the rest of the school.
In common with many of your Lordships we have concerns about how the policy is to be implemented, how rigidly it is to be applied—a point which has already been made—the effect in rural areas, and also about that infamous 31st child to which I am sure we will refer time and time again. These are crucially important matters but I do not wish to lose sight of our overall objective which is to achieve a reduction in infant class sizes.
Another concern I have, which perhaps belongs here, is that the Government seem very willing to legislate, for instance, about nutritional standards for school meals but very unwilling to legislate about minimum space standards in classrooms. I think, dare I say it, that that is an even more important issue. It may or may not be that children do or do not learn better with or without chips but I think it is undeniable that they learn better with a proper educational environment. That is something to which we shall return.
We welcome the proposed inspections of local education authorities. As I said earlier, I am leader of one such authority. I see nothing to fear and quite a lot to be gained from such inspections but I have to recognise that Ofsted has no experience in inspecting LEAs. I hope that the Audit Commission can also be engaged in partnership with Ofsted in such inspections. I believe that the Audit Commission has a very valuable role to play.
The proposals for educational development plans are welcome. I am sure that many LEAs already have them but it is important that they should be promoted. I shall have more to say about the role of the LEAs, particularly in relation to target setting, but I am conscious that we are in the midst of the consultation period on EDPs, which I believe ends on 8th May. That will coincide with the start of the Committee stage of the Bill. I wonder if the Minister can say at what stage she will be able to come to the House with the results of the consultation. It would be especially useful if the Government were able to say what they intended to do as a result of that consultation. In that way our
632
consideration of this aspect of the Bill could be informed by the results of the consultation and the Government's plans relating to it.
Next, education action zones. As the Minister will know, those proposals received a very enthusiastic response from my colleagues in the other place. I have to say, perhaps because I am from an LEA, that I am a little more cautious than they are, or perhaps I am just more cautious because I am in this place and not in the other place. I recognise that there is a great potential for education action zones. I am sure that at later stages of the Bill we will pay very close and positive attention to trying to get them more clearly understood and recognised, particularly the role of the LEA.
One specific concern to which I hope the Minister can respond is the need for an exit strategy. It may well be, in some circumstances, that a school will wish to, or need to, leave an education action zone early. What provision will there be to enable that to happen, by consent if that is appropriate? What is to happen at the end of the period of the education action zone when there will inevitably be some mismatch between schools within the zone and schools, probably in the same LEA area, which are not in the zone?
I turn to the rather more controversial and perhaps the "ugly" part of the Bill, and that is the framework. Our attitude to grant maintained status and grant maintained schools is well known. For many years we had that in common with the Labour Party when it was in opposition. It follows for us, although apparently not for the Government, that we now also oppose foundation status. We will return to that, I am sure, in greater detail. I am especially concerned about what I think it has to be said is the changed view of the Government on creating foundation special schools which, at an earlier stage in the Green Paper, they were suggesting were not appropriate—for reasons set out very well in that Green Paper—but which they now seem to feel are appropriate. We disagree. We believe there should simply be voluntary schools and community schools, and that community schools should all come within the framework of a light touch local education authority.
School organisation committees are possibly a good idea. They have a role to play, but it should be an advisory role. For better and sometimes for worse, the local education authority is the democratically elected authority and it should be the authority with the power. There is a valuable role for an advisory body and the partnership which we all welcome, but it is an advisory role. I regret, therefore, the establishment of what is in effect a quango to override the views and wishes of the democratically elected local education authority. We shall return to the membership of the school organisation committees.
I turn next to the other area where we on these Benches used to feel we had something in common with the Labour Party when in opposition. I refer to the whole issue of selection and partial selection. We all recall the speech of the present Secretary of State, not when he was the firebrand leader of Sheffield Council, but only a few years ago at the 1995 Labour Party conference—the "Watch my lips" speech. He must now

633
regret ever having said, "Watch my lips: no selection by exam or by interview." I look forward to the Minister's explanation of exactly how the Bill implements probably the clearest pledge given by the Labour Party in opposition so close to the general election. I cannot see it. I think it is clearly a broken promise and one we shall expose and oppose as strongly and as vigorously as we can.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, although from an opposite standpoint from mine, we look forward to interesting but, I suspect, not very illuminating debates on exactly what is the difference between selection by ability and selection by aptitude. I believe that such selection is wrong, and using a different "A" word does not make it right.
I turn now to admission arrangements. It is an enormously vexed question, particularly in smaller LEAs in larger conurbations. Last year, I believe, there were 62,900 appeals against allocation of school places. Those parents felt it was worth going through the anguish and trauma because they were so dissatisfied with the offer that had been made to them, or, in an increasing number of cases, because they were dissatisfied that no offer had been made to them. There must have been many more parents who accepted, albeit unhappily, the offer made to them.
Present admission arrangements are a nightmare. In outer London particularly and some other conurbations, the Greenwich judgment forbids LEAs giving preference to pupils living within their own area. The effect of that judgment has been devastating. In large numbers of LEAs now, over 20 per cent. of the secondary pupils come from outside the area. In some LEAs, it is much higher than that and in some schools it is considerably more than half. I speak with experience of my own LEA.
While we would not wish to discriminate against such pupils, it is increasingly hard for parents within an LEA to understand why their child cannot get a place at their local school—be it selective or non-selective—when a child who lives many miles away can get a place. In my borough in south west London, we have children travelling from Brighton every day to school. That cannot he right. I accept that the solution is difficult, but it must be found and the Bill is an opportunity for us to try to find it.
I have not dealt with many other important aspects of the Bill and I do not have time today to do so. For example, there is the whole question of home-school agreements, to which we shall return; and the role of governors, an increasingly onerous one but one we shall need to debate further. There is the suggestion of having parents' representatives on education committees. In one sense perhaps that is hard to oppose, but it smacks to me of tokenism, serving very little purpose. There is the whole wide area of nursery education and nursery provision which is different from having four year-olds in reception classes. There is the increasingly important and vexed area of exclusions, to which I know we shall pay much attention. I am uneasy about the role of the proposed adjudicator which seems to me rather akin to that of the Department of the Environment inspector in
634
planning appeals. Here we are not talking about planning appeals, but about children's education. That seems to be inappropriate.
The most important area which I shall deliberately not talk about is special educational needs. I shall not do so, not because I have nothing to say but because it is extremely important and I know that my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood intends to refer to it in her speech. My noble friend Lord Addington will move amendments at a later stage to promote our views on it.
In conclusion, we will approach the Bill as a constructive opposition should. We will oppose vigorously those aspects with which we fundamentally disagree. As I said, most of those aspects are ones on which the Labour Party was once in agreement with us. But where we broadly agree—and that is on the greater part of the Bill—we will propose amendments to improve the Bill still further. We want the Bill to leave the House in a better state than when it arrived.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Hattersley: My Lords, it is 34 years since I last made a maiden speech. Back in 1964, I was buoyed up by the brash confidence of youth and total ignorance of how many mistakes it is possible to make on such an occasion as this. Unfortunately, today I enjoy neither of those advantages. The height of my ambition is to make a wholly unmemorable maiden speech.
My apprehension is increased by the fact that since I took my seat in November, many noble Lords have stopped me in the precincts of the House and told me, in the nicest possible way, that I am a known constitutional reformer. I plead absolutely guilty to the charge. That is the product of a misspent youth. At the first political meeting I attended at the age of 11, the local Member of Parliament—second only in my hierarchy of heroes to Sir Leonard Hutton—said, when asked about the House of Lords: "Don't mend them; end them". He became a Viscount four years later.
I say in my own defence that I am not at all convinced that a Chamber of the British Parliament which is based on patronage is much of a democratic improvement on one which is based on heredity.
Having said all that, I hope that I may be allowed to make a couple of comments about the Bill, including my appreciation and understanding of the honour it is to be able to do so as a Member of your Lordships' House. I see absolutely no paradox in having reservations about the institution and unashamed admiration for many of its Members, not least of whom is the other maiden speaker who is to follow me this afternoon. We met over 40 years ago at a lecture given by Professor Milton Friedman. He, having kept the rest of the audience in awe, was totally destroyed when a young man at the back said, "That's all very well, Professor Milton Friedman, but it doesn't make any sense to me". The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, may not find that all noble Lords' speeches are exactly of the kind she would welcome and applaud.
I wish to ask my noble friend three questions about the Bill. I understand perfectly well that my duty is to be uncontroversial and that duty I shall do my best to

635
observe. Much of the Bill I applaud and welcome and I look forward to supporting it. As a Member of Parliament for over 30 years for an inner city, I particularly welcome the provisions that concentrate on action areas of special need, nursery provision and reduction in class sizes, all of which intentions are particularly important to areas of special deprivation.
However, while I welcome much of the Bill, there is one part which I find nearly incomprehensible. I ask the Minister three questions which I believe obey the rule of non-controversiality because they are more to do with logic than ideology. They concern, of course, Clauses 93 to 97. I was very nearly reconciled to them when the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, described them as the beginnings of a socialist El Dorado—very nearly reconciled, but even on this ecumenical occasion, not quite.
My first question concerns Clause 97, the clause which allows selection not according to ability, but according to aptitude. Can my noble friend give us a definition of aptitude which is different from the definition of ability? She knows, because she is the great expert on these matters, that in practice whichever test is imposed produces virtually the same result. The same children go to a selective school whether they are chosen because of ability or aptitude. She knows too that choosing on aptitude or ability produces a hierarchy of schools in a specific area. I am sure that both my noble friend and the Government are opposed to the creation of hierarchical schools for many reasons with which I shall not weary the House this afternoon.
My second and third questions concern Clauses 94 and 99 to 101. Is it the Government's view that it is possible—I do not say "desirable"; I say "possible"—for comprehensive schools and selective schools to exist side by side within the same catchment area? That is the presumption upon which some clauses seem to be built. It seems to me to be a matter of logic rather than idealogy that if some schools are selective, by definition those which are next door to them cannot be comprehensive. I shall be grateful if my noble friend will offer me her expert opinion on that matter.
Finally, I have a question in relation to the whole of Chapter II, perhaps the whole of the Bill. The Secretary of State told us time after time that the Bill, like the policy, is based on the nostrum that the Government are concerned with standards, not structures—an idea which, in my view, he recklessly stole from an embarrassing little book on political philosophy from Mr. Peter Mandelson. Surely structure and standards cannot be separated. We may disagree across the House and perhaps on the Front Benches as to the best form of structure and organisation, but we choose the form which we prefer because we believe it produces the best results. There is no distinction between structure and standards. The Minister came very near to saying that in her introductory remarks this afternoon. Many of us will feel immensely reassured if she can confirm that the drive to change structures is intimately related to the drive to improve standards and that the two things cannot be separated.
636
I do not propose to occupy my final minutes with a litany of praise for those many parts of the Bill with which I agree. There is enough Back-Bench sycophancy in the other place to occupy two Houses of Parliament. I therefore content myself with saying to my noble friend that I ask my questions today in a rhetorical sense in the knowledge that one day I will be able to return to them in a more robust form when the obligation to avoid controversy no longer confines me. All I do today is express my thanks for your Lordships' courtesy and repeat what a great privilege it is on this occasion—and a few others in the future—to speak in such distinguished company.
4.13 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I have the privilege of being the first of your Lordships to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, on his maiden speech. I must tell him that his ambition was not realised. I cannot imagine that anything he said would be unmemorable and I am sure that his first speech in your Lordships' House will remain with us. In particular, the questions addressed to his noble friend on the Front Bench will remain with us during the debates on the Bill, especially in relation to aptitude and the placing side by side of non-selective and selective schools. His first point in relation to standards is one that I want to take up later.
I thank the noble Lord for a speech which was full of the wisdom, experience and native wit which we have come to expect from him. I look forward to his enlivening your Lordships' proceedings in the future. I look forward also to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, many of us have sat at his feet in the past and we look forward to doing so again in this House.
I must first declare an interest. I speak as the chairman of the Church of England Board of Education and chairman of the Churches Joint Education Policy Committee. I shall therefore be speaking in this Second Reading debate from the perspective of Church schools. The School Standards and Framework Bill is the most significant piece of educational legislation since the Education Reform Act 1988 and, arguably, since the 1944 Act.
The Churches were major partners in the 1944 settlement. They have continued to make a distinguished and distinctive contribution to the total education provision in this country. Church schools today are widely acknowledged as providers of excellent education. I welcome the Government's support for Church schools and their intention to preserve their place and character. I am grateful to the Minister for articulating those intentions yet again this afternoon.
When the proposals for consultation were published last year, the suggested framework raised considerable difficulties for Church schools. In particular, the placing of controlled schools in the foundation category with former grant-maintained schools was an unhappy arrangement. Grant-maintained schools have deliberately chosen to leave the local education

637
authority; controlled schools had resisted that temptation and decided to stay with the authority. It was not surprising that that was seen as a difficult proposal.
Other proposals affected the foundation governor balance of aided schools, the religious education arrangements for different categories of schools, the powers of the adjudicator and a range of other issues. The proposed framework meant that, in the Church's view, a substantial shift was taking place which might well jeopardise the future of Church schools. That view was at first resisted by the Government. The Secretary of State assured Church schools in a letter to the Daily Mail last August that they had nothing to fear. Continuing and strong representations were made and the force of the arguments (coupled with media coverage) resulted in a number of changes which are embodied in the Bill.
From the perspective of Church schools it is now a very much better Bill than as originally proposed, as the Minister said in her introductory speech. The categories have been changed so that Church-aided and controlled schools together form the voluntary category. Other issues, many of them quite detailed, have been resolved in consultation. The level of consultation between civil servants of the Department for Education and Employment and the staff of the Catholic Education Service, the Church of England Board of Education and the Free Church Council has been high. That has been matched by consultation at ministerial and Church leader level.
The Churches believe that the majority of our concerns have been met. I thank the Minister, her colleagues in government and the staff of her department for their willingness to listen and to work in partnership with the Churches. I also express the thanks of the Churches for the changes which have been made in the Bill to meet our concerns.
A number of concerns remain, to which I shall refer in a moment. But before doing so, I move from framework to standards and pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley. A proper framework is essential for the delivery of standards; the two cannot be separated. The Churches make no apology for the energy we have expended on getting the framework right, particularly in relation to Church schools. Of course we share the aspirations of the Government and the country as a whole for the raising of standards and believe that we need to get the structure right in order to do so.
Church schools are widely regarded as excellent schools, delivering high standards not only of test and examination performance but also of personal development, growth and maturity. I should like to dwell for a moment upon that aspect of education.
People are not tools to be improved and honed in order to make a contribution to a better economic performance. It is a travesty of education to see it in such terms. Each of us is an individual, unique and distinct, with personal dimensions of existence which characterise who we are and where we belong. The significance of the spiritual and moral dimensions and the framework of values in which they are set cannot be
638
overemphasised—self-worth, self-confidence, belonging to a community, learning from mistakes, a sense of purpose and many other elements which are key in educational development and in the ability to learn.
The debate over spiritual, moral, social and cultural development is not peripheral to educational attainment and achievement but at the heart of it. Church schools, undergirded by a community of faith with a common sense of belonging and a shared belief, are able to focus on education in a wide sense, providing a framework of shared values and pastoral concern in the setting of a belief system. That is perhaps something of the secret of their success. In the Churches, we are broadly satisfied with the developing system for monitoring the delivery of spiritual, moral, social and cultural development and we wish to continue emphasising the supreme significance of this whole area of education.
Mention of the significance of the individual leads me on to the importance of measuring achievement against potential. To measure achievement in absolute terms and to be dominated by the tyranny of the league tables may well lead a school to exclude subtly, by one means or another, those whose performance may affect such tables. I am thinking here, for instance, of those with special educational needs—I look forward very much to the contributions from the Liberal Democrat Bench on this theme—and those with behavioural difficulties. They need as much attention as any youngster, and responsibility to them should not be abdicated for the sake of a better position in the tables. The majority of schools, voluntary and county, resist this temptation, but we need to be reminded of the importance of this issue.
I indicated earlier that the Churches have a number of continuing concerns. I should like briefly to mention them. The concern mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is not one that we share with the same intensity as she expressed. I refer to the matter of the 14-day period for consultation with the local education authority on the appointment of staff to aided schools. When it was a consultation that had to take place after the meeting of the appointing committee, it was a much more difficult issue, requiring a 14-day delay before a member of staff or a head could be appointed. Now that it takes place at the shortlisting stage rather than at the appointment stage it causes fewer difficulties for the Churches.
However, a number of important concerns do remain, not least the Human Rights Bill and its consequences for voluntary, and particularly aided, schools. The Human Rights Bill embodies in British legislation the European Convention on Human Rights. The Churches, as I made clear in the debates on the Bill, support its thrust but we are concerned that its provisions may work to the detriment of the Churches. Among these issues are those relating to Church schools. This matter was brought up at the Report and Third Reading stages of the Human Rights Bill. During those stages the Lord Chancellor said that it was entirely right that a governing body should appoint or dismiss a senior staff member of a school whose beliefs or way of life were not appropriate to the school concerned. An amendment embodying a similar provision was passed in your Lordships' House at Third Reading.

639
I saw the Home Secretary over this issue and he invited me to write to him so that he could discuss whether this Bill—the School Standards and Framework Bill—was an appropriate place for some of the safeguards which your Lordships inserted into the Human Rights Bill. I have written in response to his invitation. I should like to ask the Minister whether she is in a position to comment on whether such safeguards are intended in this Bill.
Let me briefly mention a number of other issues. First, on the issue of class sizes, the Churches support this policy but we do have concerns about the impact both upon schools and upon children. This issue is giving cause for great concern among heads and governors. There are practical issues of implementation and there are uncertainties in relation to funding. It is of great importance that these issues should be quickly resolved. Many Church schools serve an identified area or community. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has already said, what will happen to the 31st child in such schools? We need urgently to have answers to the questions that we are raising.
There is an issue over the part of the Bill relating to schools that are causing concern. At the present moment, under existing legislation, the Secretary of State has power to appoint an education association to run a failing school. That power originates in the 1993 Act. At that time we were able to secure two safeguards for Church schools: first, where an education association was to be appointed to conduct a Church school, the appropriate diocesan authority was to be consulted; secondly, where the school in question was a voluntary school, at least one member of the education association was to have experience of voluntary schools.
The power to appoint an education association is to be replaced by the power of the Secretary of State, in extreme circumstances, to appoint additional governors. In the case of a Church school, these governors will be additional to the existing governors, and that includes the foundation governors. Since the foundation governors are already present, we do not press for the Secretary of State's additional governors to include people with voluntary school experience. However, it has to be remembered that if additional governors were appointed by the Secretary of State to an aided school, the foundation majority would be lost. Moreover, where the Secretary of State exercises this power to appoint additional governors, the diocesan authority's power to appoint additional governors is lost. In the circumstances, in order to maintain the status quo, we would wish to see on the face of the Bill a requirement that the Secretary of State should consult the appropriate diocesan authority before appointing additional governors for a Church aided school.
We have continuing concerns in the area of the change of school category. We remain concerned about the proper level of diocesan or Church authority involvement in decisions of schools to change category. We are also concerned about similar involvement in changes within a category. With the new category of voluntary now proposed, changes from controlled to aided or aided to controlled would be within a category.
640
But we would wish to be clear on what level of diocesan involvement there is to be in decisions to move within a category.
The Bill will produce a new regime on grant funding for aided schools and also on the recovery of state-funded assets when school sites are sold. The Churches accept the principle of recycling embodied in this part of the Bill but we have concerns about the details of such arrangements and will be raising those concerns in Committee.
Mention has already been made of school organisation committees. There will be a number of groups on the committees. Our understanding is that each of those groups will have a single vote. So the Church of England group will have a single vote on the Committee and the Catholic Church group will have a single vote. Decisions, therefore, are required to be unanimous. That means that the Churches have virtually a veto in that their vote is required to secure that unanimous decision; otherwise the matter is referred to the adjudicator.
It was on this understanding of the voting procedure that we accepted the concept of the school organisation committee in principle. However, we are concerned that the voting requirements are to be left to regulations. While we can accept the Government's assurance that regulations will make the provisions which the Government say they will, the Churches' position is nevertheless vulnerable because, whatever the first regulations provide, they can always be changed in the future if perhaps the rights of the Churches are found by some to be inconvenient. We look, therefore, for these voting requirements to be on the face of the Bill and not left to regulation.
There is an issue, perhaps a rather surprising one, in relation to collective worship. Since the Education Reform Act 1988 all schools are required to have an act of collective worship, and in county schools this must be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character unless a SACRE has determined otherwise. Surprisingly, in voluntary schools there is no such requirement. This gap is perpetuated in the Bill. In community schools and in foundation schools without a religious character, the worship must be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character. In voluntary schools and foundation schools with a religious character, the Bill, as previous Bills, is silent as to the character of their collective worship.
It may be that this is prescribed by the school's trust deed, but that is not always so. The trust deeds of Church of England schools do not invariably contain express provision for collective worship. There is therefore an anomaly here that secular schools will be required to have a broadly Christian collective worship but schools with a Christian religious character will not. For that reason we shall be seeking provisions in the Bill so that collective worship for schools with a religious character is clearly stated to be collective worship which is in accordance with that character. That will not force unwelcome changes on Church schools in multicultural areas; it will merely endorse and validate the existing

641
practices in Church schools throughout the country for which at present it is impossible to point to any clear statutory justification.
I have indicated the areas of concern and we shall be returning to them at Committee stage. I believe that this Bill is vastly improved on its original proposed form. I look forward to working in your Lordships' House to improve it yet further.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I rise with much diffidence and anxiety, but reassured by your kind words of greeting for which I give my thanks. I am conscious that it is the tradition of the House, as the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, said, for a maiden speech to be brief and non-controversial. I am delighted to be able to speak briefly, but to be non-controversial in education will challenge all the expertise that I developed in 33 years as a civil servant when one's proud aspiration—if one was persuaded from one's cupboard to speak—was then to sit down in the sure knowledge that one had said absolutely nothing of any significance whatever.
While I am new to this game, I have to confess that my apprenticeship goes back 40 years to when, on one occasion in 1958, I sat in the Officials Box as a private secretary to Lord Mills, the Minister of Power. He was dealing with the Committee stage of the Opencast Coal Bill. He came to a particular amendment and delivered himself of the very full and expert brief kindly provided by his officials. He thankfully sat down. Lord Ridley, who was well known to be expert on that Bill—whereas it was equally well known that Lord Mills was not—thanked Lord Mills for his long speech, but asked for clarification and amplification. Then followed one of the most agonising ages of my life. Lord Mills rose to his feet to respond. He looked anxiously at the long text that he had been given. I sat there totally unable to help. The silence grew and grew. Then inspiration descended on Lord Mills. He looked Lord Ridley in the face and said, "I thought I had made myself perfectly clear". He said a few more words and sat down and thus outfaced Lord Ridley, thanking him most courteously for what he had said and promising to read Hansard.
That experience taught me much of the character of this House: its courtesy, kindliness and understanding and that a Minister, however gifted—of course, I know from my Civil Service years that all Ministers are outstandingly able and gifted—occasionally needs a little time for reflection. That is the point I shall return to at the conclusion of my remarks.
Mindful of the need to be non-controversial, I carefully scripted my speech last week only to realise to my horror yesterday, reading the evening papers, that the subject I had chosen was leading to industrial action. I found myself looking at my notes this morning in much the same spirit as Lord Mills and thinking what on earth shall I do? I came to the conclusion that perhaps at small risk I might address one or two points in the Bill.
On more than one occasion I have quoted the remarks made by Disraeli about 125 years ago that the future of the people of this country rests in the eduction of the people of this country. We must all applaud a Bill whose
642
purpose is to raise standards. I have spent the past few years arguing that our standards must match the best in the world.
But when I say that, I have a particular concern that in raising standards we should have regard in particular for that 20 per cent. who succeed least in our educational system. As the investment one has in one's education becomes more and more important to one's life, the danger is that, unless we are careful, we shall have a fractured society in which we have 20 per cent. who have lost out as a result of our inability to serve them well in their years of compulsory schooling.
As I read the Bill it struck me that there are three particular sections which appeal to me in that context. The first is its concern in Chapter I with class sizes in the first years of schooling, for it is in those early years that the battle for the beginnings of mastery in the basics of literacy begin to be won or lost. If good progress is not made in those early years the child is handicapped and tends to retrogress in relation to his or her peers because of the gap between him and them in the ability to master our national language. More time with the teacher will be particularly valuable to those children.
Linked to that are Clauses 103 and 104 which are about home-parent agreements. I rank the involvement of parents in the education of their children, in partnership with the school, as being outstandingly important. Perhaps the greatest gift that a parent has to give to a child, apart from parental love in these years, is to be constructively, patiently, lovingly engaged in supporting the school in the education of the child. So I welcome the concept of bringing parents into that kind of relationship with home-school agreements. Paper is fine; but what matters much more is the action of people. I admire so much those head teachers and teachers who go "on the knocker" after school to meet parents and to ensure that they are involved with the teachers in the education of the children.
My third and last reference to the Bill relates, I believe, to Clauses 105 and 106, which give a broadening of opportunities for 14 to 16 year-olds which is so important. Those clauses are concerned with work experience which is valuable to all, giving in controlled, thought-through circumstances an opportunity for 14 to 16 year-olds to take part of their education in a further education college. I have in mind here those young people who have felt that the normal school education had nothing for them. They had, as it were, switched out. They were destined to leave at 16 with the conclusion that education was not for them. What a disaster for their lives!
These openings of opportunities at 14 to 16 years of age give a second chance to kindle interest and enthusiasm and the realisation that the basics of formal education are relevant to the business and enjoyment of life. When I was working in the educational world of schools, I remember contending for the introduction of a version of that impossibly named GNVQ for children between 14 and 16 years of age. I was rather disappointed that the last government would not go with me in the rapid introduction of that opportunity for 14 to 16 year-olds in order to help these young people

643
and to rescue them. I concede that I was wrong to be in haste. They were right to say, "We must pilot this carefully. We must get it right before it is launched". I now believe that with the opening up of the opportunity with FE colleges who can offer the skills which are so essential if this initiative is to succeed, particularly in areas such as engineering and manufacturing, we can now move forward with confidence. They are the three points that I want to make to the noble Baroness in relation to those who are most in need of our support.
From my old trade as a civil servant perhaps I may presume to offer a word of counsel. We should take a little time to get it right. We have a history of being, understandably, in haste but getting it wrong. I believe that spending a little time on getting the procedures right will greatly benefit this well-intentioned Bill.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, it is my great pleasure to be the first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, on his admirable maiden speech. He comes to this House with wide experience in the Civil Service, industry and education. We are all very conscious that at the time of the passage through this House of the Teaching and Higher Education Bill his name was constantly bandied about. His report has been constantly referred to and has been read with admiration by all those who follow educational matters. It is a particular pleasure to hear him today. We look forward to hearing him on many occasions. I should like to put to him one question. When I read his entry in Who's Who I was interested to note that his recreations included car boot sales. I was not quite sure whether his interest was as a buyer or seller. He may wish to have a conversation with a distinguished Member of your Lordships' House, whose personal living arrangements have been much in the news, as to whether he might offer him a little advice as a result of his hobbies.
I also offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, to whom I also listened with great admiration. I often read his articles in the newspapers and magazines with very great pleasure. I assure him that I did not believe his speech, which was splendid, to be written either by Mr. Mandelson or Mr. Campbell.
We have before us today a Bill of immense length and complexity. It is almost impossible to master the whole of it unless one has an army of research assistants, which I do not, let alone read and digest all of the documents that go with it. The best that one can do in a Second Reading speech is to try to draw out some of the principles of the Bill—or should I say prejudices?—which lie behind it. We can expect a long and contentious Committee stage as we attempt to examine the Bill in detail—and examine it we must. Like so much of what the Government have produced by way of legislation, many of the important details have been left out or remain uncertain. This kind of policy is now known in Mandelsonspeak as transparency.
The noble Baroness has introduced the Bill this afternoon. I congratulate her on covering so much of it in 25 minutes. As is the custom of this House, I thank
644
her for it. We are very pleased to see her here. Only last week we were all touched to see her parading as Cool Britannia and explaining to us that it was from 1st May that the country had become innovative, excellent at engineering and high tech and able to develop everything that the 21st century and beyond would require. That is a tremendous achievement in 11 months. As she read her speech this afternoon I had the feeling that she also believed that the education system had started on 1st May and would transform everything, if it had not already succeeded in doing so in those 11 months. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Tope, echo the remarks of the noble Baroness, which was a classic example of the Labour/Liberal Democrat pact on so many matters. That was also well illustrated in some of the extraordinary episodes during the proceedings on the Teaching and Higher Education Bill that has just passed through this House. I agree with my noble friend Lady Blatch that this is not new Labour but in reality old Labour. We shall see as it proceeds.
I turn to the constitutional issues raised by the Bill. There are at least 53 sets of regulations under the Bill which are still to be tabled. They leave out a great deal of what we have to discuss. I was interested to hear the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon on this matter. I have no doubt that others will make similar comments. During the passage of the Teaching and Higher Education Bill noble Lords found it difficult to discuss much of the Bill because it was simply a skeleton. At times the debate descended into almost a farce. I wonder if we shall see the same thing today.
My noble friend Lady Blatch set out so clearly the problems raised by education action zones. I understand that decisions on these must be taken by April. One wonders whether there is any point in debating them at all in your Lordships' House or whether all of the decisions have already been taken and noble Lords are just here as a rubber stamp. I believe that education action zones are one of the more interesting and important developments in the Bill. They are to do with standards. It would be a very unhappy course of events if our remarks were to be of no account at all because all of the important decisions had already been taken. For a House, whose principal function is to revise Bills, to be left out in this way is a constitutional insult.
The Bill is entitled "Standards and Framework". I agree with other speakers that there is considerably more about framework than standards, although exactly the opposite was promised in the White Paper Excellence in Schools. I am driven to the conclusion that, just as the Labour Party believed for very many years that it could solve all the economic problems of the United Kingdom by a great state plan, it now believes that by this Bill it can solve all of the educational problems by a huge plan all laid out in embarrassing complexity.
We have seen one change after another from the Labour Party. It was entirely opposed to the tripartite system. It was a great believer in comprehensive schools which were brought in with very little experience of them and which it now claims have failed entirely. It now intends to go for something else: community

645
schools, foundation schools and voluntary schools. That will lead to further upheaval in the education service. I would have thought that that was the last thing that it needed.
In this framework there are 66 powers for local education authorities and 77 powers for the Secretary of State. That is a good deal to put on poor teachers who at the end of the road are responsible for delivering what takes place in schools. I am hardly surprised that some threaten to strike. Like my noble friend Lady Blatch, I have never supported teachers who strike, but I understand their exhaustion at the volume of regulations to which they are subjected.
I cannot resist mentioning that the long arm of the Secretary of State has reached down into school meals and school lunches in Clause 107. I shall be delighted to see what comes out of this. I offer a piece of free advice. When the school meals service reaches the proper nutritional standards Ministers should remember the old proverb that one can take a horse to water but cannot make it drink. The truth of the matter is that governments can only provide the circumstances in which high standards can be achieved. All those who take an interest in educational matters know perfectly well that high standards depend more than anything else on the head of the school and the standards that he or she sets, the expectations that he or she determines for the pupils, the leadership that he or she gives to the staff and the co-operation that he or she can inculcate in parents. No exhortations, plans, or anything else, are a substitute for those basic facts.
As we know, good schools are consumer-led. Parents identify with them, as of course we know the Prime Minister and Mrs. Harman have done. Perhaps I may offer a word about school governors. They have an important role to play. I have been a governor of independent schools and maintained schools: of a grammar school and of a secondary modern school. There is much that a governor can and should do. If one has a had head teacher it is difficult for any governor to put right the difficulties that a school faces. It is no use pretending that sending in a few new governors will put the school right. Schools do not work in that way.
If the Government really want high standards—I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt, and accept that they would like to see high standards—we need to look at their track record. In the Teaching and Higher Education Bill they have signalled the end of Oxbridge as internationally renowned universities. The report in The Times of yesterday merely confirms the fears we all had during the passage of that Bill.
The Government have already disposed of the assisted places scheme which meant so much to a number of poor children who benefited from independent schools. I think today of a girl who has just got a place at Oxford, who would unquestionably have failed to get anywhere had she been left in the area in which she lived.
The Bill signals—it is no use dressing schools up in another name—the ending of grant-maintained schools, regarded, of course, as good enough for the Prime Minister's children, and I am not surprised. Although
646
they represent only 6 per cent. of all schools in England and Wales they amounted to 50 per cent. of the top 100 schools in the A-levels list. They have increased spending on additional staff, books and equipment.
I have been honoured to be a patron of a grant-maintained school in Lambeth called St. Martin-in-the-Fields. Nearly 90 per cent. of its pupils come from the ethnic minorities. It went grant-maintained in 1993. It has no sixth form. It takes pupils up to GCSE. It has raised its standards. In 1993 only 19 per cent. of pupils achieved A to C grades. But since then, despite difficult circumstances, it has raised its standards and the percentage of pupils achieving those grades has risen to 35 per cent.
To go to that school is to be inspired. It has a wonderful head; a sense of purpose and order; and there is pride in being at the school. What is wrong with that? It is good. Why should we apologise for grant-maintained schools? The Minister read out the letter from the grant-maintained schools organisation that I have also received. I sometimes wonder what lies behind such things. I know, as many of us know, that when ballots were being held for schools to go grant-maintained, teachers, schools and parents were subjected to an endless stream of abuse, and propaganda against the exercise. I suspect that they are being subjected in a similar way now that the Bill is before us.
I make no apology for the success of the grant-maintained schools. I think only of the children who attend them, and the upheaval that the Bill will cause them. They will lose their independence. They will have LEA-appointed governors. There will be restrictions on their admissions criteria, and their financial autonomy is ended. It is easy to talk about co-operation: we all want to see it. It is a pity that we did not see a bit more co-operation when we were in government and Labour controlled many local authorities. There was not much co-operation then from anyone in respect of anything that they did not want.
Let us turn to the grammar schools. They will be subject to ballots. We do not know how the ballots will work. I must read the Minister's speech carefully because it was complicated and difficult to follow. Apparently 20 per cent. of parents will trigger a ballot, but we do not know who will be entitled to vote, what will be the circumstances of the voting, and who will monitor it.
One thing of which we can be sure—bad as it will be for the pupils—the staff will be the ones who will be judged. Just imagine being subject to a vote on whether one's school has done well enough. What would be one's first thought? "I don't think I am going to stay in this school much longer. Not only will there be a vote this year, I may be subject to a vote in five years' time". That will result in total uncertainty for the pupils and for the staff. I am at a loss to understand how that is expected to raise standards. I hope that someone will explain it during our debates. It is the most unpleasant way of trying to finish off the 161 remaining grammar schools.
I remember the ending of the direct grant schools. Everyone on the Labour Benches thought what a good idea that was. But it seemed to convert them all into

647
independent schools, and Labour was very annoyed about that. Perhaps the same thing will happen with the grammar schools. I do not know. I know from the point of view of the children who, after all, should be our first and only concern in all this—let alone the staff—that it is a very bad policy.
We shall all enjoy the debates on aptitude and ability. It reminds me of one of the essays that I was asked to write when I was an undergraduate: "What is the difference between aptitude and ability? Discuss". I feel that we may have a long and interesting debate on that subject, but perhaps the Government have the answer to that question. It will be interesting to hear it.
I shall deal briefly with Church schools. I support what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon said about the Human Rights Bill. That is an important matter. It interlocks with this Bill. I shall be interested to hear what amendments the Government will come forward with to protect the Church schools from the effects of that piece of legislation.
Church schools, too, are to change their status. I am astonished by the complicated arrangements which, at the end of the day, will mean that someone called the adjudicator—it is difficult to find out how he or she will be chosen; for what length of time they will be in office; what their credentials will be—will determine all these difficult issues such as the Church schools' admission policies about which parents worry so much. No doubt we can return to that point in Committee.
I should like to mention home/school agreements, with which I agree; the problem of exclusions; and the whole issue of nursery schools, but time does not allow. I shall conclude, because the right reverend Prelate mentioned the point, with the issue of religion in schools. Like many people, I was concerned by the reported remarks of Michael Barker, who I understand is regarded as the Government's leading expert thinker on this issue, suggesting that global citizenship might replace religious values in schools. I hope that that is not the case. Many of us believe that spiritual and religious values have a real place in the education of every child. I shall return with amendments on that issue in Committee.
This is an unfortunate piece of legislation. It will not raise standards. It will unsettle thousands of children, to say nothing of the teachers. It is so far removed from the reality on the ground that it is difficult to bridge the gap. I say those words, not in anger but in sorrow. I have been around this track before, and no doubt we shall go around this track again. There was a moment when we might have reached agreement on education policy. That moment is not now. This is not a good Bill and I look forward to the Committee stage when I shall challenge the Government on some of its detail.
5 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, today's debate has been enhanced by the two excellent maiden speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said that the characteristics of this House are courtesy and kindness. His speech indicated that he would add not only to that
648
but to its wit, humour and wisdom. My noble friend Lord Hattersley, in his typically rumbustious, untypically short, but typically very-much-to-the-point speech, underlined his reputation for being a speaker we do not wish to miss. We look forward to hearing both noble Lords on many occasions.
Unlike the two noble Baronesses opposite, I welcome the Bill. It is only one of several measures—some legislative, some administrative and some financial—which underpin the Government's claim to put education at the head of their priorities. As was said by the right reverend Prelate, it is an important Bill, probably one of the most important for many years. For me, it is particularly important because it sets the framework for an education system which allows children to begin with nursery and progress through primary, secondary and then further and higher education.
Previously, the school system failed the needs of the nation. There is no legitimate reason why British school children should do less well than their peer groups in other countries. I am sure that they are not innately less intelligent. On the whole, however, British children have not performed as well as those peer groups. Fewer have left school with qualifications and the drop-out of those proceeding to further and higher education has been greater. Surely, that must have something to do with the structure of the system as well as the schools themselves. I hope that the Bill will redress that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, made much of the fact that the Bill deals with structures. It dealt more with structures than standards, she said. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the right reverend Prelate also referred to structures. Like my noble friend Lord Hattersley, I believe that structures are very important and inseparable from standards. I hope that the structures now being put in place will be a great help in raising standards throughout the system. They should certainly break down the barriers between systems, particularly between the grammar schools and other schools. We have tried previously to establish parity of esteem; I hope that this time we will succeed.
The Bill is complicated. In that respect, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, although there was little else in her speech with which I agreed. It is not possible to deal with all its clauses today and therefore I shall pick out only one or two for comment. It is important to include nursery education and I welcome that. Nursery education has not been given the required attention, yet research shows just how important early learning is to future progress. I therefore welcome that part of the Bill. No doubt as we proceed through the various stages we shall need to look closely to ensure that enough is being done. However, that part of the Bill, the guidance on the early years, published last year, and money made available in the Budget are to be welcomed.
The second important area on which I wish to comment is the concentration on standards. LEAs and the schools have a duty placed on them to improve standards. I welcome the enhanced role given to local education authorities. I know that that may not be a

649
universal reaction across the House, but I believe that it is important. It is especially important when a clear role of improving standards and providing a framework has been given to LEAs, together with the responsibility to provide a three-year rolling development plan.
While schools retain a large amount of autonomy, surely it is right for local education authorities to have an overall strategic approach to all the schools in their area. I welcome the idea of the rolling programme, which must take into account not only standards, targets and other school issues, but also wider issues which impinge on educational demands. I refer to issues such as demographic, ethnic and changing economic and social factors which are important in the planning of education provision. Balancing the roles of the LEAs and the schools is crucial if the system is to be effective.
On first reading the Bill I thought that it was grudging in the scope that it gave to LEAs. However, the draft code of practice on LEA/school relations clarifies what the balance will be. As we look closely at the provisions we shall have to take into account the draft code of practice.
There are bound to be tensions in many areas—for example, admissions—which need a co-ordinated policy across the LEAs. Admission policy should not be looked at separately from the planning of places. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, commented on that issue. It appears that a number of separate bodies will deal with related problems and I wish to ask my noble friend whether that is necessary.
Furthermore, there are likely to be tensions in respect of exclusions. They affect not only the school involved, but also other schools in the area which might be expected to take in the excluded children. I believe that all noble Lords are concerned about the growing number of exclusions. I understand that the latest DfEE statistics show that in 1995ߝ96 the number of permanent exclusions was 12,500 from primary schools and special schools in England, an 18 per cent. increase on the previous year. That is very important and something which we must take great care to get right. But surely it is an area where the LEA must have a role above that of an adviser. Again, I ask my noble friend whether she feels it appropriate at this time to remove the LEAs' right to overturn exclusions. That is very much part of their strategic role.
Very much welcomed on this side of the House, although I accept not on the other, is the ending of the assisted places scheme and the use of the money to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven year-olds. Smaller classes have a central contribution to make in raising standards. As my noble friend said, surely it is right for money to be spent on the many and not just the few. I believe that spending money in that way on five, six and seven year-olds will be much more beneficial in raising standards across the board.
This brings me to the whole question of admissions and parental choice. There should be a genuine choice for parents to select the school for their children. At present, in many areas, it is more like schools selecting their pupils than parents selecting the school. However, we must recognise that it is difficult to match the choice
650
with the number of school places in the right schools at the same time. It requires very careful planning to balance the two.
However, I am glad that for the five, six and seven year-olds, for the primary schools, there will be no conflict between parental choice and providing a place. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is shaking her head. She asked what would happen to the 31st child of a village school. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon also raised that point, as did other noble Lords. I draw their attention to the point made by the Minister responsible for school standards, Stephen Byers, in the Standing Committee on the Bill in another place on 19th February, when he said that by September 2001 no child will be in a class of more than 30 pupils and where possible children will be in their preferred schools. In rural schools, he added, extra money will be provided for a new teacher so that a child can attend the local school in a class of 30 or fewer. He also said that extra teachers and some additional capital resources will be concentrated on schools which are popular with parents so that more children can attend those schools but in smaller classes.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Is the noble Baroness saying that the Minister in another place has said that, for example, in my own village, which has a three-class school, for the 31st child in the infant/junior age-range class the school will receive another teacher for one child?
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, my noble friend has said that funds will be available to appoint additional teachers so that no child shall be in a class of more than 30. That does not necessarily mean that it will be 30 and one child. There may be other divisions. The important point is that that commitment has been given by the Government and funding will be made available to ensure that the promise is fulfilled.
On the broader issue of parental choice, it is often a matter of perceptions about schools. If a selective grammar school is in the area, it has been the perception in the past that that must be a better school. I am glad that that will now no longer be true because selection by ability is to be abolished by the Bill. I believe that that is a very important reform.
There are many aspects of the Bill which time does not permit us to comment on. We must wait until later stages of the Bill to examine in some detail the underlying principles of the various provisions. But I underline that this is an important Bill. It is an important step forward in improving standards and I hope that it will meet the expectations of parents who well deserve to have those expectations met.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, it would be presumptuous for someone who is such a new Member of your Lordships' House to say more about the two excellent maiden speeches that we have heard than that I enjoyed them as much as any of your Lordships, and that was a very great deal indeed.

651
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, that this is an important Bill. It is an enormous Bill. Nevertheless, it still leaves a huge amount to be revealed in the form of regulations which will, sooner or later, be vouchsafed to us. Somebody like myself can focus only upon one aspect in a Second Reading speech. I have very little difficulty in choosing that aspect. I wish to concentrate upon the effect which this Bill has upon grammar schools and grant-maintained schools.
My noble friend Lady Young spoke of the importance of dealing with the reality of matters on the ground. I trouble your Lordships this evening only because I come from the county of Kent. That is a county finer in its cricketing prowess and tradition than Yorkshire. We have another claim to distinction. In 1973, we were successful in defeating the best—or more accurately the worst—efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, who was then Secretary of State for Education. She sought to outlaw grammar schools. We hung on to our grammar schools because we had a very vigorous Conservative education authority in Maidstone. In 1974, we were left with them and we now have some 23 left in the county, of which four were in my former constituency, which I had the honour to represent for 23 years.
Those grammar schools in my constituency and, indeed, throughout the whole county, are excellent. They are supported passionately, and not only by those who have benefited or expect to benefit from them but much more widely. We have 88 grant-maintained schools, of which 59 are secondary schools.
Yet the effect of the Bill is to provide for the ultimate demise, or at least to facilitate the ultimate demise, of the grammar schools and to signal the imminent demise of the grant-maintained schools. I believe that that is deeply misguided and will not enhance the standards of eduction or the teaching structures of our country.
I say that as someone who has always sympathised with the argument that through creaming off the best you affect prejudicially those non-selective schools which are left with the remainder. I have always had sympathy with that argument. If I were a teacher in a non-selective secondary school, I should have been tempted at least to feel disappointed by that and perhaps even bitter. But, after thinking about the matter a good deal, I have reached the conclusion that the force of that argument is not nearly so great in terms of overall educational policy for our country as is generally claimed for it by its proponents.
I should like to detain the House a little by resorting to a local illustration. It is local in the sense that it is local to my former constituency and to my home. The small town of Cranbrook in the Weald of Kent has two maintained secondary schools—one at each end of the town. Cranbrook School is a selective grammar school and Angley School is a non-selective school, except for the fact that 15 per cent. of its vacancies at year seven are now selectively offered.
No one has ever been turned down as an applicant for Angley School and certainly, as I understand it, no one will he turned down in the forthcoming year. So here is
652
a microcosm, your Lordships may think, which might give rise to the kind of adverse situation which is classically put forward by those who object to selection and claim that selective schools cannot co-exist with non-selective schools in the maintained sector without disadvantage to the latter.
I am no expert on the matter. That is why I am slightly diffident about appearing so high on today's list of speakers. Indeed, I have been placed too soon after distinguished experts. However, as a friend and a neighbour of both those schools, I can see that the excellence of teaching at Cranbrook School—a selective grammar school—is now matched by the excellence of teaching at Angley School. I say "now matched" because, since Angley became grant maintained in 1992, it has formed its sixth form, it now sends its children to universities and it has just had what can only be described as an outstandingly successful report from Ofsted.
Indeed, Ofsted found that 95 per cent. of Angley's lessons are more than satisfactory or satisfactory which, as I understand it, is much higher than the average. Moreover, its GCSE success rates are rising and at a rate which is significantly higher than the national average. The report also says that parents' pride in the school is well justified by the facts and that a rigorous culture of competition developing pupils' full potential is well established. The truth of the matter is that those two schools now co-exist and compete quite happily together, without, I believe, resentment or jealousy.
None of those things happened until Angley became grant maintained. They did not happen when the school was wholly under the control of the authority at County Hall, enlightened though that authority was. They happened because inspiring leadership at head teacher level—and it must be said at governor level—has been allowed its head, and given its chance. It seems to me that the Bill puts that freedom and independence immediately and dangerously at risk.
It is easy to see who has benefited from that change. Those who have benefited are, first and foremost, the children of Cranbrook and those in the surrounding villages in its catchment area. I even venture to suggest that Cranbrook School has benefited from the competition, which is now increasing, from its neighbour at the other end of the town. However, I have a question for the Minister who is to reply to the debate; namely, if those are the people who have benefited, who has suffered from this co-existence of different schools?
Our nearest maintained school is eight miles away in one direction. It just happens to be a grant-maintained school. Indeed, in another direction, and also eight miles away, there happens to be a grant-maintained school; and, in a third direction, there is yet another grant-maintained school which is also about eight miles away. They are all doing very well. They cannot be said to have suffered. I ask the representative of the Government who wish to make this change: who has suffered in that instance? What is the justification for the proposed changes?
I regret to say that I believe the effect of the Bill in this context will be the slow demise of grammar schools and the meting out of more summary execution to those

653
which are grant maintained. I have great difficulty in understanding the argument against grant-maintained status. I am going by what was said by the Prime Minister before he became Prime Minister and, indeed, by other people who are members of what is now the Government. That argument seems to be based on the idea that it is unfair to those who choose not to throw off the bureaucratic yoke because they will not keep up thereafter with those who have got rid of it. That seems to me to bring into our schools the notion that no school should advance faster than the slowest, even when the slowest have freely chosen not to go faster. The education of our children should not be governed by the principles of a wartime convoy. I believe that our education ought to be a voyage of discovery and not an exercise in keeping safely together.
I realise that it may seem churlish to deal with an enormous and undoubtedly well-intentioned Bill by focusing upon one sector with which I strongly disagree. However, that is all that is open to one in these circumstances. In their search for higher educational standards in the context that I have identified, I regret to say that the Government have shown neither aptitude nor, if they wish to take refuge in a hitherto undefined distinction, have they shown ability.
5.25 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, before I begin my speech, I must apologise to the Minister for inadvertently missing part of her introductory remarks. I am really sorry for having been discourteous to her in that respect. Like other speakers, I should like to express my pleasure at hearing two wonderful maiden speeches. They were not perhaps controversial, but no one could accuse those maiden speakers of not being trenchant.
I am tempted to tangle with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who never holds back from being controversial when she feels strongly about something. However, I shall try to be brief because, rather like the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken, I feel that I have been placed far too high on the speakers' list today, full as it is of experts. Therefore, I shall do as my noble friend indicated when giving a general welcome to the Bill: I shall concentrate on the effect of the Bill on education for pupils with special educational needs. I should like to make it clear that the term "special needs" covers a very wide range of problems affecting children. But what I am about to say refers mainly to those students who, for whatever reason, are likely to be low achievers, including those with learning difficulties. Indeed, when I look at the list of speakers, I see that there are other noble Lords who will probably address their remarks to some of the problems of these children.
The whole tenor of the Bill is claimed to be improving standards and measuring performance. But that immediately causes some concern to the parents of children with special needs. There is often a very real difficulty in measuring the progress of those special needs children who progress more slowly, and not so far, as children with average or above-average capabilities. Yet almost all can make some progress. The academic or vocational achievements which demonstrate that progress are of great importance to less
654
gifted pupils; indeed, they are of greater importance to them than their achievements are to those who are more gifted.
Surely it must be the duty of schools and local education authorities to encourage the progress of less able students and those with learning difficulties, just as much as that of their more able contemporaries. Yet, in much of this Bill, there is little specific mention of the needs of the less able and little written provision for consulting the relevant voluntary organisations and groups which represent their interests.
Can the Minister reassure the House that the definition of "children" in Clause 6 of the Bill, which deals with education development plans and which, like many people, I believe is one of the most important clauses in the legislation, specifically includes children with special educational needs? Further, would it be the expectation of the Government that the LEAs should consult special educational needs groups under subsection (6)(c) of that clause?
A more specific worry is associated with the proposal to allow some special schools to have foundation status, particularly as it seems to differ from the Government's recent expressions of intent. The fear has been expressed that as the funds for foundation schools may be top-sliced from the total funding available, special schools which do not have foundation status, and indeed services for children with special needs in mainstream schools, may be relatively less well funded. The Minister in her opening speech reminded us that foundation schools are to be equally funded with others. Can she reassure us that the top-slicing effect will be nullified as a result?
In general, funding for pupils with special needs has become a contentious matter in recent years. Have the Government any specific proposals in the context of this Bill, or of the recent Budget, for better funding directed particularly towards special needs pupils?
I now turn to the thorny matter of admission and exclusion policies. With ever-increasing pressure on schools to achieve academic excellence, the danger has increased of schools using their admissions policies to exclude children of lower ability. Circular 6/96, which encouraged selection of up to 15 per cent. of pupils on general ability, added to these pressures. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, that selection by aptitude is difficult to distinguish from selection by ability. I am worried about the effect of either provision on the children I am discussing.
Although, in theory, it is unacceptable for schools to reject pupils because they have special needs, nevertheless there is anecdotal evidence that parents may be deliberately persuaded that certain schools would be "more suitable for your child" than others. Will the code of practice on admissions respond to the worries of concerned parents of children with special needs? It is obvious that problems with admissions are linked to difficulties with exclusions. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, referred to that matter. Here, again, there is evidence that children with special needs, and particularly those with emotional or behavioural difficulties, are being excluded more frequently. While

655
only 2.8 per cent. of children in mainstream schools are statemented, about 18 per cent. of all those excluded have statements of special educational need. Parents are concerned that some unstatemented children are excluded who in fact have special needs which ought to be considered.
I am sure I do not need to emphasise in your Lordships' House the problems which may face such children if they are permanently excluded from mainstream schools, and the danger that vulnerable young people may drift into delinquency. Indeed, the matter touches closely on the policies of the Government to reduce social exclusion. In the Committee stage of the Bill in another place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ms Estelle Morris, responded to the concerns of several members of the Standing Committee on this matter by referring to the work of the recently established social exclusion unit which she said is expected to further the Government's policy in this area. She indicated that further proposals on exclusions in general might follow the report of the social exclusion unit. Can the Minister give us any indication of how Government thinking on this matter is moving?
In conclusion, I do not wish to suggest that there are no good things in this Bill from the point of view of pupils with special needs. To take one example, the proposals for financial delegation offer the opportunity both for local schools to manage the special needs budget and for increased transparency about the amount delegated to schools and how it is spent. We shall listen carefully to what the Minister says in answer to the points that I have raised, and no doubt other noble Lords, will raise. We may raise further points in correspondence and, if necessary, we shall produce proposals at a later stage or assist others in doing so.
5.34 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, this is the most complex Bill it has ever been my duty to read. In many clauses there is reference to regulations to be set by the Secretary of State, so that one does not know what the final effect of these clauses will be. It is therefore extremely difficult to comment intelligently on the Bill. What effect will that have as regards transparency for the public who have to work with the subsequent legislation?
There are many intentions of this Bill which seem good—for example, the reduction in infant school class sizes. However, I would not have achieved that by phasing out assisted places which I believe have helped many children from poor families to succeed. I refer also to LEA responsibility for promoting high standards of education; the governors' and head teachers' responsibility for promoting good discipline; the responsibility for collective worship and good religious education; the provision for home/school agreements with parents; widening opportunities for pupils to undertake work experience, or to take part in further education, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, mentioned in his excellent maiden speech. I refer to the expansion of nursery education; the continuation of local
656
management of schools with governors and head teachers responsible for the financial management of resources.
As a former chairman of a large local education authority and a governor with many years' experience of LEA schools and colleges, I felt that many of those things were already happening without the need for incorporation in a new Bill. With all these new regulations and the need for regular reports to the Department for Education and Employment, it seems to me that this Bill is a recipe for increased bureaucracy, and that at a time when all those involved in the education service have been saying, "We have had enough change. Leave us alone to make it work to the benefit of the children, and please reduce bureaucracy so that we spend less time filling in forms and more time attending to the provision of good teaching". This Bill does not seem to respond to any of those pleas.
I read in associated paperwork that the Government's policy is,
"that intervention should be in inverse proportion to success".
However, that is not the spirit of the Bill. All the actions that are put forward seem to me to allow and even encourage increased intervention either by LEAs or the Secretary of State. I believe deeply in the principle of subsidiarity so that people nearest to the need for action take responsibility for that action whenever possible. Obviously where things go badly wrong at a local level there will be a need for intervention. However, I hope the Government will do all they can to keep that to a minimum. Often good advice from the LEA inspectorate can help inexperienced governing bodies when unusual problems arise. It is important that that is available in an atmosphere of mutual trust long before the problem becomes serious. Parents, governors, heads and staff of a school will be only too aware of the details of local problems. Those views must be given full consideration. I am glad that today the noble Baroness supported that.
At this point I wish to point to a gap in the provisions for governors of primary schools. In the past parish councils have nominated governors of those schools. Perhaps I should declare an interest as president of the Essex Association of Local Councils. I believe that parish councils are a good indicator of local opinion. Most people know one of their parish councillors personally and can take their troubles to him or her. I hope that the Government will reinstate the position of parish councillors as governors of primary schools.
I am very sorry indeed that grant-maintained schools are to be abolished. In my experience, they have been a great success locally, with governors responsibly improving facilities for the pupils of their schools. Only recently I opened a new science laboratory at a local comprehensive school, which I believe would have been very much more difficult to finance under the old LEA rules. I hope that as much freedom as possible will be given to foundation school governors, and indeed to all school governors, to spend their money in the way that the school needs most.
Most schools today provide work experience, which helps children to envisage what a career in industry or commerce might be like for them. Without practical

657
experience, that will be very difficult for a child still at school to imagine. Work experience must, however, be properly planned, and that needs careful liaison between the school and local industry and commerce so that pupils carry out worthwhile tasks and are not used as dogsbodies, which might put them off for good. Linked courses with further education, which again have existed for some time, are also very important to enable pupils to use expensive equipment not available in schools to acquire new skills and understand how electronics can remove drudgery at work today. Both these types of valuable experience need careful local liaison before being put into action, but I wish them well, as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Dearing.
As might be imagined, I very much regret that the question of the existence of grammar schools has again been raised. They exist to stretch very able pupils, and their staffs have that particular matching expertise so that, in my experience, they are very successful. In Essex, where I was some years ago chairman of the education committee, we made the 11-plus voluntary, so no child need take it whose parents do not desire it. Many parents prefer that all their children go to the same comprehensive school, so that only about 5 per cent. from among the top 10 per cent. go to the selective schools in Essex. That means that 95 per cent. of those at LEA schools go to the comprehensives, which can really deal with all abilities. Many today pursue a policy of setting by subjects in the older years, so they, too, see their pupils succeed in many different ways. It seems to me a great pity that this sense of insecurity should again be raised for grammar schools, where excellent standards—which the Government say they wish to encourage universally—are already in action.
The impact of local ballots is difficult to assess before detailed regulations are available, but I understand that schools are not to be allowed to defend themselves publicly when they are the very ones who know most about the arguments in favour of their existence. If a ballot succeeds, out they go, with no appeal, whereas, if it does not succeed, the whole question can be raised again in five years' time. Once again, the attention of the staff of the school will be diverted from teaching their pupils to concern about the school's very future existence.
I like the Bill's reference to parental preference, which I believe is a vital ingredient of a school's success, and I am glad that the Minister emphasised its importance today. I also like the subsequent right of appeal. If parents gain admission for their children to the school of their choice, they will work with the staff of the school for the future successful development of their children. Staff and parents will have shared aims. However, flexibility must be exercised in admission procedures, as my noble friend Lady Blatch emphasised, to allow that to happen wherever possible and also to allow whole families to go to the same school where the parents wish that to happen. These kinds of arrangements engender mutual trust and loyalty, which is fundamental to good, broad education for pupils. For the same reason, I am strongly in favour of the home/school agreements in the Bill, laying down the school's aims and values and the shared responsibilities
658
of school and parents in pursuing those aims throughout the child's school life. I like the idea of the pupils themselves sharing those responsibilities, too. I am appalled, though, that there seems to be no provision for all parents to sign these agreements. Every teacher knows that the presence of just two or three disruptive pupils in a class, if not properly controlled, can ruin the education of the rest of that class. Often those are the very pupils whose parents have not bothered to sign the agreement or who cannot be persuaded to do so. Surely those agreements should be universal in the interests of all the children and should be compulsory before an excluded child is readmitted to school.
It is said that the pathway to hell is paved with good intentions. Perhaps the Government's intentions in formulating the Bill were good. Much of it is worthwhile, but too much is difficult to understand, is overburdened with regulations and will take teachers' attention away from the education of their pupils, surely their most important task. Where does that lead, in view of the construction of this Bill?
5.45 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in welcoming so much that is in the Bill. There is the commitment to reduce class sizes coupled with providing the requisite funds; there is the commitment to high standards and the placing of a specific duty on LEAs to promote them. More generally, the LEAs are given a bigger role to play—perhaps not as much as they had two decades ago, and different in kind, but highly welcome nonetheless. In that regard, I join with other noble Lords in saying that a statutorily based education development plan is much to be welcomed. I must add, however, that the current obsession with statistical data is mystifying. Clearly we must measure where we can. However, much, if not most, of what we value in education can be observed but not measured. Equally, performance can be adapted to achieving what can be measured in schools—notably tests and exam results—without doing anything of great educative value. I know that my noble friend is on record as agreeing with that. It would be excellent if she could make the point to Ofsted.
I, for one, continue to see local authorities as centres of democratic legitimacy—no less so than is the House of Commons. In that connection, although I can see the case for them, I hope my noble friend can reassure your Lordships that education action zones will not weaken democratic accountability. I must add that the history of this century shows that local education authorities have been the originators of the best new developments in schools in the same way that central government, and nowadays Ofsted, have not. I agree that we must ensure that the Secretary of State has the power to deal with so-called failing governing bodies and LEAs. But we should not be starry-eyed about the efficacy of central intervention in all cases. Since an important point of departure in the Bill is the monitoring of how well schools and LEAs are doing, it is a pity that it contains no similar provision with regard to Ofsted.

659
I understand that the Government want school governing bodies and LEAs to have a collaborative relationship. As I read it, that is not in the Bill itself, and it is not obvious that it will have a statutory underpinning. I hope, therefore, that we are not inventing a recipe for conflict here. More generally, we must examine in detail in Committee the composition of governing bodies and their mode of behaviour, not least the role of parents. We must look particularly at Clause 9 and the role of parents on LEAs and their relationship to parents in general.
Another problem which the Government are to be congratulated on facing is that of admissions. There is a sense in which the problem of admissions is insoluble and all we can achieve is the best of a bad job. Complete freedom of choice, certainly in the short run, is not compatible with no overcrowding. Some choices, such as restricting the distance a child has to travel, may not be possible at all. Other choices to do with desired subjects to be taught can be met only at great cost. We have wrestled with these problems for years—the previous government had to do so too—and although we must spend more time on them in Committee I doubt that we shall make much progress. What I will say in anticipation of my later remarks is that neither schools nor LEAs must be able to use admission policies as a form of covert selection.
I welcome the introduction of a code of practice and an adjudicator. Above all, each locality needs a rational admissions structure largely set by the LEA and not undermined by foundation and voluntary schools.
There are two areas fraught with difficulty which I am glad to see Ministers have not shirked. One is discipline. Power and responsibility are placed where they should be—with the governors and the head, but with a back-up lying with the LEA in the case of maintained schools. I am not sure I fully understand the new categories of school, but I am interested to know whether there are schools for which no back-up powers will exist. I am also unclear whether there are schools to which the clauses on exclusions do not apply. My general view is one with which I hope we can all agree. There can be no education without discipline and while the teacher will wish to do his or her best for all pupils there comes a point when disruption is so damaging to the interests of most pupils that exclusion, though regrettable, becomes necessary.
Another difficult subject is religion. Again, the Bill does what it can to please the various interests. I do not see it as threatening the interests of religion. It may offend the rest of us, but we are able to bear compulsory religion for the non-religious with a degree of tolerance. I, for one, have never had any difficulty with the view that all children should have read the Bible and be acquainted with the best hymns. The problem of collective worship in a school where none of the teachers is a believer remains, but again it always will.
I refer to the opening remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I speak as an example of what used to be called old Labour but is now called Labour Gold. The noble Baroness and I joined your Lordships' House at
660
about the same time. I know that her remarks were intended to be heartening. I have searched the Bill and I can find nothing in it to reflect what I might call democratic socialist philosophy. Perhaps the noble Baroness can find it; I shall read the Bill again.
I turn to the subject of comprehensive schools. It is not a phrase, I might say, which looms large in the Bill. I think that I have read through the whole Bill once and I do not recall the phrase "comprehensive school" appearing anywhere. The Minister's officials may have the Bill on disk. Perhaps she will ask them to do a proper search. I shall try again. A grammar school is defined, but not a comprehensive school. Perhaps in due course we should rectify that omission. It was the policy of the Conservative government to give schools an increase in the power to select by ability or aptitude. We in opposition were against that. I remain opposed. I hope that I am right that the Bill brings to an end immediately so-called partial selection by ability. Perhaps my noble friend will reassure me.
On the distinction between aptitude and ability, again I can only echo what has already been said. Both seem to involve selection. The former seems acceptable to Ministers; the latter not. As far as I can make out, one is to do with something specific and with potential; the other with something general and actual. Perhaps I may quote the Minister in another place who stated at col. 648 of the Official Report,
"With ability, we are talking of where a child is already. With aptitude, we are talking of a child's scope for development in the future of an innate talent in a particular area".
I am not sure whether it is because I lack ability or the necessary aptitude, but that makes no sense to me. I wonder whether my noble friend can explain it better and tell your Lordships the scientific basis for the distinction. To me, selection is selection, and selection by aptitude still endangers the comprehensive principle. As the Minister knows even better than I do, underlying the whole question of selection and choice is the social composition of schools. Inner city schools in particular—the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, referred to them in his admirable maiden speech—have enough problems achieving a balanced intake without adding to their difficulties by introducing new forms of selection no matter how they are disguised.
What the Minister has to answer is how the Bill strengthens comprehensive schools. On the face of it, it makes life more difficult for them, not less. How, in particular, will it be ensured that the permitted forms of selection are not social class based? Who is responsible for monitoring all that, and how will they proceed? What about enforcement? I know about the code of practice, but that is not the same thing. Again, can my noble friend set out the statutory basis.
I am aware of past and present ministerial statements on the grammar schools. My right honourable and honourable friends now appear to have settled on a position that grammar schools based on selection by ability can continue if that is the wish of the majority of parents who are affected. Such a view is very far from the expressed policy of the Labour Party throughout most of its modern history. But policy can evolve. I cannot refrain, however, from anticipating what the

661
advocates of selection might say. If grammar schools can stay so long as that is what most relevant parents wish, why cannot new grammar schools be brought into existence if that is also what most relevant parents wish? In other words, there seems to be a lack of logic in the Government's position, although not in mine. I am very clear that the grammar schools are immensely damaging to the education system of this country and that what this country requires is a complete system of comprehensive education. If noble Lords on the other side of your Lordships' House will reflect on the history of the issue, the originators of comprehensive education were not doctrinaire socialists but a number of Conservative local authorities who had to face certain problems and saw comprehensives as their solution. It was not dogmatic then, and it is not dogmatic now, that our children should all go to the same schools.
There is no need to go into the details of how the wishes of parents will be decided, who are the relevant parents, how the voting procedures will be initiated, what resources will be required, and so on, except to say that it looks as though it will be a bureaucratic nightmare. However, I find it paradoxical that noble Lords opposite refer to the ballots as being rigged. As I read it, it will be practically impossible for anyone to get a grammar school abolished on the basis of the way in which the Bill is set out. We must look at all these questions in Committee, especially since much will be provided by regulation. If your Lordships do not consider those matters in Committee, we shall not have a chance to become involved.
My noble friend and other noble Lords will be aware of my wife's, and my, lifetime commitment to comprehensive education. I hasten to add that our commitment is no more than that of my noble friend the Minister. But I do not wish to conclude on a critical note. I congratulate the Government on two other matters. They are right to have given priority to nursery education and to have found the funds so that for four year-olds, if their parents so wish, a place of good quality will be provided. I do not see that as incompatible with meeting the pledge on class sizes.
Lastly, we have the triumph of the abolition of corporal punishment in all schools, a debate led in this House by my noble friend Lady David. We have waited a long time for that: eventually what is right will always win.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, this has been, and will be a long debate. I apologise if I have to leave a little early.
The education Bills coming before your Lordships' House get longer and longer without becoming less frequent. I should have thought by now that this dismal sequence would have given Ministers for Education some pause for reflection, if indeed they ever have time to think, as to whether the centralising policy which has been pursued over the past 10 years and which is intensified by the Bill is the right way to achieve better schools.
I am a liberal, not an egalitarian. Not a liberal in the sense that the Liberal Democrats use that word—they seem to be more dirigiste even than the Government.
662
But I am liberal in the sense of believing in maximising freedom of choice. I believe that as a matter of principle but also as a matter of practice. I do not think that centralisation will work. Therefore, I am convinced that one day we shall have to liberate education from the strait jacket of central government controls, both financial controls and bureaucratic controls. I hope that I will still be here when that happens.
My noble friend Lady Blatch dealt most ably with the many objectionable features of this Bill. I intend to concentrate on Chapter III, the education action zones. I have every reason to support them, since I argued ardently for them, without success, in the past. I called them education enterprise zones, which hark back to the successful economic initiative taken by the first Thatcher Government. My idea was that the lowest performing schools in deprived areas could be leased out to educational trusts freed from detailed regulation. The advantages I saw were to target efforts at improvement on the schools which most needed it, but above all to create models of success which could become beacons for failing schools elsewhere. Freedom to innovate was the key advantage I saw of establishing those kind of areas.
Interestingly enough, the then leader of the Opposition seemed to be thinking along similar lines. In a speech at Ruskin College on 16th December 1996 he suggested that successful schools might take over failing schools. I would not have put it quite like that, but there was a germ of a good idea there which might easily have been fitted into the framework of education action zones as I envisaged them. But this subversive idea has been kicked into touch—certainly there is no trace of it in this Bill.
What we have here is what I have come to expect from the Department for Education—a good initiative strangled at birth by red tape. To start with, the curious definition of a zone: a zone is defined not as a geographic area, which is what most of us would expect, but as a collective of schools of up to 20. That puts paid straight away to the idea of leasing out or trying to turn round individual schools. Each zone, thus defined as a collective, is to be managed by an education action forum, an extra bureaucratic layer made up of local worthies, which will receive £750,000 from the Government. The forums are to be graciously allowed to apply to the Secretary of State to vary national curriculum requirements, teaching contracts and staff salaries, but that is not an automatic condition of setting up a zone.
Then we turn to the tendering process, which is a nightmare. All proposers have to provide detailed information on their strategies for improving the educational performance of the zone. All individual schools have to agree to become part of the zone. Proposers have to demonstrate that they have audited the strengths and weakness of each individual school in the zone before they can make a bid. They have to put forward an action plan linked to the LEA's education development plan. They have to provide financial statements of a detailed kind, and so it goes on.

663
Some of those requirements are reasonable enough, I do not dispute that, but cumulatively the whole set up represents a massive barrier to entry except for one body: the local education authority. Education action zones are explicitly intended to raise standards in areas where current approaches are not working, yet those responsible for the current approaches alone have the organisation to run the zones and the information to make successful bids. It is hardly surprising that all the bids in the first round of tendering—and there are 60 odd bids—except one, are LEA-led. That is a natural consequence of the requirements that have been created. They can expect to get an extra half million pounds or more from the Government, which of course is a great incentive. The role of the private sector is limited to coughing up matching funds and providing management expertise so that they can claim that the schools, or the forum, or the zone, whatever it is called, will be more efficiently managed. No educational body, no body with any distinctively educational philosophy to contribute, can get on to the first rung of the bidding ladder that has been set up. No wonder the noble Minister used the words "carefully controlled circumstances" in connection with the education action zones. No wonder she talked about "identifying" good practice rather than creating good practice. The Government say they want innovation, but they are too scared to give up control. From such nervousness nothing new or interesting has ever come or can come.
In setting up this deterrent machinery, the Government have failed to learn anything from the experience of the charter school movement in the United States. The charter of 1991 granted businesses, non-profit groups, community leaders and parents the right to apply to the state for a charter to operate a school. Charter schools are now the fastest growing reform movement in the United States. But the lesson from that experience has been that everything depends on the conditions of the charter. If these are too onerous, no one applies.
One of the most successful charter schools in recent years is the Springfield School in Massachusetts, run by the private operator, Sabis School Network. The Massachusetts' statute is so framed that it allows charter schools to opt out of most state school requirements, including those covering the curriculum and, very importantly, teacher tenure and dismissal. Springfield was a real sink school when it was granted charter status almost three years ago. Sabis fired a lot of incompetent teachers but did not become selective. The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that success does not necessarily depend on selection. Because I am a liberal, I think that schools should control their entrance policy, but I agree that success does not necessarily depend on selection. At the time when Springfield school became a charter school it had 360 pupils and was placed 41st out of 42 schools in the district. Today, still non-selective and with 750 pupils, it ranks third in the district—up from 41st to third in two-and-a-half years. Sabis has not put in a bid to run any action zone in this country. It finds the system complex to the point of being nonsensical.
664
This is a missed opportunity, killed off by the Department for Education and Training, that graveyard of hopes; by the LEAs whose monopoly is threatened; by the teaching unions—by all those who have a vested interest in keeping things as they are and above all in keeping control of the system as it now is. I accuse the Government of a lack of courage in facing up to those interests, but when this experiment fails, as I believe it must, I trust that they will come forward with another Bill which offers more hope and which we, on this side of the House, could support.
6.09 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, when I was preparing for this debate I did not think, for one moment, that I would be sitting with a new noble friend on my right hand. It is a particular pleasure for me on these Cross-Benches to have Lord Dearing alongside. I am sure that he will be alongside throughout this Bill and for many of our other debates on education and training. And, indeed, it was a pleasure to listen to my former colleague in another place, the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley.
I wish to say something first about the form of the Bill, a little about the form of its scrutiny in another place and then something about its content. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, flagged up what I might say about its form. This massive Bill is unique in an important sense in terms of legislation in these Houses of Parliament in that it gives a taste of what is to come. It is a piece of primary legislation drafted for England and Wales, but it is drafted in a period of transition. That explains some of the aspects of the Bill in terms of regulations, codes of practice and the difference as it applies to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Secretary of State for Wales. There I should declare an interest. As chairman of the Welsh Language Board, I have responsibility for a strategic overview of Welsh medium education and therefore work for the Welsh Office for two days a week. But when I rise in this place I do not speak for it and would not in any sense try to do so.
Some of the aspects to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred will be relevant throughout the stages of our debate. The Bill depends not just on one White Paper, Excellence in Schools, Command 3681, but on another even more substantial White Paper, because it is bilingual, Building Excellent Schools Together, Adeiladu Ysgolion Ardderchog Gyda'n Gilydd. I say that for the benefit of my other friend and colleague in another place, now the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, who will also, no doubt, take part in our debates. There are significant differences in the White Papers; they are not merely textual, although it is not for me to say, as someone who used to teach literature, that anything is merely textual.
The title of the White Paper is interesting. The Welsh version insists on "Building Excellent Schools Together", emphasising the partnership which is so much the in-word of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Ron Davies, and also his colleague, Mr. Peter Hain. More of him in a minute. The White Paper is also a unique document. It is the first White Paper specifically dealing with Welsh education

665
since 1927. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, will no doubt correct me if I am wrong on that. It is the only major post-war document which deals specifically with education in Wales. Therefore, it has within it commitments to a decentralised education structure and a partnership with the teaching profession. It also has a deep commitment to increasing standards. The argument we have as between Wales and England in terms of the framework legislation is how one goes about fulfilling the aspiration of raising standards. The question is to what extent intervention and what forms of intervention, centrally determined, are helpful and to what extent it is possible in a nation of 3 million people to practise other forms of strategic development with similar results. That is a point of view which I know the Welsh Local Government Association takes, as the authoritative voice of Welsh local government. I shall come to it in a moment.
The difference between the legislation as it applies to the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has been clearly set out by the Secretary of State for Wales in another place when speaking on the transfer of powers to the national assembly for Wales in the Government of Wales Bill, which will visit us fairly soon on the back of this Bill.
The position at the moment is that functions have been transferred to or located with the Secretary of State for Wales under current legislation by Order in Council. This Bill transfers functions under primary legislation, and that will be the future pattern, so far as I understand it. That is the answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and I am sure that her noble friend on her Front Bench will be able to confirm that in detail.
What happens in the context of the Bill in the transitional stage is worth considering in some detail, not now at Second Reading but later in Committee. There are different regulations enabling LEAs in Wales to establish organisational committees and enabling the Secretary of State to appoint adjudicators in different ways. The clauses in Chapter II provide for the Secretary of State to take a different approach in publishing proposals to establish and prescribe regulations as regards various types of school. Again, there are the important delaying powers in the establishment of the education action zones. It may well be the case that the national assembly will not choose that particular model of school improvement where there are problems. It may adopt another model more in keeping with community commitments.
Similarly, the issue of the sale of school playing fields does not apply to Wales. The code of practice in relation to the admissions authority differs. So it continues through the Bill, particularly in Clauses 117 and 118, which strengthen the link between further education institutions and the rest of the education system in order to provide better partnership in full-time and part-time education between the FE sector and schools.
Similarly, relationships between the LEAs and schools may be subject to a different code of practice from that applying in England and Wales. The powers
666
relating to other aspects of the legislation may be transferred by orders and regulations which will then be transferred from the Secretary of State to the national assembly. All that indicates how at present we produce primary legislation in the context of the UK Parliament.
That brings me to my next point. I know it is not conventional for this House to be severely critical of what goes on in another place, but it seems to me that the attempt at scrutiny of this important piece of primary legislation, so far as it affects Wales, was inadequate. There was one speech at Second Reading from Mr. Barry Jones, a well-known government supporter and one speech from Mr. Cynog Dafis, my honourable friend the Member for Ceredigion. The Education Minister for Wales, Mr. Peter Hain, was present on the Committee, for relevant clauses. So far as I can see, no other Member for Wales was on the Committee or took part in the debate. There were further debates on Report stage, with a distinguished contribution again from my honourable friend Mr. Cynog Dafis.
It seems to me that the authorities of these Houses of Parliament need to consider carefully in future how they deal with the substantial body of primary legislation affecting England and Wales together which will be introduced in both Houses in the context of the national assembly. How will they ensure that the scrutiny of such legislation carried out by Members of both Houses is sufficient to enable the assembly to feel satisfied that its attitudes and position in relation to the administrative responsibilities which it will carry out by regulation will have been sufficiently scrutinised at primary legislation stage? I flag all that up because it is relevant to the Bill and will become even more relevant as we move on to the Government of Wales Bill after Easter.
Finally, I turn to the issues of content. The Bill emphasises the differences between the educational system of the Principality and that of England. The Welsh Local Government Association has emphasised the need for greater flexibility on the face of the Bill in order to ensure that the national assembly is able to execute the functions which will be devolved to it effectively. There are certain exceptions within the system which are worth highlighting.
Foundation schools, as they are called, are not regarded by the WLGA as being a vital category in terms of administration in Wales. That is despite the fact that the grant-maintained system was conceived by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, a distinguished educationist of the Conservative Party. It was not a system that achieved a universal welcome in Wales. It may well be that in the context of the national assembly he may be able to use his powers of persuasion to make these ideas more acceptable. But at this stage, the distinction between foundation schools and community schools is not very valid in terms of administration in Wales. WLGA feels that such a category is not required.
Similarly, WLGA feels strongly that the specific grant approach adopted in Clause 3 in terms of class size initiatives is not the most effective way of operating. It is a bureaucratic system and there should be greater flexibility.

667
My final point is that, as we visit this Bill in detail, we will need to look at the way in which this kind of framework legislation can provide for diversity of education systems in both England and the Principality of Wales and how we can be assured that this House and the other place deals with those issues in a balanced and fair way. We have a traditional commitment to education in all parties in Wales. That commitment has often been rhetorical. We have not been able to address the standards issue. We are keen to address it, but it must be addressed in a way which meets the community attitudes of Wales, not necessarily in the way set out in the detail of the Bill.
6.20 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, I have a confession to make. Despite a lifetime spent working in schools in both the maintained and independent sectors as teacher, headmistress and governor, I find the Bill as it stands confusing and disappointing. Of course we all want to continue the improvement in our schools—I say "continue" because the Education Reform Act 1988 made a good start. I did not necessarily agree with all the subsequent legislation, but overall the last government constructed a framework which was working.
I was pleased to hear the Minister's assurance, when she took up her post last year, that the new Labour Government were concerned with standards, not structures. Why then are we offered so many prescriptive and constraining clauses? This Bill is not so much a framework, as a straitjacket.
Bad schools which are failing their students need to be controlled and closely monitored. But schools which are doing well need space to develop, to be creative, to innovate. The head teacher and the senior staff must have some freedom to plan for themselves. I so agree with the eloquent remarks of my noble friend Lady Young on the importance of teachers and especially head teachers. I worry that the sweeping powers proposed in this Bill for local education authorities to intervene in schools will bring back all the bad, bureaucratic, formulaic practices of the past.
Each LEA will be obliged to produce an education development plan for the provision of education for children in its specific area. That EDP must then be submitted to the Secretary of State for approval. Think of the time that will take; think of the number of new forms that will have to be filled in by the schools; think of the paper that will be wasted; but think particularly of the teachers who are already overburdened by paperwork. I am horrified by the bureaucratic demands made already by the DfEE on teachers, taking up time that the teachers should be spending with pupils, preparing lessons for them, correcting homework and undergoing in-service training.
I mention teachers. They are the ones who deliver education. Good teachers need to be enabled, not constrained. Yet in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum of the Bill reference is made to LEAs, the Secretary of State, government, financial management,
668
work-related learning and partnership arrangements. The word "teacher" does not appear once. When all is said and done, the teacher is alone in the classroom. It is the teacher who needs support and encouragement. In one of the forest-worth of DfEE paper guidelines which accompanied the Bill entitled, Early Years, Development Partnerships and Plans, I found the word "teacher" at the very end of an annex,
"Staffing: a qualified teacher should be involved in all settings providing early years education within an Early Years Development Plan".
What a marvellous point!
One of the most muddled sections in the Bill concerns, as we have heard already, admission procedures. It is a basic fact that even Mr. Micawber would have understood that if 500 11 year-old children apply for the 150 available places in a school, some selection procedure must be applied. It does not have to be on academic grounds—for many children throughout the country it is not. Every school should make the most of that which is its characteristic. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is not in his place. I should like to have said to him: what about a specialist music school not being allowed to select its pupils on musical aptitude and ability? What sort of orchestra would it have?
Diversity and individuality are important. Teachers, students, parents and governors can be proud of the characteristic of their school. In the CTC where I am privileged to be chairman of governors—the Landau Forte College in Derby—we do not interview parents; we ensure that our comprehensive intake reflects a true cross-section ability within the City of Derby. We are in competition—if we thought in that way—with four independent grammar schools and several other specialist schools. But we are not worried. The teachers are confident. The governors are supportive and nobody has a hidden agenda. We have the highest aspirations for our students, whatever their IQ on entry. Whatever they are able to do—their aptitude or ability—we expect the very best of which they are capable. And it is surprising how much better those students do than they thought they might on entry. By all means call the admissions procedure "structured discussion"—I believe that is the new phrase—but I beg the legislators not to confuse aptitude with ability.
Finally, in relation to the future of grant-maintained and grammar schools, I should have thought that a government declaring their commitment to excellence in schools would encourage and enable schools that are patently doing a good job.
"All the evidence indicates that standards rise fastest where schools themselves take responsibility for their own improvement"—
so says the Government's White Paper, Excellence in Schools. Work-related curriculum is important. In-service training is important. Everything must be geared to improving teaching and learning, with a special emphasis on learning because I am afraid that some teachers think that when they have taught something, the students have learnt it. That is not always true. Learning is about much more than just knowledge and skills. Attitude and spiritual value come from the

669
school's ethos and atmosphere. The duty and responsibility of government is to help teachers, not to overburden them with needless demands. I was looking forward to, "education, education, education"; I fear we may just get, "bureaucracy, bureaucracy, bureaucracy".
6.29 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the Further Education Funding Council. There are one or two clauses at the latter end of the Bill which refer specifically to the contribution that further education colleges might make. However, I do not propose to reflect on that matter because I think it is not the central issue with regard to the Bill. I want to concentrate on those issues which have exercised the majority of those who have contributed to the debate.
Like many other speakers, I am a somewhat battle-scarred warrior of the endless debate in British—predominantly English—education over selection versus comprehensive schooling. I say freely that the temptation is enormous—I am not quite sure whether I am able to refrain—to make the whole of my speech on that dimension. The encouraging aspect of the Bill is that it points to ways in which constructive action can be taken to improve education in this country without revisiting that old battleground.
It is a fairly marginal battleground now. Of course the Front Bench opposite has to rally its forces with the clarion calls of how to defend the grammar schools. How many grammar schools are there? There are just over 160 out of 24,000 schools in this country. How many grammar schools are there after 18 years of Conservative government? How many grammar schools have disappeared under previous Conservative administrations? The simple fact is that the rallying cry is inherently a spurious one. It is not one that will run with the populace out there.
In a consuming society in which parents care about the opportunities for their children, if you believe that such parents are going to hand over to others the arbitrary selection of their children at the age of 11, defining for the majority that they are failures at that age, you are not living in the real world. The concept of the grammar school is bound to imply the selection of a limited number and the rejection of a greater number. Conservative politicians have argued vociferously in debates in both Houses about the principle of defending grammar schools—we heard that eloquently from the Front Bench opposite again today—but when it comes to action when they are in power, and when they are before the electorate, the issue becomes relatively small scale. And so it should be.
The real point was made eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, in his maiden speech. In a number of reports he has identified just what the issues are, and we are grateful for that; namely, that selection and rationing of educational opportunities for a limited number does not meet the needs of a modern society to which we all need to contribute. In days past, when it was possible to think that the development of our society and of our economy could be advanced by limited numbers having access to privileged education
670
and limited numbers having access to higher education, selection, which was after all a rationing process, was the order of the day.
It is clear that a modern society needs mass higher education and the previous Conservative government made enormous strides towards that. But the narrowness of selection implied by grammar school education, where 10, 15 or, at the absolute maximum, 20 per cent. had the opportunities to advance their life chances, must be seen against a background where we already have more than 30 per cent. entering higher education. Why is that possible? It is possible because we have an education structure in our schools which is not highly selective but is based predominantly on the comprehensive principle.
I say therefore to my friends who have expressed anxieties and addressed questions to Ministers about the issue of aptitude versus ability that those are marginal issues compared with the real points the Bill seeks to address. It is clear that unless we educate the broad mass of our population adequately we will not enjoy the fruits of a developing economy and, more importantly, our fellow citizens will be massively disadvantaged in their life opportunities.
The particular dimensions of the Bill which are directed towards those who are significantly disadvantaged were paid lip service to in a slighting manner by some of my noble friends who suggest that there is nothing in the Bill of a redistributive nature. I say to them that they are wrong in their interpretation. To get smaller classes for all primary school pupils is a significant advantage in educational terms. Resources have been redirected from the assisted places scheme, which enabled relatively few to participate in the advantages of private education, such as they are, to ensure that all our children have equal opportunities at the early stages of their school lives. If there is one aspect of educational research on which both sides can agree—I pay tribute to those Conservative educationists who have long recognised this fact—it is the research which says that the early years are critical and that good society and intelligent government need to invest adequately in those early years. That is a significant aspect of the Bill.
Our education system in the past has manifestly failed to deliver adequately in those terms. Illiteracy in our society is a long-standing problem. One million adults are functionally illiterate. That was the case under the old selective system too. The inadequacy of our education system to guarantee the fundamental skills for all our children and subsequent adults is the greatest blot on our society's record. That is why the problem needs to be rectified.
I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said about the limitations of the education action zones and I recognise that there are many points to be teased out in how those are to develop. But let us give great credit to the Government for introducing this initiative in the Bill. I have heard doubts in the past about initiatives of this kind in other areas of government policy where it was felt that government were pushing out the boat but were not quite sure how

671
the boat would come home. Under the previous administration the development of the single regeneration budget posed to local authorities a whole new way of approaching central government. There were many, not least on my side, who were uncertain whether the issues would be confronted successfully. On the whole, however, those developments have been responded to in positive terms because of the rapidly changing attitudes of local authorities.
It is not the case that local authorities are run by hidebound ideologues with insufficient capacity to learn. Of course, there are people with strong principles. We would not expect activists in politics, whether in the lower House, in this House, or in local authorities, to be anything else but committed on their principles. But local authorities have had to learn a great deal in terms of the changing demands made on them by central government in recent years. I have not the slightest doubt that they will be able to respond significantly to the opportunities created by the education action zones. That is against a background where the concentration of resources directed towards quite clear and specific problem areas should surely be welcomed by my noble friends on these Benches as a very clear identification of directing resources where they are most needed. I listened carefully to what was said in a rather pessimistic way about the potential of these zones. I maintain that they are an excellent principle with the capacity to lift the quality of education in areas where it is most needed.
A tremendously important aspect of the Bill is the extent to which there is emphasis on the increased role of the parent. Of course, one recognises that there are difficulties about the concept of the home-school contract. Who could not fail to appreciate that children from the most disadvantaged circumstances have less than a supportive home background? But that places an obligation on the school to engage with the parent and the parent to engage with the school and send out the strongest possible signal. That does not mean that it is going to be universally successful. It means that the Government are emphasising to the local authorities, schools and parents the mutuality of their obligations.
There are plenty of issues in a Bill of enormous length which occupied the other place for a considerable time. We have a great deal of meat, whether boned or boneless, to chew on throughout the Committee stage. There are concepts within the legislation which get us away from the rather sterile debate about selection versus comprehensive education and rather more towards the issues of standards in our schools which is what our nation demands and we are obliged to deliver.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, as the 17th speaker, I believe that it falls to me to assure the noble Baroness that if she chose this moment to have some much-deserved refreshment, the House would not begrudge it. I can assure her that I shall not be putting any questions to which she might have to reply. After all, the enthusiasm of her own party for the Bill is shown by the crowded Benches behind her.
672
It is a pity that I have to discuss a Bill when I have no sympathy at all for its basic philosophy, as expressed, since she is still here, by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. It is as possible for the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and myself to agree about the principles of an educational system as it is for Mr. Gerry Adams and the Reverend Ian Paisley to find themselves in common accord.
There is an illusion shared by some of my noble friends, notably—because she mentioned it—by my noble friend Lady Brigstocke that this is a government devoted to improving educational standards. They go back again and again to what Mr. Blair said during the election campaign or shortly afterwards; namely, "Education, education, education." I believe that they totally misunderstood his purpose. He was using the word in the same way as the Paris sans-culottes meant it—I bring in some French in order to ingratiate myself with the Prime Minister—"Bastille! Bastille! Bastille!" In other words, "Let's tear it all down!". If the Government had seriously intended to improve the standards of education, surely the first thing to do would be to look at successful schools—there are various ways in which their success can be demonstrated—and say, "We have a number of successful schools. Let us try to find out whether we can improve other schools by taking these as a model." Instead of that, and despite all the talk about standards and not structures, the Government propose, first, to get rid of the successful schools and then, presumably, to think of some new recipe for the schools that remain.
It is, of course, useless to enter into controversy with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, because his horizons—I know he has an interest—are so parochial. After all, if the object of the system is in part to compete with our industrial rivals or partners, is it not a surprising fact that most of them, in varying degrees, have different systems of education and that the comprehensive school is an English peculiarity?
The noble Lord may be right. It may be a desirable form of education. But let us hear some arguments in favour of it other than the brandishing of class consciousness to which some speakers who are not in the Chamber at the moment restricted themselves. The first thing to say is, "Can we make other schools better and have we got any models to bring that about?" The most obvious model, referred to by more than one speaker on this side of the House, is that of a school which is responsible for itself—that is to say, a school where only the teachers and the head can possibly bring about an improvement in standards and that any form of bureaucratic intervention, whether it be by the Secretary of State, city hall or wherever, is a detraction from that major duty.
In our debate on the equally unmeritorious Teaching and Higher Education Bill I pointed out, as did other speakers, that an enormous amount of time is being wasted in universities in filling out unnecessary forms, assessment procedures and all the other bureaucratic rubbish which has come in over the years when it could have been devoted to teaching and research. That began prior to the appearance of the Bill before us. We are now wanting to wish on the schools—teachers at current

673
union meetings are referring to it—tasks which detract from their primary responsibility, which is to their pupils. If the Government find that insufficiently ambitious, there is the very important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, in his maiden speech. It is splendid that on this occasion I find something on which I can agree with the noble Lord. There is a real problem with what one might call the bottom fifth or 20 per cent. I say that because it is not confined to this country. The same phenomenon is observable in other advanced industrial countries. As technology improves and the complications of the industrial process become more difficult to meet, without specific training a number of people find themselves, for one reason or another, unable to participate in that advance.
The underlying factors may be ethnic, as they partially are in the United States and France. There may be other reasons—the industrial decline of once prosperous areas and so on. But surely a government able to say, "Here is a specific problem and we have something which will deal with it" would have elicited cross-party support which this Bill neither deserves nor will command.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, it is regrettable that noble Lords seem to boast about how little they agree with one another on this Bill when its main purpose is to try to find a middle way between what we have inherited from the former government and the previous ideologies of a full comprehensive system. That is what the Bill works towards and we should congratulate the Government on setting out on this path.
This is a very large and complex Bill. All of the Government briefing papers that I have received say that the single objective of the Bill is to raise standards. The Bill represents a variety of mechanisms to ensure that that takes place. I welcome the reference to maximum class sizes and the safeguarding of the religious ethic, school meal nutritional standards and in particular the parity of funding of various forms of school. I shall concentrate on two aspects of the Bill and then chance my arm by considering the difference between aptitude and ability, if I have time. The first issue is the school organisation committee. I suspect that the Committee stage of this Bill will spend a great deal of time looking at the powers of that committee and its relationship with the adjudicator. The vast bulk of the decisions to be taken by the SOC will be through discussion and agreement, and that is the aim of the Bill as I understand it. That is to be welcomed.
I received a letter from the Grant Maintained Joint Monitoring Group which asked specifically why at least one foundation school representative should be on the SOC as of right. I ask why all secondary heads should not be on the SOC as of right. I believe that to be a reasonable proposition. Can my noble friend the Minister tell me how the school organisation committee will address the issue of the cross-border trade in children who move in and out of a borough for different schools? Will there be a formal mechanism with the surrounding boroughs to deal with that? Finally, I ask my noble friend about the CTCs. I do not understand
674
why they are excluded from the SOC. I believe that that will inhibit the ability of a local education authority to plan the education provision.
The second detailed issue that I should like to deal with is class sizes. I welcome the reduction in class sizes to 30 for five, six and seven year-olds. I particularly welcome the fact that that is to be funded by the abolition of the assisted places scheme. I am aware that the Minister for School Standards, Mr. Byers, has announced additional flexibility, to which my noble friend Lady Lockwood referred, to reduce the necessary travelling particularly for country schools in order to meet this commitment.
The Bill makes clear that parental preference must not,
"prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources",
which includes the duty of the LEA to comply with the class size commitment. Given that the Greenwich judgment is still very much in place and that appeals have increased from 8,500 in 1994–95 to 63,000 in 1995–96, it is very good news for schools that LEAs will have a duty to comply with the class size commitment. I welcome the statement in the Bill that the power of LEAs to direct a school to admit a pupil shall be in accordance with the class size commitment and that the school must be a reasonable distance from the child's home. This is a question of balance. I am glad that the Government have adopted a flexible approach to that question.
I now venture into the question of aptitude versus ability. Some noble Lords may be aware that I am the only noble Lord who takes part in debates in this House to have attended a comprehensive school. I have been in this House for about seven years. As far as I am aware, I am the only noble Lord who has attended such a school. I can speak with authority that some comprehensive schools are highly successful, but some fail. The belief in a single comprehensive structure that will benefit all children is a romantic one. I do not believe that the comprehensive system ever was uniform or that it is particularly desirable to work towards that structure.
I now live in the London Borough of Wandsworth. In that borough there has been a big move towards selection and specialisation in schools, both grant-maintained and those still run by the borough. Certainly the parents that I know are very dissatisfied with the pressure to which their children are subject when they are 10 years old. They have to undergo a number of selection exams. Of course, where there is success there is failure, and a number of children fail the exams. However, parents accept and are appreciative of a degree of specialisation in some secondary schools. I do not believe that specialisation and selection go hand in hand. I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, take the mickey out of the Government about the difference between aptitude and ability. I heard a good number of speeches by Conservative councillors in the London Borough of Wandsworth who tried to explain the difference between aptitude and ability. They used that as a justification for introducing the specialisations of the secondary schools.

675
I give one successful example: the specialisation in technology. Unfortunately, it has been dressed up as a CTC in my borough. I believe that to have a specialisation in technology has raised the status of technology in my borough and for that reason has been of benefit. That is something that I welcome. I live in a borough of extremes. I believe that to go back to the romantic past of the comprehensive system is, also extreme. Fundamentally, this should be a local issue and local education authorities should have a rational admissions structure. It does not need to be a uniform structure across the country. Different parts of the country have different requirements. I believe that the debate about aptitude and ability is an entirely sterile one. It should be up to the local population in the widest sense to decide how local education should be structured.
I managed to find one matter on which I could agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. I often follow the noble Lord in debates so I am happy that at last I have found one matter on which I can agree with him. He said that one should look to successful schools as models for future schools. I thought that that was precisely what the Government sought to do. They may have changed the names of the schools but they envisage a number of types of schools each with a different ethos. The fact that the Government seek to do that within an enhanced LEA framework is to be welcomed. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is in extremes in a number of matters, but I hope he recognises that that is what the Government seek to do.
I welcome the Bill. It represents another manifesto commitment that has been fulfilled. I hope that once the Bill completes its passage through this House there will not be another education Bill for quite some time. Perhaps I shall be disappointed in that regard. I conclude by congratulating my noble friend on the introduction of this Bill.
7 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, so many of my noble friends have made excellent points on the matters in the Bill that they find disturbing, that I see no reason why, at this stage in the evening, I should weary your Lordships by repeating them. I shall have plenty of opportunity in Committee for which I have already drafted 60 amendments including, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, will be glad to hear, one attempting a definition of "aptitude" and "ability". I look forward to hearing some of the detailed matters we shall discuss then.
I am grateful to the Minister for telling us so much that is not in the Bill; that which is hidden away in appendices and regulations which we have yet to see. She put a great deal of flesh on the bones of this stark Bill, for which I am grateful. I am grateful also for her confirmation that the Government will be encouraging LEAs to allocate additional funds to popular primary schools and nursery schools in connection with the additional provision which will be necessary to meet the class-size objectives.
676
Many LEAs, if one judges them by their actions rather than by their words, have been disgracefully unsupportive of the best schools in their areas. To name one which I saw recently, Camden School for Girls is in appalling premises in appalling conditions, despite being one of the best schools in London. I hope that that is the type of problem that the Minister and her party will find themselves able to tackle through this and subsequent Bills.
I am also grateful to the Minister for what she said about further education. Again, something that is not on the face of the Bill is the involvement of the FEFC in planning school provision locally. That is a long overdue and well-justified reintegration of education provision in this country. It is right that the FEFC should be independent. It is excellent that it is now becoming an integrated part of the system. I hope that we shall see some amendments in Committee to put that on the face of the Bill rather than just in the Minister's speech on Second Reading.
I wish to concentrate upon two concepts which are reflected in various ways in the Bill. The first is the concept of variety or diversity in the nature of schools. It is clear from much that the Minister said today and from much that is in the Bill that the Government support and understand the concept of diversity. The Minister said that she supported and wished to extend parental preference. If there is not a diversity of schools from which to choose there is little point in having such preference. There are many good reasons why parents might want to choose between different schools. There are many different styles of education. Different sorts of schools suit different sorts of children. Parents are wont to express strong preferences for different styles.
I look at the three good comprehensive schools in Winchester. They are three very different schools, all of roughly equivalent academic standard, but the schools are run in very different styles. There is a great deal of potential choice for parents if only the LEA would condescend to arrange its transport so that people could take advantage of it. At the moment only those who can afford to spend the time and the money transporting their children to the school of their choice can take advantage of the choice which exists.
But I am disturbed that the Government seem to be continuing their old vendetta against grammar schools. I am no friend of grammar schools. I would not wish my child to go to a grammar school. By and large, I find them pretty boring places, but they have a function. They provide a particular sort of education for the children who are suited to it and for the parents who wish to have that particular kind of education for their child.
Grammar schools will occur anyway. If they are not provided by the Government or by LEAs under a selective system, they occur by parents choosing to move near to a school or within the catchment area of a school that has a reputation for being academic. That is a much more disruptive and unhealthy way of creating academically selective schools. You not only create the schools that are academically selective, you break the community. You "ghettoise" the communities which are

677
within the catchment areas of the "academic unselective" schools, because you make the parents who have children who would be suited to an academic education move into the catchment area, if they can, of the school of their choice.
Children from the bottom 20 per cent. of the class are not always best served by being stuck in a school where they are in the bottom 20 per cent. The child's character matters much more than its particular academic ability. Many children in the lower 20 per cent. would do best in a school directed particularly at their own particular needs. Such children are often children of enormous talent, but not of straightforward academic talent. To be in a school whose whole ethos is directed towards dealing with the top 40 per cent. of the academic echelon must be a depressing and dispiriting experience for many such children.
One independent school headmaster when asked the rhetorical question, "What are the bottom 20 per cent. of the class for?", replied, "To employ the top 20 per cent.". If we look at the people who have created business and jobs in this country, how many of them have come from grammar schools'? Remarkably few. How many of them have been through rather strange and personal educational preferences, often leaving school early? A surprisingly large number. We have to nurture and look after the people in the bottom 20 per cent. because they form an important part of our society. Much of the future strength and innovation in our society will come from such people—those who do not fit into a narrow academic mould.
I am sorry that we are not to allow schools to emerge in our state system which specialise in looking after children of high, but perhaps narrow, academic ability, or children perhaps of not much conventional academic ability, but great width. We have that sort of breadth in our independent sector. No parent worth his or her salt would send a future Richard Branson to Winchester. They would send him, as he went, to Stowe or one of the other schools which provide an excellent education for people like him with his particular abilities. It is lucky for this country that he went to such a school and was not confined to the grammar school ethos. The creation of grammar schools and schools that specialise in the less academically apt pupil is an important part of creating variety in our schools system.
The second aspect upon which I wish to touch is information. An extraordinary revolution is going on in our better schools in the use of information about pupils: on how well they are doing; on value-added; and all sorts of other offshoots of the great work being done by Professor Carol Fitz-Gibbon and others at Durham. When one gets into the sort of school which is using this information well, it is extraordinary how the excitement is infectious; how it has caught even the English and history departments which are not staffed by people who are used to using numbers, who are used to making broad value judgments about their pupils; and how much use they find they can make of this information in helping individual students and teachers improve in understanding what is happening and what is going on.
678
We are to have a whole new layer of this information coming from education development plans if we are careful, if we structure the way in which they are set up, if we ask them to collect information in the right way. We should collect a great deal of information about how schools can succeed and what it takes to make a school succeed. In the Bill I shall look for arrangements whereby that data are, first, collected properly; and, secondly, are made available to academics, along with Ofsted's data which should be made much more available to academics and which should be much more widely reported and discussed in academic papers than they are.
Something which we can see from what went wrong at MAFF with BSE is that although MAFF had excellent scientists, and was collecting a great deal of data about BSE, it kept it to itself. It would not let anyone else look at it. Over the past year or two independent scientists have started looking at the MAFF data, and we have seen that there is so much more information there; there is so much more to come from it, from people looking at it from different angles, from people criticising this, that, or the other aspect of it, and through not having been tied to decisions and pronouncements made previously. I should like to see the richness of academic intellect applied to all the information which we shall be collecting on how schools work and how schools perform.
Beyond anything else, I hope that it will help to stick a final pin in the ridiculous Liberal Democrat policy which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, propounded again today. I am delighted that he remembered the barbed remark which I made to him on the previous occasion. It is ridiculous for a party and a gentleman as intelligent as he to fly in the face of the evidence. The Ofsted report is clear that there is benefit in smaller class sizes in the early years, but no significant benefit thereafter. I can understand the noble Lord paying no attention to Ofsted because it is interpreting its own data and there may be a hidden agenda. That is one of the reasons why I should like to see Ofsted data opened up. But if, as I hope, the noble Lord has read all the original research papers on the Tennessee Star Project he will see that in later years an improvement can be made by lowering class sizes, but if an extra 50 per cent. is spent on additional teachers there is a 1 per cent. improvement in performance. It is a ridiculous waste of money to reduce class sizes by the numbers which are within the Government's capacity. In later years there are so many better ways of spending money. To have information and data, and to have independent demonstration that that is the truth, will be of great use to the Government in avoiding waste of money, and great use to schools in their care of pupils.
I look forward to the Committee stage, which will be long and arduous, with great relish.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, stranded at Crewe Station last Friday afternoon, awaiting a train to Euston, which never arrived (I will not mention the name of the operating company, but I overheard a disgruntled passenger say that it would be quicker by balloon) this

679
delay, engendered by Stowe and others, gave me the opportunity to speed-read the School Standards and Framework Bill while my crotchety companion contented himself by reading the works of Lewis Carroll—a suitable accompaniment to the vagaries of our railway system.
Be that as it may, it might have been my speed-reading or the icy wind blowing along Platform 5 bringing tears to my eyes, but I am certain that I caught sight of only three reasonably substantial references to special schools or special educational needs, in Clauses 20, 93 and 116, out of a total of 133 clauses. I failed to read the schedules, for by then I was racing from Platform 5 to Platform 11 in an effort to catch a ghost train which was apparently on its way to London; but that, too, never arrived.
Before that breathless dash, I must confess to a twinge of disappointment, for the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum on the cover page begins:
"The Bill introduces a wide range of provisions relating to raising standards in schools and the establishment of a new schools framework".
Rather like me on Platform 5, alone and palely loitering, pupils with special educational needs seem once more to have almost missed the train.
If this Bill exists to construct the framework of schools of the future, it is vital that consideration of the requirements of this large, disparate and special needs group is given as much priority as any other and discussed, therefore, at this early stage. Others of your Lordships will no doubt have things to say about different special groups. However, I wish to underline the statements made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, particularly about children with learning disabilities for whom a learning difficulty is a sine qua non. I choose to do that for, as I am sure your Lordships are only too aware, I have the honour to be the chairman of the charity for people with learning disabilities, Mencap—or to give it the currently politically incorrect title, the Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults. Your Lordships will have noticed that children come first—as is the natural order of things—and our long-held view—long before 1971, when our children were, for the first time, considered to be educable—is that education means appropriate education for each and every child. If that can be achieved in an inclusive mainstream school, so much the better. If it cannot, and an appropriate education can be provided in a special school, many parents and pupils would put the right education in a special school well ahead of the wrong education in a mainstream school. The vital aim, as I have just said, is appropriate education for every child. Children go to school for their own benefit, not for the benefit of other children.
Mention of Lewis Carroll reminds me to follow the King's advice in Alice in Wonderland; I shall "begin at the beginning" with the provisions in the Bill for admission arrangements. Mencap welcomed the Green
680
Paper on Special Educational Needs and the debate which that provoked. That document stated that:
"all government policies for schools will include an explicit assessment of the implications for children with special educational needs".
Such a ringing declaration is welcome. We should intend virtue, if only to make it obvious when we fail to achieve it.
Unfortunately, the dilly-dallying of the King in Alice in Wonderland seems to have affected the Schools Standards and Framework Bill in its attention to these special needs.
"'Unimportant, of course, I meant', the King hastily said.…'important—unimportant—unimportant—important, as if he were trying which word sounded best".
I am happy to tell the Minister that the best word—indeed, the only word—is "important". It is important that the Bill provides more than adequately for special educational needs and I look forward to the reassurance that I missed something while shivering on Platform 5, and that intentions and practice alike will be honourable and the necessary amendments made as the Bill passes through your Lordships' House.
The then Department of Education Circular 6 of 1993, before the flood in another place, as it were, on admission to maintained schools, provided guidance on acceptable and unacceptable criteria for use in admission arrangements. The guidance made it clear that it was not acceptable for a school to refuse to admit a child on the grounds that it, the school, could not meet the child's special educational needs.
Still before the flood, the 1996 Circular 6 replaced its 1993 predecessor. This document removed the protection granted by the earlier circular and increased the percentage of pupils who could be "selected" without a "significant change of character" for the school.
"'Do you suppose', the Walrus said,
'that they could get it clear?'.
'I doubt it', said the Carpenter,
and shed a hitter tear".
Just to add to the muddle, the Minister must be well aware that many schools argue that they have no special needs money unless that money is linked to statements. "We can't admit your child unless you get a statement"; or, "We can't admit your child unless he has an assistant with him"; or, "Try another school in the area better equipped to deal with the kind of difficulty your child has".
"'That's the reason they're called lessons', the Gryphon remarked, 'because they lessen from day to day'."
Such difficulties are, unfortunately, not well documented centrally, and although we know that they exist, we do not know the extent of them. Where there is a need for a statement and for the extra resources that go with it, fine; but I suspect that too often parents are dealing with excuses, not valid arguments.
Nevertheless, I am grateful to the Minister for the discussions which her officials have already had with my colleagues on this vexed issue. Can she assure me that the code of practice on admissions, dealing with

681
these problems, will make it clear that it is unacceptable for children to be turned away on the grounds of special educational needs alone.
Finally, I would like to see a mechanism which would enable local education authorities to monitor admissions. LEAs need to be able to check whether schools are systematically admitting many more or many fewer children with special educational needs than a fair proportion of their intake would suggest. Such information would be extremely helpful and inform discussions about admissions with schools in any particular area.
As a society, we should be judged by how well we treat those who need a little extra care—just as schools should be judged by their competence and willingness to meet special needs. No longer should they be able to live in their Alice in Wonderland world of,
"will you, won't you, will you, won't you, will you join the dance?".
7.20 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, as there are so many speakers, I shall focus on only three aspects of this Bill and their implications for the quality of education in the years to come.
There are three inter-related concerns which I shall address. The first is the massive increase in the powers of intervention by central government and the LEAs. There is a deep fear that that escalation of intervention will threaten and curtail the freedoms of individual schools and teachers and opportunities for creative initiatives which have so often resulted in the attainment of excellence. I fear that this Bill is a charter for dirigisme and for bureaucratisation, as my noble friends Lady Blatch and Lady Brigstocke, have already emphasised so eloquently.
My second concern is the relationship between standards and structures. Although the Title of the Bill rightly puts standards first, the provisions relate almost exclusively to structures. Even more disturbing, the kinds of structures to be promoted are those which have been shown by research to be associated generally with the poorest standards of pupil achievement.
My third concern is that the Bill appears to sound a death knell for many of the schools which are currently providing a very high standard of education, such as the grant-maintained schools and grammar schools. If their contribution to the provision of high quality education for many pupils, often from lower income families, is to be curtailed, then this Bill will represent a betrayal of many children who certainly cannot afford to opt out of the state system in order to obtain the high quality education which is now available to them in those schools. If the future of such schools is jeopardised, the Bill could better be named the Framework for the Reduction of Standards Bill.
Before I develop those themes, I should like to express my sincere appreciation of some of the Government's recent initiatives which have beneficial results for the provision of education within the state sector. I wish to highlight two of those.
682
First, I warmly welcome the Government's agreement to allow some very deserving independent schools to opt into grant-maintained status. I am thinking particularly of some of the faith community schools, including the John Loughborough School in North London and some of the schools serving the Islamic communities.
Several years ago, I proposed, as a kind of pilot run, the Second Reading of a Bill designed specifically to enable such schools to be able to opt into state funding. Although, on that evening, there was strong support from a powerful array of noble Lords on the Back-Benches of all parties, the then government and Labour Front Benches were implacably opposed to the proposal.
Subsequently, a previous Conservative government had a change of heart and permitted opting in in the 1993 Act. However, schools such as the Seventh-Day Adventist John Loughborough School and the Islamic schools were not successful in achieving grant-maintained status. Therefore, I warmly welcome this Government's policy which has enabled them to opt into Government funding because those schools are clearly providing education which is desired passionately by their local communities. It was provided previously only at a considerable cost to families who could ill-afford to have to pay for the schooling to which they are entitled.
However, I hope that that new-found freedom will not be jeopardised by the provisions of the Bill. I ask the Minister whether those schools will retain their freedoms and whether other schools, new and old, will be able to opt in as easily to state funding in the future framework.
The second achievement on which I commend the Government concerns funding arrangements. I believe that the new provisions which require greater clarity and transparency are entirely consistent with the principles of accountability and are extremely helpful in monitoring the extent to which LEAs are passing on funds to schools in their areas or holding them back for their own objectives.
But I return briefly to the three issues which I have already mentioned. The first is the essentially dirigiste nature of this Bill. As I have indicated already, I believe that the Bill is misnamed. Although there is obviously a relationship between the framework of educational provision and standards of educational attainment, as my noble friend Lady Young has already emphasised, this Bill is far more about structures than about standards. For example, there are 133 clauses and 31 schedules dealing with structures—that represents 90 per cent.—and only about 10 per cent. deals with standards. The Bill will also confer 71 new powers or duties on the Secretary of State and give 66 new powers or duties to LEAs.
Moreover, the philosophy underpinning the proposed structural reforms does not bode well for the promotion of educational standards. The massive commitment and the involvement of LEAs in all state schools as a means of promoting standards flies in the face of experience and reality. For example, it is in those areas where LEAs have maintained most control over schools, and especially those areas which have been perpetually

683
under Labour control, which have produced the lowest standards of attainment both in primary schools and GCSE.
The excuse is often made that the poor educational achievement in those schools is a function of the social deprivation of pupils' backgrounds. That is not the case. Research has shown that that under-achievement is not attributable to social factors in pupils' backgrounds as such. In a study undertaken by my colleague, Dr. John Marks and myself, of the exam results of the 250,000 school pupils from representative samples across the country, we found massive differences in pupil attainment in different schools even holding the social class factor constant with pupils from similar socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds performing very differently in different schools. In some areas, some schools within walking distance of each other in exactly the same neighbourhood from which pupils came out-performed others by a factor of three in the educational qualifications which they enabled their children to obtain.
Therefore, it is just not correct to explain away the under-achievement in many schools in many Labour-controlled LEAs by the simplistic suggestion that that is attributable to the social backgrounds of their pupils. Of course, there are many good comprehensive schools in such areas and I pay tribute to them. There are also many very good schools of other kinds which have been allowed to flourish, independent of LEA control such as the grant-maintained schools and City Technology Colleges.
One outstanding example of many I could cite is Emmanuel College, a Christian City Technology College serving the socially deprived area of Gateshead, which has an educationally comprehensive intake. Last year, 91 per cent. of its pupils achieved five or more Grade A starred to Grade C at GCSE. That is more than twice the national average in all schools.
The case for intervention has been made by the Government in the White Paper in order to address the problems of failing schools. But when we look at the Bill, we find that it makes provision for indiscriminate intervention which is not in inverse proportion to a school's success. For example, some of the greatest educational success stories in recent years have been the achievements of grant-maintained schools. They have been de facto the education action zones of the past 10 years. But now they are to be formally abolished and their independence and freedom for innovation are directly threatened by the changes to be introduced, including changes to governing bodies, GM schools already in existence and the abolition of opportunities for other schools to opt-out into GM status.
Therefore, I ask the Minister whether the establishment of the much-vaunted education action zones will permit such diversity to flourish or will there be an ideological commitment against freedom, diversity, innovation and the excellence which those principles often generate?
I also regret greatly, along with other noble Lords, the ideological bias against grammar schools latent in the Government's proposals which will jeopardise their
684
future. The allegation is often made that the perpetuation of grammar schools undermines the efficacy of other schools in the locality—an allegation reflected in the notable maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley. But research has shown that diversity of provision of different types of schools often enhances the attainment of all pupils in the area, not just those in grammar schools. In fact research has shown that selective systems as such out-perform comprehensive systems in the average attainment of all the pupils in their area.
Moreover, international research has shown that countries with a diversified secondary school system out-perform our comprehensive system by significant factors in the quality of education that they provide for pupils of all abilities. Therefore, I ask the Minister whether she will give assurances that the new framework which will be put into place will not be a vehicle for ideological bias against diversity of provision and the selection which must accompany such diversity?
For too long our educational system has allowed ideology to prevail over the commitment to the provision of high standards and an education which will enable all our children to realise their full potential.
I should like to finish with a salutary anecdote. During a recent visit to the war-torn Armenian region of Nagorno Karabakh, relocated by Stalin as an enclave in Azerbaijan, I took some gifts from children in a London primary school to 12 year-old children in the bombed out ruin of a school in the capital city Stepanakert. These Armenian children had spent months under constant bombardment, sheltering underground in basements and cellars. With the ceasefire, they were able to emerge and return to the ruins of their schools. When I met these 12 year-olds, they were huddled in a classroom without windows, without electricity and without light or heat in temperatures of minus 10 to 20 degrees. After the initial euphoria at receiving gifts, having been deprived of even essential supplies during long years of war and blockade, the children returned to their makeshift desks. Without any help from their teacher, each child wrote, spontaneously and independently, a letter to the British primary school children. They wrote in English. They all speak and write Armenian, which is a unique language with a unique script; they all read and write Russian—a totally different script and language. English is their third script and their third language. Yet their spelling and grammar were better than many British 12 year-olds. I shall give your Lordships two short, typical quotations which were written with perfect grammar and spelling. The first reads:
"Our capital city Stepanakert used to be a beautiful city, but it has been spoilt by bombing. But I do not want to write about sad things; I want to write about happy things".
A second 12 year-old child wrote:
"I like to read foreign authors: Alex Dumas, George Sands, Mark Twain".
I wonder how many British 12 year-olds would write that in English, let alone in a third language in a third script.

685
I should also add that those Armenian youngsters were not just focusing on foreign languages; they were also studying mathematics, including trigonometry, Armenian and Russian history together with literature, science, geography, art and music with virtually no teaching resources, but with standards comparable to their competence in English.
That anecdotal example of achievement of high educational standards by children deprived of all the luxuries of life, in a war zone, reflects less dramatic but more systematic evidence of high educational achievement in other countries and of relative underachievement by far too many children in this country.
It is imperative, therefore, that we subject both the current situation and the proposals for change outlined in the Bill to rigorous scrutiny in order to ensure that they will genuinely improve the educational standards for all our children. For too long, too much education has been sacrificed on the altar of ideology. We owe it to our children to question whether the framework for education, which will be implemented as a result of this proposed legislation, will achieve the ostensible objectives of the improvement of educational standards.
To the extent that those objectives can be shown to be achieved by the measures outlined in the Bill, I believe that they will be worthy of support. But, at the moment, I can see little congruence and much cause for concern. I will listen for reassurance, but fear that it may not be forthcoming and that many amendments will be needed as a damage limitation exercise to a Bill which appears excessively dirigiste, potentially destructive of many of the better aspects of the present system, and which offers little in the way of concrete measures to provide all our children with the education that they deserve and which our country needs.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I rise to speak with considerable trepidation, after four-and-a-half hours of debate, with a background in health rather than in education. However, I have become increasingly convinced that if we are to tackle many of the health problems of our nation, education is the basis of that approach. We need good education; indeed, its contribution to young people is incalculable, in health, in their personal lives and in the workplace.
The Bill has attracted a degree of criticism from noble Lords opposite during the debate. I was especially struck by their complaints about bureaucracy and the Bill's focus on structure. I believe that that is a little rich coming from the party opposite when one considers the massive burdens placed on teachers in our schools over the past 18 years by the previous government.
I am optimistic about the Bill. I particularly welcome the reduction in class sizes. I welcome the new category of schools which allows us to have a fair funding and accountability system but still retains a considerable degree of autonomy on the part of those schools. I also welcome the extension of the management of local schools on the same basis. I welcome the recognition of
686
the role of LEAs and the part that they have to play in improving standards and supporting the performance of our schools.
I should especially like to focus on the role of LEAs in my remarks tonight. I have long been convinced that the LEA/school relationship is crucial. Of course, schools are in the forefront of improving standards, but LEAs can help enormously. Under the previous government their role was denigrated, diminished and undermined; and, indeed there was a threat of their complete marginalisation. I believe that that was a major error and I am delighted that that is now being put into reverse.
As my noble friend Lord Peston said, LEAs are democratically accountable to their local community and responsive to the views of their electorate. They can offer high quality support, advice and encouragement to schools. However, the question that I have to ask is whether those LEAs have been given sufficient powers in order to influence the maintained schools in their areas. In some areas, especially in relation to failing schools, clearly they do have sufficient powers to intervene. But I am not so sure about other areas; for example, on the agreement of targets with local schools, on local management of schools, on admissions and, indeed, when dealing with schools which may not be failing but which could certainly be described as rather complacent. I believe that there is a debate to be had in those areas as to whether LEAs will have sufficient powers.
Let us take as an example local management of schools. The draft code of practice has provided some very useful information. But I believe there is still potential for confusion between the statements of the educational leadership to be provided by the LEA on the one hand, and, on the other, the apparent expectation that much more money will be delegated to schools. We should not underestimate the importance of the ability of LEAs to use resources to target specific problems. There are a number of examples in Birmingham, my own LEA area, where that situation has occurred.
Another issue relating to LEA powers is to be found in the arrangements for admissions. The Government are not prepared to introduce the pattern of a single admission authority co-ordinating admissions to all types of schools in one LEA area. Instead, in addition to the LEA, individual governing bodies of foundation or voluntary aided schools will be the admission authorities. I must say that I foresee some hurdles getting in the way of the practical working of those arrangements in a city such as Birmingham, in which I take a particular interest. It would certainly help if my noble friend the Minister could make it clear how the new arrangements will improve on the current pattern, which I believe has led to disappointed expectations and an increasing number of appeals every year.
I have, instinctively, some sympathy with those who say that LEAs should be given more levers of influence over schools in their areas. However, I am just about persuaded that the Bill goes far enough. I am so persuaded for three reasons. First, it is clearly important that, while LEAs must have certain powers of

687
intervention, they must also avoid the temptation to intervene too much in the day-to-day running of individual schools.
Secondly—and I agree very much with my noble friend Lady Lockwood in this respect—the code of practice on LEA/school relationships is a sensible framework in which to operate. Thirdly, it is clear from the recent report of the Audit Commission, which looked at the work of LEAs and which was published earlier this year, that the critical success factor for LEAs is their ability to act as agents of change and to be able to bring about improvement and excellence in their partners at school level.
The evidence in the Audit Commission report is that the best LEAs achieve that without wider powers. This has been achieved through creating the right culture, often driven by the efforts of strong leadership from the chief education officer. That has been clearly apparent in Birmingham where the inspired efforts of Professor Tim Brighouse, backed by a city council prepared to give support and resources, have paid real dividends. Indeed, the recent Ofsted inspection carried out on the Birmingham LEA stated—I suspect in spite of itself, and with gritted teeth—
"This is a very well run LEA with a sense of purpose and vision which delivers, in the main, expert and highly regarded services at a reasonable cost".
That shows that with a highly regarded chief education officer, and with determined political, administrative and professional support, LEAs can achieve a considerable amount with their schools.
Not surprisingly, teacher and parental confidence in Birmingham's comprehensive system is rising. But the one blot on the landscape is the impact of the six grammar schools within the Birmingham system. Apart from the pressures and tensions on many 11-year olds to pass the wretched exam they have to take, the grammar schools have undoubtedly had a divisive impact on the whole of the school system in Birmingham. As so many children, and in effect their parents, are creamed off from comprehensive schools, it is not choice we are seeing but a denial of choice to thousands of children who do not, in effect, have true comprehensive schools. Of course that is exacerbated by the previous government's obsession with crude examination league tables. It is hardly surprising that children who do well in examinations taken at the age of 11 do well, in the main, in examinations taken at the age of 16 or 18. Earlier, noble Lords referred to successful schools, but such statistics ignore the success and the tremendous added value which many comprehensive schools provide for our children.
I welcome the opportunity being given to parents to be balloted on that matter. I just hope that there will not be too many hurdles put in the way of a proper ballot. I am certainly optimistic of the outcome. It is noticeable that when parents have been consulted by LEAs wanting to re-introduce grammar schools, there has been overwhelming opposition. This means, of course, that the process of balloting will be the subject of much debate. Given the different circumstances of each LEA, it will not be possible to be absolutely prescriptive. But,
688
as regards Birmingham—and given the impact which the grammar schools have on the whole school system—I am convinced that the parents of all children at LEA maintained schools in the city should have a vote. Whatever the outcome of this issue, it is clear that the Bill will have a considerable impact upon governing bodies and teachers.
I acknowledge governing bodies as the unsung heroes of our educational system. The time, energy and devotion governors give to our schools is incalculable. I hope that in addition to the initial training which is offered to governors of schools, we shall underpin that by offering continuous opportunities for further training, support and development not just for individual members of governing bodies but also—this is important—for governing bodies as a whole.
However good a governing body may be, nothing is achieved without teachers. Many of the efforts being made to raise teaching standards are to be applauded. I particularly acknowledge the role of the teaching council, as set out in the Teaching and Higher Education Bill. I welcome the proposed powers to suspend or permanently ban teachers for professional misconduct and professional incompetence. But side by side with a vigorous approach to weeding out poor performers, we must encourage, boost and praise the work of teachers. If we are to boost our educational services and to attract and to retain high quality people into the profession, we now need less of the big stick and more of the carrot. We need less sermonising to teachers and more encouragement. We need to do less talking down to teachers and more talking up.
The Teacher Training Agency's "No one forgets a good teacher" campaign has succeeded in raising awareness of the importance of teaching as a profession. Last week the agency's hotline was reported as receiving 1,000 new responses a week. That is a good start but there is certainly no room for complacency. The context in which we can recruit new teachers more effectively is that of a nation which values and respects teaching as a noble profession to which our best and brightest aspire.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, it is with a certain temerity that I speak in this Second Reading debate as I have no experience of teaching and certainly I have neither the ability nor the aptitude required for it. I am, however, a consumer of educational establishments having been a pupil and a parent and currently as a grandparent. I also have a great interest in education in its widest sense and understand only too well the importance of a good, broadly based education.
This Bill before us is by any standards a massive one and deserves careful scrutiny. I feel that in Committee we shall be giving it just that, so today I want to concentrate on just one aspect that I view with immense concern—the future of our grammar and grant-maintained schools. Shortly before the election there was a by-election in the Wirral and a good deal of

689
publicity was given to the Prime Minister's assertion that grammar schools would be safe with the Labour Party. This was repeated during the general election campaign and I have no doubt that the electorate believed those warm and comforting words. However, perusal of this Bill and statements in another place since that time make me fearful of their future.
Ten days ago I attended a concert in the new hall of our local grammar school in Stratford-upon-Avon. It is a school of exceptional distinction and has served countless generations of local boys. Parents from all backgrounds in the area have aspired to have their children accepted by this centre of excellence. Their results in the league tables demonstrate how the pupils flourish when those of similar ability are taught together. I believe that the pupils who are given this opportunity are privileged, but in addition I feel privileged that locally we have such spectacular facilities available for the brightest children.
I believe in selection wholeheartedly and overtly. I also believe that we let our children down if we take an opposite view. It is no good placing children of mixed ability together. Children are not stupid; they know who are the bright ones. In such a situation no one flourishes. The brightest languish as they are not stretched and the less academic struggle to keep up, often to their detriment. This was brought home to me most vividly when the eight year-old daughter of a friend went home after school exams and said to her mother that she had come last. But she added, "Don't worry Mummy, they are all much cleverer than me. Somebody has got to be last, I don't mind and some of the others would." I must tell the House that her parents found the right school for her and she has developed into the most capable, confident and obviously generous hearted woman.
I understand that in Birmingham there is a monstrous suggestion that grammar school selection at 11 could continue but that at 14 pupils of any ability would be accepted. That seems to me the worst of all worlds for pupils, teachers and anyone trying to organise a sensible timetable that would cater for all the differing standards.
I understand that some schools would be able to accept a percentage of children on aptitude but not ability. Not knowing the difference between them, I thought I would consult the thesaurus on my PC, and there I found under "aptitude" an alternative word—"ability". This seems to be dogma gone mad and leaves me in a state of utter confusion. Do the Government believe in selection as long as nobody notices, especially where their own children are concerned? How on earth do you establish whether a child has an aptitude other than by some form of testing? Maybe parents would simply be able to state, "My child has an aptitude for music", or whatever the distinct subject in which their chosen school specialises.
The Prime Minister said he was interested in standards, not structures. It is therefore strange that so much of the Bill seems to be about structures. Grammar schools have 500 years of experience in developing the highest quality standards; yet the Government are willing to let their future be decided by ballot. Once
690
again I refer to the promise made before the election that the status of a school would be decided by the parents of children with an interest in the school. Now I am very concerned about who will be allowed to participate, as I understand that the parents of an 11 year-old, with perhaps seven school years ahead of him or her, may he excluded from the ballot.
Another area of concern is the length of time between ballots. If it were to be as short a time as only five years, it would make the lives of governors and teachers impossible as they tried to cope with forward planning.
In recent years, grant maintained schools have developed into highly popular institutions, with parents willing to travel many miles to give their children this special opportunity. We are delighted that the Prime Minister and Harriet Harman have taken advantage of this facility, giving support to these most successful schools and the grant maintained system in general. It therefore seems a bit rich to propose changes to the structure of the grant maintained schools by making them foundation schools, bringing back the local authorities just when the head teachers and the boards of governors have shown that they do not need such interference. These schools have proved themselves and should be left to continue as real centres of excellence. Indeed, I should love to see a real expansion of such schools.
It is no good bleating about the pursuance of high standards for all while at the same time setting about the destruction of tried and tested systems. New Labour's current passion is to modernise (whatever that means) everything that has served this country well. I believe that the Government will come to regret their actions on grammar and grant maintained schools. No doubt future generations will hold them responsible for vandalising very precious assets in our educational system. I feel that as the Bill proceeds through the House it is our duty to assist both the grammar and grant maintained schools to save themselves, and this we shall do with great vigour.
7.52 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, there should be few of us who are not prepared to congratulate the Government on promoting education as their number one priority. Many of their statements of broad principle on this are welcome. For example, from Labour's manifesto:
"Standards, more than structures, are the key to success";
and,
"Labour will never put dogma before children's education".
I repeat that the Government are to be applauded on such sentiments. This persuaded me that I could look forward to reading the School Standards and Framework Bill. Clearly it would be a constructive measure that, free of any vested interest or political prejudice, would set about the task of delivering educational provision in which we could all have faith and of which we could all be proud.
It is with regret that I have found the Bill not to be quite as good a read as the rhetoric implied. In truth, it is difficult to be more than lukewarm about the way in

691
which the Government's ambitions, so loftily expressed in advance, have been translated into action by its provisions.
At the outset, I acknowledge that some measures—for example, the general thrust of education action zones—are welcome. Others, far from representing an abandonment of sterile arguments about structure or dogma, are exactly the reverse. Leaving that aside, it is the methodology that underpins delivery of the Bill's provisions that causes me most concern. Early in its consideration in another place, the Minister for schools standards stated (Standing Committee A, 20/1/98; col. 27):
"I hope that the Committee will give the Bill the detailed scrutiny that it deserves. It is an important measure; it is one of the Government's flagship Bills".
By any interpretation, therefore, the Bill lies at the very heart of government policy. All well and good. And, that being so, it is reasonable to suppose, particularly in the context of the Minister's invitation, that the terms of the Bill are fully formed and very detailed in character, certainly sufficient to enable satisfactory scrutiny. No such luck!
As my noble friend Lady Blatch has already indicated, the Bill is littered with seemingly endless orders, regulations, guidance and codes of practice. Of course, I have no complaint about such instruments being used where they deal with the minutiae of a particular clause's provisions. This should not be allowed to disguise the fact that, as a generality, their almost obsessive use in the Bill will lead to increased bureaucracy. For example, it may be that the concepts of education development plans, school organisation committees, and so on, have merit; but they, and the regulations by which they will be bound, will inevitably create a circuitous paper-chase from one area of responsibility to another.
More disturbingly in the context of the Bill, many of these regulations deal with substantive matters of policy. The tone is set by the very first clause, which, by regulation, seeks to deliver the Government's manifesto pledge of reducing
"class sizes for five, six and seven year-olds to 30 or under …
No absolute commitment to 30 or under—one would have thought that it was an important and substantive detail of policy—appears on the face of the Bill. It is dealt with by regulation.
We are spoilt for choice for other examples but, at random, I turn to Clauses 99 to 102. These contain references to a number of regulations relating to grammar schools, specifically with respect to balloting procedures. Your Lordships will be aware that the potential electoral rolls for such ballots are a very important issue in the broad sweep of the educational debate, not just in the context of grammar schools. But it is to be determined by regulation which, so far as I am aware, has yet to be prepared, even in draft form. Therefore, the opportunity for the matter to be subjected to proper parliamentary scrutiny within the context of the Bill is severely constrained.
692
The difficulty is compounded by Clauses 79 and 80, which allow for the establishment of a code of practice relating to admission arrangements. These are a central issue, again not just in relation to grammar schools but in relation to the delivery of both standards and the total matrix of education provision. But the opportunity for their proper scrutiny within the context of the Bill is again constrained because of the absence of any draft code at this time. I acknowledge that Clause 80(3) allows for scrutiny of its terms by Parliament in due course, but I repeat that what is required is the opportunity to assess the matter in the context of the Bill, not in isolation from it.
This pervasive pattern of substantive matters of policy being determined by orders, and so on, is repeated time and time again throughout the Bill. I recognise, of course, that in their own way they are a mechanism for retaining decision-making power at the centre, part of the "centralising tendency" so despised by Will Hutton. They are part of the "command-and-control" culture. That is very un-new Labour, or so we have been led to believe, not least by the noble Baroness the Minister in her introductory remarks. It is all the more striking, therefore, that in among the confused patchwork of responsibilities for individual schools, LEAs, adjudicators, school organisation committees and the like a further significant theme of the Bill is a formidable extension of the powers and duties of the Secretary of State. Many other noble Lords have referred to this.
I do not dispute that, in the context of the provisions of Clause 8 with respect to failing schools, there is a reasonable case for this. It makes sense, not only for good practical reasons but also within the context of the Government's ambitions to drive up standards overall. But it is impossible to make the same sort of case for other provisions within the Bill. Clauses 6, 7, 79, 119 and 120 are particularly disturbing in so far as they have the potential for conferring upon the Secretary of State virtually unfettered powers to determine all aspects of education policy outside—this is the crucial point—proper scrutiny by Parliament. That is a case of interference, perhaps, rather than intervention. It seems to me that there are at least three aspects to this. First, this form of policy delivery is inimical to commitments contained in the Labour Party's election manifesto. That document states unequivocally that,
"Our system of government is centralised, inefficient and bureaucratic"
—and that,
"Local decision-making should be less constrained by central government, and also more accountable to local people".
There is no room for any doubt there. But many of the provisions of the Bill are inconsistent with the sentiments expressed.
Secondly, the implicit inconsistencies of the Government's position here are, at least in part, a product of new Labour's own success. The Bill extends to both England and Wales. I touch here on issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. Clause 127(6) permits regulatory variation between England and Wales. But, as we are all aware, the assembly for Wales, with its responsibility for Welsh Office matters, is also

693
in the process of being delivered legislatively. That being so, the Government are in something of a quandary because, to an extent, the making of regulations for Wales has to subsist in limbo until such time as the assembly is up and running. The powers in the Bill of the Secretary of State and the absorption of policy detail into regulation give the impression of being the mechanism by which the Government intend that this difficulty will be circumvented. Suffice to say, on that basis any anxieties we may feel about the absence of detail, the skeletal nature of the Bill, are but the thin end of a large wedge.
Thirdly, and possibly most importantly, as my noble friend Lady Blatch demonstrated so lucidly in her exposition of education action zones, there is a quite palpable sense—commentators are increasingly drawing attention to it—in which this Government believe that Parliament is no more than an irritation. EAZs aside, this was brought home to me most forcefully in a contribution on the last day of Committee in another place by the Minister for School Standards. Speaking to the Government's introduction of their amendment to establish the code of practice for the relationship between LEAs and the maintained sector, now Clause 119, he made the following observation:
"We have begun to consult. I make no apology for that. It is important that the various partners in the schools service have an opportunity to sec what the statutory code of practice—which we had not originally decided to have—might contain. We had the opportunity to discuss it earlier under the new clause moved by the honourable Member for Bath, which allowed us to begin consultation. In those circumstances, an exception to convention was wholly appropriate. Conventions are not written on tablets of stone and it is sometimes appropriate to progress in a sense of partnership instead of being stuck with parliamentary protocol."—[Official Report, Commons. Standing Committee A, 3/3/98; col. 796.]
That speaks volumes.
I repeat that the Bill has good points, and I welcome them. But I cannot help feeling that the Government would have done themselves a favour had they listened to and legislated for their own rhetoric. Certainly many inconsistencies and incoherences could, and should, have been avoided by so doing. More disturbingly, the Bill, as an archetype of a legislative style, is deeply worrying in terms of both the capacity of Parliament to perform its proper duties of scrutiny and in terms of the proper chain of democratic accountability. I have no doubt that we shall do our utmost to improve it in Committee for the benefit of schools provision and, more importantly, for the educational and democratic expectations of our children.
8.3 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on producing this mammoth Bill. To me it is a very welcome Bill. It is not surprising that it has to be so big considering the 20 education Bills—I have a list of them here—that the Tories produced in their 18 years in power, containing so much that we opposed. LEAs were emasculated. That meant the discouragement of good officers who had done so much to encourage good practice and build up the education service. So I am very glad that power is to be returned to the LEA.
694
The push for high standards is commendable, as is the responsibility of local government to fund again all maintained schools. There will no longer be two educational sectors. All schools will be brought together in a single family of schools, and that will be fairer for parents, pupils and teachers.
I welcome, too, that there is to be a code of practice for LEA and schools relations. It is important to state clearly what an LEA's new responsibilities will be as well as the duties of the governing body and the head.
The Bill is excellent in setting up structures to enable staff and parents to work in partnership to help pupils achieve their best. But partnership is not just a two-way process. The Bill and the White Paper on which it is based omit the core element of the education system—the pupils. Children are people. It is a natural condition of children to learn. Harnessing children's and adolescents' active collaboration in their own education, working with the grain of their innate intellectual curiosity, are long-standing pedagogic principles. The Bill is weakened by its failure to recognise the huge potential pupils themselves can give, not as passive objects, but as active players in the educational system. Provision should be made to incorporate Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child within education law. Listening to pupils can reduce pupil disaffection and increase their commitment to their own education, the school and the wider community.
Pupil participation and consultation should become part of the development of a school policy on discipline; hence, we hope, on exclusions. They should he consulted on home/school agreements. Although the intention is to involve parents more closely in their children's schooling, the children themselves are ultimately responsible for producing their own homework, for attending class, for understanding the school ethos and behaving well.
On structures, Clauses 20 to 22 re-establish the responsibility of the LEA for all maintained schools and present the three categories of community, voluntary and foundation schools. I want to make a point about special schools, which in fact was made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. The White Paper proposes that special schools should become community schools. The Bill says that they can become foundation schools. LEAs now have a duty to review their special education provision. They have continuing and significant responsibilities for meeting special educational needs, in particular those that lie beyond the resources of their own mainstream schools.
There is, therefore, need to be able to deploy provision in response to changes in the pattern of local need, changes in the expression of parental preferences, and policy changes, for example increasing inclusion. This does not always work well. Not all LEAs review, plan and make provision in this responsive way. But this cycle needs strengthening not undermining. The Special Education Consortium believes that foundation status for special schools undermines the ability of the LEA to deploy resources in the responsive way I have outlined. Can the Minister say how local provision can be planned in the light of changing local needs if resources are

695
locked into foundation special schools? I presume that the Government's change of heart is closely linked to the responses of a small number of grant-maintained special schools.
I have another point about special schools, and that is to do with exclusions. The increase in exclusions is extremely worrying. My noble friend Lady Lockwood gave the statistics. Many would point to a link between the increase in exclusions and the introduction of the national curriculum, the publication of league tables, and the delegation of funding to school level through LMS. The timing of the increase in exclusions would support that argument.
Many would agree that there have been benefits from these now well established features of the educational landscape. But they have no doubt combined to make some schools more reluctant to devote resources to those pupils who are more challenging in terms of the curriculum, more challenging in terms of the organisation of the classroom, more costly in terms of staff time and expertise, and less likely to bring glory to their school when it comes to league tables. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, alluded to that.
There is great variation between schools. Some manage to exclude very few children. The White Paper quotes examples of schools that have adopted sound methods to engage all pupils and minimise the difficulties that lead to exclusion. By contrast, cases that attained a high profile in the media in 1996 and 1997 reveal that exclusions may sometimes be more about schools that are failing their pupils than pupils who are failing their schools.
Research shows that schools have problems identifying pupils who are demonstrating behavioural difficulties. Teachers were over-estimating the IQ of pupils excluded for behavioural problems, failing to recognise that they find it hard to engage in the curriculum. The Ofsted report on the implementation of the code of practice two years on shows that a significant number of schools do not put their pupils on the SEN register. This means that problems are not addressed through the staged approach set out in the code of practice. Does the Minister think that a case conference built into the exclusion procedures could help to ensure that all children's needs are adequately identified? As schools vary, so do LEAs. High quality support services, working in partnership with schools on provision for individual pupils, and on whole school approach, have done much to reduce exclusions in Merton and Newham, examples in two authorities. All this means keeping back adequate funds for them to innovate and help schools having problems.
Anxieties have rightly been expressed about the high number of children with statements who are excluded. Nationally, 2·8 per cent. of children have a statement but recent statistics, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, show that 18 per cent. of those excluded have a statement. A great deal of trouble is taken getting a child with a statement to a school that is appropriate.
696
Does the Minister think it right that so many children, whose placement has been so carefully considered, are then excluded from that school?
The 45 day total exclusion for the year, brought in by the 1997 Act and, I am sorry to say, confirmed in this Bill, cannot be right, particularly for SEN pupils. Would it not be sensible to limit the days excluded to 15 in any one term? Could the Minister tell us whether changes in the legislation, which the social exclusion unit may propose, can appear while this Bill is going through the House?
My final point is to welcome the inclusion in this Bill of provisions to extend the prohibition of corporal punishment to cover all pupils in independent schools and nursery education. It was very heartening to see the overwhelming majority that voted for it in the other place. It was also good that the Independent Schools Association welcomed the ban in advance of the clause being accepted.
But from children's perspective this reform has taken far too long to complete. It is over three centuries since in 1669 a "lively boy" presented a petition to Parliament to protest at "that intolerable grievance our youth lie under, in the accustomed severities of the school discipline of this nation." It is 25 years since Baroness Wootton introduced her Protection of Minors Bill in this House to end all school beating. It was defeated by 67 votes to 51.
It is over 10 years since a series of votes in this House led the previous government to accept reluctantly that it must prohibit corporal punishment in all state-supported education. And it has taken far too long to complete the task and remove the discriminatory anomaly which has allowed corporal punishment to persist in a small minority of independent schools.
It has been an embarrassing blot on the face of the UK's education system, and we will all benefit from its complete removal. It is a great delight to me that this clause appears in the first big education Bill of this Labour Government.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Rix, I want to look at special educational needs, but I hope that my remarks will differ from his rather more than those of Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Apart from that allusion to any work from Lewis Carroll, I shall not attempt to follow the noble Lord because he does it so much better than anyone else in the House.
At almost the same time as the Government published this Bill, they published their Green Paper Excellence for all Children. In that paper at page 7 they state:
"All Government policies for schools will include an explicit assessment of the implications for children with special educational needs".
Yet there are many structures within this Bill that appear not to take account of children with special educational needs, and there is no explicit assessment of the implications for these children.
Will the Minister tell the House what assessment has been made of the implications for children with special educational needs of the new structures and codes of

697
practice proposed in the Bill: school organisation committees, education action fora, the fora that will need to exist to ensure that the new admissions arrangements are carried out and the proposed code of practice on local education authority school relations. What assurances can the Minister give the House that children with special educational needs will be properly considered within these new structures and codes?
I come now to the question of clarity about delegated funding for special educational needs. In its report of 1997 dealing with the years 1996 to 1997, Ofsted, reporting on the special educational needs code of practice two years on, states that,
"The majority of schools are still confused about the LEA's funding arrangements for SEN. LEAs often do not inform head teachers and governors clearly as to the indicative allocation of funds to schools for SEN provision through their LMS formula … SENCOs are often unaware of the SEN component of delegated budgets".
Ofsted attributes some of the confusion
"to weakness in communication within the school but often it is due to poor or imprecise documentation from the LEA".
In their first report on the Implementation of the Code of Practice, Ofsted identified weaknesses in the reporting on the funding of SEN in the governors' annual report to parents. In their latest report they say that the situation has not improved.
Some LEAs do now publish an expected level for SEN expenditure within the delegated budget. This is usually expressed as a percentage of the headcount money allocated through the Age-Weighted Pupil Unit and a percentage of the additional educational needs element in the school's budget. This is helpful in providing a benchmark (not a ring-fenced allocation) and provides a starting point for discussions between schools and the LEA about what individual schools do actually spend.
Unless schemes for delegation and information about them make it clear both what is in the budget for SEN and what a school's anticipated expenditure on SEN might be, there will continue to be confusion about what is the school's responsibility and what is the LEA's. Parents are caught in this confusion when schools say to them that they do not have enough money in their budget to provide a particular level of support, but the local education authority says to the parents that the school does have that money.
Does the Minister consider that LEAs make it sufficiently clear to schools what is in their delegated budget for special educational needs?
There is a related need for the LEA to monitor the school's expenditure on SEN. This needs to be done in a standard way across all schools. Does the Minister consider that proper frameworks exist between schools and LEAs for monitoring how the delegated budget is used to meet special education needs?
Finally, I turn to special educational needs support services and delegation. The same Ofsted report refers to a reduction in staffing levels in LEA learning support
698
services within the last year or so. The effect of this, according to the report, is that:
"for some schools in almost a quarter of LEAs in this sample there is no difference between pupils being at Stage 2 or 3, [of the Code of Practice] because either external support does not exist or the extent of support for schools is so minimal as to be almost non-existent. In fact Stage 3, as outlined in the Code, for these schools, does not really exist in practice".
Yet provision at Stage 3 must be seen as crucial to the issue of preventing increased referrals for statutory assessment.
The provision of support services appears to be closely and inversely linked to levels of delegation. The more pressure there has been to delegate, the less local education authorities have been able to meet the need for Stage 3 input for support services. This issue is particularly acute in respect of Stage 3 support for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties.
The Special Education Consortium, which has advised me in the matter, is aware that in one LEA a behaviour support service that was delegated to schools would have disappeared in the next financial year if the LEA had not taken it back out of the delegated budget. Not enough schools, all of them under their own budgetary pressures, were buying back into the service. The short-term funding that local authorities have sought through GEST or urban regeneration programmes disrupts the continuity of services and weakens their value to schools. Yet where LEAs do provide support services for children with EBD, there is the potential to reduce both referrals for statutory assessment and levels of exclusions.
My final question to the Minister is this. Does she consider that in general LEAs are retaining sufficient funding at centre to provide the services that can help schools to meet special educational needs?
8.22 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, coming at the end of a long list of distinguished speakers, I am sure noble Lords will be thankful that I shall not go through every single aspect of the Bill. I wish to start by indicating that I am concerned about the Bill because, apart from indicating in 42 clauses increased powers for the Secretary of State, this Bill is remarkably coy about the detail of its intentions. The Government talk of standards but nowhere more so than in relation to governors, as well as the LEAs. The Bill is full of structures, as both my noble friend Lady Blatch and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said. It is full of bureaucratic commitment and places extra burdens on schools.
In my remarks this evening I wish to refer directly to governors and their role. The booklet, Guidance on Good Governance, published in 1997 by the DfEE, was the product of a working party composed of representatives of education officers, the Churches, head teachers, governors and governor trainers. It set out five main areas of governor responsibilities: to deal with the curriculum—policy, delivery, monitoring; staffing—the numbers required, appointment procedures, selection of heads and deputies, conditions of employment, pay

699
levels of heads and deputies; finance and budget; complaints, from whatever source; and a school prospectus and annual report to parents.
However, the new Bill envisages additional requirements for a number of governors within the system. They are to represent parent governors on education committees; to fill appointments to education action zones; and to fill additional governor places in failing schools. Above all, the composition of every governing body of a community school is to be increased by at least one. In the case of primary schools with between 100 and 600 pupils, the increase will be five.
I hear many reports of schools which are unable to hold parent governor elections because of the lack of candidates and of LEAs unable to fill all their places. Indeed, in a school of which my husband is a governor, two LEA places have remained unfilled for some time since last year. The need to find extra governors will obviously add an additional strain. I understand that it would mean up to 4,000 extra governors. Where will those governors come from?
The requirements for increased consultation with LEAs, with parents and with staff, imply—though it is not acknowledged—increased workloads for governors. I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, back in his place because he paid great credit to the role that governors play. I wish to reinforce that. I remind the House that governors are not paid, they receive no attendance allowance, and in most schools they do not claim expenses. The Government have fallen into the trap of assuming that therefore their involvement has no cost implications. That is simply not true. Many governors are employed, many are self-employed. Particularly when meetings, consultations, disciplinary hearings and training sessions take place during normal working hours, someone has to bear the cost of their attendance. For example, the home-school agreement will be likely to cost every school in the land a minimum of one-and-a-half hours for three governors in a sub-committee, a further 10 to 20 minutes for the full governing body, and preparation time for staff on the management team, input from the secretarial function and the cost of reprographics. In his excellent maiden speech, the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, mentioned the home-school agreements.
All the extra regulations will put additional burdens on governors in order to produce something which many governors feel, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing said, is already honoured by the 97 per cent. of pupils who behave properly within the bounds of their school and the curriculum. I do not know to what extent a written agreement will bring those who do not into the fold.
The Government have promised to use the moneys saved by abolishing the assisted places scheme—and we on this side .of the House are very sorry to see that happen—in order to reduce class sizes. However, the Institute of Public Finance, in its report, The Cost of Reducing Infants' Class Sizes, calculated that there will be a need for a further £250 million in funding. That reflects an extra £100 million for capital spending and the extra money required to pay the teachers needed to
700
teach those pupils who will now remain in the state system. Will the Minister explain how governors can be expected to ensure compliance with class size limits if there is insufficient money to do so?
I now turn to the requirement in Clause 37:
"The governing body shall conduct the school with a view to promoting high standards of educational achievement at the school".
That is a simple two-line statement which the DfEE, Ofsted, the LEAs, governor training bodies and informed governors regard as covering an enormous responsibility. I refer to the report of the DfEE/Ofsted governors' conference in February 1997 entitled On Target for School Improvement. Among the themes identified for governor action were, in addition to the ones I mentioned: development planning, the use of comparative information, the use of best practice, the raising of parent and pupil expectations, better strategic planning and the setting of priorities. My goodness, what a lot our governors will have to cope with!
The role of governors is no sinecure. It requires skill, judgment, knowledge and, being unremunerated, it requires a level of selfless dedication, as I am sure the Minister will acknowledge.
Finally, I have three questions on a matter of detail. Clause 13 refers to the disapplication of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act in education action zones. Those are to be set up for three years and may be extended to five. What does the Minister envisage will happen to the salaries of teachers who have been paid above the standard scale when the zone ends? Will they go on protected rates? If so, from where will those extra funds come? In the same way, if schools decide to opt out, will that position continue?
Clause 18(3) gives the Secretary of State power to pay a governor appointed to a governing body of a maintained school requiring special measures,
"such remuneration and allowances as the Secretary of State may determine".
Will the Minister indicate the thinking behind that clause and estimate the likely effect on governors in general?
Lastly, paragraph 7 of Schedule 11 states that the LEA shall,
"secure that every governor is provided, free of charge, with such information as they consider appropriate in connection with the discharge of his functions as a governor; and secure that there is made available to every governor, free of charge, such training as they consider necessary for the effective discharge of those functions".
Will the Minister make clear whether that means that from now on LEAs will be unable to charge schools for governor training and whether they will have to provide each governor with, for example, a copy of every consultation paper in place of the current practice of supplying one or two for the governing body as a whole?
Those are just a few items that I picked up from this huge Bill. It is full of bureaucracy, structures and a certain amount of confusion. But a huge extra responsibility is placed on schools and governors. We look forward to taking part in the forthcoming stages.

701
We hope that the Bill will raise standards for all our children. But we are concerned that so much stress is placed at this stage on structures rather than on standards.
8.32 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, this has been a long debate but, as is usual in your Lordships' House, we heard original and humorous contributions as well as informative ones. I particularly enjoyed the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Dearing and Lord Hattersley. They were an education in how to raise controversial issues in a non-controversial way.
I also greatly enjoyed the original contribution of the noble Lord. Lord Rix. It reminded me of my childhood watching him when he performed on stage many years ago. I found myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Peston—not for the first time in this House. The Minister gave a good introduction to the key areas of the Bill and it became apparent as the day wore on that many noble Lords agree that the intentions of the Bill are good. I should like to draw attention to five points.
First, I wish to refer to the raising of standards through partnership and co-operation, with particular attention being paid to failing schools and failing pupils. Many of us acknowledge that strife and conflict have, for far too long, dogged the lives of all key players in education in our country today. Secondly, I want to refer to the aim to reduce class sizes. As a teacher I have never subscribed to the research that purported to show that class size had nothing to do with the attainment of children. I taught in schools and know that those children who found life difficult achieved so much more when there were only 17 in the class learning maths than when there were 30. Nobody will convince me otherwise.
The other point I wish to raise is the wish to give local authorities a clear role in maintaining standards in our schools. I shall say a little more about that later. My fourth point concerns the aim to put standards before structures. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, when discussing this issue, used the phrase "old Labour" and "new Labour". However, what comes to my mind sometimes with this Government is, "old Labour, new Tories". On that issue I felt the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, was extremely well put.
The fifth aim to which I wish to draw attention is that of building on the Teaching and Higher Education Bill, particularly in the area of raising the status of teachers and the teaching profession. There are other matters which we on these Benches particularly welcome. As my noble friend Lord Tope said, we are pleased to see the back of nursery vouchers. We welcome planning and the expansion of early years education. It is no secret to noble Lords who follow what Liberal Democrats say on education that we would like to go further than the Government. We would like to see early years education from the age of three. We would like to look more carefully at the integration of early years education and childcare. In that respect I very much warmed to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing.
702
As has been pointed out throughout the debate, everything is not so rosy when we look at the detail of the Bill. Sometimes there is a lack of clarity. We heard much as to whether we will be able to clarify the difference between aptitude and ability. Sometimes we have seen outright omission and sometimes I feel that we are seeing a continuation of practices which we believed this Government wanted to see the back of.
This Government in Opposition opposed Conservative centralisation and massive powers being given to individual Ministers. We have seen various estimates of the number of extra powers given to Ministers in the Bill and it is likely to be almost 100. I listened somewhat in disbelief therefore to some of the contributions to the debate. The change of government can be extremely confusing in such matters. The Labour Party in Opposition strongly criticised the Conservative Government for giving powers to Ministers—admittedly, they went a long way in giving 500 powers to Ministers in the 1988 Act. But the roles have now been completely reversed and the Conservatives now complain about the powers being given to Ministers.
As Liberal Democrats we would prefer a Bill which establishes the framework but has a government which provides the resources for those who work on the ground in education—the professionals—to get on with the job. For all the Government's intentions to consult and work in partnership, when it comes to the crunch they are almost terrified of giving away power and of putting their trust in those who work in our schools, our education authorities and sometimes in parents, governors and pupils themselves. It is my experience that if we trust people and put clear structures in place, we will be rewarded. I can recommend that to the Government. They have got themselves in deep water not only on this Bill, but also in other areas where their intentions are good, but they cannot give way to those intentions by giving away real power and trusting other people.
I turn to some of the omissions in the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Tope said, we welcome the reintroduction of nutritional standards in schools. As someone who has been a governor of a first school, I am extremely upset that minimum space standards have not been reintroduced. To return to nutritional standards, I particularly welcome the ability of schools to provide free milk. I was a young mother in the days when the slogan was ringing around, "Maggie Thatcher, milk snatcher". I am disappointed that the Government have failed to recognise the importance of space in enabling schools to function well, particularly in this age of information technology and all that goes with it. It affects the ability of mainstream schools to provide for special needs children.
I say that from the experience of being a governor in a first school. We were fortunate to have a lot of space but that was because the middle school on the same site as us had been closed. That meant that we were able to integrate into our school children with special educational needs, particularly those who needed to be in a wheelchair or had other equipment. Children with special educational needs often need extra people to help them with their everyday requirements in the classroom.

703
Furthermore, we have parents and other people coming in to help in classrooms. This all means that we need extra space.
Despite the fierce debates in another place, and despite the fact that many amendments were proposed, many areas of the Bill are still unclear and show perhaps a little confusion. On the proposals to limit class sizes, the Government seem to be dogmatic about the number 30 and perhaps do not quite understand the knock-on effect that may have, particularly in rural areas and for siblings. Other noble Lords have illustrated this point very clearly. We are concerned about the need for flexibility when trying to have minimum class sizes and we are concerned whether there will be sufficient funding to carry this out. The proposals will often mean extra classrooms and extra teachers. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, had great faith that her government would produce enough resources. My past experience shows me that, however good their intentions, they may find that difficult, particularly when one bears in mind the predictions we have seen so far.
In debates in another place it also became clear that there was a lack of clarity surrounding the role of local education authorities. The different contributions we have heard today perhaps show that the role is not clear in the Bill. They have varied from people who think that far too much power will be given to local education authorities, to other people who think that not enough power will be given to local education authorities. My reading is that there is not a great deal of difference legally in the powers that will be given to local education authorities and it seems to me that many noble Lords did not understand what some local education authorities are doing today. The very best ones do have education plans, they do assist teachers in schools and they do try to develop new and innovative ideas. Local education authorities want a clear job description—that is only reasonable—and we shall return to that matter at a later stage.
Similar problems surround the responsibilities of head teachers, LEAs and governors, a point ably put by my noble friend Lady Byford. There are also problems in setting budgets—problems of consultation between governors and head teachers and how they are to be involved. But, oh dear, when it comes to selection, I just come to the conclusion that the Government have fudged on this issue. They said one thing in opposition and they are saying another thing now. What are foundation schools if they are not grant-maintained schools under another name? We have consistently made it clear that there is a role for local education authorities. We want it to be a light touch from local education authorities and we want to give as much power as is reasonable to individual schools. In this respect I very much agreed with the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, who clearly has a great deal of experience in that area.
We, as Liberal Democrats, very much believe in local decision-making and local accountability. That is very important when it comes to school status, selection and admissions. My noble friend Lord Tope referred to these matters in his opening comments and I am sure that we
704
shall return to them at later stages of the Bill. During the course of the debate I listened with great interest to the contributions about grammar schools and comprehensive schools. I do not particularly want to get into that argument but I want to explain to your Lordships what I think are the values of comprehensive education.
I was educated in a private school until I was 11. I then went to a grammar school. After that I went to a teachers' training college. The very first course at that college looked at how we should provide for children with special educational needs. In my whole education up to that point I had never really come across that. At that point I realised that I had led a sheltered life. I did not know of the great variety of human beings who made up our society. At that point I determined that whatever education I gave to my children they would not end up in the same position as I did. With that in mind I made sure that my children went to a school which gave them some idea of who lived in their community. I believe that that is the best education in citizenship one can give to our young people today in order that they understand how they fit into the society.
I taught in a secondary school which became a comprehensive school while I was there. It is possible to keep up those standards and to make sure that the children are not separated and that they do not feel they are always failing. My experience is that children who fail academically can often succeed in music and in art. Mixed ability groups for those subjects mean that all children can be given the opportunity at some point in their school life to succeed. That is what all teachers and all educationists should be troubled to do.
There will be further debates on the Bill, but I want to conclude by talking about what I think will be the underlying principles for those on these Benches. We want to see true partnership which ensures that all the relevant players are consulted. We want to see real accountability. We see that as best done through democratically accountable bodies. I know that some professional bodies are also worried about these issues. We want to see sufficient resources to enable key players to get the back-up they require to raise standards. We are worried about restrictions on local action. We think that local action should be interfered with only where it is necessary to raise standards. We want to see greater flexibility surrounding the proposals on class sizes and we want a proper framework for the creation of education action zones, particularly the ability to withdraw from them.
Most noble Lords had positive things to say. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was perhaps the most negative in her contribution, followed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, accused us of agreeing with everything the government of the day do. I do not think she can have read of the haranguing that was given to the Government in another place by my honourable friends Don Foster and Phil Willis. As my noble friend Lord Tope said, we will be a constructive opposition. That means that you praise where you think things are good and you say where you agree with things, but we will vigorously oppose where we disagree. That is something which, in the short time I have been here,

705
I have done. That is, what the citizens of this country expect from their Parliament and that is what leads to the best results for them.
We have been consistent in what we believe on these Benches. I am not sure that I can say that at all times for noble Lords on the other Benches. We want the best educational opportunities for all our children. Raising standards for all will do more to help the problems of school admissions than many of the bureaucratic matters that we shall discuss in this Bill, which says that partnership is the way forward. It is in that spirit that we shall debate this Bill at its future stages.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, the Minister will gather that there is some disagreement and worry on this side of the House as regards her Bill. So, before I get on to the rather more argumentative matters, I would like to say two things on which we can all agree. I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Hattersley and Lord Dearing, on their splendid maiden speeches. They also know now what an arduous business it is if one gets involved in education in this House. Further, I believe that noble Lords on all sides support my noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in hoping that the Minister will give special attention to children with special needs.
I now turn to other things. There was a statesman in France in the 17th century who was possessed of the highest of ideals. He wanted to make France rich and prosperous and, more especially, to ensure that it performed better than its near neighbours, England and Holland. His method was to use the power of the state. He expressed it in detailed regulations, achievement targets, local committees, integration groups and overall plans. His name was Colbert and he failed. England and Holland, following more pragmatic policies, were more successful.
I am prepared to accept that this Bill starts with the best of intentions. I am assuming that its authors want to improve English education. But no one can doubt that its methods are those of detailed regulation, many committees and a multitude of overall plans. My noble friends Lady Platt, Lady Brigstocke, Lady Cox and Lord Northesk, have all pointed out the dirigiste nature of the Bill. Many teachers—and I speak as one over 34 years—will spend more time on committees and drawing up forms than they will in the classroom. I need not dwell on the number of regulations that are going to be issued around the Bill.
Perhaps I may look at the education development plan. It is just the first paper on guidance. It has 29 pages; lovely little diagrams and sample forms which will take many hours to fill in. The educational development plans are to be a key element in educational advance. The bureaucracy involved in the plans is immense. Each local education authority must prepare a plan for three years, which must then be approved by the Secretary of State. In effect, these
706
schemes will require schools to set out a set of targets and priorities for improvement,
"so as to enable the department to understand the process which underpins the targets for educational advance".
The department officials,
"will then advise the Secretary of State whether to approve or reject these plans".
We are almost in the French system where the French Minister of Education used to say, "Give him a clock and a calendar and he could tell you what every school was doing." Knowing the speed at which the Minister's department performs I doubt whether some of those plans will be approved until 2006—or the next millennium.
The pattern for the plans will demand a great deal of form filling, much discussion at local level, committee meetings after school, meetings with the local authority and a lot more as well, and this for an already overwhelmed teaching profession in respect of which the Minister's honourable friend has said that he is going to reduce red tape. Wait until the members of that profession see this Bill and the regulations attached to it! Headmasters, instead of having the hands-on policy of running their school, will be chairing committees and running down to the city hall to discuss matters further.
I emphasise that this style of approach, as my noble friend Lord Beloff said, is in complete contrast with the policies of the previous government whose model for educational reform was the grant-maintained school. Noble Lords may laugh. They want to see the local authority writ large. But the grant-maintained school system, which we hoped would spread through large parts of the educational system, was designed to make the school responsible for its own money and its own staffing. It was to be freed from too much LEA bureaucracy and judged by league tables and rigorous Ofsted inspection. That was the model and this Bill is in complete contradiction to it. Therefore, we are justified in emphasising its bureaucratic nature.
The philosophy of the Bill is diametrically opposed to the policy of giving more freedom to schools. It is the complete opposite of that and its success will be judged on whether bureaucracy can achieve what the school cannot on its own.
Let us look at a further example of intense bureaucracy. I refer to the school organisation committee. There will not only be the education development plan. The area has to have an organisation committee which, as noble Lords know, consists of representatives of the local education authority, the Churches, the Further Education Funding Council and governors of various schools. I gather that there will be pressure on the Minister to ensure that some teachers and parents also serve on it. The draft regulations covering these bodies have not been given us. Getting draft regulations from this Government is like drawing teeth from a hippopotamus. They will never come, or not while we are discussing this subject in this House, unless we delay the Government.
These bodies are immensely important, and that is why we want to see the regulations. They advise on the size of schools, admissions policies and even on school

707
closures. Decisions would have to be unanimous, which is another complex and time-consuming process. If noble Lords have ever sat on a committee that did not take a long time to achieve a unanimous decision then I congratulate them. There will be enormous disputes. If one alters school numbers or closes a school, it is a very sensitive area for teachers because of the question of jobs.
The right reverend Prelate referred to the delicate issue of denominational schools. I do not believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, got the point because that is where the numbers of 31, 32 and 33 matter. One cannot employ an extra teacher, but a devout person who wishes to go to the school of their faith will be refused because of the class size. Presumably, the school organisation committee might have to judge. One has then to decide whether a Church school will be allowed to expand. The school organisation committee has to judge. There are implications also for the finances of the Church since 15 per cent. of the capital cost has to be provided by the diocese. Suppose it has not got 15 per cent. There is an arena here for enormous dispute and expenditure of time.
So what happens when there is a dispute? There is the mysterious person called the adjudicator. We do not know much about him beyond the fact that he has a Latin name. He seems to me to have absolute power, subject to the Wednesbury rules, although, as the Minister knows, he would be subject to judicial review. His opinions or judgments have to be given in writing. I can see a marvellous opportunity there for litigation.
It is a tricky area as regards denominational schools. Let us suppose that on the school organisation committee the Church's representative had said that it did not want a reduction in numbers at the school. Once it goes to the adjudicator, unless the Minister decides to put on the face of the Bill protection for denominations, the adjudicator could overrule the Church. It is fortunate that this Bill does not apply to Scotland. Cardinal Winning has demonstrated in Glasgow that he is a doughty fighter when his schools are to be closed. Believe me, there are bishops in England who may do the same.
All over this Bill individual schools are subordinated to committees and plans. I do not believe that when teachers look at the Bill it will receive very enthusiastic support. Paradoxically, schools in the most deprived areas—the so-called worst schools where there are to be education action zones—are to be given more power. They can alter staff salaries and contracts, yet those powers have been removed from grant-maintained schools which are acknowledged to have performed well—well enough for a Prime Minister to send his children halfway across London to attend one of them. I endorse the criticisms made by my noble friend Lord Skidelsky about education action zones. When one deals with groups of schools the process is much more cumbersome and difficult. I hope and believe that we shall prepare amendments that allow individual schools to adopt this status.
708
After all this, the more successful schools do not receive support under the Bill. Grant-maintained schools become foundation schools and lose much of their independence. The 164 remaining grammar schools face the prospect of five-yearly ballots and their future is forever uncertain. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that I am amazed that there can be a functioning community only if there are comprehensive schools. For a party that loves Europe that kind of insularity amazes me. Germany, Austria, Holland and Switzerland do not have integrated schools. Do we have to say in true little Englishman style. "Come to us and we will show you how to be a community?" It is amazing that England appears to have this unique status that only comprehensive schools can make us like one another. It appals me.
We also have the funny business about aptitude and ability. I assume that that is put into the Bill because of schools that can admit on the basis of ability in certain subjects. How this is to be done I do not know. For example, if one takes science—physics, chemistry and biology—almost certainly one must have ability in maths. If one talks about ability in modern languages almost certainly one will have ability in English. At this stage one is selecting over five subjects or, in the case of a modern language, three. If that is not selection like a grammar school I do not know what is. No one can then stand up and say that one is restoring a comprehensive system when in reality one is trying by another route to have the assisted places that one got rid of in the state system. There is an illogicality.
I admit that there are good intentions in the Bill but, as one of my noble friends said, the road to hell is paved with such. What we have here are committee men rather than active teachers and hands-on headmasters. Its methods are those of French headmasters and mistresses. I am sorry but, seeing the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who always says that, for the moment I was carried away. Colbert failed to make France prosperous. Unless this Bill is extensively amended—the noble Baroness is aware that it will be—it will not achieve its ends. Our task on this side of the House is to save the Government from themselves. Once again they have fallen into the hands of the bureaucrats of the department. Be assured that the cavalry are on this side of the hill and will deliver them from their worst.
9.4 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Hattersley and the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, for their excellent maiden speeches. My friendship with my noble friend Lord Hattersley goes back a quarter of a century. We have had many interesting debates about education over those years. I shall try to answer all of his questions. I begin with his question as to whether structure is intimately linked with standards. The answer to that question is that of course it is. Everything that I say in winding up the debate should reinforce that. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that we need to do all that we can to assist the 20 per cent. who have difficulty in succeeding in our education system, whether it be by reducing class sizes, helping small

709
children to make better progress in literacy and all the other matters that they have to learn, whether it be through home/school agreements, which is an important part of this Bill in relation to parental involvement, or whether it be by those clauses, with which I am particularly associated as part of my own policy remit, to broaden opportunities for 14 to 16 year-olds to allow them to have some work experience and attend FE colleges. I shall always take the noble Lord's words of counsel very much to heart.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not answer all of the questions that have been put in this long debate. I shall try to focus on those matters that have come up most often in the debate. This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate on the issues covered in the Bill, and I look forward to the Committee stage and beyond. I was grateful for the general welcome that the Liberal Democrat Front Bench gave to the Bill. I am not sure that I liked the metaphor of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, about facelifts for the ugly. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, have made much of their wish to see full sets of regulations. Whilst I shall not be tabling draft regulations, I have already sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, a number of documents on the specific elements of the Bill. I have also placed those documents in the Library. In doing so I have sought to be helpful to all Members of your Lordships' House. I hope that the significant amount of additional information on the provisions of the Bill has been and will continue to be useful throughout our discussions. I believe that a great deal more has been provided by the Government than was received by those who when in opposition took part in the passage of education Bills through this House. I clearly recall the Education Reform Bill in 1987–88.
It is just not true to suggest that this Bill contains an unprecedented number of powers to make subordinate legislation. It has always been recognised that many of the matters addressed in Education Acts are better dealt with in that fashion. There are some 70 such powers in the Bill. In the Education Reform Act, introduced by the party opposite, which was of similar length to this Bill, there are some 94 such powers.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have the Act in front of me. Does she agree that, in a completely new proposal, which was the formulation of grant-maintained schools, on the face of the Bill, clause by clause—from Clause 52 to Clause 105—were the details of the setting up of those schools? In relation to action zones we have four clauses, no regulations, and just some woolly, broad outline consultation document. There is a vast difference between the detail that is on the face of the Education Reform Act 1988 and what is on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not agree with that. When the Education Reform Bill was introduced, it had 147 clauses and 11 schedules. It totalled 169 pages. On Royal Assent, it had grown to 238 clauses
710
and 13 schedules, totalling 284 pages. I do not intend to do with this Bill what the government of the noble Baroness did as regards that Bill.
The Conservative Opposition seemed to be having a little difficulty in making up their minds whether the Bill is "old" Labour or "new" Labour. That suggests to me that we might have it about right, with a subtle blend of the best of the two. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby for describing us as pursuing a middle way. I think that he had got it about right.
I shall now take us through the various clauses in the Bill. The Government said that they would use savings from phasing out the assisted places scheme to reduce infant class sizes. As early as last year we made it clear that the savings would be for revenue expenditure. Sadly, the previous administration allowed primary class sizes to rise during their last years in office, leaving us with the scandal of 500,000 infants in classes of over 30 in 1997.
The comments of noble Lords opposite implied that parents presently have an inalienable right to get their child into the school of their choice. That is patently not the case, but this Government are determined that their policy on infant class sizes will boost parental preference, offering more parents the chance to get their child into the school of their choice. Extra teachers, and, where necessary, additional capital, will be targeted on popular schools offering high standards of education. The Secretary of State last month announced that £40 million of additional capital funding is also being made available this year. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that we shall be providing sufficient funding to meet our pledge on class sizes.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, we are aware that children in rural areas may have only one school within a reasonable distance. It is therefore important that they should be able to attend that school. Despite what the noble Baroness implied, children in rural schools should be entitled also to a place in a class of 30 pupils or fewer. That is why the Minister for School Standards said in another place that such children would have to be admitted and funding provided for another teacher. LEAs are being consulted on the practical difficulties there.
I turn now to education action zones. The noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Blatch, were concerned that we were pre-empting legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, used rather colourful language in arguing that that was a wilful pre-emption of the will of Parliament. That is entirely wrong. I could remind noble Lords opposite that this is not the first time that, in anticipation of parliamentary approval, preparatory steps have been taken in relation to implementing major government policies, whatever the colour of the government. But that is not the point that I want to argue here.
My point is that a good part of what we want to do can be achieved voluntarily. Notwithstanding that, we took care to say in the official's letter of 5th January:
"The legislation needed to create Action Zones was introduced into Parliament in December, and Ministers are hopeful that the high level of support that we found for the policy through the White Paper consultation will help to smooth its passage into legislation.

711
In the meantime you should bear in mind that all of the references to legal powers within Action Zones are subject to Parliament's agreement. We refer to applications in this document which will he treated as expressions of interest until parliamentary approval has been given".
The new legislation will give significant additional powers to governing bodies within zones enabling them to be more radical. Perhaps I may point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that it is needed to give zones the fullest scope to try out new and innovative ways of raising standards. The provisions on the face of the Bill allow zones and the action forum to be created and to give governing bodies particular powers to help zones to be innovative. For example, we will permit schools within zones to disapply the teachers' pay and conditions document, allowing them to find radical ways to reward excellent teachers, such as a bonus linked to performance. We are keen to see good forum partnerships developing to run zones. Perhaps I may reassure my noble friend Lord Peston that even if an action zone is led by a business, the LEA will normally be involved. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, did not like that proposal and did not appear to want the LEAs to be involved. The noble Lord is not now in his seat.
Contrary to the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, the LEAs will retain their statutory responsibilities in the EAZ areas. In addition, each forum will prepare an action plan and financial memorandum to specify accountability for the duration of the zone. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, spoke of the establishment of deterrent machinery. We have received 60 applications to set up zones. That does not suggest that the machinery that he described has been a deterrent. Perhaps rather than his scornful denunciation of our actions, he might wait to see the results. He may well find that in freeing up existing arrangements to allow more experiments, interesting developments will occur.
The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, does not like educational development plans, but they are absolutely central to raising standards. Noble Lords opposite have made a great deal of the importance of standards as against structures, yet they appear to be dismissing the central plank of the Government's proposals to achieve just that. They have been welcomed by both LEAs and the teaching profession and they are in stark contrast to the proposals of the previous government which so singularly failed to raise standards across the system. They focused only on grant-maintained schools, as the noble Lord admitted.
As regards a more specific point about EDPs, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked when we could give him a summary of the results of the consultation. I am advised that it will take the department about a month after 8th May to consider fully the response. Therefore I expect to be able to elaborate on that in Committee or on Report during June.
I turn to the abolition of grant-maintained status and the new schools framework. Noble Lords opposite made much of grant-maintained schools and their wish that they should survive. Perhaps I may remind them of what has been said by the grant-maintained joint monitoring group which represents all the main GM organisations. The group wrote to me at the end of last week stating:
712
"We wish to place on record our support for many of the measures within the Bill. We join the Government in looking forward to the new framework, not backwards to old divisions. We believe, like the Government, that self-managed schools will play an important part in driving up school standards and securing financial prudence".
The letter goes on to state:
"During the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons we worked constructively with Ministers on important points of detail. We were impressed with the Government's openness and willingness to listen to arguments and make changes in the Bill where necessary".
That is what the GM organisation believes. Like us, it is looking forward to new partnerships within the new framework.
Contrary to what noble Lords opposite said, in no way does the Bill, by introducing the new framework, deny parents or their children who are pupils in grant-maintained schools the right to a good education. That is patently a ridiculous claim to argue. The grant-maintained initiative has demonstrated the extent to which schools can manage their own affairs and we wish to build on that. Again, contrary to what noble Lords opposite claim, schools self-management is central to our reforms. We want to increase budget delegation for all schools towards the GM level and to ensure that LEA intervention is kept to an essential minimum, a matter which the LEAs also understand. But the GM/LEA divide is not a sensible basis for a school system. Opting out has divided schools and LEAs and distracted them from their central task of raising standards. That is why we are committed to establishing a new framework for the organisation of schools. To do that, we must move forward from where schools are now. The new framework recognises the different traditions and aspirations of individual schools but it replaces privileges for a few with fairness for all.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness because I am most interested to hear what she has to say. Is she saying that grant-maintained schools have failed to raise standards? If so, how does she explain their success on any measurement that has been given in league tables? Does she really believe what she is saying; namely, that the new foundation schools will he as free to determine their way of conducting their business within the school as grant-maintained schools?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes, I am saying that I do not believe that a divisive system of allowing schools to opt out has raised standards overall, and there is plenty of evidence to support that.
Baroness Young: My Lords—
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it will be very difficult for me to reach the end of this debate, with 30 speakers and as many questions having been asked, if there are too many interventions.
To answer the noble Baroness's second question, we believe that foundation schools will have virtually the same degree of autonomy as grant-maintained schools have had until now. Indeed, they will have many of the key characteristics of grant-maintained schools, as will

713
voluntary-aided schools: they will own their own premises; employ their own staff; and take primary responsibility for their own admission arrangements.
Every school will have a choice of category. Grant-maintained schools will have that choice when the new framework is established and any school will be able to seek an alternative category from about a year after that.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that the Government will not favour or promote any category and no category will have unfair advantages over another. I am afraid that the previous Conservative government could not in any way make that claim. Under this Government, every school will receive fair funding from LEAs through the new LMS arrangements. Every admission authority, school or LEA will be bound by a code of practice on admissions and every school will work in partnership with the LEA and other schools to raise standards.
On the relative performance of grant-maintained and LEA schools, I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that it is true that on average, grant-maintained schools achieved better test and examination results than LEA schools. But it is true also that GM schools have tended to serve more privileged areas than LEA schools. That is the explanation. There are many good GM schools but there is no evidence whatever that those schools are good just because they are grant-maintained. It is true that the government of which the noble Baroness was at one time a Member lavished additional spending on GM schools and that may be another factor in relation to their relatively good results.
While I am addressing my remarks to the noble Baroness, I should say that the suggestion that simply changing the governors of a failing school will change everything about what that school does is a travesty of what are my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's views and intentions.
I turn for a moment to an issue raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon on the change of category by Church schools and diocesan involvement. Grant-maintained Church schools will be required to consult the appropriate diocesan body before choosing their category in the new framework. About a year after the new framework is introduced, any school will be able to seek an alternative category but I reiterate that the governing body of a Church school will be required to consult its diocesan body before doing so.
The place of city technology colleges was raised by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby. The White Paper Excellence in Schools said that CTCs were to retain their status as independent schools. That means that like other independent schools, they will be outside the proposed new statutory schools framework. However, we have said that we shall develop a particular approach for CTCs so that they are part of the broad family of schools with fair admissions and funding. That is extremely important.
Perhaps I may now turn to the organisation of school places. I was a little surprised by some of the remarks made by noble Lords opposite. For example, the noble
714
Lord, Lord Skidelsky, wants us to be less dirigiste, while the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, mentioned subsidiarity. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, claimed that this is a centralising Bill. However, we are devolving very important matters here in relation to the reorganisation of school provision. We believe that it is vital for local interests to have an opportunity to make their views known. We are introducing a new principle of devolving decisions to a local level, and I believe that that principle has been widely accepted. Indeed, our proposals are a practical means of achieving that aim.
The most important aspect of our proposals for the school organisation committee is partnership. There has always been a partnership in the provision of school places locally between the LEAs and the Churches, and more recently that has included grant-maintained schools and the Funding Agency for Schools. Our proposals give formal effect to that partnership. I am only sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, is unable to support it.
I accept what some noble Lords opposite said; namely, that we cannot leave this matter entirely to LEAs. Indeed, we realise that to do so would fail to recognise the existing position of a whole range of players providing education locally; nor would it give sufficient credit to them for the advantages that their diversity brings to our school system, or give the necessary assurance to those who might object to the proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and my noble friend Lady David mentioned the issue of special schools, especially foundation special schools. The White Paper Excellence in Schools proposed a single category for all special schools—that is both LEA and grant-maintained—but respondents to the document argued very strongly that parents with children in grant-maintained special schools who voted for greater autonomy for their schools were not being given the same rights as parents with pupils in mainstream grant-maintained schools. Therefore, we have responded by including a new category of foundation special schools in the Bill.
Perhaps I may write to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and my noble friend Lady David about exclusions. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, raised questions about admissions. The majority of children admitted to special schools will, as now, have statements naming the school. Of course, some pupils in special schools will not have statements, but the admission arrangements for foundation schools—where the governing body will be the admission authority—will be subject to regulations.
The noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Rix, were concerned that the Government should do the very best possible to support pupils with special needs. Perhaps I may reassure both noble Lords that the new structures will reflect that aim. I agree that we should be judged by our ability to meet special needs, including ensuring that they are taken into account in all education development plans.

715
The issue of linking designation of schools with a religious character to collective worship was raised. The right reverend Prelate raised a point which would relate the content of collective worship in Church of England schools or denominational schools to the religion or denomination specified. Hence it would be explicit that worship in a Church of England school should have a Church of England character, even when the school's trust deed is silent on the matter. One purpose of the order is to define the nature of religious education in a school whose trust deed is silent. I hope that our comments on that reassure the right reverend Prelate.
I now turn to admissions. I was grateful for what my noble friend Lord Peston and other noble friends said in welcoming the fact that the Bill sets out a clear framework to achieve fair school admissions locally. I think that the elements are clear: local consultation and determination of arrangements, and an independent adjudicator to decide disputes.
Noble Lords opposite made much of the argument that there is too much bureaucracy involved in this Bill. As my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath mentioned—I think even the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, alluded to this—a great deal of bureaucracy was introduced by noble Lords opposite, in particular as regards the national curriculum and national assessment. It took the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, to rescue them from the mess they got into in that area.
I shall now say a few words about selection. The previous Government's White Paper on self-government for schools proposed extending the power of schools to select pupils—the "grammar school in every town" pledge. Only 2 per cent. of respondents supported the proposals and 69 per cent. were strongly opposed. That is why we are not legislating for balloting on new grammar schools. The noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Young, seem to have forgotten that the previous government certainly thought that ability and aptitude were different. Their final education Act referred to admission arrangements admitting only pupils with high ability or with aptitude. What is even more telling, they commissioned research on the strength of their belief in the difference between ability and aptitude. They launched that research in May 1996. The then education and employment Secretary said that it was
"to help specialist schools which want to identify a pupil's aptitude for the specialist school, as opposed to ability".
Therefore the memories of those on the opposite side of the House are a little lacking tonight.
I say to my noble friends Lord Hattersley and Lord Peston, who asked about this matter, that the researchers defined "ability" as an all-embracing factor which suggests whether a candidate will be able successfully to undertake a course of study, and "aptitude" as being narrower, determining whether someone has the capacity to be trained and developed.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, that may not satisfy them but that is what the researchers who were
716
commissioned by noble Lords opposite—who now laugh at that research—came up with. As my noble friend Lord Ponsonby has said, we want high standards for all children within a system which is able to meet their individual needs. I also appreciated what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said about the rich range of comprehensive schools already in existence, and the need to sustain that rich range.
I reassure noble Lords who mentioned partial selection that the Government are ending partial selection. We made that clear in the White Paper. There is to be no new selection by ability. The Bill provides for that. I say to my noble friends Lord Hattersley and Lord Peston that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State attaches a great deal of importance to the comprehensive principle. It is because of its importance that we shall end partial selection by ability. In that way we can have a genuine system of comprehensive schooling in operation, although I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, deplores that.
I shall say a few words about grammar school ballots. This matter was mentioned by a number of those taking part in the debate. My noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham made it absolutely clear that perhaps rather too much attention is focused on 160 schools out of a total of nearly 24,000. I believe he reminded the House that more grammar schools were replaced by non-selective schools during the period when the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was Secretary of State, than at any other time. That was one of the best things that she did. The detail of how petitions and ballots about grammar school admissions will work is to be set out in regulations, and I do not wish to go into that now.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, who welcomed the enhancement of the parental role, that we are asking parents to decide about grammar schools and whether to retain them. Noble Lords opposite seem to want to have different rules about the extent of parental involvement in different circumstances when it suits their particular ideological prejudices.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, raised the issue of the assisted places scheme. Our position on that is well documented. The scheme was divisive and unfair, and we are phasing it out. We do not, therefore, intend to allow LEAs to devote their attention and resources to replicating it locally, and we introduced a new clause in another place to prevent that happening.
My noble friend Lady David, who has campaigned so assiduously for the abolition of corporal punishment in our schools, welcomed the decision, made by a large majority on a free vote in another place, that corporal punishment should be abolished in all schools. Like the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I hope that we shall not hear any more on this subject.
Questions have been raised about a number of other issues which I do not have time to answer, being well beyond my time, including, in particular, provisions in the Bill for Wales, a question raised by the noble Baroness Lady Blatch and the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, to both of whom I shall write.

717
I end by saying that the School Standards and Framework Bill is a very significant piece of legislation. The sections on structure are designed to raise standards for all. It provides important parts of the framework for our agenda for education, an agenda that focuses on raising standards of education for all children, whatever setting they are in. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, mentioned nursery education. It gives me particular pleasure, as someone who started my career concerned with the expansion of nursery education, to be taking a Bill through this House which will make nursery education available to all four year-olds. Investing in our young people is paramount, and I believe that the whole House should support our aim to raise standards. Our manifesto promised action in this area, and we are as good as our word. I am glad that many of the measures we intend to introduce in the Bill have been welcomed by at least some speakers in the debate. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Criminal Procedure (Intermediate Diets)(Scotland) Bill
9.38 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Although this is a very short Bill, it is exceptional in ways which will be of interest and perhaps concern to some of your Lordships. I must also say that we regret having to ask your Lordships to waive standing orders so that all stages of the Bill may be taken now. I understand that this is a most unusual procedure which is used only very rarely indeed.
The Bill is also unusual because it involves retrospection. Again. I am sure that this is a matter which would normally cause your Lordships some concern, since it involves retrospective legislation affecting criminal justice procedure. I hope, therefore, to be able to persuade your Lordships that both the urgency and the form of the legislation can be justified because of the exceptional circumstances involved.
The purpose of the Bill is to remedy a procedural deficiency, the implications of which have only very recently become clear by virtue of the High Court of Justiciary's judgment in the case of Milligan. As a result of this, a large number of summary prosecutions and previous convictions under summary procedure in the Scottish court have been called into question. The Crown has already been forced to abandon a number of current cases affected by the judgment, amounting to 71 as at 27th March. Many more cases are in the pipeline. The purpose of the Bill is therefore to remedy this before more cases have to be abandoned, with all the implications that this would have for public confidence in the Scottish criminal justice system.
Since 1981 the summary courts in Scotland—that is the district courts and sheriff summary court—have been able to hold an intermediate diet between first calling of a case and the trial diet, in order to assess
718
whether or not the case was likely to be able to go ahead on the day assigned for the trial diet. If it became evident at the intermediate diet that the case was unlikely to proceed, for example because either of the parties was not going to be fully prepared, or because key witnesses or even the accused might be unable to attend, then the court could take action to address this, either by seeking to ensure that the problems that had arisen were dealt with before the day of trial or by adjourning the trial diet to a later date. As your Lordships will appreciate, an intermediate diet is essentially administrative in nature and is intended to avoid the inconvenience and cost to all those who have to come to court for a trial and then have to be sent away again because it cannot proceed on the day.
Over time, a practice developed of fixing a further intermediate diet where the trial diet had to be adjourned to a later date. The purpose of this further intermediate diet was exactly the same as the original intermediate diet: to confirm whether or not the trial was likely to proceed on the new date. From that perspective, it is immaterial whether the intermediate diet is held before the first date to which the trial diet is assigned or before any later date to which it has to be adjourned. That no doubt explains why it appears to have been accepted without question that the statutory power to hold an intermediate diet was wide enough to encompass the fixing of a further such diet, whether before or after the date of the trial diet.
However, in a judgment of the High Court handed down on 19th November of last year in the case of Mackay in which the appellants appealed against the competency of proceedings where no intermediate diet had been fixed when the trial was further adjourned, the High Court concluded, while dismissing the appeal, that there was no statutory basis for intermediate diets to be held before any adjourned trial diet. In the light of this ruling the Crown took the view that further diets should no longer be fixed, and issued instructions accordingly, although some sheriffs nevertheless continued to do so.
The court's opinion in the case of Mackay had the effect of calling into question the competency of proceedings where such intermediate diets, described by the court as an unintended intermediate diet, had been held and pleas to discontinue proceedings were taken in a large number of cases around Scotland. A number of sheriffs raised the same issue themselves. The Crown therefore appealed against the decision of a sheriff in one such case, which resulted in the Crown Bill of Advocation in Milligan coming before the High Court. On 12th March of this year the High Court held that a summary court had no power to make an order at an unintended intermediate diet and that any such order was therefore a nullity. It followed that proceedings themselves became fundamentally null where the adjourned trial diet did not proceed on the date it originally fixed.
Although the Crown had ceased to agree to such diets in November, it is estimated that around 1,000 current cases are affected by the decision in Milligan. In addition, the decision casts doubt on several thousand completed cases, although no completed case has yet come before the court. In cases where convictions and sentences have

719
been imposed, the decisions raise the possibility of these convictions and sentences being quashed; of an entitlement to compensation for those who have been imprisoned or otherwise suffered as a result of the sentences imposed; and of criminal records having to be expunged. In current cases, the Crown may in particular instances be able to consider instituting fresh proceedings, but this could give rise to further challenges and protracted delay and uncertainty as a result.
We are dealing with summary procedure which involves offending which is at the less serious end of the range. However, those dealt with under summary procedure in Scotland involve persons who receive custodial sentences for violence, indecency, housebreaking and drugs offences, and may have received custodial sentences together with disqualification for motoring offences involving dangerous, disqualified or drunk driving.
Any entitlement to the quashing of conviction and sentence would arise purely because of a technical deficiency which has now been identified by the High Court. It should be emphasised that it is not a deficiency which has resulted in any unfairness whatever to the accused. In every case the defence was content to participate in the diet; indeed in many cases a further intermediate diet would have taken place at the behest of the defence. It should also be emphasised that intermediate diets are a purely procedural hearing. Therefore, the holding of a further diet where a trial diet had been adjourned involved no prejudice or unfairness of any kind to the accused. I am sure you can appreciate how damaging it would be to the confidence in our system of justice in Scotland if large numbers of offenders, who had otherwise been fairly convicted, were able to have their convictions quashed on a procedural technicality, in some cases years after the event, and possibly find themselves able to obtain compensation as well.
This is therefore the outcome which the Bill seeks to prevent. Clause 1(1)(a) and (b) of the Bill give the court discretion to hold an intermediate diet when the trial diet is adjourned to a later date, a discretion which the courts believed they had been exercising correctly until the cases of Mackay and Milligan. Clause 1(3) applies the same amendments to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 so that the amendment takes effect from the date at which intermediate diets were first introduced.
I hope that what I have said is sufficient to persuade you that the retrospective nature of this Bill is justifiable as is the need for it to be brought into effect quickly. If this does not happen current cases will continue to fall and it seems inevitable that appeals will fall to be dealt with on completed cases as well. The Bill has received widespread support, not only from Opposition parties in another place but from legal and human rights groups as well. I very much hope that your Lordships will find it acceptable. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Hardie.)
9.47 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am sure that all of your Lordships will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for providing a very clear explanation of why the Government have considered it necessary to present this Bill to Parliament and seek its expedited passage through another place and your Lordships' House. I am also personally grateful to the Lord Advocate's colleague, the Secretary of State for Scotland, who made a draft of the Bill available to representatives of all of the opposition parties in another place prior to the Bill's publication. This constructive gesture enabled early and urgent consideration to be given to both the need for this emergency legislation and the detail of the Bill itself. The consideration was extremely useful and productive, and as a result agreement was reached in another place that the Bill should receive a speedy passage. I am sure that your Lordships will be of a similar mind. The expectation is that as a result the Bill will reach the statute book within a week of its being presented to Parliament.
As the comments of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate made clear, two issues arise. The first is whether emergency legislation is warranted, and the second is whether it is appropriate that the legislation should have retrospective effect.
I have considered fully the consequences of the decision the court was invited to make in the case of Mackay v. Ruxton, a decision which was not challenged when the subsequent case to which the Lord Advocate referred, that of Milligan, came to be decided. Having carefully considered what was said by the court in both of those cases, I am quite satisfied that this is a case where emergency legislation is justified.
As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate indicated, intermediate diets first came into effect back in 1981. My understanding, from inquiries which I have carried out, is that since that date sheriffs have frequently fixed more than one intermediate diet in a particular case. As the noble and learned Lord indicated, that has proved to be beneficial to many who are involved in the conduct of criminal trials: the court itself, the Procurator Fiscal Service, the defence solicitors and the many witnesses, both police and lay witnesses, who become involved in such trials. The procedure has enabled the expense and inconvenience to be reduced by ensuring that cases only proceed to trial at the trial diet if it is reasonably expected that that should be the position.
Noble Lords will appreciate that if trials are postponed at the last minute or if a late plea of guilty materialises, it causes great inconvenience to witnesses and leads to the incurring of expense which could otherwise have been avoided.
As has been made clear, the practical consequences of the situation which has emerged are quite stark. Unless the law is changed, the prosecution service, the Crown in Scotland, will not be able to seek conviction in many summary cases in which more than one intermediate diet has already taken place. Any orders that may have been made at such second or subsequent

721
intermediate diets will be deemed to be incompetent. These include not only procedural decisions such as the adjournment of diets at trial, but also warrants for apprehension which may have been granted because accused persons may not have turned up at the second or subsequent intermediate diets that have been fixed.
In such circumstances, with the 1,000 or more cases to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate referred, it is clear that the Crown will have no alternative but to desert the current proceedings. In certain instances, it may be possible to raise new proceedings. However, in other cases, particularly those involving statutory offences, the cases may be time-barred and the prosecutions will be able to go no further. For that reason it is obvious, I believe, that emergency legislation is appropriate.
The much more sensitive question is whether the legislation should have retrospective effect. As your Lordships will be well aware, it is only in the rarest of instances that such legislation finds favour with your Lordships' House.
Again, I have sought carefully to consider all the issues involved. Having done so, I reached the view that the unusual circumstances that apply in this case justify the Bill which has been presented having the retrospective effect which is set out in its clauses. I believe it is necessary to protect at least some of the current cases which are affected by the problem which the noble and learned Lord described. The retrospective effect may also be necessary to protect an unquantifiable number of completed cases dating back to 1981 in which convictions have been returned in the criminal proceedings which were brought and which may now be open to challenge.
I formed the view that I take for this reason. The problem which has arisen relates to the competency of pre-trial procedure. It does not relate to the statutory definition of the offences for which particular accused persons have been prosecuted; nor does it relate to rules of procedure which regulated the trials which were conducted when such accused persons were convicted. Nor does it relate to any question as to the admissibility or sufficiency of evidence which was led at such trials.
I believe that if the law is changed retrospectively, as the Bill suggests, no question could arise of any accused being able to argue that the change brought about by the Bill would in any way have deprived him of his right to a fair trial. Nor can any question arise of an accused having been convicted of a new offence or an aggravation of an existing offence. The worst that an accused could complain of would be of having been inconvenienced by being required to attend court more often than might otherwise have been the case and, in a few instances, of having been remanded in custody, pending trial, for failing to attend a second or subsequent intermediate diet that in the light of Mackay could not competently have taken place. In those few instances the accused concerned will have deliberately disobeyed an order of the justice or the sheriff to attend a specified diet. In such circumstances, it is difficult to believe that any great injustice will have arisen.
722
In relation to past convictions, the arguments that retrospective provisions may be necessary are less compelling. There is a fairly strong argument, supported by judicial authority, that in past cases the High Court would not entertain late appeals based on a change in the construction or application of statutory provisions that have not themselves been amended. Be that as it may, I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that it would be most unfortunate if resources were devoted to considering such late appeals when there can be no doubt that the offences of which the accused were convicted have not changed and where there can be no argument that they did not receive a fair trial.
In a situation such as the present, one requires to balance the public interest on the one hand with the interests of any accused that may be affected on the other. In my view, when that exercise is dispassionately carried out the balance is tilted firmly in favour of allowing the Bill to proceed as speedily as possible with retrospective effect. It would be most unsatisfactory if current prosecutions were to founder or past convictions be quashed as a consequence of a procedural irregularity of a nature that has only recently and quite unexpectedly been identified. In those circumstances, I find it possible to offer the full support of these Benches to the Bill.
9.58 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, last week at the conclusion of the Crime and Disorder Bill, I was preparing to say that this was probably the last occasion on which a Scottish criminal justice Bill would come before this House. The curtailment of the debate that the Bill do now pass prevented me, fortuitously, from making such an unfounded claim.
The Bill before us tonight proposes the retrospective amendment of the 1975 and 1995 Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Acts. The usual knee-jerk reaction from an Opposition Bench would be to resist such retrospective legislation. However, examination of the Bill, and its context, proves that not to enact the legislation would be very detrimental to the criminal justice system, and to common sense.
The Bill proposes to close a loophole only recently discovered by what the Daily Record calls a,
"sharp lawyer at Glasgow Sheriff Court".
The so-called Milligan ruling made on 12th March by three Appeal Court judges, headed by Lord Cullen, has become a technical and procedural loophole. There is no substantive point of law involved. Intermediate diets exist to prevent timewasting in trials and unnecessary inconvenience to jurors and, indeed, to inquire into the progress being made by both parties in their preparation for the trial. The Milligan ruling identified an administrative shortcoming of no real substance. There is every good reason to support the Bill.
One of the Clackmannanshire local papers—I knew that I would get this in somehow—the Wee County News, reported last week that three convicted persons at Alloa Sheriff Court escaped sentence because of the loophole. The newspaper report was complaining about that. I am satisfied that this remedy should come into being, and soon.
10 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I regret very much the necessity for this Bill but I acknowledge and agree that it is absolutely essential in order to remedy an innocent administrative anomaly which has only now come to light after some 16 or more years.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, remarked, the introduction of intermediate diets proved of some benefit in Scotland. Indeed, it is because of the perceived benefits that prosecutors, defence agents and sheriff clerks—under the supervision of sheriffs—began to use them more widely. Unfortunately, nobody noticed until recently that Parliament had framed the relevant legislation in such terms that, ordinarily, only one intermediate diet was allowed before the trial diet. The legislation was fairly complicated and its limitations were not noticed by practitioners, including prosecutors, by sheriffs or indeed by academic commentators until the latter part of 1997.
Then, in the case already mentioned of Mackay v. Ruxton, which came before the High Court in November, the Crown—I want to emphasise this—argued that there could not be a statutory intermediate diet at or after the trial diet. So the problem came to light when the Crown argued that intermediate diets could no longer be used in the way they had been used for the past 16 years. It followed that if an intermediate diet took place after the trial diet, it was an incompetent diet. It therefore followed automatically that any proceedings at an incompetent diet were a mere nullity. That was pointed out by Sheriff Gordon not just in March but when he published his commentary on the case of Mackay earlier in 1998. So the problem was manifest quite a wee while before the middle of March 1998.
The court accepted the Crown's argument in the case of Mackay v. Ruxton, and rightly so. The Crown did not suggest then or later that that case had been wrongly decided—in fact, in a later case, it was expressly accepted that it had been correctly decided—and just two weeks ago, in a case in which I was sitting, the Crown declined an opportunity to have the decision in Mackay and the decision in Milligan reconsidered by a larger court. It is thus abundantly clear that no criticism can be directed at the High Court or at the judges who took the decision which has led to this situation.
Despite this history, which is known to all of us who have been involved in the matter, the press in Scotland, displaying its customary hindsight wisdom, denounced both the judges and the law itself in terms calculated to bring both into disrepute. Typical of this low level of journalism was the headline in the Daily Record:
"Judge gives thugs jail pass",
and the claim that Lord Cullen had,
"sparked the crisis…when he ruled that an accused should not face more than one court hearing between his first appearance and trial".
Then, disgracefully, under a picture of the right honourable Lord Cullen, the Lord Justice Clerk, in bold type, there appeared the words "Cullen Stink". It was a disgraceful example of gutter journalism. It was neither accurate, nor fair, nor responsible. It personalised, trivialised and distorted the issue. In point of fact, the
724
decision, which was correct, was not a decision taken by Lord Cullen but a decision of a High Court bench consisting of three judges. Lord Cullen simply wrote the single judgment of the whole court. He did not express any view about what should happen. He simply made it clear, and rightly so, what Parliament had said could or could not happen.
The leader in the same issue of the newspaper concluded:
"No wonder they say the law's an ass".
The Record is the most widely read newspaper in Scotland. It owes a duty to those who buy it to tell the truth about serious issues. In this case it abandoned that responsibility in order to sensationalise its news coverage and sell more copies. I regret to say that many other newspapers followed suit. I do beg the press in Scotland to show some responsibility in reporting the decisions of the courts. In too many instances it fails lamentably.
I want to mention one other lesson that ought to be learned. There are far too many postponements in summary criminal trials. There are numerous different reasons why cases are not proceeded with on the date set down for trial. Many of the excuses, which are acceptable now, would not have been acceptable, or accepted, before the reforms which began to be introduced in and after 1980. The result is that many accused persons appear six, 10 or even 20 or more times before a sheriff before their cases are finally disposed of. The cost to the Legal Aid Fund is absolutely enormous. Much of that cost would be quite unnecessary if we simplified the system by ruthlessly cutting down on the number of diets that are held. We could save a great deal of money and bring cases to a much speedier conclusion.
This is a matter which I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will take note of. It is a matter which could benefit from an expert study by a committee of senior and able sheriffs, of whom there are many; sheriff clerks and defence lawyers, assisted by the police, who have a great interest in this matter as well, and by representatives of the Procurator-Fiscal Service. Such a committee must not be dominated, or even led, by the Crown Office. I say that because many of the problems arise within the Procurator-Fiscal Service and within the Crown Office. Much recent experience has shown that these institutions are not very good at seeing their own faults and thus finding effective remedies for the problems that lie within their spheres of responsibility.
I hope that this Bill works. Unfortunately, unlike the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, I did not see it until very recently. I expect that it will work. I hope that the Lord Advocate's Department and the Scottish Office will learn the right lessons from this unfortunate episode.
10.6 p.m.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, this has been a short but important debate. Before briefly responding to the points that have been made, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, and the

725
noble Earl for the constructive approach which they, representing their respective parties, have adopted and for their agreement to facilitate the speedy passage of the Bill. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, for his invaluable contribution. I wish to reassure the noble and learned Lord that I had anticipated the question about the number of diets in summary procedures even before this difficulty arose.
It is a specific topic which the Criminal Justice Forum is looking at as regards the question of efficiency of procedure. It is hoped that a sub-committee of the forum, which has been addressing the issue for some time, will be in a position to report to the forum at its next meeting in June. As the noble and learned Lord will be aware, the forum has representatives from the defence, the police, the sheriffs, the Procurator-Fiscal Service, social workers and others involved in the system.
I would also like to associate myself with the comments and disapproval in the strongest terms of the reporting by the popular press of this matter. I assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and other senators of the College of Justice that it is certainly not the position of the Crown that the court, or anyone else for that matter, is to blame. As the noble and learned Lord observed, the issue first arose in November when the Crown argued in response to an appeal by a convicted person. It flowed from that. As I hope I made clear in my initial statement, the Crown, through me, took immediate action as soon as the case of Mackay was reported. It was realised that serious implications arose from that decision. As the noble and learned Lord indicated, the decision in Mackay and Milligan was accepted by the Crown as correct. I believe that everyone accepts that it was a correct decision. It is perhaps unfortunate that it took so long for that correct interpretation of the legislation to become apparent.
I do not believe that I need address the issue of retrospection. It has been dealt with by noble Lords opposite. It is common ground that there is clear need for this legislation to correct a procedural irregularity that would otherwise cause considerable public disquiet, continuing disruption to the criminal justice system in Scotland and injustice in a very real sense. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 6th April), Bill read a third time and passed.

Institute of Legal Executives Order 1998
10.11 p.m.
Lord Hardierose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th March be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this order contains rights of audience in England and Wales. Historically, rights of audience have been the preserve
726
of barristers and to a lesser extent solicitors; but this order will extend rights of audience to a third category: legal executives.
The draft instrument was laid before the House on 12th March of this year. By this order the Institute of Legal Executives will become the first new authorised body for the purposes of Section 27 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. The 1990 Act established a framework for the granting of rights of audience and the right to conduct litigation. The institute will join the General Council of the Bar and the Law Society as bodies authorised under the Act to grant right of audience to its members. This order will enable the institute to grant rights of audience before a court to suitably qualified fellows of the institute through the issue of separate rights of audience certificates for civil proceedings, matrimonial proceedings and coroners' courts proceedings.
The authorisation of the institute so that it may grant rights of audience to its members has been welcomed by those who have considered the application. It will extend rights of audience as was allowed under the 1990 Act, but the procedures under that Act have proved to be too cumbersome and susceptible to delays so that rights of audience generally have not been extended as widely as had been envisaged.
The Government are committed to reforming these procedures and will announce their proposals in due course. The order is limited to the Institute of Legal Executives and to the rights of audience which its fellows may acquire. When qualified, fellows of the institute will have the right to appear in five different categories of court proceedings: first, in open court in county courts on matters which are within the normal jurisdiction of a district judge; secondly, in family and related proceedings within the normal jurisdiction of district judges in the county courts and before magistrates in family proceedings courts; thirdly, before justices in magistrates' courts in relation to all matters originating by complaint or application, including application under the licensing and betting and gaming legislation, but excluding any complaint or application affecting the liberty of the subject; fourthly, the four specified tribunals under the direct supervision of the Council on Tribunals where the tribunal rules provide for a non-discretionary right of audience to be available to barristers and solicitors; and, finally, in coroners' courts in respect of all matters determined by those courts. Legal executives may now appear in certain proceedings either where there is no restriction on representation or with the leave of the court or tribunal concerned, but by this order fellows of the institute will be able to appear as of right in the proceedings that I have outlined.
One consequence of the success of this application is that we propose that those fellows who become authorised advocates should become subject to the Legal Services Ombudsman.
The support and advice of the ombudsman will be important in seeking to ensure that standards of service by fellows of the institute are maintained. A separate order to that effect has been laid before both Houses.

727
The application by the institute under the 1990 Act was approved by the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges in November 1997. The decision marked an important development in the widening of rights of audience initiated by the Act.
However, it is unfortunate that the procedures under the 1990 Act are so labyrinthine and slow. The institute's application was first started in November 1993 and will not be concluded until later this month. It is the Government's intention to improve that approval process, and our proposals will ensure that applications such as that can be processed expeditiously in future.
Fellows of the Institute of Legal Executives already play an important role in the legal process, and the success of its application will ensure an even greater contribution in the future. As such, I commend this instrument to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Order laid before the House on 12th March be approved—[27th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Hardie.)
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, this Motion is welcomed and supported by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 was of course an Act introduced and passed through your Lordships' House by the previous government. We therefore welcome any dispassionate and objective improvements that might be made to that Act should it be found to fall short of the highest standards in any way.
I noted what the noble and learned Lord said about labyrinthine procedures and the need to introduce more expeditious ways of granting approval under Sections 27 and 29 of that Act. Can he give us any indication of the direction that any alternative procedures are likely to take?
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I am not in a position to give any details of the proposals at the moment. The Government will announce their proposals for approval access in due course. All that I can say is that it is intended that the proposals will make it simpler for existing rights to be extended and for others to acquire rights in the future. I am happy to write to the noble Lord once I have more detailed information.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply. I am much obliged to him for the information that he has given me.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, approval of the instrument will lead to an important increase in the number of people qualified to appear before courts and tribunals. It also marks an important stage in the process of legal executives towards their more general recognition as an independent and separate branch of the profession. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Traffic (New Drivers)(Northern Ireland) Order 1997
10.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th December 1997 be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, road safety is an important issue which concerns all of us. It affects us personally, our families, our friends and the entire community. While the United Kingdom has one of the best road safety records in the European Union, the Government believe that more needs to be done to reduce deaths and serious injuries on our roads. I regret to say that the road casualty rate in Northern Ireland continues to be the worst in the United Kingdom. During 1996 road traffic accident deaths per 100,000 population were 24 per cent. higher in Northern Ireland and 38 per cent. higher per 10,000 vehicles registered.
Also during that year total casualties were 50 per cent. higher per 100,000 population and 71 per cent. higher per 10,000 vehicles registered. This year to date 43 people have been killed on Northern Ireland's roads compared to 41 in 1997. On a more positive note, in relation to meeting our target of a one third reduction in road deaths and serious injuries by the year 2000, the 1997 figures show that a 28 per cent. reduction has been achieved. However, unless more road safety measures are implemented, a continued reduction in road accident casualties may not be secured.
To tackle this problem, a range of new measures has been introduced in line with similar arrangements elsewhere in the UK. The most recent of these has been the introduction of penalty points for serious driving offences, the use of camera technology for speeding offences and a new mandatory extended driving test for those convicted of dangerous driving.
The order before us today is a further part of this increased effort and is aimed at inexperienced newly-qualified drivers. This order seeks to introduce new provisions into Northern Ireland's road traffic laws and is based on the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995 which came into force in Great Britain in June 1997.
It builds on the penalty points scheme which came into operation in Northern Ireland on 1st October 1997 by introducing procedures whereby newly qualified drivers would revert to learner status and have to re-take their driving test if they reach a total of six or more penalty points within two years of passing their first driving test. Examples of offences for which penalty points are allocated include, careless and inconsiderate driving, 3 to 9 points; speeding, 3 to 6 points; traffic light offences, 3 points.
Perhaps I may summarise the key provisions of the order. First, it sets a two year probationary period from the date a person passes his or her first driving test. This could be any test conducted under the laws of Northern Ireland, Great Britain, the Isle of Man, any of the Channel Islands or Gibraltar. It could also be a test

729
conducted under the laws of any other EEA state; that is, EU member states plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.
Secondly, it requires the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland (in effect, Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland) to revoke the full licence (or, if the provisional licence and test certificate have not been exchanged for a full licence, to revoke the test certificate) where the accumulated penalty points total reaches six or more during the probationary period.
Thirdly, it prohibits the issue of a further full licence until the driver passes a further driving test. However, once a further test has been passed the driver becomes eligible for a licence equivalent to the one which was revoked. This means that one re-test will restore all previous driving entitlements irrespective of the class of vehicle used for the purposes of the re-test.
Fourthly, penalty points which lead to the revocation of a licence under this order would still remain on the licence record so if that driver accumulates further points he or she would, if the total reaches 12 within a three year period, be subject to disqualification from driving. Accordingly, one re-test only would apply under this order. Also, where a driver appeals the conviction or endorsement which brought his or her total number of penalty points to six or more, the revoked licence would be restored, without a re-test, pending appeal.
Finally, the order modifies Northern Ireland's restricted driver provisions. As these provisions are unique to Northern Ireland, I shall explain these changes in some detail. Since 1968, the law in Northern Ireland has required newly qualified drivers to display "R" plates on any vehicle they are driving and they are restricted to a maximum speed of 45 mph. These restrictions apply for a period of 12 months after passing a driving test. In calculating the 12 month period of restriction, any period of disqualification is ignored so that the restricted period will not end until the driver has completed a full 12 months' driving experience under restriction.
This order would make two significant modifications to the restricted driver provisions. The first concerns the existing law which requires courts, when ordering a restricted driver to be disqualified from driving, to order a further 12 month restriction after the disqualification ends. Also, if not disqualifying a restricted driver on conviction of certain offences (such as speeding or careless driving) courts are at present required to order a further period of restriction of between three and 12 months. This order would remove the duty on courts to order such additional restricted periods. However, calculation of the initial restricted period would continue as before and periods of disqualification would not count as part of the 12 month restricted period.
The second modification is that the restricted provisions would no longer apply after a driver has been re-tested.
730
The proposal is that they will apply only after the initial driving tests in category A and B vehicles; that is, motorcycles and cars. We believe that with the increased penalties proposed by this order, there is no need for powers to extend restricted periods beyond 12 months.
The provisions of the new drivers order would not apply to a driver who has passed his first driving test before the order comes into force. However, for those drivers to whom the order does apply, the six or more points total will be calculated in accordance with the current provisions of the Road Traffic Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. That means that any points accrued within the three-year period preceding the latest offence will be counted and that would, therefore, include any points acquired as a learner driver prior to this order coming into effect.
The draft order was circulated to more than 200 individuals and bodies and some 20 responses were received. Overall, they indicate a general acceptance and welcome for its provisions.
Lack of experience, often allied to over-confidence and sometimes irresponsible attitudes, is a major contributory factor in road crashes. In 1997, over 16 per cent. of fatal road crashes in Northern Ireland for which drivers were responsible were caused by drivers with less than two years' driving experience. The purpose of this order is to promote good driving practices and responsible attitudes by encouraging inexperienced, newly-qualified drivers to observe the law.
Your Lordships will be interested to know that over 60 per cent. of driving tests conducted in Northern Ireland in 1997 were taken by young persons under the age of 21 years. Obtaining a driving licence is a major event in the lives of many young people. We believe that the threat of loss of that licence will act as a significant deterrent to bad driving and will contribute to reducing road casualties in Northern Ireland. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th December 1997 be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we all agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on the importance of road safety in Northern Ireland. He gave us some figures to reinforce that view. Therefore, we support the idea that lies behind this order. I have only one or two relatively small points to make in connection with it.
It refers in part to the restricted period of one year which new drivers who have just passed their test for the first time in Northern Ireland must observe. It restricts their speed and so on. I have always thought that that was a rather good scheme and I am slightly sorry to see that the possibility of the extension of restriction when there is an offence is being removed by this order.
However, as the Minister explained, the order institutes a probationary period of two years in addition to the restricted period of one year. It would be cleaner and neater if the same period had been taken for both restriction and probation. However, I shall not argue too much about that. But it is rather difficult to understand

731
from reading the order when the probationary period ends if, as a result of offences and the clocking-up of points, a new test is required.
Article 9 suggests that if someone is required to take a new test in those circumstances and duly passes it, then his probationary period ends at once even though he may still be within the two years following the passing of his driving test. That means that somebody who has committed those offences will have a shorter probationary period than someone who has an unblemished record throughout the two years of the probationary period. That seems an odd provision. I feel sure that there is an explanation behind it which no doubt the noble Lord will give to us.
The other point which confused me slightly concerns Articles 4 and 5. Article 4 is headed "Surrender of licences" although it seems to be concerned with confiscation of licences. But it is not the surrender which matters and which makes driving, except on a provisional licence, invalid. It is the revocation of that licence which is what Article 5 provides. The revocation applies from the time that the notice of revocation is served on the offender. Presumably it is legal for him to continue driving until whoever serves the notice catches up with him in order to serve the necessary order.
However, I was rather surprised that the court does not seem to have the power actually to prevent the individual from driving there and then, but only to set in train a bureaucratic process of the clerk reporting the matter to the department and the department then sending someone out to serve a notice of revocation on the individual concerned. Indeed, I would have expected the court to be able to say, "That's it; you can't drive from now on", and for the bureaucracy then, as it were, to follow that up in dealing with the licence. Perhaps there is a good reason for that, but I am not clear what it could be. Subject to those relatively minor points, I believe that the order should be passed by the House.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I, too, am broadly in agreement with the order as it stands. It is possible that some other road traffic legislation for the Province, which I understand is in the pipeline, is a little more controversial. However, we will deal with that on another occasion.
I noticed that the Minister referred to the wording of Article 3(2) and included the words "Great Britain" in his remarks. However, that term does not appear in the list contained in that article. This is not nit-picking; it may be that the omission of "Great Britain" is due to the wording contained in paragraph (2) on the previous page of the order. Nevertheless, the wording of the list at the top of page 4 of the order looks a little odd.
The Minister quite rightly drew our attention to the horrifying percentage of young people who kill themselves and other people through irresponsible and reckless behaviour on the roads. Perhaps I may make a point about the responsibility of parents who, unfortunately, encourage newly qualified young drivers to drive high-performance cars before they have
732
acquired adequate driving experience. We have seen far too many examples of fatal crashes, usually resulting from teenage drivers showing off on Saturday nights because they think that they can control cars capable of spectacular acceleration and perhaps rally-type speeds.
I am not suggesting that there should be new or even amending legislation in that respect. However, I believe that we should alert all those who place high-performance cars in the hands of young, excitable drivers to the risks involved, not only to those drivers and their passengers but also to the general public.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, before making one brief comment on this order, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that new drivers in Northern Ireland drive under much more stringent limits than new drivers on the mainland and that these limits are most sensible. As my noble friend mentioned, drivers in Northern Ireland are restricted for one year to a maximum speed of 45 mph and, during that time, they have to show "R" plates. Not only does that show other drivers that they are novices but, being restricted to a certain maximum speed, they are able to assimilate the reaction and inter-reaction of traffic without too many problems. That is to be applauded.
As some of your Lordships know, from time to time I go on traffic patrol with the police. Last summer, one month after the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995 came into force, I was a passenger in a vehicle whose crew stopped a 19 year-old driver who was not only doing 93 mph six weeks after passing his driving test but was also accompanied by his father. Both were unaware of the contents and implications of the Act. So, should not consideration be given to including relevant information concerning this order in the Highway Code—a document which, unfortunately, is mainly purchased by learner drivers?
I return now to the order before the House tonight. The only query that I should like to raise is why "R" plates have to be displayed only on the first occasion that a driver passes a driving competence test. If, as a result of this order, a driver has to go hack to learner status and then passes the appropriate test, then, having passed the test, the driver is, to all intents, a new driver. Would it not be sensible for this driver to be restricted in exactly the same way as other new drivers and be limited to maximum permitted speed and to having to display "R" plates for a year? Perhaps my noble friend would give this consideration.
This is an excellent order which it is to be hoped will help to improve driving standards and I hope that it comes into operation without delay.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful for the interest shown, the comments made and the questions that have been asked. I welcome the general support for the order and its aim of reducing the rather high level of road accidents in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked a couple of questions concerning the probationary period. These matters are quite technical in terms of the way they work but I shall do my best to give him the answer. The draft

733
order provides for the probationary period to end in advance of the standard two year probationary period in two circumstances only. First, a probationary period would end where a driver has already been subject to a revocation and retesting under this order. This is to prevent a person from being caught in a continual round of retesting. Passing a retest and getting back the full licence will not wipe off the penalty points which led to the revocation. Therefore on accruing the next six points, the driver becomes subject to the more stringent penalty of a minimum six month period of disqualification.
Secondly, the order requires for early termination of probation where a court makes an order requiring a person to be qualified until he passes an appropriate driving test. This is necessary to avoid double jeopardy of two tests: one under this order, and the second one ordered by the court. It also takes account of the fact that the test ordered by the court could be an extended one which is twice the length of the standard test. An extended test would be ordered in the case of an offence involving dangerous driving.
I further answer the point about the two year probationary period. In relation to the new drivers' order, as the main purpose of a probationary period is to establish experience, a lesser period—for example, one year—is considered too short. A period longer than two years, while it may have a practical effect in that it would further constrain drivers of limited experience, would be too onerous and would undermine the meaning of the term "probationary".
In relation to restricted drivers, the R period was set at 12 months because this was considered an appropriate period of time during which to limit the speed of drivers to 45 miles an hour. After 12 months it is appropriate that such drivers be given the opportunity to drive in excess of 45 miles an hour. The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, made what I believe is an important point regarding the responsibility of parents in that they should not encourage young, inexperienced drivers to drive high performance cars, and they should seek to discourage such driving. In so far as parents are able to exercise that influence on what are often their adult offspring, I think that is a desirable aim.
A number of other points were made. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, asked other questions about the restriction provisions. Given the new penalties of revocation and retesting introduced by this order and, additionally, the recently introduced penalty points scheme which will render such drivers liable to disqualification if they continue to commit endorsable road traffic offences, the R provisions in their present form are no longer considered appropriate. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 therefore amends Article 19(a) of the order of 1981 accordingly.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, also asked whether the reference to the new drivers' order could be included in the Northern Ireland Highway Code. We aim to consult on a new Northern Ireland Highway Code during the summer months, and consideration will be given to the noble Viscount's suggestions before publication.
734
I welcome his idea. I was also asked about allowing courts to revoke licences. The order gives power to the DVL(NI) to revoke—and not the courts—because some cases will be dealt with by the fixed penalty points system and will not go before the courts at all.
I hope I have done justice to all the questions that have been asked. I appreciate that some of these points are quite technical. I believe that the order will be very helpful in reducing the number of accidents in Northern Ireland.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Before the Minister sits down, I am not sure that he referred to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, about Great Britain and whether it is included. It seemed to me to be a good point which I had not spotted myself on reading the order.
Lord Dubs: I thank the noble Lord for that. I am being slightly speculative here, but Paragraph 3(2)(b) states:
"any test of competence to drive conducted under the law of—",
and then various places are listed: another EEA State, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands or Gibraltar. My understanding is that Great Britain is covered by paragraph 3(2)(a), which refers to,
"any test of competence to drive mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) or (c) of Article 5(1) of the Order of 1981".
If that is not correct, I shall write to the noble Lord, but I think that may be the answer.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety)(Northern Ireland) Order 1997
10.41 p.m.
Lord Dubsrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th November 1997 be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order will introduce provisions comparable with those already in force in Great Britain under the Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Act of 1995.
The Great Britain Act was introduced following the Lyme Bay tragedy when four young people lost their lives. Although no fatalities have occurred in Northern Ireland, young people are occasionally injured, and, with the growing popularity of outdoor pursuits among young people, it is important to minimise the inherent risk in such activities.
In general, the existing regulatory framework in Northern Ireland offers a great deal of assurance that the public is properly protected. However, young people are particularly vulnerable to any failure of health and safety management, and the Government are satisfied that there is a need to provide them with additional protection along the lines of the scheme already operating in Great Britain. That scheme is already making a worthwhile contribution to safety standards and the Government are therefore committed to the introduction of a comparable licensing scheme in Northern Ireland.

735
The draft order has been the subject of wide-ranging consultation with local government and educational, youth and sports interests in Northern Ireland. It was sent to over 3,000 bodies and elicited about 40 responses. The comments received were broadly favourable and it has not proved necessary to amend the draft order. Points raised have generally related to details which will be addressed more fully through further consultations during the preparation of the regulations which are needed to implement the order. However, two areas of broad concern have been expressed concerning the financial implications to operators of outdoor activity centres and the fact that the age range does not encompass over-18s.
The initial compliance cost assessment circulated with the draft order estimated that the ongoing cost to individual centres should not be significant—of the order of £420 every three years. However, fears have been expressed that the true costs under the scheme may be greater than the assumptions or that additional charges may be imposed, such as for spot checks, and may therefore cause financial problems to some operators. This has not proved to be the case in Great Britain, and the Government will seek to ensure that the fee structure in Northern Ireland is broadly comparable to that in Great Britain and does not place an unfair burden on smaller centres. Overall, the aim will be to achieve the necessary safety standard with the minimum of regulation, bureaucracy and cost.
With regard to the second general concern, the decision to focus the legislation on young people under 18 years of age was on the basis that 18 is the legal age for adulthood. This is consistent with other legislation, such as the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which also recognises that this age group is in need of specific protection. The Department of Education for Northern Ireland is not aware of any activity centre in the Province that caters only for those over 18 years of age. The provisions of the draft order should therefore effectively enable adults as well as children to benefit from the scheme.
I am aware that some centres in Great Britain have chosen to restrict their operation to adults so that they move outside the scope of the scheme. Given the small size of the Northern Ireland market, it is doubtful whether that is a viable route for local operators. However, if there proves to be a significant number of operators not subject to the licensing scheme, either because they opt out of the scope or are exempted by the terms of the associated regulations, the Government will consider the appropriateness of promoting a complementary voluntary registration scheme with a wider scope, such as that which operates in Wales and is being piloted in Scotland.
I believe that it will be helpful to the House if I now outline briefly the principal provisions of the draft order, which is a broad enabling provision, with the detailed provisions to be determined in subsequent regulations equivalent to the Adventure Activities Licensing Regulations 1996 in Great Britain.
736
The form of the order is similar to the Great Britain Act, but reflects Northern Ireland institutional arrangements. The draft order requires the Department of Education to designate by order a licensing authority (Article 3(1)); and prescribe by regulations the types of providers to be covered by the licensing scheme including the activities to be covered (Article 3(2)); the requirements to be placed on such providers relating to health and safety and the arrangements for payment of fees, a register of licences and the handling of complaints and appeals (Article 3(3)); and the penalties to be imposed for offences (Article 4). The draft order also enables the department to pay grants to the licensing authority (Article 5(7)).
The draft order requires the Department of Education to designate a licensing authority which will exercise functions as prescribed in subsequent regulations. To ensure that the body to be designated is credible, equipped with the relevant expertise, and is able to do the job, the Department of Education is required, under Article 3(1) of the draft order, to consult with the Department of Economic Development before designating the licensing authority.
In Great Britain, nomination of the licensing authority rests with the Health and Safety Commission, which is an independent executive body with the power to make recommendations directly to Ministers. The equivalent Northern Ireland body is the Health and Safety Agency for Northern Ireland, which is an advisory body with the power only to make recommendations to its parent department. Consequently it is that department (the Department of Economic Development) which is identified in the legislation, but it is envisaged that it will take advice from the agency.
While the draft order makes no explicit provision for reviewing the licensing authority, this will be addressed, as in Great Britain, in the terms of the agreement with the designated body.
Article 5(7) allows the department to make grants to the licensing authority to cover its expenses. As in Great Britain, it is the department's intention that the scheme should, as far as possible, be self-financing through the adoption of an appropriate fee structure, but it is accepted that the fees charged must be affordable, particularly for small operators. The Great Britain scheme has required some deficit support in its initial years. This amounted to £350,000 in 1997–98, but the requirement is declining as the arrangements settle down.
In view of the successful operation of the Great Britain scheme, and taking account of the small number of centres in Northern Ireland (around 30), the department will consider the value to be gained from inviting the Great Britain licensing body to extend its remit to Northern Ireland.
Article 5(3) requires the Department of Education to undertake consultations before making regulations. Those consultations are required to include the Health and Safety Agency and any other relevant bodies.
The Great Britain regulations will offer a useful starting point for the drafting of the Northern Ireland provisions, but they will not be adopted without first

737
checking out the experience of their operation and confirming their appropriateness to Northern Ireland. The operation of the Great Britain scheme is shortly to be reviewed, so that it will be possible to take account of the points which emerge from that process before finalising the regulations for Northern Ireland. It is envisaged that the regulations should be completed by Christmas, so that the scheme can be introduced as early as possible in 1999.
Outdoor activity centres which cater for young persons under 18 years of age and provide instruction or leadership will be required to register under the licensing scheme. I have already explained the rationale for the age cut-off. The focus on instruction and leadership recognises the additional responsibility which an organisation must bear when it takes charge of the outdoor experience on offer.
In Great Britain the regulations are directed at commercial centres which charge for their services, and local authorities providing a service for schools. Operators with more than one centre must register each separately, to ensure that the required safety standard is achieved in every location providing adventure activities. Certain exemptions are specified—for example, where facilities are provided by an educational establishment to pupils of that establishment and where a voluntary association provides a service to its members. The activities embraced in Great Britain are caving, climbing, trekking and watersports, as defined in the regulations. The emphasis is placed on those activities most likely to be undertaken by groups, and therefore requiring particular attention to leadership and instruction.
The forthcoming consultation on the Northern Ireland regulations will enable further consideration to be given, in the light of the Great Britain experience, to whether the Great Britain scope and exemptions are appropriate.
The regulations will lay down appropriate safety standards. As in Great Britain, these standards will focus on ensuring good safety practice, including risk assessment, staff training and safe equipment. A register of licensed centres will be maintained and complaints against centres will be investigated. Appeals procedures will also be established.
It will be an offence to operate without a licence, when one is required, or to operate other than in accordance with the terms of a licence. A person convicted of an offence under the regulations will be liable on summary conviction to a fine or, on conviction on indictment, to a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years, or a fine, or both. So far there have been no prosecutions under the Great Britain scheme.
In conclusion, the enabling provisions of this draft order will permit young people to benefit from participation in exciting and stimulating outdoor activities without exposure to undue risks, and will give parents and the general public greater confidence in the use of centres offering adventure activities. I beg to move.
738
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th November 1997 be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I welcome the order, as I did the Bill which created the Venture Activities Licensing Authority on the British mainland. At this moment I speak from the perspective of a canoeing instructor and hillwalking leader.
The order clearly extends to Northern Ireland an administrative approach to ensuring the safety of young people who are being introduced to, or being trained for, higher attainment in outdoor adventure activities. I have two points to make in connection with the introduction to outdoor activities. Firstly, I remain unconvinced that it is possible to draw a distinction between novices of any age. The new activity is just as unfamiliar to a 15 year-old as to a 25 year-old. The safety issues are just the same. The canoe is just as unstable and the rockface just as daunting irrespective of one's age. Secondly, there is a particular issue in respect of those who are undertaking outdoor adventure activities without their direct consent. The circumstances would be that the individual had been placed in a scheme, often by a court or a school, or even by an employer, programmed for some outdoor activities. Having worked on an intensive probation project I can say that we took all those committed to the project out on outdoor activities without their own individual consent. Inspecting the activity centre for its ability to deal with these potentially reluctant novices would be a useful extension of the inspection process.
I am pleased at the mention of an optional registration scheme for activity centres dealing with people over 18 if, indeed, any emerge in Northern Ireland. As the Minister said, this is in place in Scotland and has proved popular as a form of accreditation. It is seen by several centres in Scotland as being a useful business asset. Those points aside, I welcome the order.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am sure that all right-thinking people will welcome the order, designed as it is to safeguard young people engaged in adventure activities. I trust that the experience gained by under 18 year-olds will implant in their minds the need for a degree of caution in later life so that adults will be less likely to challenge the elements either in the form of a rock face or of the cruel sea. Irresponsibility on the part of such adults not only endangers their own lives but puts seriously at risk those who have to come to their rescue.
I am afraid that the nanny state has a rather odd sense of proportion and priorities. We are told repeatedly that smoking is bad for our health. Eating is under a degree of scrutiny. I might say that if I had my way I would add mobile telephones to the list. Why is it laudable to court danger oneself and perhaps risk death to searchers and rescuers? I trust that the safeguards contained in the order will change the climate of opinion and persuade not just young people but all age groups to exercise a greater degree of responsibility.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister made clear that this is enabling legislation only. It is

739
exceptionally vague about what the controls will be. We do not know when the licensing system will start or to whom it will apply exactly. There are many other points which we do not know about at the moment. I do not consider it a satisfactory way of passing legislation through Parliament. But there it is; that is what is before us.
To whom will the legislation and the new licensing system apply? Article 3(2)(b) suggests to me that if no instruction or leadership is involved in the adventurous activity, it cannot be the subject of licensing. The one thing that will not be covered by the licensing system as a result of the order is unsupervised activity of that character. It seems rather odd, unless I have misread the order.
The next question concerns the fees to be charged. The Minister said a little about it in the course of introducing the order and described what had happened in Great Britain. Having perhaps a suspicious mind, I notice that Article 3(3)(g) provides for payments to be made by the licensing authority into the Consolidated Fund. That implies to me that it will make a profit out of all this and have a surplus which it can pay into the Consolidated Fund. That is not quite the understanding we gained from what the Minister said.
A more substantial point is that hinted at by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, in referring to the nanny state. We need to consider carefully whenever we pass new regulations and put new restrictions on activities whether those restrictions are worth it. We all know about the Lyme Bay disaster. It was a great tragedy. But, as I recall it, the law took its course after the tragedy and people were punished following the incident by the existing law, long before all that is now before us was invented.
I also believe that the deregulation task force asked for a cost benefit analysis of the licensing activity in Great Britain. It suggested that if the conclusions of the cost benefit analysis were similar to the initial conclusions that the task force reached, Parliament should he invited to repeal the Great Britain legislation. If that is so, I will be interested to know if the cost benefit analysis has been done with regard to Great Britain legislation. If so, with what result and what are the implications for extending the provisions—worthy as they are in their aim—to Northern Ireland?
11 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate for their support for this measure, albeit with some reservations.
First, I deal with the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. I acknowledge his experience. He gives instruction and therefore has perhaps more direct experience than anyone else who has spoken. The point related to the age of 18. In fact, in Northern Ireland we have not identified any centre which is liable to be covered by the legislation which does not involve people under the age of 18. All the centres we identified will be covered by the legislation and therefore perhaps I can treat the noble Earl's question as theoretical rather than actual in relation to Northern Ireland.
740
The general answer is that we are dealing with people who are not adults and therefore people who cannot exercise more responsibility for themselves. The noble Earl went on to acknowledge that there was a voluntary scheme which might be brought into place on the lines of the one in Wales and the one being considered in Scotland. We have therefore gone some way to covering his point, should there be centres that emerge in Northern Ireland that cater only for persons over the age of 18.
The noble Earl also talked about novice centres. I believe he meant individuals who might be there as part of a probation scheme or something similar. Those particular circumstances will be considered during the drafting of the regulations and I thank him for having drawn attention to the point.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, made the comment that there was an element of the "nanny state" in the order, but went on to acknowledge that this particular measure would help with the safety of young persons and therefore gave it his approval. The point about the nanny state was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I say simply this. We are talking about giving parents, schools and others who send young people to activity centres the assurance that the standard of tuition and supervision in those centres is adequate; that the quality of the equipment and the instruction is adequate to assure the safety of the young persons taking part. That cannot really be called "nannying" people; it is simply giving them certain safeguards which might, until the tragedy in Lyme Bay, have been taken for granted.
I want to deal with some specific questions which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, raised. He referred to unsupervised activities not being covered. I believe I said in my opening that the greatest responsibility lies where there is instruction and leadership for activities. It is that aspect that we have sought to address in the legislation.
The noble Lord also said that the legislation was vague. He wondered when it would start and to whom it would apply. I believe I indicated that there is an expected timetable and we hope that the regulations will be completed by Christmas of this year. Article 3(2) sets out the broad scope, but further detail will be covered in subsequent regulations.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but can I take it that I am correct in assuming that if there is no element of instruction or leadership and young persons are to be allowed to climb a rock face or whatever on their own, then no licence will be required? Indeed, the legislation cannot be extended to those activities.
Lords Dubs: My Lords, that is my understanding. Indeed, if it were to be made as wide in its scope as the noble Lord suggests, we would be going rather further than is appropriate for government to do. After all, the mountains of Scotland, of the Lake District and of Wales are all there and one can hardly apply legislation simply to mountainsides. One has to assume that where there is no supervision the normal standards of common

741
sense and the responsibility of parents will apply. Organisations which operate in our mountain areas spend a lot of time, as it were, urging people who climb mountains to adopt safety codes and to behave sensibly. However, beyond that the legislation would hardly be able to go.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. When I read the order I was very happy that it referred to organisations, such as the Youth Hostels Association, which encourage young people to go to mountainous areas but do not intend to instruct them or to take them on mountain walks and so on. They merely provide an accommodation service.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I concede that the noble Earl is getting into a grey area which I thought, from his experience, he would probably be able to identify. The answer is that regulations will have to cover such points to see on which side of the borderline such organisations would fall. In one sense I concede the point that the Youth Hostels Association would be seen by parents to be in a position of exercising some responsibility for the young persons. So I think we have to leave it to the regulations to see how that works out. But I thank the noble Earl for drawing that point to the attention of the House.
I return again to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. He referred to the provision for payments to the Consolidated Fund. That is to cover the possibility of there being a surplus. However, we do not expect that there would be one. Indeed, in Great Britain there has been a deficit, although a reducing deficit, since the scheme was introduced. We simply have that provision in case the income should exceed expectations in relation to expenditure. But that is not very likely.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked whether there had been a cost-benefit analysis of the scheme in Great Britain. My answer is that the Great Britain scheme will be reviewed this year and therefore we will see what the outcome of that is. I again thank noble Lords for their helpful contributions to the debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1997
11.7 p.m.
Lord Dubsrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th December 1997 be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order before your Lordships' House gives effect to the main recommendations contained in the Law Commission report entitled Family Law: Domestic Violence and Occupation of the Family Home. These recommendations have already been implemented for England and Wales in Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996 which came into operation on 1st October 1997.
742
As noble Lords will be aware, domestic violence, as a problem, has long been overshadowed by sectarian violence in Northern Ireland. Yet it has always been with us in the background. Indeed, recent research has revealed that domestic violence has its own peculiar characteristics in Northern Ireland; for example, it is affected by the high availability of guns and an unwillingness by some to involve the RUC. These factors make it especially dangerous and more difficult to deal with.
The Labour Party's statement of aims and values says that we seek,
"a just society, which judges its strength by the condition of the weak as much as the strong, provides security against fear…nurtures families, promotes the equality of opportunity and delivers people from the tyranny of poverty, prejudice and the abuse of power".
Domestic violence runs counter to every aspect of this aim. It destroys families—recent research shows that it is a significant factor in marriage breakdown. It causes fear and intimidation, but because domestic violence takes place in the private sphere (in the home) its impact and consequences have, in the past, tended to be minimised. We in the Government, however, accept the need to raise awareness of the serious criminal and socially destructive nature of domestic violence.
So far-reaching are its consequences that it can no longer he seen as a private family problem; rather it should be dealt with as any other violent crime is dealt with. Furthermore, because the victims are predominantly women, a culture which somehow accepts or is blasé towards domestic violence is a culture which will impede our goal of equality of opportunity for all.
We are also strongly committed to an inter-agency approach as the best means of creating a co-ordinated and effective legal and government response to domestic violence. We congratulate the Northern Ireland Regional Forum on Domestic Violence for the important work it has done in the relatively short time since its inception in fostering this ethos of inter-agency co-operation, the sharing of information and simply communicating.
We are also firmly committed to carrying through progressive and coherent policies and legislation which will provide effective and just remedies for victims of domestic violence; remedies which will respect their dignity and integrity and the order before your Lordships' House is a prime example of this approach. In fact, this new legislation is one of the strongest pieces of anti-domestic violence legislation in Europe and the Commonwealth countries.
The order streamlines and consolidates the existing law relating to domestic violence and occupation of the family home by replacing the remedies currently available to a narrow range of people, with a single code which both improves and extends the level of protection available.
The main features of the order are these. A non-molestation order replaces the existing personal protection order. This order is personal to the applicant or a relevant child and will protect her wherever she goes. An occupation order replaces the ouster order and

743
exclusion order. This order regulates occupation of the home and can exclude a respondent from the home or indeed any specified area, including, for example, the applicant's workplace. Breach of certain orders is a criminal offence and the police powers of arrest have been clarified. Orders required for immediate protection will be able to be obtained very quickly in cases of emergency, without the respondent being present. The range of potential applicants is extended to include, for example, divorcees and wider family members. The Children (Northern Ireland) Order is amended with respect to the powers of the court to make residence and contact orders in molestation cases and to allow the court to exclude suspected abusers. An enabling provision is included to allow third parties to act on behalf of victims of domestic violence. The court's existing power to transfer certain tenancies between spouses is extended to cohabitees.
These features broadly parallel Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996, but there are a number of provisions unique to Northern Ireland, most of which reflect strengths in the existing Northern Ireland legislation, which consultees felt should be retained, as a good base to build upon.
First, in relation to enforcement, breach of an order made for protection purposes will automatically be an arrestable, criminal offence. Secondly, the balance of harm test contained in the order will apply in exactly the same way to married and unmarried applicants, so that in cases of domestic violence, the full and equal protection of the law will be available regardless of marital status. Thirdly, in relation to the duration of an occupation order, this will last for a maximum period of 12 months extendable on one or more occasions if necessary.
Finally, a linkage with the children legislation has been introduced so that where the court is considering whether or not to make a contact or residence order in favour of someone who has a non-molestation order made against him, it must consider whether the child is at risk of harm as a result of seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another person if the order is made.
These provisions received extensive support in a thorough and comprehensive consultation process in Northern Ireland. Support was forthcoming from a wide range of individuals and organisations including women's and children's interest groups, the churches, the police, legal interests and human rights organisations.
The order constitutes a timely and important measure of law reform which commands widespread support and which we hope will significantly improve the situation of the many innocent victims of this dreadful crime. Domestic violence is largely a hidden problem, not only in Northern Ireland but in other jurisdictions, but we believe that this legislation will go some way not only in raising awareness of domestic violence as an issue but in allowing more people to avail themselves of the protection that it affords.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1lth December 1997 be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
11.15 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we are at one with the Minister in being concerned about the level of domestic violence in Northern Ireland. I am advised by those who know more about the problems than I do that this legislation is highly desirable in this context and will improve the ability of the authorities to deal with the problem. Therefore, we support the order. However, the Minister gave an indication as to why there might be a high level of domestic violence in Northern Ireland, for example that there might be a correlation between domestic violence and the security situation and the general difficulties that have existed over the years. The Minister suggested two possible contributory factors: first, the greater availability of firearms: and, secondly, the reluctance of some victims to go to the police in cases of domestic violence for what might be described as political reasons related to their attitude to the police in general. I would have thought that the strains and effect on people's nerves of the security situation might also be a contributory cause. Whatever those contributory causes may be, if they are related to the security situation one hopes and expects that during the recent ceasefires, incomplete as they have been, those factors have been reduced. Can the noble Lord inform the House whether there is any statistical correlation—in short, has there been a fall in the level of domestic violence during the ceasefires—to suggest that that is the case?
I have one nit-picking or particular point of interest to raise. I notice that the department for which I once had responsibility, the Department of Finance and Personnel, is to be given authority under paragraph 2(5) to make an order stating that a caravan or houseboat is no longer to be regarded as a dwelling-house for the purpose of certain of these paragraphs. It is rather odd that the DFP should be given that rather onerous responsibility. I do not press the point this evening, but it is an odd power to give not merely to this department but in general. There are certain provisions under which a dwelling-house can never be a caravan or houseboat or a structure other than a building, but the DFP is given power to issue an order, subject to the negative procedure, to extend that rather odd definition. I do not expect the Minister necessarily to respond to that matter this evening, but it was a point which occurred to me when looking at the order.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I well remember the noble Lord, Lord Cope, being caught in the crossfire over the rating or non-rating of caravans and mobile homes. It must be a very painful memory for him, so I shall not probe that matter any further.
Referring to Article 28, in view of the England and Wales Children Act, which followed years of consultation, and the corresponding Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 which was delayed for some years after the implementation of the Great Britain Act—a delay fiercely criticised by many in the other place, where I had a degree of responsibility at that time—it is rather odd that this evening the House is invited to amend the Northern Ireland children Order so soon after its implementation. I wonder whether it is not so much

745
a case of the Northern Ireland children order being flawed as, perhaps, the family homes order that we are now debating cutting across that earlier order. I wonder also whether there was a parallel conflict between the two here in Great Britain.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, again, I am grateful for the support given for this order and for the appreciation of its importance and the benefits that it will bring. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that the strains of the security situation may be a contributory factor to tensions which may result in domestic violence. I would nor for a moment say that that is an excuse for domestic violence, but it may contribute to the reasons for it.
I am afraid that I do not have any statistical evidence as to whether the incidence of domestic violence in Northern Ireland lessened during this or the previous cease-fire. We do not have that information. If it were to be forthcoming in the future, I would let the noble Lord know.
746
As regards the responsibility of the DFP in this area, as referred to by the noble Lord, my understanding is that that department has an overall responsibility for family law. That is why that department is mentioned in that instance.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, asked about the Children (Northern Ireland) Order and why it had been necessary to amend it so soon after its implementation. The answer is that on consultation, a clear response was given that the court should have the power to exclude suspected abusers from the home instead of removing the child, to cause minimum disruption to the child. Under the children order that option was not available to the court, and therefore an amendment was considered necessary. A similar amendment was made to the Children Act for England and Wales by the Family Law Act 1996. I thank noble Lords for their helpful contributions to this short debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past eleven o'clock.

  House of Lords Committee Rooms: Annunciator Screens
  House of Lords Committee Rooms: Annunciator Screens
  Millennium Dome: British Artists' Work
  Millennium Dome: British Artists' Work
  Turkey: Arms Export Licences
  Turkey: Arms Export Licences
  Structural Funds: Eligibility
  Structural Funds: Eligibility
  Broadcasting and Cross-media Ownership
  Broadcasting and Cross-media Ownership
  Arctic Research
  Arctic Research
  Clinical Trials: Draft Directive
  Clinical Trials: Draft Directive
  Nurse Prescribing Scheme
  Nurse Prescribing Scheme
  Fire Safety: Task Force Recommendations
  Fire Safety: Task Force Recommendations
  Fraud Law: Review
  Fraud Law: Review
  Criminal Cases Review Commission: Management Statement
  Criminal Cases Review Commission: Management Statement
  Passports for Children
  Passports for Children
  Prison Service: Dismissal for Racism
  Prison Service: Dismissal for Racism
  Asylum System: Backlog
  Asylum System: Backlog
  Local Government Staff Commission for England
  Local Government Staff Commission for England
  Rollerblading on the Highway
  Rollerblading on the Highway
  Common Land
  Common Land
  Millennium Dome Site: Contamination
  Millennium Dome Site: Contamination
  Sandeel Fisheries: Management
  Sandeel Fisheries: Management
  Basking Sharks: Protection
  Basking Sharks: Protection
  Vitamin B6 Supplements: US Sales
  Vitamin B6 Supplements: US Sales
  Al-Yamamah Programme
  Al-Yamamah Programme
  Halabja: Population Ill-health
  Halabja: Population Ill-health
  Former Soviet Army Officers: UK Retraining Costs
  Former Soviet Army Officers: UK Retraining Costs
  Hardway Estate, Gosport
  Hardway Estate, Gosport
  Defence Technology and Doctrine: Implications
  Defence Technology and Doctrine: Implications
  NATO: Strategic Concept
  NATO: Strategic Concept
  Partners in Europe: Information Pack
  Partners in Europe: Information Pack