Sitting of 7 July 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

    Regeneration
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: What plans he has to assist the regeneration of peripheral areas of the country. [47619]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): May I extend to the House the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning for their absence today? As you know, Madam Speaker, both are abroad on official business.
    A Bill to introduce regional development agencies is being considered by Parliament. Those agencies will play an important role in stimulating new economic growth while tackling the effect of industrial decline in all areas of their regions.
    Mr. Blizzard: Does my hon. Friend accept that peripherality is a major factor which affects economic under-performance and competitive weaknesses in certain parts of the country? I believe that that fact is recognised by the European Union. Does my hon. Friend accept also that peripheral areas are sometimes forgotten by those at the heart of government? Will she consider that point when making appointments to regional development agencies? Bearing in mind the fact that the Department is integrated, does she agree that one of the best ways of assisting peripheral areas is by improving transport links, thereby making them less peripheral?
    Angela Eagle: On my hon. Friend's latter point, the Government have clearly already made a start with the rural transport money announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It will have a big effect in rural areas that have been cut off as a result of the deregulation of buses perpetrated by the previous Government. The Government recognise that peripherality can be a significant factor in creating economic difficulties. For that reason, we have negotiated with the European
    844
    Union to ensure that it gives sufficient recognition to those points in its on-going review of European Union structural funds.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Government be minded to introduce an element of rurality as well as peripherality? By wiping £100 million off this year's budget for shire counties, is the Minister doing anything to improve the circumstances of rural, as opposed to urban, areas?
    Angela Eagle: I disagree with the hon. Lady's view of local authority funding. It is clear that rural areas have particular needs. That is why, through the creation of regional development agencies, we intend to ensure that rural and urban development issues are dealt with strategically.
    Mr. Stephen Timms: Does my hon. Friend accept that parts of the Thames gateway might be properly regarded as peripheral? Will she reaffirm the Government's commitment to regeneration of the Thames gateway area? Given that the Thames gateway is divided between three regional development agencies, will she consider the proposal that one agency should be designated with a lead responsibility for that whole area?
    Angela Eagle: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his creativity in framing that question. I agree that the Thames gateway is an important area for regeneration, but I will have to think carefully about designating a lead agency. Sub-regional and cross-RDA boundary regeneration projects, such as the Thames gateway, can continue within the new structure. I envisage that the Thames gateway will be successful through real partnership, rather than through one RDA taking the lead. I should like to see the Thames gateway initiative taken forward in partnership, with agreement and co-operation.
    Mr. Adrian Sanders: Will the Minister please distinguish between economic peripherality and geographic peripherality, as some areas in United Kingdom cities can be economically, but not geographically, peripheral? Will she also consider the question of peninsularity, where the problems of peripherality are compounded?
    Angela Eagle: I do not think that I should even try to say "peripherality". Clearly, however, rurality and peripherality are important points. I think that the hon. Gentleman should congratulate the Government on their recent success in securing NUTS 2 status—the nomenclature of units of territorial statistics—for Cornwall as an economically peripheral area.
    Mr. Cynog Dafis: Does the Minister agree that the vigorous pursuit of a sustainable energy policy could make an important contribution to the dispersal of economic activity and prosperity to peripheral regions? As for bio-energy and energy crops, is there not an important opportunity now for policies to be put in place to encourage their development? Would that not help the agriculture sector and would it not be good for jobs and economic prosperity? What discussions is the Department having with the Department of Trade and

    845
    Industry and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to put policies in place to ensure that these developments can take place to assist rural areas?
    Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the potential of biomass and crops as forms of sustainable energy. One of the core functions of the new regional development agencies will be sustainable development. The Government are considering how best to achieve and improve on the renewable energy resources targets set down by the previous Administration. There is a cross-departmental view, because of issues such as the non-fossil fuel obligation, which helps to ensure that energy generation on the edges of economic viability can be developed.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Does the hon. Lady believe that the regeneration of peripheral areas is assisted by the Government's policy of granting planning permission to build on green-belt land in areas such as Sussex and Newcastle?
    Angela Eagle: I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her creativity in putting that question. As has often been said from the Government Dispatch Box, the issues of planning, housing and the green belt have been dealt with in reviews of planning guidance in the Government's determination to ensure that they devolve decision making to a level where it is most obviously appropriate for these difficult issues of future planning of housing to be dealt with.
    Mrs. Shephard: I thank the hon. Lady for that attempt to reply. It is important for peripheral areas, however they are defined, as well as for the rest of the country, that the Government should come clean on their policy for the green belt. Does the hon. Lady accept that, until they do, their position is as defined by the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning, that the green belt is "up for grabs", or by the comments of Mr. Derek Draper, that the green belt is
    "just a … bunch of mud tracts at the edge of town"?
    Angela Eagle: I should like to point out to the right hon. Lady that there is more green-belt land designated under this Government than was ever designated previously. Moreover, we shall achieve our targets for building on brown-field land, unlike the previous Administration, which achieved only 42 per cent. during their all-too-long tenure of office.

    Local Authorities (Pilot Schemes)
    Mr. Tony Colman: What progress has been made by local authorities undertaking best-value pilot schemes. [47620]
    The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): All best-value pilot schemes started in April and are implemented in accordance with the plans set out by the relevant local authorities. Under the research programme, a comprehensive overview on progress will be produced in October. Any assessment ahead of that time is necessarily rather selective, but authorities such as Leeds, Newham and York are clearly making good early progress in implementing their plans.
    Mr. Colman: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I am pleased that pilot progress is so good. I believe that
    846
    the best-value arrangements require a level playing field to ensure that employers and employees have the same expectation contractually, whether in the public or the private sector. Would my hon. Friend like to comment on the discussions involving the United Kingdom standing committee on local authority pension funds, the public sector trade unions, the private sector employers and the Association of Direct Labour Organisations to ensure that the pension arrangements for local authority employees now, and perhaps future employees working for private sector contractors that contract with local government best-value arrangements, are equal and fair to all sides in terms of the cost of those pensions and of ensuring that the value and type of the pensions are maintained for the employees?
    Ms Armstrong: That is an important aspect of moving forward into a changing situation in local government, where the key issue is not who delivers services but ensuring that services are delivered in the best interests of local people. It is important that employees know that they have as much security as possible so that they can play their full part in changing and modernising those services so that they produce the best value for local people. We are pleased with the way in which discussions on pension arrangements are progressing, and I hope that we shall return to that matter to achieve the level playing field to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. James Gray: Does the Minister accept that the enthusiastic use of compulsory competitive tendering by Wandsworth borough council, among many others, has resulted in Wandsworth having the lowest council tax and the best services in England? Does she agree that the acceptance of that approach by local people is precisely why, during the local government elections last month, every ward in the constituency of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) was won by the Conservative party?
    Ms Armstrong: I am afraid that the Audit Commission does not agree with the hon. Gentleman on the quality of services in Wandsworth. However, we are determined that all services, not just those that were ideologically targeted by the previous Government, deliver the best value for local people. Unlike compulsory competitive tendering, that is not an ideological approach. Instead of being narrowly confined to a contract culture, that approach will be dedicated to responding to the aims and aspirations of local people.

    Vehicle Emissions
    Mr. Jeff Ennis: How many deaths each year he estimates are hastened by air pollution from road traffic. [47621]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The Department of Health's Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollutants estimates that, each year, between 12,000 and 24,000 deaths are brought forward by short-term exposure to certain air pollutants from all sources, including traffic.
    It is, at present, not possible to say by how much lives are shortened. It is also not possible to attribute a proportion of those effects to traffic alone.
    Mr. Ennis: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Given the number of deaths attributed to air pollution and

    847
    road traffic, does he agree that the Government should take serious action to address the problem? May I suggest that my right hon. Friend consider three courses of necessary action: first, clamping down on the worst polluting vehicles on our roads; secondly, reducing even further the exhaust emissions of new vehicles, and, thirdly, reducing road traffic congestion throughout Britain?
    Mr. Meacher: We aim to address all those objectives. First, with regard to the worst polluters, we have instigated in seven local authority pilot areas the roadside testing of emissions and summary fines for owners of those vehicles with emissions above the prescribed level. Secondly, I am pleased to say that, almost in the last day of the British EU presidency, we managed to conclude negotiations on the auto oil dossier, which is an extremely complicated matter and will reduce vehicle emissions and improve fuel quality to such an extent that new cars will be 30 to 50 per cent. less polluting. My hon. Friend is right to stress the need to reduce the quantity of traffic on our roads, as against technological improvements, and that is precisely why we shall shortly issue our integrated transport strategy, which will do just that.
    Mr. Norman Baker: Is the Minister aware that one in six children in my constituency suffers from asthma, and that, at Lullington Heath, the Government's ozone monitoring site, the maximum recommended level has been exceeded 719 times since 1 January 1997? Can he confirm that the White Paper will be radical and will concentrate on encouraging walking, cycling and transfer to rail; and that the lunches that the Prime Minister has had with the Automobile Association and others will not in any way weaken its radicalism?
    Mr. Meacher: To take the serious point in what the hon. Gentleman said, we are concerned about the increasing incidence of childhood asthma. There has been something of an epidemic over the past decade or more. We need an integrated transport strategy, partly to reduce vehicle emissions; but reducing the number of vehicles on the road is precisely designed to deal with the asthma problem. Under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, local authorities have powers to direct traffic in their area to pedestrianised areas, shut off certain roads to prevent their being used by vehicles, and install traffic-calming measures. All those are being used by local authorities to protect those who are most vulnerable to air pollution.

    Local Government Finance
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: What responses have been received to the consultation paper on improving local financial accountability. [47623]
    The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): We have received 491 wide-ranging responses to the consultation paper on improving local financial accountability from local authorities, other organisations and members of the public. In due course, we will place a list of respondees in the House Library and full copies of the responses in the Department's library.
    Dr. Starkey: One of the issues that will undoubtedly have been covered in the consultation is whether local
    848
    authority self-financed expenditure should be treated in the same way as central Government spending for control purposes. There are strong arguments in favour of allowing local authorities much greater discretion in self-financed expenditure, not least because that would bring us into line with most of our European partners. Is my hon. Friend prepared to look again at that issue, especially for councils that are already clearly demonstrating their accountability to their local electorate?
    Ms Armstrong: In his recent announcement to the House, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor dealt with that issue and made it clear that, although there has been a change to the manner in which public expenditure is accounted for, local authority self-financed expenditure none the less remains an important part of overall public expenditure.
    We are considering how we can encourage good practice in local government and how we can make sure that authorities, many of which are working effectively, respond financially and in other ways to the needs and aspirations of local people. That includes keeping local taxes down as much as possible while achieving good value, quality services. We shall find ways of encouraging and supporting such councils and encouraging the spread of good practice throughout local government.
    Mr. Paul Burstow: Will the Minister confirm that the vast majority of respondents to the consultation confirmed their clear view that they want an end to capping—whether sophisticated, crude or otherwise—and that replacing it with something else would not be satisfactory since it would certainly mean abandoning the promises given by Ministers when in opposition? Will she also scotch the rumours circulating in the local government press that the Government will be unable to introduce their White Paper on local government before the summer recess?
    Ms Armstrong: I have not read that speculation. We intend to continue our work on the responses to the consultation so that we can present a White Paper to the House before the recess. I can confirm that many respondents wanted to get rid of crude and universal capping: it was never a commitment of anyone who is now a Minister to break the relationship between central Government and local government. Central Government will always have an interest in what local government does, and in its spending power—that is what partnership is all about. Increasing local democracy will increase the autonomy of local government, but we must do both. Central Government will continue to be interested in the way in which local government spends its money.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: Will my hon. Friend have regard to the representations made by Special Interest Groups of Metropolitan Authorities—SIGOMA—in the review to which she refers? Will she have special regard to the fact that secondary school children in the Kensington and Chelsea constituency receive £3,949 per pupil, whereas those in Wakefield receive £2,728? The difference is more than a third. Will she bear in mind the

    849
    imbalance and unfairness between the sums allocated for education to Tory-controlled Chelsea and Kensington and to Labour-controlled Wakefield?
    Ms Armstrong: It is my responsibility, and one that I take seriously, to listen to representations from all groups. All groups are currently making representations on behalf of the different local authorities that they represent so that they can contribute to our deliberations on achieving a fairer standard spending assessment. In that way, all people, wherever they live, will know that they are being treated fairly.
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: Will the Minister agree that local accountability goes out the window if she diverts £200 million in cash from the education of deprived London youngsters to the newly created coalfields region in the north? Will she deny reports that she plans to alter the education budgets of London boroughs by disregarding ethnic origin in calculating additional educational needs? Does she accept that there is a huge ethnic minority in London, and that removing the extra funding will result in larger classes, teacher redundancies and school closures? She may think that tinkering with local government finance is the right thing to do, but she does not have the right to do what is wrong.
    Ms Armstrong: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's sudden conversion to being concerned about those matters. I am also remarkably encouraged to hear him say that people must be careful about tinkering with local government finance. He might have said that to his colleagues when they were contemplating the poll tax.
    I have made it clear to the House on many occasions that there is a proper process of consultation on standard spending assessments. That is taking place now, and it is not my job to pre-empt it. We shall go through the responses to our consultation seriously, and deliberate at the end of the consultation process later in the year.

    Sustainable Resources
    Mr. David Hanson: What steps he is taking to encourage business to adopt a sustainable use of resources. [47624]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): Sustainable use of resources is the focus for many existing Government programmes and at the heart of the current consultation on sustainable business, launched on 18 June. The responses will inform future policy and programmes, and help to shape the Government's wider strategy on sustainable development.
    Mr. Hanson: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will she confirm that it is vital that business people take up the challenge offered by sustainable business and look towards making their businesses sustainable for the future? Will she outline how she intends to encourage good practice in business to ensure that we have sustainable development? What do the Government intend to do with businesses that are recalcitrant in that respect?
    Angela Eagle: One of the best arguments for that challenge to be taken up by business people is that it
    850
    enables businesses to produce more, more cheaply, and therefore to make higher profits if they get it right. Businesses need to understand the potential for savings, as demonstrated by the Government's energy efficiency best practice programme. For example, a 40 per cent. saving on fuel bills can be made if combined heat and power is installed. A range of other savings can be made in many, sometimes surprising, areas. British businesses need to take account of those and put them into effect.
    Sir Michael Spicer: One of the ideas that are apparently floating around the Department is that the water that farmers use for irrigation should be rationed. Will the minister confirm that farmers already pay for the water they use for irrigation according to usage, so it would be entirely unnecessary and completely unfair to impose this further burden on agriculture?
    Angela Eagle: It is for the water companies to ensure that supplies are available in their areas, and to charge accordingly. The hon. Gentleman will know that not only is the Office of Water Services undertaking a review, but the Government launched a review of charging and abstraction at the water summit after we came into power. Perhaps the matter will be clearer once the reviews have reported.

    Vehicle Emissions
    Fiona Mactaggart: What measures he has taken to monitor emissions from all forms of transport since 1 May 1997. [47625]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): Direct monitoring of emissions from road vehicles occurs at the annual roadworthiness tests and in roadside emissions testing exercises. National aggregate figures for the transport, industrial and domestic sectors are provided by the national atmospheric emissions inventory. The Department monitors levels of air pollution at 114 automatic networked sites.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the town of Slough, which I represent, is encircled by the overcrowded M40 to the north and the M4, which operates at 105 per cent. of capacity, to the south? The M4's eastern junction with the M25 is the busiest road junction in Europe. Heathrow, with its aviation emissions, is to the east of town, and a railway that is not electrified runs through the middle of it. Slough has fantastic communications, but we do not have adequate information about how those different forms of transport add to air pollution. In the preparation for the integrated transport White Paper, could consideration be given to providing better information on how each of those forms of transport contributes to air pollution? For example, what is the effect of Heathrow on the people in the surrounding areas?
    Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend makes it clear why the people of Slough voted for a Labour Member at the last election. Areas such as Slough desperately need an integrated transport strategy, and that is what we shall deliver. I agree that full information about the quality of air, the quality of water and the contamination of land should be more widely available. I hope that the freedom

    851
    of information Bill, which will not be published before the White Paper on integrated transport, will enable us to make available much more extensive information which should be more readily accessible to the public, including on the internet. A great deal of information is already provided on teletext and in the public media. It is broadcast hourly, but it is not broken down by district to the extent that I would like.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that emissions from modern motor car engines are minimal, and that the problems are caused either by vehicles that are badly maintained or by engines in older cars, which are often owned and run by people who are less well off? Will the Government introduce measures to encourage those people, by fiscal means if possible, to buy newer, cleaner engines for their cars? [Interruption.] And does he accept, in spite of the noise from Labour Members, that ownership of a motor car remains one of the aims of most families? Personal mobility is exceptionally important. I hope that an anti-car strategy is not emanating from the Government.
    Mr. Meacher: There is certainly not an anti-car strategy emanating from the Government, as the Opposition will rapidly discover when we publish our White Paper. We are concerned that people should walk or use bicycles and public transport where appropriate. If that is not possible, cars remain extremely important, particularly in rural areas. We are trying to deal with that problem for people who do not have cars or cannot afford them.
    I accept what the hon. Lady said about emission levels: the problem is indeed caused by older, badly maintained cars. We are trying to deal with the lack of maintenance by carrying out roadside emission tests and issuing summary fines of £60 at the kerbside. I take note of her comments. It would be helpful if we could find ways of encouraging people to exchange old and polluting cars for newer, more fuel-efficient cars.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: The Minister did not mention compressed natural gas, perhaps because it is pollution-free. May I warmly congratulate the Government on the £500 grant enabling people to convert from polluting fuels to compressed natural gas? May I also urge the Minister to make local authorities aware of the grants that are available? Thousands of depot-based vehicles could benefit from those grants, which could rid our streets of noisy, nasty, polluting vehicles.
    Mr. Meacher: I am sorry that, in a rather long answer, I failed to mention road gas duty. As my hon. Friend says, we have frozen the duty for the second successive year, improving the market attractiveness of alternative fuels. I accept that we have not made the advantages of using such fuels sufficiently available, although I think that the major problem that we must overcome is the lack of recharging points around the country. Until there are several hundred or, preferably, several thousand, I do not think that the market will take off.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. We have not heard a brisk question or a brisk answer as yet. It has been a very poor performance so far. Let us try the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett).

    Pedestrians
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What extra provision he intends to make to encourage people to walk to local (a) schools, (b) shops and (c) places of entertainment. [47649]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): We have increased funding for local authority transport packages to £85 million this year. Most of those packages include measures to promote walking. The forthcoming White Paper on integrated transport will set out further measures to encourage walking.
    Mr. Bennett: Is it not very disappointing that so many young people expect to be driven everywhere by their parents? Will my hon. Friend have a strong word with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, to ensure that his policies encourage children to attend local schools and that, in the school curriculum, emphasis is put on what young people can do to improve their environment, rather than being concerned about the Bengal tiger or the rainforests? Should they not be told that walking to school would be a good contribution to improving the environment?
    Ms Jackson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will note what my hon. Friend has said. Equally, I am sure that my hon. Friend will know that, on 21 May, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport announced the setting up of the school travel advisory group. Its membership has not yet been finalised, but it will include representatives of my Department, the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health, as well as local authorities and others at local level. Its main task will be to oversee further measures to reduce car use for school journeys. The aim is to produce comprehensive guidance on best practice for local authorities by this time next year.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister accept that, although walking is excellent exercise for those who are young, old or somewhere in between, the security of children going to school is of the utmost importance? A constituent of mine, a young lady of 13 called Claire Hart, was murdered in broad daylight. Sadly, she had been befriended by an unfortunate young man, who murdered her one day when she was on her way to school. If it is not completely secure, this business of walking can be a problem for young people.
    Ms Jackson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my condolences following the particularly tragic incident that has afflicted his constituency. As he points out, the question of "stranger danger" also arises when parents decide whether to allow their children to walk or cycle to school rather than being escorted in cars. That is why all our thinking—both in the school travel advisory group, and when we are considering safe routes to school—is based on the premise that the safety and security of children must be overriding.
    Ms Gisela Stuart: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating two schools in my

    853
    constituency that took part in the Walking to School week, an initiative of Birmingham city council? However, in urging children and adults to walk more, will she also look at the Crime and Disorder Bill, which puts a statutory duty on local authorities for safer communities? As the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has pointed out, safety is an extremely important consideration if we want to encourage people to walk, whether it is for entertainment or to school.
    Ms Jackson: I will certainly congratulate my hon. Friend's local authority, as I would congratulate all local authorities that participated in that part of the Don't Choke Britain month, which encouraged children either to walk or cycle to school. She highlights the important role that a properly integrated transport system can play, not only in reducing and breaking down barriers of social exclusion, but in helping to reduce crime.

    Traffic Congestion
    Mr. Nigel Evans: What representations he has received on congestion charging. [47651]
    The Minister of Transport (Dr. Gavin Strang): Congestion charging was one of the range of options that were raised in the Government's consultation exercise on developing an integrated transport policy. A number of respondents commented on it. We continue to receive representations and correspondence on the subject from a wide range of sources.
    Mr. Evans: Does the Minister appreciate that rural motorists are concerned about two new car taxes: being taxed every time they enter major towns, and being charged to park outside supermarkets and the place where they work? Does the Minister appreciate that many rural people use their car as a necessity, not as the luxury, and that they have to go into major towns and cities because that is where the services and jobs are? Do rural motorists have to club together to pay for a lobbyist who can have a word with one of the aides in Downing street, so that he can make that telephone call on their behalf, before this Government really listen to their concerns?
    Dr. Strang: First, we are consulting on these policies, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and will announce our decisions in the forthcoming White Paper. Secondly, of course, the situation of people living in rural areas is different, transport wise, from that of people living in urban areas. If we were to adopt any of these policies, including some of the policies that the previous Government advocated in their Green Paper, it would be only on the basis of the fullest consultation. I remind him that this Government have done more than the previous Government to help people living in rural areas, not least because of the huge subsidy increase that we have announced for rural bus services.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although congestion metering could certainly help in some cases to reduce congestion in town centres, there is a danger that such metering will not reduce the traffic level, but simply spread the traffic throughout the day, so that there is not a peak in the
    854
    morning and evening? Does he agree that that should not be the main objective of the Government's transport strategy? The main objective is to reduce the level of private transport and to make integrated public transport beneficial and available to everyone.
    Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend raises a number of important points. Surely the whole House agrees that the real issue is to tackle congestion and pollution. We cannot go on the way that we are. We want to create an environment in which people can use their car, but in a way where there is no congestion. That means pursuing policies that make it easier for people to use their car less.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Is the Minister aware that the average weekly shop weighs 601b? Are we to expect poorer housewives, or indeed poorer househusbands, who cannot afford congestion taxes to take their shopping on and off the bus? Does he agree that a policy of extra taxes for the Chancellor of the Exchequer that is aimed at forcing poorer households off the road, in favour of fat-cat commuters in their gas-powered Jaguars, is not acceptable?
    Dr. Strang: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is impressing anyone with that sort of rhetoric. Let me make it clear that of course we recognise that there are a whole range of journeys, particularly shopping and shopping with young children, where the car will be a convenient and flexible mode of transport. However, that does not mean that we do not have to address what is happening. On the basis of present trends and with unchanged policies, traffic on our roads is predicted to increase by over a third over the next 20 years. We cannot go on like that. The Government are prepared to bite the bullet and we will put forward our proposals later this month.
    Ms Rosie Winterton: If he will estimate the cost per year of traffic congestion. [47652]
    Dr. Strang: Road congestion imposes costs on the environment, the economy and society. Estimates of the cost to the economy vary. For example, the Confederation of British Industry estimated that congestion cost the British economy some £15 billion in 1989. A more recent estimate by National Economic Research Associates put the costs to road users in 1996 at £7 billion.
    Ms Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the key ways of reducing the cost of traffic congestion would be to improve bus services? In view of my right hon. Friend's previous answer, can he reassure the House that the forthcoming White Paper will address some of the problems created by the previous Government's deregulation policies which, in my constituency, mean that the local bus company, Mainline, has withdrawn a number of bus services against the wishes of local people and the South Yorkshire passenger transport authority? That is forcing people into their cars and increasing congestion and all the costs that go with that.
    Dr. Strang: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that she seeks. For many people who do not live in the London area and who do not live near a railway station, the only public transport option is the bus service.

    855
    That is why we attach so much importance to supporting buses. It is why we increased the fuel duty rebate and announced a virtual doubling of the subsidy available to rural bus services. It is why the bus operators described the last Budget as the best Budget the bus industry has ever had.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, in opposition, his party's view of reducing congestion by widening the M25 close to the proposed terminal 5 near Heathrow was that it represented £100 million-worth of motorway madness? What is his view now?
    Dr. Strang: I am sure that the right hon. Lady appreciates that we will be publishing our White Paper in the next couple of weeks. Following that, we will be publishing the result of the roads review. As I am sure she understands, we are appraising all the road schemes and will be announcing our decisions in the near future.
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: What proportion of the trunk road network on current forecasts will be overloaded with traffic in 20 years' time. [47653]
    Dr. Strang: I have today placed in the Library of the House of Commons maps showing the extent of traffic congestion on the trunk road network. Based on 1997 national road traffic forecasts, they show that, on present trends and unchanged policies, the proportion of the trunk road network which experiences regular congestion during peak periods is expected to increase from 14 per cent. in 1996 to 26 per cent. in 2016.
    Mr. Dismore: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Hendon we have some of the busiest parts of the trunk network in London, with the A1, the M1, the A41 the A5 and the north circular? Is he aware that my constituents are becoming increasingly concerned about the environmental impact of ever-growing traffic levels, which can often be made worse by schemes such as that proposed by the Highways Agency for the Five Ways corner A1–A41 interchange, which will turn grass verges into road space? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the views of local residents will be fully taken into account before any final decisions are made about the scheme? Does my right hon. Friend welcome, as I do, the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Bill which points the way forward for tackling pollution and congestion in the years ahead?
    Dr. Strang: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. I am grateful to him for giving me advance notice of this question. I know that he is greatly concerned about the number of injuries at that junction in his constituency. The Highways Agency is working on plans. My hon. Friend needs to be consulted, and I can assure him that we want to move forward and produce a scheme that meets the needs of the local community, particularly the needs of pedestrians in the area.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: The figures show how important it is that the White Paper brings about a real change of direction in transport policy. Is the Minister aware that local authorities have been given a deadline of 31 July to submit their transport plans
    856
    for the coming year, yet they have not yet seen the White Paper and are unlikely to do so until very shortly before 31 July? Could they be given time to amend their plans, so that there can be a change of policy before the millennium rather than after it?
    Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. I shall consider it and write to him. Local authorities already understand that the Government want a much greater emphasis on public transport and want policies that enable people to choose to use public transport rather than cars and, where appropriate, to walk or cycle. We have already announced those policies and are getting responses from local authorities. However, I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he were to persuade the Treasury that by using congestion charging and motorway tolling directly hypothecated for transport schemes, he could give everybody in this country clean, safe and modern transport almost immediately? If he is not doing so, why not?
    Dr. Strang: As always, my hon. Friend raises an important point. The White Paper will deal with the whole issue of charging, including tolling. We still have some years to go before we could put in place, with the necessary technology, a modern, advanced system of tolling that would be efficient and reliable and would not result in people being billed for journeys that they had not made.
    Mr. Eric Pickles: Where hypothecation relates to local authorities, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of their despair at the Treasury's suggestion that those hypothecated sums be taken into consideration when determining revenue support grant, whether or not local authorities raise the hypothecated sums? If that is true, would not it be a clear example of the Government giving with one hand and taking away with the other?
    Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman should not believe all the rumours that he reads about in the newspapers. Nevertheless, he raises an important point. If we were to give local authorities discretionary powers to introduce some form of charging, they would win popular support only if the bulk of the money were available for investment in local transport.
    Mr. Christopher Leslie: May I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the fact that the A650, which runs through Bingley main street in my constituency, is already one of the most congested A roads in the country? I welcome the Government's plans to reduce congestion—especially the focus on integrated public transport and other environmentally friendly measures—and ask him to consider the proposed Bingley relief road scheme as part of the roads review. What is his view of the Conservative Government's record of failing to deal with congestion and overloaded transport networks?
    Dr. Strang: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the single-minded and effective way that he has campaigned for a Bingley relief road. How could we hold a roads

    857
    review without giving it the deepest consideration? I assure him that we will consider it, and I will be announcing our decision shortly.

    Roads Review
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: When he plans to announce the results of the roads review. [47654]
    The Minister of Transport (Dr. Gavin Strang): We will announce the outcome of the roads review following the publication of the integrated transport White Paper later this month.
    Mrs. Lait: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that the results will be announced later this month. Can he confirm that the matter will come before the House before we rise for the summer recess, although it will be towards the end of our Session? No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will then confirm that there will be cuts in the roads programme—another broken Labour promise, despite the Government's assurance before the general election that they would provide a better network of roads in Britain.
    Dr. Strang: If the hon. Lady will await publication of both the White Paper on integrated transport strategy and the report on the roads review—which will certainly be before the House rises—all her questions will be answered.
    Mr. Clive Efford: Will my hon. Friend, in considering the review, take on board the issue of land adjacent to major road developments, and the contribution that such land can make to the environment? In my constituency, the Rochester Way relief road is adjacent to attractive land that is next to a wildlife conservation area. However, repeated requests have been refused by his Department to make that adjacent land part of the wildlife conservation area. Will he consider the financial and environmental implications of allowing land tracts to be used in such a manner? That use may produce savings for his Department.
    Dr. Strang: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that we want to take all reasonable opportunities to encourage biodiversity and to support improvement of the countryside and of general amenity. I am not aware of the position on the specific piece of land that he mentioned in his constituency, but I shall look into the matter and write to him about it.
    Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Is the Minister aware of the very many jumbo lorries that travel each day from cities—such as London—and from Kent to my constituency, to dump domestic waste and other rubbish in landfill sites? Has he noticed the filthy verges that line the roadways because of that traffic? Does he agree that he could have a word with his friends in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and insist that towns, such as London, and parts of Kent, incinerate their own rubbish or else dump it in their own backyard?
    Dr. Strang: The hon. Lady demonstrates the extent to which people's standards are—quite rightly—rising. They want a higher quality of life, and are much more critical
    858
    of the type of pollution that she mentioned. Part of our policy has to be to integrate land use planning with our transport objectives. Part of achieving that objective is to reduce the need for the type of journeys that she described.

    Integrated Transport
    Mr. Jonathan Shaw: What steps he is taking to promote local integrated public transport schemes between different operators. [47655]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): We will soon publish our White Paper on integrated transport policy, which will set out new strategies for delivering integration at the local level. Integrated public transport will be a key element in generating new transport choices for people.
    Mr. Shaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that, on average, the bus speed in towns and cities is approximately 10 mph, and getting slower? She recently launched the Medway railbus service, in which the local authority brought together the train operator and bus operator to provide through-ticketing facilities for my constituents travelling to London. Does not that service set the type of excellent example that we hope will be repeated in the integrated transport policy?
    Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I was particularly pleased to be able to support initiatives such as the Medway railbus scheme. We welcome similar integrated-ticket initiatives, which have been introduced in Brighton, Oxford, Luton, the west midlands and the western region.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Given the interminable delays in making concrete proposals to deal with those issues, why should we take the Government seriously in their wish to address them? Surely the truth is as stated by Mr. John Mendelsohn—of a company called Lawson, Lucas, Mendelsohn—who said of the Prime Minister:
    "Tony is very anxious to be seen as green. Everything has to be couched in environmental language—even if it is slightly Orwellian".
    Surely it is a case not of the green welly brigade but of the new green Orwellian storm-troopers?
    Ms Jackson: As our White Paper will be the first such document for 20 years, I do not believe that it is asking the House too much to wait for a couple more weeks. As for the comments on whether the Prime Minister or the Government are green, we require no readings from the hon. Gentleman of mere gossip and allegation. The Government have made it abundantly clear that we have to formulate all our policies based on sustainable development and protection of our environment.
    Mr. Geraint Davies: Will my hon. Friend join me in giving a cautious welcome to the City of London's proposals to charge a £3 levy for access to the square mile? Does she agree that it will provide a unique opportunity to try out road-pricing technologies, that it will ease congestion and provide the funding for

    859
    better public transport, and therefore ensure quicker journeys for everyone while prioritising those journeys that make the most economic contribution to the community?
    Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend will be aware that the idea of raising a dedicated income stream, to which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport referred,
    860
    from across the entire kingdom usually presented itself in two ways. One was congestion charging, and the other was a levy on private, non-residential parking, but always with the caveat that such moneys raised should be ring-fenced and directed to local authority transport schemes. As for what we have been reading in the newspapers about the alleged proposals by the City of London, it is my understanding that the introduction of any such scheme would require primary legislation.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order concerns a written question to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury; I have given her notice of my intention to raise this matter. I asked her when she was first aware that Customs and Excise, for which she is responsible, had told her that it was launching an investigation into the affairs of Sandline and the alleged breach of the arms embargo to Sierra Leone. She recently answered the question by refusing to give the date, on the ground that an internal investigation is being conducted.
Page 302 of "Erskine May" explains that matters are sub judice only if they are before a court of law; matters that are the subject of administrative inquiry are specifically ruled out of being sub judice.
Relevant and allied to that is the fact that the Prime Minister has answered an identical question. He has given a date on which he was first made aware of the Customs and Excise inquiry into the allegations. The Prime Minister has answered the question, but a Treasury Minister refuses to do so on the spurious ground that the matter is the subject of an internal investigation. Will you confirm, Madam Speaker, that the Minister is in breach of the rules of the House by refusing to disclose the date of which she has knowledge, and that this is therefore a contempt of the House unless she supplies that information at an early date?
Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct. The main business today is certainly not covered by the sub judice rule. Neither he nor the House would expect me to comment on the answers given by Ministers. Perhaps such questions could be put to members of the Government Front Bench in the course of the main business, but the most important thing is that today's debate is not covered by the sub judice rule.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on a point
862
of ministerial accountability. There is a report in The Sun today—[Interruption.] It might not always be regarded as the most accurate record of our times, but it contains a report that suggests that a man who used to work for the Labour party—Mr. Derek Draper—was invited to and took part in a radio or television programme concerning a newspaper report, a programme in which no Minister was prepared to take part. From the studio, the man sought and obtained a briefing from the Prime Minister's policy unit. The policy unit is not the headquarters of the Labour party; it is funded from public funds. Is it right that such things should be allowed to proceed if a Minister refuses to take part?
Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me. I certainly have no intention of commenting on newspaper reports. I do not even comment on newspaper reports that relate to me.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), Madam Speaker. My right hon. Friend sought to establish that a Treasury Minister was withholding information, against the precedents established by "Erskine May", and that the Minister in question should provide that information in reply to a parliamentary question that has been tabled. Will you instruct her to do so?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and I and many right hon. and hon. Members will remember that some years ago, during an inquiry into other matters, information was not given during Question Time. I have already made it quite clear that answers to questions are not a matter for me. We have a full debate in the House today, in which those matters can be raised. No doubt Government Front Benchers will do their best to answer the questions of Opposition Members. I repeat that the matter is certainly not sub judice.

United Kingdom Passports
3.35 pm
Mr. Howard Flight: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision with respect to the form and appearance of United Kingdom passports.
The Bill would specifically require that the royal coat of arms be retained on the cover of the passports of British citizens. In 1981, an EU directive, which was implemented between 1989 and 1992, abolished the old blue hardback British passport and replaced it with the standard red EU format that retained the royal coat of arms on the front cover. Although there is a requirement that the style be similar and that passports are machine readable, there is no common EU passport agency and the issuing of passports remains the responsibility of individual countries.
The irony is that whereas the old-style passports were extremely difficult to forge, the new-style ones have proven very easy to forge. As a result, on 5 October this year a changed format will be introduced for British passports, much in line with the changes that have been implemented in Germany. The photograph, which is under the cover and under laminate, will be digitally produced and various items of information will appear on another page near the end of the passport. The data page will include digital security features with a bespoke watermark and perforations. The royal exhortation will continue for the time being, but the words "European Community" will change to "European Union".
At this juncture, the forthcoming changes do not introduce a full European Union passport or substitute the royal arms with the EU circle of stars. However, I have confirmed with the EU Commission that the treaty of Amsterdam opens the door to the introduction of EU passports in five years' time by qualified majority vote, or sooner by unanimous agreement. As the House will be aware, the EU symbol will soon be on the front of driving licences and, under the 1981 directive, the European Council can by unanimous vote replace the British coat of arms with the EU symbol. The Amsterdam treaty provides, on the proposal of the Commission and the majority vote of the Council, the ability in five years' time to introduce a common format with the EU circle of stars on the front of the passport and for a full EU passport. The Court of Justice will be responsible for cross-border
864
issues and visas, but no Government in the EU could appeal to the court in this matter. Appeals will relate to individual cases.
We could all wake up in 2003 and find that we have been issued with EU passports with the circle of stars on the cover. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] The House should place a legal barrier in the way of that, and at least maintain the British royal coat of arms on the passports of British citizens. The EU is not a country or a state. Flags and coats of arms reflect shared national historic loyalties and identities. The cancellation of British passports without our citizens being consulted will mark the ending of such enduring loyalties.
The plans for European integration are intended to abolish separate country nationality in the EU, and to create a sense of EU loyalty, to replace the centuries-old symbols of our country and our nation. The EU has become desperate to arrogate to itself the trappings and symbols of the nation state, in a deliberate attempt to manipulate the way in which we think of ourselves. Are we British citizens? Are we subjects of Her Majesty the Queen, or are we EU citizens?
The royal exhortation in our passport, which already looks pretty pathetic as this little red job, states:
"Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State Requests and requires in the Name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely".
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Some people may not mind such things passing. There is no legal barrier to that happening in five years' time. To me, it is not just the thin end of the wedge, but an issue on which it is worth drawing a line. I hope that the House will erect a constitutional barrier to prevent such a change without British citizens being consulted.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Howard Flight, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Mr. Tim Loughton, Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. Owen Paterson, Mr. William Cash, Dr. Julian Lewis, Mr. Nick Gibb, Mr. Andrew Robathan and Mrs. Angela Browning.

United Kingdom Passports
  UNITED KINGDOM PASSPORTS
  Mr. Howard Flight accordingly presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the form and appearance of United Kingdom passports: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 October, and to be printed [Bill 221].
Opposition Day
[16TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Select Committees (Information)
  [Relevant documents: First Special Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 1997–98, on Sierra Leone: Exchange of Correspondence with the Foreign Secretary, HC 760; Second Special Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 1997–98, on Sierra Leone: Further Exchanges of Correspondence with the Foreign Secretary, HC 852.]
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.43 pm
  Sir George Young: I beg to move,
  That this House considers that it is wrong in principle for the Executive to seek unilaterally to impose prior conditions on the release of information properly sought by a Select Committee in pursuit of the responsibilities given to it by the House.
  The words of the motion are, of course, those of the concluding paragraph of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee's second special report—perhaps the most important sentence of any Select Committee report in this Parliament.
  Those words assert a general principle about the relationship between the House of Commons and the Executive—a relationship which is at the centre of our role as Members of Parliament. Although the motion was triggered by a specific incident, it does not refer to any particular Select Committee—or, indeed, to the Executive run by any particular party. It is a clear assertion of the rights of the House to hold the Executive to account.
  My argument is, first, that the Select Committee is entitled to the support of the House in that assertion and, secondly, that in view of the change in the overall terms of trade between the House and the Executive, it is in the interest of the House to reassert itself on this issue to prevent any further erosion of its ability to hold the Executive to account.
  Most Opposition days focus on disputes between Government and Opposition, but this one focuses on a dispute between Government and Parliament. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee is appointed by the House, and it operates under powers given to it by the House. I pay tribute to the work of that Select Committee, under the chairmanship of the widely respected hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). Indeed, I pay tribute to the work of other Select Committees, too.
  I believe that that work has confirmed the reputation of Select Committees as one of the most effective instruments developed over the past 20 years for holding Governments to account. If the House were not to stand shoulder to shoulder with its Select Committee on this issue, that would damage the reputation and the credibility not just of this Select Committee but of all Select Committees. For that reason—
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir George Young: I want to make a bit more progress, after which I shall give way.
  866
  The motion is thus of interest to every Member who serves on a Select Committee, and to all Members who value the key role that they play in holding the Government to account.
  Mr. Bennett: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it was right for the Government regularly to give Select Committees information on a confidential basis throughout the previous Parliament, whereas it is no longer right to do so now? Is that not humbug?
  Sir George Young: No, it is not humbug at all. There is no precedent for the issue that confronts the House this afternoon—no precedent whereby a Select Committee has come to the House and asked for its support in resolving a dispute with the Government.
  The arguments for supporting the Select Committee are well set out in paragraph 3 of its second report.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir George Young: I shall give way in a moment, but first I should like to make more progress.
  It is worth reminding the House that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee consists of seven Labour Members, including the Chairman, four Conservatives and one Liberal Democrat. The Committee has been carrying out an inquiry into Sierra Leone, in the course of which it has asked for certain documents from the Foreign Office—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Eric Illsley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir George Young: No, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) in a moment.
  Mr. Illsley: On that very point?
  Sir George Young: No, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Workington in a moment.
  Mr. Ernie Ross rose—
  Sir George Young: The Select Committee is carrying out an investigation into Sierra Leone, in the course of which it has asked for certain documents from the Foreign Office and has asked a number of questions of witnesses.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Sir George Young: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Workington in a moment.
  Key documents—
  Mr. Ross: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee is not carrying out an investigation into Sierra Leone.
  Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Sir George Young: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

  867
  Key documents have not been handed over, and a number of questions have not been answered, on the grounds of what is called the "Legg defence"—that the parallel inquiry commissioned by the Foreign Secretary might be prejudiced by the prior release of documents and the answering of questions asked by the Select Committee. We need to be told today by the Leader of the House when Sir Thomas Legg plans to report.
  The "High Noon" scenario—here I use the words of the Chairman of the Select Committee—has arisen because the Select Committee rejects the Legg defence as a matter of principle. As an aside, I add that the Foreign Secretary's assertion that prior release might prejudice Legg is an astonishing assertion in the light of his subsequent statement in his letter to the Chairman dated 30 June, in which he stated that
  "there was no ministerial conspiracy to breach the arms embargo. There was no connivance within Whitehall to breach the arms embargo".
  Those are precisely the allegations that Sir Thomas Legg has been invited to investigate, which the Foreign Secretary himself has pre-empted.
  Ms Diane Abbott rose—
  Sir George Young: I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Workington.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I understand that the documents can be provided in confidence to the Committee. I can recall repeated occasions throughout the previous five Parliaments when the Public Accounts Committee and the Defence Select Committee were given information on exactly the same basis. Even the Agriculture Committee was given information; the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton)—who is sitting behind the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young)—was on the Committee when it was given information on the same basis about BSE. Repeatedly, Select Committees have been subject over the years to exactly the same rules as set out in the latest communication to the Committee.
  Sir George Young: There is no resolution of the dispute between the Select Committee and the Foreign Office on the issue of telegrams. One of the key issues is that of timing, and that is why the Select Committee has not resolved the issue with the Foreign Office.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir George Young: No, I want to make more progress. I will give way in a moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I will in a moment. I have just given way to the hon. Member for Workington.
  The Select Committee goes on to make the fundamental point that
  "no area of Government expenditure, administration or policy can be 'ring-fenced' from parliamentary scrutiny by the establishment of a Government enquiry, however eminent are those conducting it."
  That is the key point in answer to the hon. Member for Workington. That principle must be right.
  868
  I do not doubt the competence of Sir Thomas Legg. However, he is not a judge, his internal departmental inquiry has no legal or constitutional standing, it is meeting in private and we have no idea how it is being conducted and what questions are being asked of whom. It will report to the Foreign Secretary, who will then publish the report. If that principle of ring-fencing is conceded, any Government can stop any Select Committee investigating anything by the simple device of choosing their inquisitor and asking him to investigate. I have to say to the House that that is unacceptable.
  Mr. Rowlands: There was indeed a dispute between the Committee and the Foreign Secretary because he was clearly placing conditions on access to information and on the question of timing. However, in his latest letter to the Committee, the Foreign Secretary makes it clear that no such condition will be placed on access to the information in confidence.
  Sir George Young: The key issue is that of principle—of whether central Government can ring-fence an area of inquiry and say to a Select Committee, "Thou shalt not investigate this subject." That key issue is more important than the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman.
  The Times on 1 July put the issue well:
  "It is perfectly possible for the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee to shape an inquiry that complements rather than competes with the Legg investigation. The Foreign Secretary has stalled for long enough. He should start to co-operate fully with Parliament."
  The case for the Select Committee has been strengthened since the publication of the report by the revelation that the territory fenced off for the inquiry could be extensive. The Press Association report of Sir John Kerr's recent appearance before the Select Committee reports him as saying:
  "In order not to prejudice the inquiry, I have to fence off the area where the inquiry may roam. I do not know where it is roaming. The beast may roam wherever it wants"—
  precipitating, quite rightly, an intervention from the Chairman:
  "Don't you believe the committee has rights?"
  The reality behind all that is that the Government have made some errors of judgment. Their mishandling of the issue has meant that it has escalated from a dispute about sanctions busting into a constitutional confrontation between Parliament and the Executive. We have had abrasive—indeed, defiant—language from the Foreign Secretary, and a spectacular failure of diplomacy. If the Foreign Secretary cannot build a good working relationship with his hon. Friends on the Select Committee, what chance has he with the rest of the world? For this, I am afraid, the Government have no one else to blame. There is no conceivable argument that the spin doctors can deploy that pins the crisis on anyone but themselves.
  Let me quote the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). She said:
  "When we have a Government with a majority of 179, it makes the role and rights of Select Committees absolutely crucial. It has always been understood that they have the right to call persons and papers. The Government is now saying that we can only have papers at the discretion of Ministers and that must be wrong and cuts across the intentions of the House in setting up Select Committees. This is

  869
  now bigger than Sierra Leone. The Government has given the unfortunate impression that it is seeking to hide behind the Legg inquiry to avoid a wider public inquiry."
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: A moment ago, the right hon. Gentleman praised members of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. However, he may wish to issue a qualification about me because I voted against the insertion of paragraph 6 on the grounds that those persons being investigated by Sir Thomas Legg deserved to be given a fair hearing. I voted against that proposal—I have campaigned on this platform throughout—on the proviso that, as soon as the Legg report was published, the Foreign Secretary would appear before the Select Committee to be cross-examined on the report's findings and recommendations. I believe that it is far more appropriate and useful for a Select Committee to cross-examine a Minister about a report than to have a debate in this dear green place.
  Sir George Young: I am not sure that I agree with the way in which the hon. Gentleman phrased the last part of his intervention. However, in making that concession, he has conceded that the Government can impose restrictions on what the Foreign Affairs Select Committee may investigate. That is not a concession which I am prepared to make.
  While the Foreign Affairs Select Committee is having the most difficulty on this subject, it is not the only one. On 1 July, the Defence Select Committee published its sixth report on the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. Paragraph 13 of the report states:
  "We are disappointed that Ministers felt unable to provide the DERA Corporate Plan to the Committee as requested, and we call upon Ministers, as we did in our evidence session in March, to clarify how 'advice to Ministers' ought to be construed and reconsider its application in this particular case. Access to such key documents is essential if a select committee is to have a meaningful and well-informed scrutiny role. Restrictions on such access can only undermine departmental accountability to Parliament, and should be used very sparingly."
  The Defence Select Committee might be expected to be more belligerent than the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in seeking a solution.
  Yesterday, when confronted with a different embarrassment, the Government's response was "give us the evidence." However, that is the call that the Select Committee has made in respect of today's debate. It would be unacceptable for a Select Committee to knock on the Government's front door, ask for information to which it is entitled and be refused, while those with close connections with the Government can allegedly get information through the back door to which they are not entitled.
  The lack of respect that the Foreign Secretary has shown for the Select Committee's work has been compounded by the failure of the Leader of the House to find time to debate it. The Select Committee's request for a debate was not a normal request. It was not a case of a Select Committee making recommendations to Government, the Government responding to those recommendations and the Leader of the House being asked for time for a debate. We all understand the difficulty in finding time for debates. In this case, the Select Committee issued a special report about a deadlock that it had reached with the Government, and its conclusion was to ask the House for its views at an early date to resolve that deadlock.
  870
  Opposition Front Benchers have raised the matter at business questions no fewer than seven times: twice on 25 June, twice on 11 June, once on 4 June, and twice on 21 May. The requests were refused each time. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) also wrote to the Leader of the House on 21 May, making a total of eight requests for this debate. She was told in a reply of 1 June that the Leader of the House proposed to deal with the report in the usual way. The reply stated:
  "As with all Select Committee reports, if a debate is considered appropriate, we will then decide whether Government time can be found for such a debate."
  That decision sits uneasily with paragraph 26 of the document "Departmental Evidence and Response to Select Committees", which was last reprinted in January 1997. It says:
  "The Government has given a commitment that where there is evidence of widespread general concern in the House regarding an alleged Ministerial refusal to divulge information to a Select Committee, it would seek to provide time for the House to express its view."
  However, the Government turned a deaf ear to the Select Committee's request for support. The right hon. Lady did find time for a debate last night on freedom of information, and the introduction to that White Paper—
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point about finding time for Select Committee debates when there is a problem with evidence, may I ask whether he recalls the debate that took place on 25 June 1979 when he voted against Select Committees' having the automatic right to demand time to debate such issues?
  Sir George Young: We know that 1979 was the year in which the previous Government established Select Committees—a most important innovation in holding the Government to account. That innovation is under threat as a result of the actions of the Leader of the House.
  The Leader of the House found time for a debate last night on freedom of information. The introduction to the White Paper, Cm 3818, began with the words:
  "Unnecessary secrecy in Government leads to arrogance in governance and defective decision-making. The perception of excessive secrecy has become a corrosive influence in the decline of public confidence in Government".
  Those words may come to haunt the Government.
  The Opposition have made time for this debate because we believe that it is important enough to devote an entire Opposition day to it. We believe that the Select Committee deserves better treatment than it is receiving, and we also believe that in tonight's vote the Select Committee deserves support in the Lobby.
  I turn briefly to the other half of my argument—that this issue encapsulates a broader one that has been simmering away for some time but has been brought to the boil since 1 May by a number of changes initiated by the new Government. Those changes have further eroded the institution of Parliament and tilted the terms of trade towards the Executive. Unless the House makes a stand, that erosion, which affects every one of us who is not in government, will continue. I refer briefly to those trends because I believe that we need to place the debate in a broader context.

  871
  I believe that we are moving towards a more presidential style of government, with a reduced role for Cabinet and for formal Cabinet sub-committees. We have seen the politicisation of the information service within government, as civil servants have been replaced by those sympathetic to the Labour party. We are threatened with an appointed second Chamber as an interim solution that may last indefinitely. We have seen more special advisers and an increasing tendency for Government decisions to appear in the press before they appear in the House. The convention on such matters is not an outdated relic. Its purpose is to ensure that changes in Government policy are subjected to critical and democratic scrutiny when they are announced.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am trying to follow the right hon. Gentleman with great care. Is he not aware that when he talks about the abandonment of Cabinet government, some of us have the strange idea that he was a member of the Cabinet of Baroness Thatcher of somewhere or other?
  Sir George Young: The hon. Lady is wrong. I was never in Baroness Thatcher's Cabinet. [Interruption.] The noble Lady and I got on very well—we got on so well that she twice appointed me to her Government.
  I shall touch on one change that affects the ability of the House to hold the Executive to account. One of the most effective checks on the Government, as on previous ones, is opposition from within it. However, unparalleled steps are being taken to muzzle that independence, and that impacts directly on our debate today. The rules of the parliamentary Labour party impose a tight grip on the independence of Back Benchers. They state:
  "Members shall consult the Chief Whip before tabling any Motion, Amendment or Prayer".
  The standing orders continue:
  "A reprimand may be given by the Chief Whip in writing, and reported … to the CLP of the member concerned."
  The House is entitled to an assurance during today's debate that no Labour Member who supports the motion before the House will be disciplined under the PLP's standing orders. To discipline a Member for upholding the rights of the Commons against the Executive would be to undermine the very basis on which we serve in this place.
  The media also have a role to play.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before the right hon. Gentleman launches into strictures, may I point out that as one who voted against a three-line Whip on, for example, the Gulf war, I never received a reprimand? Would it not, however, be only polite and good manners to let a Chief Whip know what one was going to do? If one is to vote against a three-line Whip of one's party, is it not elementary good manners to let the Chief Whip know?
  Sir George Young: The PLP rules go further than that. The hon. Gentleman should not table an amendment to a Bill going through the House without, first, touching base with the Whips. I think that that is an intrusion on the rights of Members.
  The media also have a role to play in holding the Executive to account. Much of the information referred to in the motion is denied to the media as well. On 27 June,
  872
  The Times showed that the media are finding their task harder, as the House finds its task harder. It said:
  "Ministers shun BBC inquisitors for chats on sofa."
  The Times tells us that a serious rift has opened up between the Government and the BBC over "invisible Ministers" who seem to have vanished from the airwaves. Broadcasters complain about senior Labour figures refusing to appear on serious television and radio shows with tough inquisitors such as Jeremy Paxman, John Humphrys and Nick Clarke. Set against the broader context of the Executive taking additional steps to get their way, the motion assumes greater significance.
  The matter should be resolved by putting to one side the political divisions that take up so much of our time in the House, and by focusing on our common responsibilities as Members. That is why my party has announced a free vote, and we urge the Labour party to do the same, as some of its Back Benchers have requested.
  To those Labour Members who have not yet decided how to vote, I say this: on 1 May last year, many voters decided that our democratic traditions might be harmed if the same party was returned for a fifth time. If the Government continue on their present path, the electorate will come to that conclusion after one term. The growing suspicion that the Government will stop at nothing to get their way would be confirmed if they used their large majority to crush the wishes of a Select Committee. Such a response would, paradoxically, be good for the Opposition and bad for the Government. But, because it would be a disaster for Parliament, I urge all hon. Members to vote for the Opposition motion.
  4.5 pm
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "reaffirms that, in accordance with the House's Resolution of 19th March 1997 and the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Second Edition, January 1997), Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament; recalls that the House approved on 18th May 1998 the Government's commitment to an urgent outside investigation and publication of a full report of the Sierra Leone arms investigation; believes that nothing should be done to prejudice the conduct of that inquiry by premature public disclosure of parts of the evidence; and notes that the Foreign Secretary remains ready to make available to the Foreign Affairs Committee, on a confidential basis, the telegrams it has requested."
  I make it clear at the outset that there is one point on which I agree with the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). Today's debate is about two separate issues. They are closely related, but it is right to define the two separate elements of the debate. The first, as the right hon. Gentleman said, is what principles should govern the release of papers by Government to a Select Committee. The second, as the right hon. Gentleman also said, is the specific example that is before the Foreign Affairs Committee at the moment. That is why I have tabled the amendment.
  Originally, I was tempted simply to accept the Opposition's motion, despite the fact that it was based on a split report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, because it would be easy to argue that there is no difference between this Government and their predecessor on the question of what principles should govern the release of documents.

  873
  However, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I thought it right to table the amendment, partly because we thought it right to reaffirm the motion that was passed in March 1997, and partly because the Opposition, during business questions last week, made it clear that the context in which they wanted the debate to take place was the Sierra Leone situation.
  I want to give some background in terms of the principles that should govern the release of information by the Government to Select Committees. I start by reading the resolution that was passed in the House on 19 March 1997 without dissent, without a Division. That resolution states:
  "Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with relevant statute and the Government's Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Second Edition, January 1997)".—[Official Report, 19 March 1997; Vol. 292, c. 1046–47.]
  The motion, tabled by a Conservative Minister, was accepted unanimously by the House.
  At paragraph 4.a), the code of access to Government information clearly refers to exempting information
  "whose disclosure could prejudice the administration of justice (including fair trial), legal proceedings or the proceedings of any tribunal, public inquiry or other formal investigations (whether actual or likely) or whose disclosure is, has been, or is likely to be addressed in the context of such proceedings."
  Paragraph 10 refers to information
  "which is or will soon be published, or whose disclosure, where the material relates to a planned or potential announcement or publication, could cause harm".
  The resolution in respect of the code of access to Government information drawn up by the previous Conservative Government was accepted unanimously by the House. Why? Every hon. Member knew that there was a need for limitations in some circumstances.
  The Minister on whose advice the resolution was drawn up, Roger Freeman, described that day as historic, because Parliament was setting out for the first time what the relationship should be between the Executive and Parliament in terms of such information. As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said, the previous Conservative Government denied information to Select Committees on many occasions, so this is not a new issue.
  Dr. Tony Wright: My right hon. Friend is being too kind in her account of the history of this matter, because the resolution and the form of words were, in essence, the product of a Select Committee with which some of us had a connection. The form of words came forward because the history of the Scott inquiry was prefaced by the inability of the Trade and Industry Select Committee to be helped by the Government in its inquiry. The Committee was disabled in its investigations, which is an indictment of the previous Government. Even when the Scott inquiry reported, Conservative Members simply went into the Lobby in massed party support for defiance of that report. That is the history of the resolution and what really went on.
  Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right to point out the background, and I had intended to mention the
  874
  Scott inquiry. The Conservative Government also refused to answer parliamentary questions on matters that were covered by the partially public Scott inquiry, and many concerns were raised in the House and in that Select Committee at the time.
  Information was refused to the House or to Select Committees not only in respect of the Scott inquiry, however. For example, the Defence Committee was refused by a Conservative Secretary of State copies of the defence costs study on naval stores and reports produced for the Ministry of Defence by outside consultants; the MOD refused the Defence Committee access to a report on the operational capability of medical services; the Conservative Government refused to allow the intelligence services to give formal evidence or informal briefings to the Foreign Affairs Committee on their work in combating proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and a Conservative Secretary of State for Transport, the post once held by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, was asked about channel tunnel rail link blight, but would not give information about internal departmental discussions.
  I do not say that, on every single occasion, the Conservative Government were wrong to say that there were good reasons why information should not be given, but it is important to register the fact that all Governments have on occasion thought that there had to be a limit on the information given to Select Committees. I hardly need remind the House that, during the previous Parliament, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) resigned from the Front Bench following a Standards and Privileges Committee report on the improper pressure that was put on a Select Committee by a Whip. I hope that we will not have any lectures from the Conservative party on this matter.
  On the specific case before the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Gentleman has outlined some of the chronology, and perhaps I can follow on from what he said. He mentioned the first special report, which I think was published on Thursday 22 May. That asked for the views of the House. The Committee was, of course, split in reaching that recommendation and, at business questions that day, I said that I would look at the issues. Subsequently, there was an exchange of correspondence between the Foreign Secretary and the Select Committee, and a second special Committee report was produced. I think that it was published on Thursday 25 June. At business questions that day, I undertook to discuss that report with the Foreign Secretary before making any decision on the Opposition's request for a debate.
  Two other things happened at that time. The first was that the Foreign Secretary wrote to the Chairman of the Committee, following up suggestions that had come out of informal suggestions on a way forward. Secondly, on 1 July, the Opposition informed me that they had chosen this subject for debate today. Also around the same time, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee wrote to the Prime Minister following an exchange at Prime Minister's Questions the day before. That letter made it clear that
  "The Committee has not yet taken a collective view on the proposals set out in paragraph 3 of the Foreign Secretary's letter of 30th June."

  875
  Paragraph 3 of the Foreign Secretary's letter of 30 June said:
  "You also know that I was willing to entertain your proposed compromise by which the telegrams could be made available to the Select Committee now, subject to an assurance of confidentiality until the Legg Report is published."
  Later in that letter, the Foreign Secretary also offered to give evidence to the Select Committee if that was required. Subsequently, the Foreign Affairs Committee decided to invite the Foreign Secretary to give oral evidence on 14 July.
  Sir Peter Emery: May we make it absolutely clear, so that there can be no misunderstanding, what the suggested compromise was? It was that the documents should be made available after the Legg committee had reported. Indeed, that suggestion—[Interruption.] May I finish my remarks without interruption? I wish to make it clear that that was the position at that time. That was the compromise offered by the Chairman at that moment, but it was not accepted.
  Mrs. Taylor: No. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. What the Foreign Secretary said was that the confidentiality of those telegrams should be respected until after the Legg report was published.
  Mr. Illsley: May I explain to my right hon. Friend that the Foreign Affairs Committee was offered a compromise in respect of the telegrams as early as 21 May? Committee members were offered an opportunity to view those telegrams on the same basis as under the Pergau dam inquiry.
  Mrs. Taylor: The more members of the Committee enlighten the House the better.
  The current position is as follows: the Select Committee Chairman has proposed to his Committee a compromise, which the Foreign Secretary has accepted but on which the Foreign Affairs Committee has yet to reach a decision. The Foreign Secretary has offered to give evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee again and the Committee is considering whether it will accept his offer of the date of 16 July.
  Sir John Stanley: I am sure that the Chairman of the Select Committee, if he catches your eye, Madam Speaker, will explain that the compromise that the right hon. Lady said he offered was quite different from the compromise referred to in the Foreign Secretary's letter. The Chairman's compromise was rejected by the Committee, whereas the compromise referred to by the Foreign Secretary and which the right hon. Lady has mentioned has yet to be put to the Committee.
  Mrs. Taylor: I said that in a letter of 2 July to the Prime Minister, the Chairman of the Select Committee said that
  "the Committee has not yet taken a collective decision on the proposal set out in the third paragraph".
  That refers to the third paragraph of the Foreign Secretary's letter, which I have just quoted.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Lady has referred to a number of letters. During our
  876
  exchanges, reference has been made to a letter of today's date from the Foreign Secretary. Can any letters that the right hon. Lady is quoting from, or has seen, be placed in the Library before the end of the debate?
  Mrs. Taylor: The letters to which I have referred have been written by the Foreign Secretary or by the Chairman of the Select Committee. The proper procedure is probably for the Chairman of the Select Committee to be responsible for any letters that he has written. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) is very concerned that procedures should be followed, and I am sure that he would be quite stressed if we did not do so. From my point of view, there is no problem in releasing any copies of letters on this issue sent by the Foreign Secretary or any other Minister. However, the Chairman of the Select Committee should make such decisions on any letters over which he has rights.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The point that I am making to the right hon. Lady is simple. She is quoting from letters. She has obviously obtained those letters, and it would appear from what she has been saying that we have not seen all of them. I am merely asking for a simple, clear and unequivocal undertaking that anything that she has quoted from or referred to during her speech will be placed in the Library before the end of the debate.
  Mrs. Taylor: I have said that I have no objection at all to every letter being placed in the Library or anywhere else. The Chairman of the Select Committee is entitled to give his view if he has a problem. I have not said anything that is particularly revealing. Most of what I have quoted is in the public domain.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Lady has obtained the letters from somewhere. All I am asking is that we have the privilege of seeing the letters from which she is quoting.
  Mrs. Taylor: I have already said that I have no objection to that—nor do my ministerial colleagues—but I do not want to trespass on the rights of the Select Committee. If the Chairman of the Select Committee were to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, he could tell us whether he wishes those letters to be made public. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire would be the first to remind me that I should not disclose those letters. I am saying that ministerial letters can be disclosed, but letters written by the Chairman of the Select Committee are not for me to disclose. [Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should calm down and clear this matter up.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: It may assist if I tell the House that the only letters that are not in the public domain—I believe that the letter of 30 June is—are a letter that I wrote to the Prime Minister shortly afterwards with enclosures, a letter from the Foreign Secretary to me of 6 July and the reply to that letter of 7 July. I should be happy for those to be made available to the House.
  Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that that will be helpful to the House. I have not quoted from the last two letters to which

  877
  my hon. Friend referred: I have quoted from the letters that are already in the public domain. Anything else is a matter for the Chairman of the Select Committee.
  I was reminding the House of the current position. The Chairman of the Select Committee has proposed to the Committee a compromise that the Foreign Secretary has accepted, but on which the Committee is yet to reach a decision. The Foreign Secretary has offered to give evidence to the Select Committee again, and has suggested a date that is close to the date requested by the Committee.
  Mr. Rowlands: I apologise for interrupting my right hon. Friend.
  The closing words of the amendment state that
  "the Foreign Secretary remains ready to make available to the Foreign Affairs Committee, on a confidential basis, the telegrams it has requested."
  Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that that no longer refers, as it did originally, to the period post-Legg? That was the condition that caused the aggro and the argument between the Committee and the Foreign Secretary. If my right hon. Friend will confirm that the position has changed, I think that the point will have been made.
  Mrs. Taylor: The position, clearly, is that the confidentiality of those telegrams must be respected until Legg has reported. That is what is important, and that is what we have made clear all along. Having established that that is the current position, I hardly think that it constitutes a crisis, or a clash, that cannot be resolved.
  I remind the House that, following an Opposition day debate on 18 May, the House agreed a motion including the words
  "That this House … congratulates the Government on its commitment to an urgent outside investigation and publication of a full report."
  That was the Opposition day debate on Sierra Leone, during which the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee said:
  "Perhaps it would be unwise"—
  of the Foreign Affairs Committee, that is—
  "to attempt to duplicate or parallel the inquiry being conducted under the auspices of the Foreign Office, which will publish its report."—[Official Report, 18 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 621.]
  Mr. Rowlands: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend again, but I am trying to help the House. As my right hon. Friend said, no one has ever disputed the need for confidentiality before the publication of the Legg report: that has never been a subject of dispute between the Committee and the Foreign Secretary. The subject of the dispute was the fact that the Foreign Secretary was not willing to make the summary and telegrams available to the Committee, in confidence, before Legg reported. Does not the wording of the amendment make it clear that the conditional timetable that caused the row in the first place is no longer a matter of difference between us? Does it not make it clear that the Foreign Secretary will allow members of the Committee—under the arrangements that were made—to have access to the telegrams before Legg reports?
  Mrs. Taylor: I have made that clear, but I must disagree with my hon. Friend. There was a dispute about
  878
  whether that confidentiality should be respected on the part of some people—I do not say on the part of my hon. Friend.
  Ms Abbott: As a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, I am not aware that there was ever any dispute about the confidentiality of the telegrams. The dispute was always about the conditions that the Foreign Secretary sought to attach to releasing the telegrams—conditions which the majority of Committee members from all parties found unacceptable.
  Mrs. Taylor: Perhaps the Committee should have considered inviting the Foreign Secretary to talk directly to its members earlier. If it had, the problem would not have arisen. I think that the advice given by the Chairman of the Committee on 18 May was very wise.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Does the Leader of the House not recall the first Foreign Affairs Committee report—
  Madam Speaker: Order. That is a matter of argument, not a point of order.
  Mrs. Taylor: As I was saying, I think that the Committee and the House were wise to heed the advice given during that debate.
  Mrs. Bottomley rose—
  Mrs. Taylor: I am going to make progress now. I think it was wise of the Chairman to advise the Committee not to try to conduct a parallel inquiry, or to duplicate the work of the Legg inquiry. That is clearly what he said during the debate. It is, of course, entirely open to the Foreign Affairs Committee to follow up the matter in any way it wishes.
  Mrs. Bottomley: Will the Leader of the House give way?
  Mrs. Taylor: No. I recall how often the right hon. Lady gave way when she was in government. I was going to refer to a specific question that was raised by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire. That concerned the timing of the Legg inquiry. That is, of course, an independent inquiry, so it is up to Sir Thomas Legg to determine the timing, but he is well aware of the urgency of the matter, and we hope that his report will be available some time this month. However, the precise timing is up to him.
  Mr. David Winnick: If it is clear that members of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee can see the telegrams in question on the basis that they wish to see them, what is the purpose of this debate? It is resolved. We are wasting our time and I trust that, when

  879
  my right hon. Friend has completed her speech, the Opposition will withdraw their motion. It is simply a waste of the time of the House of Commons.
  Mrs. Taylor: The reason why we are having the debate is that the Opposition have to attack the style of the Government because they have no policies of their own.
  Sir George Young: The reason why we are having a debate is that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee asked for one.
  Mrs. Taylor: I look forward, then, to future Opposition day debates being determined by resolutions from Select Committees, and perhaps some of the other pressure that we are under to hold Select Committee debates on Wednesday mornings can be taken away because the Opposition are going to find time for them all. We are having the debate because the Tories have no policies and have not adjusted to the fact that they are in opposition.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Taylor: No, I will not give way. I am moving to the conclusion of my speech. I think that we have heard enough from members of the Select Committee. I gave way to one person who was not on the Select Committee and I think that we got a clear view of what other hon. Members think about this debate.
  The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire has a cheek in saying that this debate is about the balance of power between the Executive and Government. He was a member of a Government who allowed quangos to mushroom. The Tories packed the 40,000-plus appointments with their supporters. The concept of public accountability was completely undermined by the previous Government. The former Deputy Prime Minister told the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee:
  "The paraphernalia of so-called public accountability is nothing better than a bureaucratic overhead".
  In contrast, this Government have devolved power, opened quangos and started the process of local government renewal. We have published a White Paper on freedom of information, and improved accountability to Parliament.
  The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire serves on the Modernisation Committee. His deputy used to serve on it. I do not think that this Government have acted arrogantly when they have sought to programme major Bills rather than guillotine them. We have made the proceedings of Parliament more transparent and comprehensible by revising the Order Paper and explanatory memorandums. We have taken decisions to publish Bills in draft form to allow pre-legislative scrutiny by Select Committees and extended scrutiny of European legislation to cover pillars two and three of the European Union and to allow pre-Council meetings, so that Ministers can talk to hon. Members about their objectives there.
  We have given the Opposition many of the debates that they have asked for on the Floor of the House. We have taken the devolution Bills, the European convention on human rights and other Bills on the Floor of the House,
  880
  which could have been split, as other hon. Members had requested, but we have been reasonable—some might say over-reasonable—in meeting the requests.
  The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire asked me for a debate on Derbyshire local authority financing; we found time for that. He asked for a debate on lone parent regulations tonight; we found time for that. His predecessor asked for a debate on the health service; that is to be held on Thursday. They asked for a debate on NATO enlargement; that is to be held on Friday 17 July. Recently, we gave two days for the remaining stages of the Finance Bill, even though, in the event, the Opposition were not able to use those two days and we were having to use that time to best effect. Some people would say that I have been far too generous in accommodating the demands that have been made of me.
  If the Government are at all arrogant, it is that we are arrogant enough to believe that we have a responsibility to deliver to the people of Britain the legislation and policies for which they voted. The Conservatives clearly find it extremely difficult to adjust to opposition. That is presumably why they sometimes break some of the conventions of the House and tell the press that they have applied for private notice questions. That never happened when we were in opposition. The Conservatives are so adrift that the shadow Chancellor has asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can receive the Government's press cuttings service on a daily basis because he is so bereft of any service of that kind.
  The truth is that after 18 years of Tory centralisation, arrogance and contempt for Parliament, we now have a Government who are meeting their pledges and renewing the democratic process. The Conservative party simply cannot adjust to being in opposition.
  4.36 pm
  Sir John Stanley: I am afraid that there is substantial confusion between the two compromises. I must tell the Leader of the House that I hope that the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), will make it clear that the compromise put to the Committee is the one referred to in the Chairman's letter to the Prime Minister of 2 July. That letter states:
  "The next day, in seeking to find a way out of the impasse, and entirely on my own initiative, I instructed the Clerk to send all Members of the Committee a possible package deal (copy enclosed) I had devised."
  That is attached to the back of the Chairman's letter. Unfortunately—I am not suggesting that it was deliberate; it was entirely inadvertent—the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Question Time last Wednesday and the Leader of the House at business questions on Thursday, claimed that the Select Committee had rejected a quite different compromise, which as I have said, has not yet been put to the Committee.
  However, that is not the essence of the debate and the fundamental question before the House. That issue—I believe that there is only one—is whether the House accepts that accountability to it should be suspended during the period in which a Minister sets up a departmental inquiry; a departmental inquiry which does not raise the issue of the sub judice rule. That is the key issue and, for reasons that I shall explain, it is not as yet wholly resolved.

  881
  The House secures accountability through three separate channels of information. It does so on the Floor of the House with the ability of hon. Members to ask written and oral questions. It secures accountability in front of Select Committees by the power of the House to call for papers. It also secures accountability by Select Committees exercising their powers to require witnesses to answer their questions. Those are the three key channels of information that secure accountability to the House. Each of those three channels follows different rules, procedures and precedents, and it is important to separate each of them and to deal with them in turn.
  It is worth reminding the House about the first channel—that of accountability through the answering of oral and written questions. It is perhaps surprising that, over the centuries through which the House has been performing its democratic function, it has never enshrined in resolutions reflected in "Erskine May" clear requirements on Ministers to answer oral or written questions put by hon. Members on the Floor of the House. I could find only one exception in "Erskine May", and that was the resolution passed by the House in 1962 at the time of the Profumo affair. The House clearly resolved that it was a grave contempt for a Minister, in answering questions, knowingly to lie to the House. Beyond that, there are no specific requirements on Ministers when answering questions to the House.
  This is no party point, because I believe that the practice that has been followed by this Government is the same as that followed by previous Governments. It is easy for Ministers to decline to answer questions, to give insufficient answers to questions, or to block lines of questioning—which in turn means that the Table Office will accept no further questions on that subject.
  Like many other hon. Members who tabled oral and written questions to the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers, I was frustrated to receive a reply couched in the Legg terms of reference, but I do not have any grounds for complaint because the House has not given me or any other Member a means of redress through a resolution that would place a clear requirement on Ministers to answer oral or written questions.
  Against that background, the remaining two channels of information—and, therefore, accountability to the Select Committee system—are all important. First, there is the power to send for papers. This matter is clearly spelt out in the resolutions that set up the Foreign Affairs Committee and the other Select Committees. "Erskine May" makes it clear that the powers of individual Select Committees to send for papers are heavily qualified when they are internal departmental papers. Indeed, "Erskine May" refers to the Address procedure—which, ultimately, would have to be used if the House required a Minister to produce a given departmental paper.
  Because this is such a grey area, the practice has been to conduct a negotiation in each and every case, and such a negotiation has been conducted by the Foreign Affairs Committee in this instance. However, I must say that although the Foreign Secretary has been perfectly within his rights, as laid down in "Erskine May", in taking up successive positions, he has been unwise to proceed in that way over the past several weeks. The reality is that the right hon. Gentleman has been steadily driven
  882
  backwards to three different positions. His initial position, in responding to the Select Committee's requirement, was to refuse any access to the documents. Following the Select Committee's rejection of that, he moved to a second position, which was to offer the documents, but only after the Legg committee had reported. He has now moved to a third position; that of offering the Select Committee the documents subject to their remaining confidential. The Select Committee has still to reach a view on that offer.
  This is a significant grey area. I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, in his place. The Liaison Committee would do a considerable service to all Select Committees and to the House if it examined the matter afresh. I appreciate that its final report at the end of the last Parliament referred to the powers of Select Committees to send for papers, but the issue is deserving of more detailed examination. I invite the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee to consider further whether clearer guidance might be given, through recommendations from the Liaison Committee, on the ambit of Select Committees' power to send for papers where those papers lie within Government Departments.
  Mr. Illsley: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the three positions taken by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on the telegrams. Will he admit that by 2 June the Clerk to the Foreign Affairs Committee had advised all members of the Committee that the Foreign Secretary's offer went even further than the Pergau dam precedent?
  Sir John Stanley: I understand that the Clerk did advise the Committee of that point, but it was for the Committee to decide whether that was acceptable—and, by a majority, it decided that it was not.
  Mr. Rowlands: We are following the right hon. Gentleman's case with great interest. I have read Douglas Hurd's February 1994 letter to the Foreign Affairs Committee about the Pergau dam, in which he put two sets of papers beyond the reach of the Select Committee: any official advice to Ministers internally and any memorandum or minutes between Ministers. Those documents were not to be made available to Select Committees. I simply make that point for the completeness of the right hon. Gentleman's case and to add to his explanation of the current position.
  Sir John Stanley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If the Liaison Committee carries out a further investigation into how the power to send for papers should be used by Select Committees, I am sure that it will want to look in detail at all previous precedents, including that of the Pergau dam.
  The third channel of information, to which the Leader of the House did not refer in her response to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), is the most important issue for the House and the debate. "Erskine May" is very clear about the powers of Select Committees to require witnesses to answer questions. I have already said that the channel of seeking answers to questions on the Floor of the House can be blocked by Ministers almost at will, without redress for hon. Members; the channel of sending for

  883
  papers is still murky and unnavigable water; but the power of Select Committees to require witnesses to answer questions is at the heart of this debate. On page 109, "Erskine May" states:
  "Witnesses…who have refused to answer questions…have been considered guilty of contempt."
  On page 651, "Erskine May" states:
  "However, committees, being extensions of the House, possess substantial powers to require answers to questions."
  Footnote 1 is important. It states:
  "These powers have been confirmed from time to time. In 1947 the House of Commons resolved 'that the refusal of a witness before a select committee to answer any question which may be put to him is a contempt of the House and an infraction of the undoubted right of this House to conduct any inquiry which may be necessary in the public interest'".
  The key right of Select Committees is the right to require answers from those appearing in front of them as witnesses, whether they be Ministers, officials or anybody else. It is that right which is at the centre of this debate. It is that right which is threatened with encroachment—
  Mr. Illsley: We are talking about the telegrams.
  Sir John Stanley: I am referring not to Ministers' capacity to provide papers but to their answering questions as witnesses.
  I was somewhat saddened to read that in his letter of 30 June, the Foreign Secretary refers to members of the Select Committee who prefer confrontation to a solution. I have to make it clear that the Foreign Affairs Committee is not engaged in a confrontation with the Foreign Secretary. The Foreign Secretary is engaged in a confrontation with the powers of the House, through the Select Committee system, to require witnesses to answer questions. That is the key issue.
  In fairness to the Foreign Secretary, he has yet to appear on the matter before the Foreign Affairs Committee, although he has appeared several times at one remove through his permanent secretary, Sir John Kerr. In accordance with what is clearly stated in "Erskine May", the Committee is entitled to presume that an official who appears in front of a Select Committee is appearing on behalf of and under the instructions of the Minister in question. However, the House's powers in dealing with witnesses appearing before Select Committees will be determined when the Foreign Secretary comes before the Committee on Thursday 16 July.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Foreign Secretary made the offer to appear before the Select Committee? Was it not at the Foreign Secretary's behest that he will appear before the Select Committee?
  Sir John Stanley: I have to correct the hon. Gentleman. At its most recent meeting, the Committee decided to require Sir John Kerr to come for a further evidence session and then to send also for the Foreign Secretary. That decision was conveyed to the Foreign Secretary. I make it quite clear that I am not suggesting any unwillingness by the Foreign Secretary to appear
  884
  Nevertheless, I make the point that, at its last meeting, the Committee decided—I think unanimously—that the Foreign Secretary should appear before it.
  On 16 July, when the Foreign Secretary appears before the Select Committee, it will remain to be seen whether he seeks to continue to refuse to answer questions asked of him in his capacity as a witness, on the ground that the Legg inquiry is sitting. I trust that he will not.
  The one thing that can be said is that the confidentiality issue is a red herring. If the Foreign Secretary believes that the answers to the questions need to be given in private, the issue can be easily resolved. He can make that request to the Committee Chairman, who will undoubtedly give him an answer at the time.
  The issue is whether the Foreign Secretary, whether in public or in a private hearing of the Foreign Affairs Committee, is or is not prepared to answer questions asked of him in his capacity as a witness before the Committee. I earnestly hope that he will. I particularly hope that the House will hold fast to what is probably the most important power of accountability it has—its unqualified right to secure answers from witnesses before Select Committees.
  4.53 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: I adopt much of what the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) has said in this debate. He said that production of documents to Committees is a murky area, and suggested that the matter should be clarified by the Liaison Committee. I agree entirely with that suggestion.
  The right hon. Member made some points on the contempt issue, which arose during the Committee's examination of Sir John Kerr, the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It is difficult to believe that the House would wish to pursue a senior civil service for contempt in such circumstances—basically on the grounds of principle and agent. As the right hon. Gentleman said, that problem is likely to arise, if at all, only when the Foreign Secretary appears before the Committee on 16 July.
  By letter to me, of 6 July, the Foreign Secretary has already said:
  "I will not be able, before the completion of the report, to disclose information on matters which may fall within Sir Thomas Legg's remit."
  We may then be in a position of deciding to discuss that evidence in camera. We will have to wait until 14 or 16 July to decide the matter. In the same letter of 6 July, the Foreign Secretary agreed to come before the Committee, both pre-Legg and again after publication of the Legg report.
  Ms Abbott: Has the Foreign Secretary explained to my hon. Friend why, in the first evidence-taking session, he will not be able to give evidence of matters that may be touched on by Legg? The Legg inquiry is not a judicial inquiry, and the matters covered by it are therefore not sub judice.
  Mr. Anderson: There is a range of reasons why, on 16 July, the Committee may or may not decide to go into private session. The matter will be determined as a consequence of points made by the Foreign Secretary—for example, on highly sensitive personnel matters, or on

  885
  other confidential matters that could cause any reasonable Committee to agree that it should consider evidence in private session. However, the Committee will have democratically to consider that matter first at our 14 July meeting.
  I have on the board in my office a reproduction of a banner of the Penrhiwceiber miners lodge, in south Wales, which declares simply "Knowledge is power". Perhaps that says it all. A classic statement of the powers of the House was less succinct. It was in Redlich and Ilbert's "The Procedure of the House of Commons", which was published in 1908 and reproduced by Sir Richard Barlas in his memorandum to the first report of the Procedure Committee 1977–78 and holds:
  "In the unlimited character of the claim for information, which may in principle be made at any time, there lies a fundamental parliamentary right of the highest importance; it is a right which, both constitutionally and practically is a condition precedent to all efficient parliamentary government."
  Sir Richard, who was then the Clerk of the House, followed that quotation by observing:
  "The powers both as exercised by the House and its Select Committees are, however, circumscribed by qualifications, apparent contradictions, and lack of opportunity to exercise the powers which undoubtedly exist."
  Today's debate provides a rare parliamentary opportunity to examine the validity of certain qualifications that the Government have sought to impose on the supply of information.
  I should like to offer several rather general reflections. First, our constitutional liberties were established only by struggles between government and Parliament. Those struggles reached a crisis point when the King wished to rely on the claim to divine right, which Parliament denied. I have always considered myself to be a roundhead, by both conviction and appearance. Although subsequent changes were less dramatic, they resulted—from precedent to precedent, effectively by case law—in the broadening of those liberties, as Parliament progressively extended its powers of control over the Executive.
  Secondly, the tension or conflict between the Executive and legislature is both natural and inevitable, because Parliament and the Government have different objectives and perspectives. To ensure greater accountability and greater transparency, Parliament needs constantly to update the instruments that are available. With the 20th century explosion of information and expertise, Parliament itself has to become more expert and has to have greater access to information. The establishment of Select Committees in 1979 was a major institutional change to that end.
  Thirdly, we may look with envy at the powers of the Committees of the United States Congress, but, as parliamentarians, we cannot realistically expect to transplant their experience to our country. The separation of powers in the US constitution and the looser concept of party mean that, in the US, the context and culture is fundamentally different. Our parties are more disciplined and our political culture more confrontational. It is not unknown for political leaders to change their perspective when moving from Government to Opposition, and vice versa. I recall the fulminations of a senior Conservative against what he termed elective dictatorship under the Labour Government of 1974–79, but that same senior
  886
  Conservative was curiously silent when Baroness Thatcher abolished the Greater London Council and introduced the poll tax.
  Mr. Winnick: Although I am all for Select Committees doing the work that they do—I am a member of a Select Committee myself—does my hon. Friend agree that the last thing we want is to emulate the United States? There, the Committees have all the power and authority, and the Senate itself hardly debates the issues. During the Vietnam War, it was the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, not the Senate, that debated the issue. I am not in favour of more power being taken from this Chamber.
  Mr. Anderson: I hope that I made it absolutely clear that it would be wrong to seek to transplant the US experience to our own quite different culture—"advice and consent" and various constitutional powers available to the US Congress are not available to our Parliament. It is more difficult for Select Committees to have a non-partisan debate against the background of a highly charged partisan debate in the Chamber. Parliament has to make the Government accountable, yet all its Members are elected to oppose or sustain that same Government. Therein lies part of our dilemma.
  Fourthly, the problems of accountability are particularly acute in the field of foreign affairs where events move speedily, and often in crisis. There is a culture of secrecy. This is often necessary because of on-going negotiations with foreign Governments, or because of the activities of the intelligence services. Traditionally in our country, the conduct of foreign relations is Executive led and, indeed, based on the Crown prerogative. Our own Foreign Affairs Committee is probably the least powerful of all the Foreign Affairs Committees of the European Union, and we look perhaps with envy at that of Denmark or, indeed, that of Austria with its Main Committee.
  Fifthly, it is hardly surprising that some of the major problems of defining the murky area, to which the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling referred, have arisen in the relationship between the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. There are two main precedents. The first is to be found in the 1984–85 Session. In its inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the sinking of the General Belgrano, the Foreign Affairs Committee sought various intelligence reports which were
  known colloquially as the "crown jewels". Eventually, the Government in that instance agreed to give the Committee access "under appropriate security conditions". The Committee visited the Ministry of Defence to read the documents but was not allowed to make notes.
  The other major precedent occurred in the 1993–94 Session. In its Pergau inquiry, the Committee was refused access to certain communications between the British and Malaysian Governments, to communications between Ministers and to advice given to Ministers. As for intergovernmental documents—those between the Malaysian and UK Governments—the Committee did in fact receive non-classified summaries. To verify the accuracy of those summaries, certain members of the

  887
  Committee were allowed to inspect the documents themselves. Summaries of other documents were supplied, and the Committee commented in its report:
  "The information … requested was eventually provided under various arrangements",
  and it was later published as evidence.
  Thus, the formal position is that the Foreign Affairs Committee cannot itself order the Foreign Secretary to produce papers. There are practical difficulties, both procedural and partisan, in exercising the powers available. It is significant that in the two key precedents—those involving the General Belgrano and the Pergau dam—the Committee was persuaded to agree a compromise with the Government, and a way was found around the difficulties.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: As I understand the current position, the Foreign Secretary has now allowed the equivalent of the arrangements that were made to examine confidential information which, in the case of the General Belgrano, involved the Ministry of Defence. I understand that he has made arrangements for the Committee to examine the telegrams that the Committee wants to see and to allow its members to make the necessary notes from them, which is in addition to what was granted in the Belgrano case. Therefore, the Committee has access to the documentation, and the Foreign Secretary has withdrawn the proviso that the information cannot be used before the Legg inquiry has reported. Is that correct?
  Mr. Anderson: The dispute between the Foreign Secretary and the Committee has indeed moved on. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling set out the position. Originally, the dispute was on a fairly narrow but important constitutional point. The Foreign Secretary told the Committee that it could see the documents but only after the Legg inquiry, which he had appointed, had reported. He said that, until that time, any disclosure might in his view, and in that of Sir Thomas Legg, prejudice the inquiry. The Committee was not prepared to accept that condition.
  Obviously, the Legg inquiry is likely to report very shortly, but it is conceivable that, at some future date, a Minister might appoint a similar person, or similar persons, to conduct an inquiry that might last several months or, indeed, years. It would be absurd to suggest to a parliamentary Committee that its inquiries should be stayed, pending the outcome of that inquiry. That is the narrow but important constitutional point on which the Committee has stood firm. Clearly, as is set out in the third paragraph of his letter to me of 30 June, the Foreign Secretary appears to have lifted that condition.
  I want to emphasise the fact that the Committee stood firm. We decided as a Committee, dare I say, not to blink first. We have not blinked, and the position has moved on from that which prevailed at the time when the important sentence that forms the basis of the Opposition's motion was drafted and accepted by the Committee.
  Dr. Godman: I am grateful that we have moved on as a Committee. We were offered a summary of the telegrams. If Committee members are given access to the telegrams before the publication of the Legg report, we will be better equipped to analyse the report itself.
  888
  I remind my hon. Friend that the Committee has been divided all along on the reports. My position is clear. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary should be called to give evidence to the Select Committee following the publication of the Legg report so that we can cross-examine him and then the House should debate that report and the special report of our evidence session with the Foreign Secretary. That makes a hell of a lot better sense than simply having a debate. Every Select Committee Chairman, if he or she is honest, will agree with that.
  Mr. Anderson: My hon. Friend is correct in both points. He has set out his own position clearly and emphasised that there has not been total consensus in the Select Committee.
  Ms Abbott: As my hon. Friend will confirm, there has not been consensus, but there has always been a clear majority. Will he confirm that it has taken two months from 12 May, when we originally wrote to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary requesting the telegrams, for him to come forward yesterday with an unconditional offer of the sight of a summary of the telegrams? Does my hon. Friend agree that if we had not reported the matter to the House—not once but twice—it is unlikely that the Foreign Secretary would have made that concession?
  Mr. Anderson: The offer was made in his letter of 30 June and it is fair to say that, both prior to that and subsequently, there have been on-going negotiations.
  Mr. David Davis: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I understand that it is a difficult issue, but there is a fundamental point of principle that matters to other Chairmen and members of Select Committees. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) has got it wrong. The fundamental issue is the access of the Select Committee to original papers. The right to interrogate the Foreign Secretary is also important, but it is not the issue in dispute. I wanted to be clear about the following point: are members of the Select Committee being given access to the telegrams, or simply to a summary of them? A summary, written by the people who may be culpable, is not the same as access to the telegrams.
  Mr. Anderson: The position is summed up in the third paragraph of the letter of 6 July from the Foreign Secretary to me. It is a long letter, but the relevant paragraph reads as follows:
  "In your letter you also refer to the proposed compromise by which a summary of the telegrams would be available to members of the Committee, subject to appropriate arrangements to ensure confidentiality, with two nominated members of the Committee able to visit the FCO to verify the accuracy of that summary by reference to the telegrams themselves. If the Committee accept this compromise, I will ask the responsible FCO officials to produce, as rapidly as possible, a summary."
  So a summary is on offer.
  Sir George Young: It is a very important letter, perhaps produced in response to today's debate. Will the hon. Gentleman make arrangements for right hon. and hon. Members who are interested to have a copy of it?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Perhaps it would be helpful if I informed the House that various letters which have been referred to in the debate are available in the Library and will also be copied to the Vote Office.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I confirm that all the relevant correspondence is in the Vote Office? The Clerk to the Foreign Affairs Committee has arranged that.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the House will be obliged to the Leader of the House.
  Sir Peter Emery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How can a letter sent to the Foreign Affairs Committee and not yet considered by that Committee, about matters on which the Foreign Affairs Committee has not reached a conclusion and where the Foreign Affairs Committee has the absolute right to decide whether or not evidence presented to it is published, be revealed before the Foreign Affairs Committee has taken a decision to that effect?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That may be more in the nature of a question that might be pursued with the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. However, a request was made during today's debate that relevant documents that were being quoted from should be made available and there has been a response to that request in order to facilitate the debate.
  Mr. Anderson: I am in a no-win situation. My point throughout has been that if the Foreign Affairs Committee is making the case for accountability and transparency, it should set an example. I would be properly criticised by the House had I decided to withhold that important letter from the House. Therefore, as Chairman, I took the decision not only to make that letter available, but, last Friday, to insist that all the relevant transcripts—which would not normally have been available to the House yet—were provided for today's debate, hopefully by way of example. Had I not done so, I would properly have been subject to criticism.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: We just heard an intervention by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. That surprised me as the Government amendment clearly mentions that the telegrams are accessible. Had the right hon. Gentleman read the Order Paper, his intervention would have been unnecessary.
  Mr. Illsley: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Anderson: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, who is a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. Illsley: Will my hon. Friend make clear to the House that the compromise mentioned in the letter that has been circulated to Committee members today is the Chairman's own compromise and that the Foreign Secretary is responding to the compromise suggested by the Chairman of the Committee. The letter states: "In your letter"—that is the Chairman's letter—
  "you also refer to the proposed compromise".
  890
  The compromise was proposed by the Chairman of the Committee and was available some 10 days ago. So the compromise was available days ago and the Foreign Affairs Committee refused to take it on.
  Mr. Anderson: I would put this gloss and explanation on my hon. Friend's point: knowing that the two precedents—General Belgrano and Pergau—amounted to a compromise between the Executive and the legislature, or between the Government and the Foreign Affairs Committee, on my own initiative I sought to obtain a compromise and I asked the Select Committee for authority to go ahead with it. On Friday June 26, I instructed the Clerk to send the Committee my own proposal which was for a summary and confidential access. I suggested that the Foreign Secretary would send the summary of the telegrams to the Committee to be seen under secure conditions, but I coupled that with my own view that, not as a condition of the above, but in consequence, the Committee would agree to stay all further proceedings on or arising from the Sandline affair until after the publication of the Legg report. That was my proposed compromise.
  It is fair to say that the Foreign Secretary has gone much further towards the Committee than my suggestion. He did so in the third paragraph of his letter of 30 June in that he did not put his proposal in the context of the Committee staying all further proceedings. That was confirmed in an exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and Sir John Kerr, the permanent under-secretary, and further confirmed by the Foreign Secretary's letter of 6 July. So it is clear that the Foreign Secretary has gone rather further than the compromise that I originally suggested.
  Mr. David Heath: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I realise that he is able to make only slow progress with his speech, but it is absolutely crucial that we understand this. The compromise that was referred to in the letter of 30 June was unacceptable to the Foreign Affairs Committee because it suggested that we could no longer pursue our inquiries into any matter relating to Sierra Leone. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is now telling the House that that condition is no longer applicable, and that the Foreign Secretary in his letter of 6 July is clear that no such condition applies to the arrangements for seeing the telegrams. If that is the case, it is a major step forward. The Foreign Secretary has backed down and I welcome it, but we must be clear about it.
  Mr. Anderson: I agree that that is a major step forward, but my construction of paragraph 3 of the letter of 30 June is that the Foreign Secretary was not even then insisting that we do not carry matters forward until after the Legg report. Paragraph 3 states:
  "You also know that I was willing to entertain your proposed compromise by which the telegrams could be made available to the Select Committee now, subject to an assurance of confidentiality until the Legg Report is published."
  If there were any ambiguity in paragraph 3, that—as was said by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who is a valued member of the Committee—has been overtaken by the clarification. Any ambiguities have been removed by the Foreign Secretary's letter to me of 6 July.

  891
  It is right that Select Committees try to understand the legitimate interests of the Executive. Equally, Governments must understand the rights and privileges of the House. The Foreign Office should be as open and accountable as possible, but we must understand that there are matters, such as personnel matters or matters of prejudice to on-going negotiations, which, if explained to a Committee, a reasonable Committee would wholly accept.
  I shall skate as speedily as I can over the remaining letters and the current problem as set out in our two special reports. The special report of 21 May that the Committee made to the House speaks for itself. The Committee had asked on 12 May that the Secretary of State provide copies of those telegrams. Again, the Foreign Office had been reminded by a further letter of the precedent of the "crown jewels". The Secretary of State had effectively at that time refused access, mentioning the Legg report.
  The second special report of the Select Committee was dated 23 June. It included the letter of 1 June from the Secretary of State who, after meeting me, wrote that he was prepared now to follow the Pergau precedent, but only—this was the important condition, which proved offensive to the Committee—after the publication of the Legg report. After that, the Committee met and rejected the reason for delay. We gave as our reasons, first, that the documents would remain confidential with the Committee, and secondly, that it was wrong in principle that a Secretary of State should establish a Committee and then seek to shelter behind it as a means of refusing access to information.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Throughout the debate, there has been reference to Legg and the fact that potential disciplinary action should not be prejudiced. That is a dangerous precedent, because the same argument could be advanced in the case of any Select Committee. I shall postulate a hypothetical example to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and to the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons. If Mr. Derek Draper's boss decided to hold an internal inquiry that could lead to disciplinary proceedings, would the Standards and Privileges Select Committee decline to investigate the matter until Mr. Derek Draper's boss had completed his investigations? I do not like discrimination in favour of Government. If we accept the argument that Legg can put everything on ice, it could be advanced by every employer in the country.
  Mr. Anderson: I would say that the discrimination is in favour not of Government, but of individuals and the natural justice that allows an individual not to be pilloried without the opportunity to reply. The matter should not be imposed unilaterally by any Minister, but should be put to a Committee. If there were a sensitive personnel matter, a reasonable Committee would, I hope, agree.
  In an attempt to make progress, I shall not quote paragraphs 5 and 6 of the second report, but it is true that one sentence has been drawn from paragraph 6 by the motion and not put in the original context. It is not a general request. In the context of paragraphs 5 and 6, the condition of waiting until Legg was the Committee's main concern.
  Mr. David Davis: I apologise for intervening again. I understand the difficulty that the hon. Gentleman is
  892
  facing, and I sympathise. May I extend the point made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay)? We have in the House clear guidelines on sub judice matters, which apply to Select Committees, to protect the rights of individuals. They are limited to well-defined items from the criminal courts, courts martial, civil courts and tribunals set up under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. Even so, the Speaker has the right to waive that sub judice protection. We are discussing an extension of that, on the say-so of any Government Minister, without limit. That is the danger to which we must face up.
  Mr. Anderson: Not on the say-so of any Government Minister, and not without limits. If, in the circumstances of a particular case, a Committee could be persuaded that to go public might prejudice a particular individual in subsequent disciplinary proceedings, in my judgment a reasonable Committee might then conclude that it should respond positively. Those are the conditions that I would place on the matter.
  I shall try to make progress. The key fact is that an offer was made on 30 June. I quoted the element in paragraph 3 of the Secretary of State's report. That same day, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) put the following question to Sir John Kerr:
  "Am I right in interpreting paragraph 3 correctly, that the Foreign Secretary is willing to make the telegraphs available to the Committee right now subject only to an assurance of confidentiality until the Legg Report is published? Is that his position?"
  Sir John Kerr replied:
  "That is my understanding, yes."
  I congratulate my hon. Friend on putting his finger on the key question.
  The Committee has not yet reached a view on the further steps and on the welcome move made by the Foreign Secretary. When the Committee further considers the matter on Bastille day, 14 July, it will be my recommendation to the Committee that we accept the position now put to us by the Foreign Secretary.
  Dr. Godman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for displaying his characteristic courtesy. With an appalling lack of modesty, may I remind him of the following question that I asked Sir John Kerr? I refer to paragraph 478 of the document, on page 38. I asked:
  "Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the paramount importance of confidentiality attached by the House to unreported evidence and to the heavy penalties the House imposes on those who, if you like, transgress the rule of the House?"
  Sir John Kerr answered, as my hon. Friend may recall:
  "I cannot answer for him but I would have thought the chances are yes, indeed."
  Mr. Anderson: I thank my hon. Friend. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary had not fully appreciated two matters—first, that the Committee can move into private session, and secondly, that if my right hon. Friend feared that a member or members of the Committee would leak any confidential information and cause prejudice, strong weapons are available to the House. There is the precedent, which my hon. Friend cited, of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in about 1978, who was brought before the House because of such a leak. In my judgment, those two matters are important.

  893
  The Secretary of State's new offer gives the Committee the substance of what it has requested from the start, and as I have said, I shall certainly recommend on 14 July that the Committee accept it. An offer was made on 6 July to meet the Committee on 16 July, before the publication of the Legg report, and again on 28 July, after publication, with a promise that if the Committee accepted the compromise in the Foreign Secretary's letter of 30 June, he would instruct his officials to prepare a summary as rapidly as possible.
  I replied today, first accepting both offers of meetings, on 16 July and on 28 July—ad referendum, after discussion by the Committee, because we try to run a democratic Committee—and secondly, expressing the hope that if the Committee accepts the offer on 14 July, the relevant documents can be made available speedily.
  In conclusion, I must speak about the motion, and my difficulties with it. First, the motion is expressed in absolute terms, when some qualification of the principle is clearly necessary. Paragraph 6 of the second special report, from which it has been lifted, must be read in the context of the preceding paragraph, paragraph 5.
  Secondly, the motion has been overtaken by events. There are always dangers in proceeding from the particular to the general. The words that the motion takes from our second special report were originally used in the context of the idea that a Government should not set up its own inquiry and thereafter shelter behind that inquiry to prevent a Select Committee from having access to relevant documents.
  The Committee has never sought to establish the principle that it has an unqualified right of access to all documents. That would be against precedent and reason—the precedents both of the Belgrano and of Pergau. It would also be against the principle that there must be circumstances in which Government and Parliament will agree that, for good reasons, documents will be withheld and may remain confidential.
  In my judgment there is now within the grasp of the Foreign Affairs Committee the establishment of the principle that we sought to establish. We were determined not to blink first—a phrase that I have borrowed from my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). I shall therefore recommend to the Committee that we accept the offer. Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary chose not to make that offer immediately. Perhaps he had not fully appreciated the points about confidentiality, or about the weapons available to the House if Members breach that confidentiality.
  That said, it is clear that the Foreign Secretary has moved, and that the Committee has not yet reached a collective view, so the motion has been overtaken by events. It is in any case too absolute in its claims.
  Mr. Wells: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as he is summing up; he has exercised what his hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) described as his characteristic courtesy. There is one outstanding point that I hope that he will address—a point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley). Is the Foreign Secretary prepared to come before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, and if the
  894
  Committee agrees to go into confidential mode, is he prepared, under confidence, to answer the Committee's questions relating to the inquiry that it is undertaking into the circumstances surrounding the supply of arms to Sierra Leone?
  Mr. Anderson: That is an important question; we are dealing with a moving situation. I hope that when we reach the discussion with the Foreign Secretary on 16 July, my right hon. Friend will, indeed, speak fully and openly. If he says that there are some matters that are confidential, it will then be necessary for the Committee to decide, with the Foreign Secretary, whether it is appropriate to go into private session. However, we have not yet reached that position.
  I hope that the House will now agree that if the Committee accepts the offer on the table, it will successfully have stood its ground, and this whole affair will be seen as an important precedent establishing the principle that we set out as important in our second special report—a principle that we have now established for the House.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. David Heath: This is a debate which, for a number of reasons, should not be happening. The first of those reasons is the 11th-hour climbdown by the Foreign Secretary. Had that happened a little earlier, I am sure that it would have satisfied the Foreign Affairs Committee, on which I serve, on the narrow point of the telegrams.
  Secondly, it is regrettable that the debate is taking place in official Opposition time, because that suggests a political polarity about the issue which, on the evidence of our discussions in the Committee, should not be there.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we have repeatedly asked the Leader of the House to provide time? We accept that the present procedure is a regrettable alternative, but I do not think that we would have reached this stage had we not tabled the motion; certainly there would have been no debate.
  Mr. Heath: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Of course he is right; the matter would not have come to the House. None the less, I still think that it is regrettable that it has done so in a context that means that it will be seen as a polarised issue, rather than, as it should be, as a matter for the consideration of all hon. Members in all parts of the House.
  Mr. David Davis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heath: Yes, but for the last time in my introduction. I must get on to the substance of my speech.
  Mr. Davis: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon for intervening so soon, but is he aware that I agree with him that it is unfortunate that we have had to hold the debate in Opposition time, because of the colour that it casts on the debate? However, the Government have not only failed to respond to those eight requests; they have ignored their own guidelines in the Osmotherley rules, under which the Government have given a commitment in the past that where there is evidence of widespread

  895
  general concern in the House regarding alleged ministerial refusal to divulge information, they would seek to provide time for the House to debate that matter.
  Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I accept his point entirely.
  The last reason why we should not be having this debate is that the Government should not be in the position in which, as a result of their actions over recent weeks, they find themselves. The old cliché, "When you are in hole, stop digging," is appropriate, because the hole is entirely of the Foreign Secretary's making. Moreover, the depth of the hole is disproportionate to anything that may or may not be found at the bottom of it.
  I do not understand why the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary have allowed the affair to progress in such a manner to a point at which a major matter of principle is involved, although we started with a Select Committee simply doing its job in a straightforward way. That is strange, coming from the Foreign Secretary of all people. I have considerable respect for him, and I am disappointed in the line that he has chosen to take.
  It is a misfortune that many hon. Members have focused so tightly on the issue of the telegrams, because there is a much wider issue—the fact that we have been given a blank refusal to answer a series of wider questions that we have sought to put to the permanent secretary and others. That is especially so, as the arguments adduced by the permanent secretary on behalf of the Foreign Secretary seem so inadequate.
  As other hon. Members have said, the issue is not essentially about Sierra Leone but about the rights of a Committee of the House, and about the duty of the legislature to scrutinise the Executive. It is crucial that we do not give any future Minister the "get out of gaol free" card that says that simply setting up an internal inquiry is a sufficient reason for avoiding answering questions properly put by a Select Committee.
  I must say, although in doing so I may lose the support of some hon. Members in this corner of the House, that I find it ironic that the motion should have been tabled by the Conservative party, with its record on arms to Iraq and the Scott report. It is not surprising that no quotation from the Scott report has been given so far in the debate; perhaps I can correct that imbalance. On page 503, paragraph D4.58 of volume 1 of the Scott report says:
  "If, and to the extent that, the account given by a Minister to Parliament, whether in answering PQs, or in a debate, or to a Select Committee, withholds information on the matter under review, it is not a full account, and the obligation to account for what has happened, or for what is being done, has, prima facie, not been discharged. Without the provision of full information it is not possible for Parliament, or for that matter the public, to hold the executive fully to account. It follows, in my opinion, that the withholding of information by an accountable Minister should never be based on reasons of convenience or for the avoidance of political embarrassment and should always require special and strong justification."
  Those are vital words in terms of this debate. We must ask what is the "special and strong justification" given by the Foreign Secretary in this case.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: As a fellow member of the Select Committee, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that this game could have been circumvented if the Committee had decided to carry out an investigation into
  896
  whether arms were supplied to anyone in Sierra Leone, and if we had decided to send for the Secretary of State as the responsible Cabinet Minister? We could have confronted all this head on at the time. Would not that have been the best way forward?
  Mr. Heath: That is an interesting suggestion. Had we done so on those terms, we would have been exactly duplicating the Legg inquiry—which the Committee has been at pains not to do.
  That was the first objection from the Secretary of State—that the Committee was duplicating the work of the Legg inquiry. That is clearly not so. If the Committee had wanted to investigate the precise area that the Legg inquiry was put in place to look into, it would have summoned Tim Spicer of Sandline; it would have summoned Mr. Penfold, the high commissioner in Sierra Leone; it would have summoned John Flynn, the special adviser; it would have summoned Colonel Andrew Gale; and it would have summoned Rupert Bowen, the slightly shadowy figure who may or may not have something to do with MI6 activity in the area. Those are the people to whom we would have wished to talk if we were looking precisely at the issue of arms sales by Sandline or others in Sierra Leone.
  Mr. Mike Hancock: I wish to add something to the list of people whom my hon. Friend suggested. I should like the Government to provide to the Defence Committee the cables and signals between HMS Cornwall and the Ministry of Defence during February. I should like the Government to state whether there were any direct communications from the Foreign Office to the high commissioner via HMS Cornwall while she was in the area during February. Some interesting answers may come from the signals sent to and from that ship.
  Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend raises an important point—which we may wish to look at when we revisit the Legg inquiry following the publication of its report—concerning HMS Cornwall, as well as its predecessor, HMS Monmouth.
  Mr. Illsley: The hon. Gentleman said that we did not want to duplicate the Legg inquiry and that had we done so, we would have called Mr. Spicer and the list of other characters. The Committee decided specifically against calling the persons to whom he has just referred. If we do not want to duplicate the Legg inquiry, why is there so much fuss about seeing the telegrams?
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman makes exactly the point that I am trying to make. I have been critical in the Committee of the adventitious nature of the inquiry on which we seem to have embarked. We do not seem to have a clear focus, but sufficient problems have been raised by the evidence that we have received to be of proper concern to the Committee. We have heard self-contradictory and wholly inadequate evidence—as would be confirmed even by those who gave that evidence—on the part of Ministers and the permanent secretary. Some of the inadequacies have had to be corrected later.
  There is at least prima facie evidence of two policies being pursued in Sierra Leone, one being the official Government policy, and the other—apparently without

  897
  any knowledge of Ministers, whom I absolve of any responsibility—on the ground in Sierra Leone. That is worrying. There is prima facie evidence of inadequate communications within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. There is prima facie evidence of a lack of focus in the arms sales controls that are in place.
  Those are proper issues for the Select Committee to look into, which have nothing to do with the Legg inquiry. The second objection by the Foreign Secretary—that this is not the Committee's business and that it should be looking at other things—simply cannot be pursued. What I have just said is sufficient to debunk that suggestion.
  Mr. Wells: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has given way a great deal. I know how difficult it is to keep the theme of one's speech going with constant interruptions. However, he made a statement just then that I would like clarified. Did he say that two policies could be pursued by the Foreign Office—one that the Minister knows about and for which the House could hold him responsible, and another pursued by officials which, if the Minister does not know about it, would be perfectly okay?
  Mr. Heath: I am certainly not saying that it would be perfectly okay if officers of the Government—at whatever level—were to pursue a policy that was not known or supported by Ministers of the Crown. That would be quite improper. Nor am I suggesting that that has taken place. I am saying that there is evidence which might suggest that. If that is the case, it is the proper province of the Select Committee.
  The third objection by the Secretary of State is that the Committee would somehow pre-empt the Legg inquiry by conducting any line of inquiry, putting any questions or coming to any conclusions. I find that hard to reconcile with the Foreign Secretary's letter to the Chairman of the Committee, dated 30 June, in which he says quite flatly:
  "There was no ministerial conspiracy to breach the arms embargo. There was no connivance within Whitehall to breach the arms embargo."
  That would appear, at first sight, to rule out any grounds for an inquiry at all—unless it is read that "Whitehall" is important, in which case it may be that the Secretary of State feels that there are people within the Government service not based in Whitehall who may have connived. If interpreted in that way, that statement suggests to me a pre-emption of the Legg inquiry. That is dangerous ground for the Secretary of State, but I assure the House that I do not believe that any member of the Select Committee would wish to pre-empt the inquiry in that way.
  The fourth objection has been dealt with by other hon. Members—that somehow it was improper to look into those areas because they were effectively sub judice. Legg, as has been pointed out, is not a judicial inquiry—it is an internal inquiry, carried out by someone with legal training, but who is, essentially, a civil servant. Although I have every confidence in his credentials for doing the job that he has been asked to do, he is nevertheless a mandarin looking into the activities of mandarins for mandarins. That is different from a Select Committee of the House looking at the same issue.
  Even if one accepts the Secretary of State's assertion that the Legg inquiry has a legitimacy and that the Select Committee should not at this stage look into it, the fifth
  898
  objection comes into play—that all the questions that we wish to put coincidentally happen to fall within the ambit of the Legg inquiry. In a glorious passage during his evidence to the Committee, the permanent secretary advanced the doctrine of the expanding reservation. He illustrated graphically how it could embrace almost any question that we chose to ask if he felt that Sir Thomas Legg might ask a question in the same general area. That cannot be a justification for not answering questions posed in a Select Committee meeting.
  The inquiry's terms of reference are clear and clearly limited. The Foreign Secretary referred to them in that same letter when he mentioned the handling within the FCO of relations with Sandline. They are precisely the areas that the Committee does not wish to examine at this stage because we recognise that, if we were to do so, we would duplicate the work of the Legg inquiry. There is no justification for stating simply that one will not answer questions about matters that are within the proper province of the Committee.
  The sixth objection—which I find rather insulting to the Foreign Affairs Committee, and to which the Chairman has already referred—is that we cannot be trusted to maintain confidentiality or to understand issues of national interest when disclosing information in telegrams. We are not Downing street lackeys or graduates of the Mandelson school for public relations men: we know where our responsibilities as Committee members lie. If we are entrusted with information that is confidential, we shall maintain that confidentiality in the national interest. We understand also that it is not appropriate to allow the verbatim release of telegrams that may have security connotations. That would be a gift to those who are not friendly to this country. We understand those things, and that is why we were prepared to find ways of not revealing confidences while continuing to do our work.
  The Foreign Secretary has constructed a rampart against proper inquiry on the part of the Select Committee. A simple investigation of detail has been elevated into a matter of proper parliamentary principle. Civil servants and Ministers have performed lamentably, and I suspect that they have done lasting damage to their reputations. We have witnessed the refusal to answer questions, and obduracy in the face of reasonable questioning, which has served only to stiffen the Committee's resolve.
  We have also had the off-stage noises. We have heard—the claims have not been substantiated—about the attempted bullying of Committee members. There has been quite extraordinary reportage in the past few days about the supposed motivation of Labour Members on the Committee. Such character assassination is wholly unacceptable. It suggests motivation that is different from their proper role as Committee members, and I have seen them perform that role with great dedication in the past year.
  The Prime Minister's misleading statement to the House last week—it has been touched on this afternoon—regarding the position of the telegrams and our rejection of that position is compounded by the Government amendment on the Order Paper. No offer was made in the terms described without a conditionality attached that the Committee could not accept. In any case, the Committee did not accept or reject the offer because it was not put to the Committee.

  899
  We have witnessed some hon. Members attempting to politicise the issue and we have had the infelicitous use of archaic procedure in an attempt to stifle questioning in the Committee. The Leader of the House has apparently refused to bring not one, but two, special reports of the Committee before the House for discussion. This is an inglorious episode for a Government who take pride—or perhaps I should say refuge—in the rhetoric of open government. I believe that the Foreign Secretary's actions have been ill considered and, at times, intemperate. They are wholly out of true with his reputation for intelligence, principle and candour. He has piled the Ossa of obstruction on the Pelion of contempt for the Committee. Is it any surprise that the Foreign Secretary's actions have stimulated more questions and the issue has not been allowed to subside?
  I believe that the Liberal Democrats are not alone in being extremely disappointed with the Government's behaviour on this issue. I suspect that some Labour Members share our disappointment and are embarrassed by the position in which the Government find themselves. There has been an attempt today at de-escalation and to accommodate the Committee on the subject of the telegrams. That is wholly welcome and I shall agree to that proposal in the Committee.
  At the end of the day, we shall look back on this episode and see that Ministers have not been greatly at fault—if they have been at fault at all. I think that we shall find deficiencies in the workings of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that we should examine. Most of all, we shall find that, through their actions in respect of their relationships with the Committee, Ministers have managed to escalate a small matter into a serious matter for the whole House. I hope that, when we come to vote, the parliamentary majority will not be used to stifle the proper views of the House regarding the rights of Committees.
  I have great difficulty when hon. Members start talking about the high court of Parliament; I always check the spoons when that happens because it is normally a case of pomposity overriding common sense. Nevertheless, there are times when we must stress the paramount importance of the House and its Committees in holding the Executive to account. This is one such occasion. Before I conclude, I shall give way.
  Mr. David Davis: The hon. Gentleman is as kind as ever. He has almost answered my question in drawing conclusions from the experience of his Select Committee. Is not the most important conclusion that no future Select Committee should be faced with a ministerial inquiry—let us be clear about it—that is apparently designed to fend off questioning from that Committee?
  Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not accept that the inquiry was established in order to fend off questioning from the Foreign Affairs Committee. I accept that the Foreign Secretary established the inquiry in good faith. However, it has been used to stifle debate—that is the key point. I return to my earlier point: no Minister should have a "get out of gaol free" card that says that, if there is something awkward down the track, an inquiry will be established, no questions will be asked, no Select Committee will be allowed to investigate and the House will be none the wiser about
  900
  deficiencies in a Department or on the part of Ministers. That is unacceptable, and I invite the House to agree with that view when hon. Members vote this evening.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: I share the regret expressed by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that it was decided to debate this subject on an Opposition day, which has overtones of parliamentary controversy based upon party. That is a great pity. I agree with the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who opened the debate, that Select Committees are more important now as a result of the Government's majority. Select Committees are able to investigate matters that the House of Commons, which is overloaded on one side, cannot, and can hold the Government to account.
  Apart from the six years that I spent at the Treasury, I have been a member or Chairman of a Select Committee for almost all of my parliamentary life. Even during my six years at the Treasury, I was an ex officio member of the Public Accounts Committee. The task of Select Committees has changed fundamentally: we do not realise the changes that have occurred over the years. Select Committees have grown in importance even since 1979 when the new form of Select Committees was introduced.
  The task of Select Committees is not to copy or to pre-empt the sort of discussions and debates that take place in the House—there are plenty of opportunities to do that in the Chamber. Select Committees provide the opportunity to produce a report based upon proper investigation and repeat questioning of witnesses, which is not possible in the House. Everyone soon learns the tricks of being able to avoid even the most brilliant question, but one cannot do that when the question is asked again and again. That occurs frequently in Select Committees, and Ministers are called to give evidence again and again.
  Those permanent secretaries who appear before the Public Accounts Committee know that, if Committee members have second thoughts about the issue several months hence, they will be brought back before the Committee for questioning. That kind of scrutiny is not possible anywhere else in our political system. There has been an extension of that over a period.
  Where Select Committees are unanimous, they have enormous power. When a Committee is divided, it does not receive the same attention that it will receive when there is unanimity. I speak with some experience because, when I was the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I had 550-odd reports, and every one was unanimous. That was not bogus or botched unanimity but genuine unanimity. As a result of that, we had enormous power. A Select Committee can have that power if it goes back to the matter again. Changes will take place that will even increase the power of a Select Committee because so much is dependent on Select Committees in this Parliament.
  Good relations between the members of Select Committees are crucial. It saddens me greatly to see a Committee that is divided. It is important to establish trust between members of a Committee. I was a member of the Expenditure Committee that examined money supply back in 1979, when the then Government became addicted

  901
  to money supply. I had a great deal of respect for Tim Eggar and I achieved a great deal of agreement with him. We did a deal. We agreed that there were certain nonsenses in monetarism and we produced a report that showed that there were deficiencies in monetarism. That went wholly against the then Government. However, there was respect among members of the Committee for one another.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) has taken this process much further. He has produced a sensible way of establishing seminars where Members discuss things among themselves. That creates confidence among people. We shall not deal with the big political issues. Of course, we cannot do that and we do not want to. We want to avoid them. However, in the limited areas in which Select Committees can operate, they should operate on a basis of trust. That trust was obviously not evident in the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. That was a great shame. It was a pity. If there had been the trust that I have described, it would not have been necessary to come to the House. Instead, the Select Committee would have come to the Liaison Committee. I had means of doing things and I was going to do them if we had not had a report. That would have been the right approach if there had been unanimity. Do not think that success will be achieved by weight of numbers in a vote. Success is achieved by agreements, and let us make those as strong as we might. That is the way to do it.
  Developments have continued. I pay tribute again to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, who introduced confirmatory hearings. I do not know how far that will go, but developments are taking place. Developments are possible in this Parliament partly because of its nature, and I approve of that wholly.
  There were other ways of dealing with the matters that are before us. I shall tell a story about myself and the Al Yamamah contract, one of the most secret matters that ever came before the Public Accounts Committee. What did I do with it? The Committee had to investigate it, but I could see that there was a possibility of leaks. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) as well as to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that I have been a member of the Liaison Committee ever since it was set up back in 1983. There were leaks again, again and again, and I knew where most of them came from—from members of Committees. Let us not fool ourselves about that.
  If we are to deal with highly secretive matters, we cannot entrust a Select Committee to deal with them. So how is it to be done? There are means of proceeding, and I adopted them in dealing with the Al Yamamah contract. I approached the then senior Conservative member of the PAC, Sir Michael Shaw—Lord Shaw as he now is—and we went into the matters surrounding the contract. I decided that we would meet in my Room. The two of us operated as a PAC. If there were matters that showed that somebody had made big commissions—there were one or two important people in the public news who were supposed to have made great fortunes out of the contract—and if I had found them, they would have gone straight back to the PAC, and we would have produced a report upon those matters. However, we did not do that. We found that there was no evidence of anything like that.
  902
  The National Audit Office does not have the power to follow public money wherever it goes. That is a power which I have argued for, and we are making some progress in that respect. However, we did not have such powers at the time of the A1 Yamamah contract. Although we could have our suspicions, there was no proof of anything. I was able to produce a report that showed that there were certain things that had to remain strictly confidential, strictly secret. We acted in that way. I informed the PAC of what I had done, and its members had sufficient confidence in the two of us, myself and the then Sir Michael Shaw, to accept that. There were matters involving jobs, and there could have been great problems for the country.
  There is a problem with sensitive matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East rightly referred to the Pergau dam. On that occasion, the permanent secretary came along with a note of dissent. Every permanent secretary has the right to produce such a note stating that he did not agree with the expenditure of certain moneys, in effect saying, "Please do not blame me when I come before the Public Accounts Committee." That is what the permanent secretary said, and we found out that he had written his note of dissent to the then Minister for Overseas Development, Lynda Chalker, Lady Chalker as she is now. She pointed out that she was overridden by the Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd. He pointed out that he was overridden by the Prime Minister.
  At that point, the matter became too involved with foreign affairs for the Public Accounts Committee and so we passed it on to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. Incidentally, and most importantly, all notes of dissent now come automatically to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. That did not happen at the time I am talking about. That happened only if there was an inquiry and it was discovered that there was something wrong. It was only then that the note of dissent had any significance. Now it has significance at all times. The present Chairman of the PAC has probably by now had his initiation into notes of dissent.
  Mr. David Davis: One or two.
  Mr. Sheldon: In fact, they are not all that bad, which rather pleased me. However, that is another matter.
  Other matters involved the Department of Trade and Industry—the export licensing matter—and arms to Iraq. These were matters of confidentiality. There is something similar in the matter that is before us. We could have a solution similar to that which was arrived at with the A1 Yamamah contract, and there could not be anything much more secretive than that issue.
  The Liaison Committee had its meeting, and the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East pointed out the problems and sought the assistance of my Committee. That was a sensible thing to do. We want greater political weight to show the Government, quite rightly, that those are important matters. We agreed that I should see my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and that there was the possibility of the Speaker becoming involved. If that failed, we agreed that possibly there would be a debate in the Chamber. As I have said, those are important matters. What I have set out is what I did. That was the solution I was going to put forward in dealing with the matter. We cannot rely on all those matters coming to a Select Committee.

  903
  I am not making any criticism of any member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. I do not think that the present membership of that Select Committee is unique among all the Select Committees that I have known during my period of involvement. I should be very happy if it were. I cannot prove the matter either way. On the basis of experience, however, I would say that the course that has been taken is not the way to proceed. I was going to put my solution forward, but it was pre-empted by the debate, which I am rather sad about.
  I had hoped for a solution similar to the one to which I have referred. The aim of a Select Committee is to maintain confidentiality where it is necessary, and I believe that I found one way to ensure that confidentiality. I look forward to its being used, perhaps, in similar circumstances whenever such a matter may arise in future. If a Government refused to co-operate—I would be surprised—the proper avenue is through the Liaison Committee, getting the support of the Chairman. That will enable us to go further into the issue.
  Mr. Mackinlay: Given my right hon. Friend's experience and in view of what he has said, in future, putting aside the specific matter that is before us, would it not be a good idea if the Legg type of appointment were the property of the Select Committee, just as the parliamentary ombudsman reports to a Select Committee? Somebody like Sir Thomas Legg could do the initial groundwork for a report to a Select Committee, rather than there being an appointment made of a person answerable to the Executive branch of Government.
  Mr. Sheldon: I should not like to make a comment on that particular case.
  I finish with a quotation from volume 1 of the Liaison Committee's first report of 18 February 1997. Sir Terence Higgins, now Lord Higgins, produced the report, and paragraph 8 on the powers to summon persons, papers and records, said:
  "When the Departmental Select Committee was established … it was acknowledged that committees' general powers to send for persons, papers and records did not extend to ordering the attendance of Ministers nor to the production of specific Government papers."
  It refers to certain undertakings and finishes by saying
  "These undertakings have been amplified in the intervening period."
  They have continued to be amplified and they will continue to be amplified. The important aspect of this debate is to show that there is much progress yet to be made, and I look forward to seeing it.
  6.10 pm
  Sir Peter Emery: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me. I have come from Copenhagen and the parliamentary assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and I must return immediately I sit down. Therefore, I apologise to the two Front-Bench spokesmen for the fact that I shall not be here when they reply.
  First, I want to clear up one matter which I raised with the Leader of the House, and on which she suggested that I was not accurate. It has been referred to, but, in my own defence, I must make it absolutely clear. I said that the aspect of the agreement that might be a compromise,
  904
  that was not accepted by the Foreign Affairs Committee, was set out in the note summarising the Chairman's position as put to the Foreign Secretary. It states:
  "For its part"—
  the Committee's part—
  "not as a condition of the above but in consequence, the Committee would agree to stay all further proceedings on or arising from the Sandline affair until after the publication of the Legg Report."
  It was that which was not accepted by the Select Committee. It is important that that should be made absolutely clear.
  The Foreign Secretary, in his letter of 30 June, said:
  "You also know that I was willing to entertain your proposed compromise".
  That was the compromise of the Chairman of the Select Committee, which the Select Committee had rejected. That needs to be made absolutely clear at the start.
  I follow the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), for whom I have great respect. He is obviously correct to say that Select Committees have the greatest authority when they are unanimous. There is no doubt about that. For 14 years, as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, I was able to make every one of our reports unanimous and they had some effect—not as much I should like, but some effect indeed.
  The difficulty in the Foreign Affairs Committee is something with which the right hon. Gentleman never had to deal as the Chairman of various Committees, and that is the Foreign Secretary's complete arrogance in dealing with the Committee's requests. The Committee wanted papers. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary had said quite openly that they had nothing to hide. According to the Prime Minister, it was all hoo-hah. We then asked for the telegrams from Sierra Leone and the notes and minutes of the five members of the Foreign Office who had met Sandline's officials during the period. If those had been produced and there was nothing to hide, the whole matter would have finished. It would have stopped. The Government would have been proved correct. When they were not produced, when those requests were not met, is it surprising that immediately people asked, "Why, what is there to hide? Why won't you produce the documents?"
  Mr. Kilfoyle: Given the comment made earlier by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) when he said, "The Foreign Secretary was perfectly within his rights in the position that he has taken", is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting now that the basis of his support for the Opposition's motion is a value judgment based on what he describes as the Foreign Secretary's arrogance?
  Sir Peter Emery: Of course that is not right. Let me use an example that I did not intend to use. The Foreign Secretary wrote to the Committee on 30 June. The Committee had not had that letter before the spin doctors outside the Committee were telling the world what was in it. I remind the Minister that that was incorrect because it was entirely contrary to the proceedings set out in

  905
  "Departmental Evidence and Response to Select Committees", the second document of the "Ministerial Code" which is signed by the Prime Minister himself, in which it says:
  "Once information has been supplied to a Committee it becomes 'evidence' and, subject to any agreement with the Committee on the non-publication of protectively marked information…it is entirely up to the Committee whether or not to publish it and report it".
  It may be well said that a letter is not evidence. Paragraph 107(b) states:
  "A Memorandum by a Department to the Committee, or a letter from a Minister to the Chairman may be a more readily applicable form of response … Unlike a Command Paper, such responses are, formally, further evidence to the Committee and are therefore subject to the usual conventions on submitted evidence".
  Therefore, there was arrogance from the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office in the way in which they treated the Committee in the publication of that letter before the Committee had even had it. That is pretty arrogant in anybody's book, and I think it necessary to point it out.
  The Committee is concerned not simply with an inquiry about Sandline, but with the operation of the Foreign Office—its responsibility to Ministers and the responsibility of Ministers to its civil servants. Who knew what and when with regard to arms to Sierra Leone? If Ministers knew, why did they not say that they knew, and, if they did not, why not?
  I have pursued a line of questioning about the reference of Sandline to the Customs and Excise Committee set up to investigate the export of arms in breach of British regulations. I asked how many times the United Nations arms embargo and British law had been broken. When I asked the Foreign Secretary that in a debate, he said it was about 200. That was misleading. It was entirely incorrect. When, three weeks later, we nailed the response, there had been only three, one of which was Sandline.
  Do we really believe that, with an ethical foreign policy, the breach of the United Nations' regulation and British law on the export of arms is so unimportant not to be referred to Ministers? I have been a parliamentary private secretary in the Foreign Office. I have great regard for the working of the Foreign Office, but I find it nearly unbelievable that something of that nature, which was brought about on 18 February, is supposedly not seen by the Foreign Secretary until the end of April or the beginning of May. I said in questioning that I found it unbelievable that that had not been referred to Ministers. It was an Exocet in a Red Box. It was likely to cause parliamentary questions to be asked—indeed, it was likely to cause an inquiry—and here we are debating it. Is the Foreign Office really so inefficient that those matters were not referred to Ministers? If that is the case, something has to be done about it; if it is not, there are great worries. Parliament has a right to investigate the matter and carry it further to make certain that we can put our finger on where the problems are.
  Everyone is suggesting that we have the correct solution because we have forced the Foreign Secretary finally to give way on our request to see documents—under security prospects, as we have always agreed—but he has given way only so far. In his letter of 6 July,
  906
  which is now in the public domain, but which I did not have until I came into the Chamber this afternoon, he says:
  "I will not be able, before the completion of the report, to disclose information on matters which may fall within Sir Thomas Legg's remit."
  The Foreign Secretary is still saying, "The blazes with Parliament; my report and my investigation should take precedence over the work of the Select Committee." I believe that that is wrong, and the House should condemn it. No Secretary of State should have the right to appoint a committee so that he can say to any Select Committee, "I am not going to answer your questions on that matter until the committee has reported." That is what is being said.
  The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) shakes his head, but the Foreign Secretary has said that he
  "will not be able, before the completion of the report, to disclose information on matters which may fall within Sir Thomas Legg's remit."
  That is plain enough, and the permanent secretary, with great embarrassment, has had to shelter behind the fact that he could not answer ordinary questions needing only a truthful answer because he had been instructed by Ministers not so to do. I shall give way, very briefly, to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde.
  Dr. Godman: I promise that I shall be brief; the right hon. Gentleman sounds like my old sergeant major.
  I am willing to wait for Legg, on the understanding that we cross-examine my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on the text of the report and its findings. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Foreign Secretary agreed in his letter to appear before the Select Committee on Tuesday 28 July. He says:
  "At that point, assuming that Sir Thomas Legg's report has been published, I will be in a position to respond in full to questions from the Committee."
  As a member of that Committee, I shall hold him to that promise.
  Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman's point is fair and definite. He has always held the view that it was quite all right for the Select Committee to wait until after the Legg inquiry to cross-examine. My point, which has also been made by several members of the Committee, is that I do not believe that the setting up of an inquiry such as Legg's should be allowed to stop a Select Committee putting questions to the permanent secretary, who sheltered behind the Legg inquiry, or to Ministers and the Foreign Secretary, who has said in his letter that he
  "will not be able, before the completion of the report, to disclose information on matters"
  which might concern Legg.
  Legg is only a civil servant. What right has that committee to be thought greater than a Select Committee of the House? I put that to the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, asking, "Do you consider that the Legg inquiry or your answers should take precedence over a Select Committee of the House?" For once, he gave a truthful answer—"No, I don't,"—and then he hid behind Legg for the remainder of his answers. That is what we are complaining about, and that is what we find wrong.

  907
  The way in which the Foreign Secretary has approached this matter has been arrogant, and we have not seen that from other Ministers; I think that he should resign. His behaviour has been quite incorrect, and the idea that he will be able to talk fairly about an ethical foreign policy when he has been so damned unethical with the Foreign Affairs Committee makes me laugh. He should go, and his resignation should be with the Prime Minister before the end of the debate.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. Ernie Ross: I am a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee; I have listened to some interesting contributions to the debate, and I am sure that there will be many more.
  Dr. Godman: Not many.
  Mr. Ross: They will be very interesting.
  The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) said that the Foreign Affairs Committee was conducting an inquiry into Sierra Leone. Some of us had great difficulty following him from that point: the fact is that we are not—and never have been—conducting such an investigation. As far as I am concerned, that is the main problem, although I shall come to other problems in a moment.
  It must be made clear, so that no one is in any doubt, that there is no record, in any minutes, of the Foreign Affairs Committee deciding to inquire into the actions surrounding what has happened in respect of Sierra Leone.
  Ms Abbott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because he is anxious to make progress, but is not it pedantic to say that we are not conducting an inquiry into Sierra Leone? On more than one occasion, the Committee has questioned civil servants about Ministers in respect of events concerning Sierra Leone—as it is quite entitled to do as part of its general remit. Is not my hon. Friend's insistence that we are not officially conducting an inquiry rather pedantic?
  Mr. Ross: I shall come to the reason why I believe that we were not confronted with a decision to conduct an inquiry. As my hon. Friend knows, I think that we have been involved in a game; she has been at most of the meetings where we have discussed the matter, and I have put that position forward. That game is being played in the Chamber tonight, which is why what I have said is important, not pedantic. Either we are carrying out an inquiry or we are not, and we are not.
  We are trying to investigate a human rights report and the moral foreign policy that the Government have said that they intend to implement, but we cannot get on with that because we are being sidelined on issues that may or may not relate to the Sierra Leone problem.
  We are not carrying out an inquiry because members of the Committee cannot agree what to do; as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said, that is the problem. Some members of the Committee want to conduct an inquiry into the whole issue of Sierra Leone; some support a parallel inquiry and believe that that would be the best way to proceed, although it may not be possible to proceed;
  908
  and others believe that the best way forward is to wait until Legg reports and then have an inquiry with the Foreign Secretary answering, when we have the advantage of having the report in our hands.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has already posed the question, but why are we not investigating the actions of Her Majesty's Government and their agents in the coup in Sierra Leone, subsequent actions in the area and at the United Nations, and the Government's determination to restore through democratic means the rightful, elected Government of President Kabbah?
  The other suggestion that has been dragged across the debate, and which has been put to me by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), is that we are not seeking to replicate the Legg inquiry. I accept that that has probably been his position throughout. However, every Committee member knows that, even on the narrow line of questioning that some hon. Members allege they wish to pursue, some would deliberately stray into the domain of the Legg report. They would intentionally cause conflict to gain party political points rather than to gain knowledge. That is what is happening in the Select Committee.
  Mr. Wells: I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman. If the Committee is not conducting an inquiry into Sierra Leone, why did it ask to see the confidential telegrams between the high commissioner and the Foreign Office? Was the Committee's decision to ask for those documents unanimous or was there a divided vote?
  Mr. Ross: In almost all its discussions on Sierra Leone, the Committee has been divided. There has not been one issue on which we have been united. There has sometimes been a minority of one, but never absolute unanimity.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Before my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) intervened, the hon. Gentleman referred obliquely to the hon. Members for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) as though they were Conservative party stooges. He may disagree with their judgment, but to accuse them of that is, to put it mildly, a travesty of the truth.
  Mr. Ross: That is the hon. Gentleman's interpretation. I shall explain why I think my hon. Friends have taken the wrong position—I put it no higher than that—when we have discussed the matter. It is on the record that I have disagreed with them, but I have never suggested what the hon. Gentleman said. I do not intend to repeat his words because I do not agree with them.
  I wish to explain why we are in this position. The reason that I shall give applies to at least one of my hon. Friends—I cannot speak for both of them. Some members of the Foreign Affairs Committee are playing party politics. I do not object to that, but I recognise it when I am confronted by it. The presence of the Opposition spokesperson on foreign affairs at our Committee proceedings tells me that there is a party political position on this issue. The publication of that person's evidence on the same day as the Select Committee was holding its press conference tells me that party politics are being played on this issue. The fact that

  909
  the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) announced at the same press conference that he had booked Committee Room 6 to hold his own press conference tells me, as a politician, that party politics are being played. The right hon. Member may disagree with me, but that is how it appears to me.
  Sir John Stanley: I booked another Committee Room in anticipation of other Committee members wishing to stop me responding to questions from the press. My anticipation was proved wholly correct.
  Mr. Ross: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for confirming what I said. Party politics are being played one way or another, and we are all trying to cover that up with great concern for the work of Select Committees. We are playing party politics.
  I do not object to playing party politics—I spent 18 years in opposition and understand why the Conservative party is doing that—but I do object to being asked to believe that we were not engaged in a political game. Under no circumstances am I prepared to accept that.
  When I objected to a line of questioning that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling wanted to pursue, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire accused me in the House—admittedly he had the good grace to tell me that he intended to raise the matter—of invoking a procedure that had not been used since 1937–38. That was considered a great offence against both Select Committees and the House. When I tried to raise a point of order earlier today, the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), who unfortunately has now left the Chamber, referred to the matter again from a sedentary position.
  I want to make it clear to the House that the procedure was not last used 60 years ago. A note by the Clerk of the House says:
  "Following events in the Committee last week, there has been a certain amount of comment in the House and in the media to the effect that the procedure of objecting to a question has not been used since Session 1937–38.
  The reference in Erskine May is indeed to that case. However, the procedure has been invoked on at least one occasion since then. That was on 25 July 1989 in the Select Committee on Members' Interests, when Sir William Shelton"—
  who I believe was a member of the Government at that time—
  "objected to a question put by Mr D N Campbell-Savours. On that occasion, the question concerned was subsequently withdrawn."
  Thus, I was not using outdated, 60-year-old procedure but simply following on from a Conservative Member. I take it that now that I have advised the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire of the evidence supplied by the Clerk, he and other hon. Members will withdraw the accusation that I was seeking to introduce obscure procedures into the business of the House.
  I hope that when the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling raises the issue with the Procedure Committee, as he claimed he would, he will refer to the incident when his then right hon. Friend used the procedure against my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
  Mr. Illsley: For the information of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley), the
  910
  issue of objecting during Select Committee proceedings was the first item on the agenda of the Procedure Committee's meeting this evening.
  Mr. Ross: I wonder whether the Procedure Committee was told of the correction.
  Sir John Stanley: I can inform the hon. Gentleman that when the Chairman of the Procedure Committee responded to my reference to the objection procedure, he made it clear to the Committee that one further precedent had been found in 1989. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have already advised the Foreign Affairs Committee that my accusation that the procedure had not been used for 60 years was made after I had checked not once but twice with the House authorities. I apologised to the hon. Gentleman for the fact that, when I made that public, I was not aware of the 1989 precedent. I am happy to repeat that apology to him.
  Mr. Ross: Obviously, I am prepared to accept that apology and I am glad that the Procedure Committee has been made aware of that tonight.
  Why have we got ourselves into this position? One has only to read the special reports produced by the Select Committee to see that, despite the fact that we are not carrying out an inquiry but simply requesting information here and there—so there is no real coherence—my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has gradually moved towards assisting the Committee. However, because of the political game going on in the Committee, which is preventing us from getting on with our work, my right hon. Friend's assistance has been rejected. In some cases, it has been rejected almost out of hand.
  When the Chairman proposed a compromise, even before we reached the Committee most of the Committee members had said that they would not be prepared to accept the Chairman's compromise. That has been the Chairman's problem: when he has looked for compromises, a particular part of the Committee has not been prepared to make them.
  Dr. Godman: May I correct my hon. Friend? He said that members of the Select Committee objected to the compromise proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). I sent the Chairman several amendments, one of which was that three members of the Committee should go to the Foreign Office to examine the telegrams to verify the accuracy of the summary. It was Conservative Members and our two hon. Friends who objected. I did not object to the compromise: I sought to amend it.
  Mr. Ross: I absolve my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) completely. His position has been absolutely clear: he wants the Committee to be able to start an inquiry into the actions surrounding the coup in Sierra Leone and the restoration of the democratically elected Government. He has been constrained by the political game that is going on inside the Committee.
  I want to put on the record the fact that the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has made gradual efforts to accommodate the Committee, but they have been rejected on every occasion. I only hope that when the Committee meets on 14 July, the offer that he made in his letter of 6 July will be accepted.

  911
  Why have we got ourselves into this position? In the private sittings of the Committee, I have described it as the obsessional loop syndrome. Some hon. Members on the Committee—including some of my hon. Friends—are in this obsessional loop. This obsession is the result of 18 years of Conservative Governments, who have set out to—I shall not use the term "corrupt" political life—
  Dr. Godman: They diminished it.
  Mr. Ross: They have certainly diminished political life, and have come as near as possible to corrupting it. People have begun to lose faith in politicians. We have only to look at the actions of Conservative Members: the Pergau damn incident, the Scott inquiry into arms for Iraq, the activities of the former MP for Tatton, the inquiries that I carried out as a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee into the actions of members of the Conservative Government, the Jonathan Aitken affair and the Ian Greer incident. Those events have diminished political life, and have led to people losing faith in Governments. When Governments seek to tell the truth, they are faced with the obsessional view that they must be trying to hide something. A number of members of the Committee have got themselves into this obsessional loop and no longer believe that Governments can be honest and upfront.
  I object to the fact that the Committee has not been allowed to get on with the work that it should be getting on with: there are several outstanding reports that we want to get on to, but cannot. We have just visited three areas of the world as part of our human rights inquiry. We have not even managed to discuss those visits. That is an item on our agenda, but we cannot get to it because of the activities of some hon. Members in this obsessional loop. They think that the Government are hiding information or are taking action that, in fact, they are not taking.
  An entry clearance inquiry was conducted more than a year ago, but it has still not reported to the House. It involved concerns expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about relatives of their constituents who are trying to get visas in Islamabad and Delhi. That report has not been published, because we cannot get round to discussing it. We have an outstanding report on Hong Kong which cannot be published, because we cannot get round to discussing it. We have a human rights report which we hope to put before the House. It is the responsibility of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs to give our colleagues a view of the report on human rights published by the Foreign Secretary, but we have not done that either because of this obsessional loop.
  Mr. Illsley: Is it not ironic that the one issue on which we shall not produce a report is Sierra Leone?
  Mr. Ross: Absolutely. That is because we are not carrying out an inquiry. We are in a Catch-22 situation of the worst kind.
  We have a public expenditure report pending. We have examined the departmental report obliquely, and we do not know whether we will be able to raise serious concerns about Foreign Office funding. We do not know whether we shall issue a report, and we cannot get round to discussing the matter because of this obsessional loop.
  We have just visited three different areas of the world as part of our human rights inquiry. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling, my hon. Friend the
  912
  Member for Greenock and Inverclyde, and I were in Kuwait on the morning following the announcement by the special ambassador Richard Holbrooke about the two-month rolling programme. The Iraqi regime has been of serious concern to the House. Provided that they comply with the United Nations inquiry, the sanctions may be eased or lifted. We met the committee dealing with the prisoners of war and those missing in Kuwait.
  When we came back, I suggested at our first meeting that we should raise with the Foreign Secretary the concerns that we had picked up on our trip. No sooner had I finished speaking than the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling pooh-poohed the idea. He dismissed the issue as not very important. He suggested that hon. Members should go on their own and speak to the Foreign Secretary informally. Three members of the Select Committee had visited Kuwait, had received evidence from the committee that represents prisoners and had information useful to the Foreign Secretary and to the Foreign Office, yet we could do nothing about it because of our Committee's obsession with the possibility that there may be something hidden in these telegrams.
  Dr. Godman: The Committee could be in a powerful position in this deeply disquieting affair—which is how I have described it several times—if we were to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the Sierra Leone issue following the publication of the Legg report.
  Mr. Ross: I could not agree more. We are supposed to be a Committee that matters and is taken seriously. We are not being taken seriously because we have got ourselves into this obsessional loop. This party political game is being played out for who knows what reason. We are not doing the job for which the House gave us responsibility. We are supposed to monitor the activities of the Foreign Office, but we are not doing that as we should. The sooner this debate is over and the sooner we get back to doing the job we were given, the better it will be for the House and for the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.
  Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A serious matter has been brought to my attention regarding Select Committees. I am a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation. Last Wednesday, a report was given by the Committee to the House on the manner in which the preliminary draft budget of the European Union should be debated. It had previously been thought that it would be appropriate for it to go to European Standing Committee B. I am informed that that Standing Committee will sit tomorrow, irrespective of the Select Committee's advice that this matter is so important that it should be debated on the Floor of the House.
  The issue is directly relevant to the matter we are discussing now, because it is about the importance that should be given to Select Committees. The Modernisation Committee has virtually agreed that if the Select Committee on European Legislation recommends that a matter should be debated on the Floor of the House, that is what should happen. I should be grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you would be good enough to refer this matter to Madam Speaker, and to ensure that it is treated in the appropriate fashion.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): That is not a matter for the Chair, and not a matter which I should

  913
  necessarily refer to Madam Speaker. No doubt Front-Bench Members have heard the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.
  6.49 pm
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I am sure the House is relieved to know that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) is not in an obsessional loop, and has no political agenda on the Select Committee.
  I speak with great modesty. Unlike the Chairman of the Liaison Committee and virtually every other member of our Committee—apart from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)—I have almost no experience of Select Committee life, having been a Minister for 10 years. For our purposes today, therefore, I am very much a poacher turned gamekeeper. However, I strongly endorse the view that the role of the Select Committee is as important now as it ever was.
  Many of us have been appalled by the way in which the rules of engagement have been shifted by this new Labour Government, who have adopted an extraordinary approach to diminishing the role of Parliament. The Prime Minister announced that he would no longer arrive for Prime Minister's Question Time more than once a week, and that there would be no proper debate. Government information officers have been dismissed on an unprecedented scale. The Prime Minister's chief information officer apparently thinks it legitimate for him, as a civil servant, to attack the Opposition—something which, when many of us were in government, would have been considered shocking, and would not have been countenanced for a moment.
  All that makes it all the more important, when there is an opportunity to scrutinise the actions of Government, for the Select Committee to hold strongly to its principles, rights and duties.
  Today, there is a further debate on cash for access. That is becoming understandable to colleagues who find that delegations are refused, that there is no real attempt to answer questions seriously in the House, and that—without there being a blush—the number of planted questions has reached a level that could never have been anticipated. As for the many other ways in which Ministers believed that they were accountable to Parliament—although, of course, Governments always try to give a good gloss on what they are doing, and to make life easier for themselves—the rules have changed beyond recognition.
  I believe that, although Whips' bleepers can penetrate even Committee Rooms, it is in Select Committees that progress and accountability are increasingly being demonstrated when the Whips are offside and not exercising their thumbscrews. The Agriculture Committee, the Public Administration Committee and the Standards and Privileges Committee are all beginning to make inroads, and to hold an over-mighty Government—they had a spectacular election success—to account.
  I was concerned when the Leader of the House—whose job is to protect the rights of the House, and to protect Back Benchers—would not take an intervention from me. I took that badly. The right hon. Lady subsequently accepted interventions from the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and, indeed, from my right
  914
  hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young); but she did not take an intervention from me. When I spoke from the Government Front Bench, my colleagues used to criticise me at length for accepting so many interventions, especially from Opposition Members.
  Mr. Wells: Particularly from Whips.
  Mrs. Bottomley: Indeed. I took the view that it was right to respond to as many interventions as was reasonably possible, but the Leader of the House simply would not take my intervention.
  What I wanted to do was remind the Leader of the House of the Foreign Affairs Committee's outrage at the fact that it was so difficult to find time to meet the Foreign Secretary in our first session in order to prepare our report on Europe. That ties in with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). The House authorities bounced through the parliamentary debate on the matter, so that it was not possible for our report to be considered properly. We raised the issue with the right hon. Lady on several occasions, but I am afraid that today she did not add glory to her position, or deal with my concern about her willingness to be open and frank with the House and to protect our interests.
  The whole point about the Government's amendment is that they imply that the situation has not changed. The Leader of the House said that she had not seen the letter that the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee says that he has made available more widely, and which he gave permission to be raised in the debate.
  Every time the Committee considers this question, it becomes curiouser and curiouser. It is right for the Committee to wish to examine not just the expenditure, but the policy and administration of the Foreign Office. When a Foreign Secretary proclaims an ethical foreign policy and heralds it in a self-advertising way, and evidence then emerges that begins to suggest that a United Nations arms embargo in Sierra Leone was breached, any self-respecting Select Committee will begin to ask questions about the gap between rhetoric and reality. That is our duty to the House.
  As for administration, we have had a catalogue of discussions about what was in the box, what was not in the box, who had read what briefing, whether the briefing was there and whether the briefing was not there. Let me offer the Government some advice which—although this may seem presumptuous—they may accept, because it comes from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). He said:
  "Doing your box is something that you have to do, because no one else can do it for you … If you send it back unmarked every document that you fail to sign or at least tick will relentlessly turn up again."

  915
  We have heard suggestions that Foreign Office Ministers do not now mark papers as having been read. It is difficult. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
  "You will make mistakes, some of them serious. But it is better to make your own mistakes than someone else's…do your work and do it systematically."
  Every debate that we have had on the Sierra Leone saga has suggested the most extraordinary state of affairs, in which it is impossible to know which Minister, which civil servant and which official has or has not done whatever. I have no doubt that, if our job is to scrutinise the Foreign Office's expenditure, administration and policy, we are complying with our duties. I have made clear my belief that this is a time when our duties are more serious than ever before. We have heard repeatedly from commentators. Peter Hennessy spoke of a Napoleonic style of government; Hugo Young, in today's Guardian, spoke of a Government who have doubled expenditure on special advisers compared with when we were in government. Our job as a Select Committee is to hold Departments to account. Government must answer to Parliament, and Select Committees seem to be the means by which that can be achieved.
  Like others, I am sorry that Opposition time has had to be used for today's vital debate; but, undoubtedly, it is the debate which has produced a concession from the Foreign Secretary that suggests that we can now begin to make progress. We were obliged to take the opportunity, as all Select Committees will be the stronger for it. I hope that, at last, this Government, with their mighty majority, will begin to realise that their accountability is not through spin doctors and media manipulation—rather like that of a soviet Government of the past—but directly to Parliament. That is what matters, and the debate will help the process.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It might assist the House, following the speech of the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), if I say that, following the undertakings that were given earlier to the House by the Leader of the House and by me, the bundle of relevant letters is available to hon. Members in the Vote Office.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: This is not so much a debate as a conversation. Few hon. Members are present. I regret that because this debate—this evening's conversation—raises several important issues and allows us to canvass what should be done in relation to the Foreign Affairs Committee and its current discussions with the Foreign Secretary on Sierra Leone and in relation to Select Committees generally and how circumstances comparable with these can be avoided during the life of this Parliament. I realise that this is a general debate, but it is a pity that a representative from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, or the parliamentary private secretaries, are not present.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: I am sure that my hon. Friend would want to acknowledge the fact that the parliamentary private secretary to the Foreign Secretary has sat through most of the debate, as has the Minister of State,
  916
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), who came before the Select Committee.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I acknowledge that. I am just saying that someone from the team should have been present throughout the debate. I do not want to labour that point, but it is not an unreasonable one to make.
  Frankly, the vote tonight is one of the rubrics of Parliament. It is the arguments that matter. If one can win the argument, that is important and I am not too exercised by tonight's vote. Therefore, the Chief Whip will be relieved to know, I shall dutifully follow him into the Division Lobby.
  While I mention the Chief Whip, there is another important point to make that I hope he will think is positive. A lot of mythology has grown around Whips generally and around this issue in particular. Many weeks ago, the Government Chief Whip, on his own initiative—I appreciated what he said to me—told me, "I assure you that, under my stewardship, we will not fall into the same chasm as the Conservatives did in respect of the Willetts matter."
  I wanted to put this on the record. The Whips Office has certainly never approached me about this matter; I think that that should be clearly understood. On occasions, I have had differences with my colleagues in the Whips Office and it would be unhealthy if that were ever to stop. None the less, in this respect, I want to put the record straight.
  I do not want to delay the House too much, but there was a lot of speculation at the weekend in two Sunday newspapers that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and I had been put on the Committee so that there would be overzealous scrutiny of the Foreign Secretary—as distinct from the selection of members of the Treasury Committee, who were alleged to be favourably disposed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Again, I am certain that that spin was wholly unattributable to and unauthorised by anyone in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but it needs to be stated that it was complete and utter rubbish. In fact, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, who is replying for the Government this evening, can testify to that.
  Incidentally, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary is a long time at the Dispatch Box—not just this evening, but throughout this Parliament. He certainly deserved that appointment. When there was a vacancy for the Labour party leadership, he twice tried to persuade me to nominate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). I declined. He will remember that one of the reasons I declined was that I was trying to persuade my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to agree to be nominated.
  I had three conversations with my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston, urging him to stand for the Labour party leadership. I wish he had taken my advice on that occasion, just as I wish he would take my advice on some of the matters before the House tonight. I tell that story because it is a matter of fact that I admire the Foreign Secretary. I wish him well. He has done much in his period in office—for example, in relation to the human rights initiative. He is unjustifiably criticised for not being

  917
  quick enough on some policies he has initiated. Much has been done and that should be pointed out. However, we can be the Foreign Secretary's good friend, but we must be Parliament's first. That is what some of us who have a strong view about the role of Select Committees have put at the forefront of our approach to the Sierra Leone issue.
  I have always felt that bipartisanship in Select Committees is important. It is right, in one sense, to say the Committee has been split on this issue, but one can also positively say that it has been bipartisan because members from the Government side have been prepared to take a view that is not ideal or comfortable for the Government. We have said that, on the way in which we look at the facts and circumstances, we should vote with members of other political parties.
  I say to all hon. Members that it would be sad if party division were rigidly applied in Select Committees. Indeed, we would be starting on the slippery slope to eroding the efficacy not just of the Foreign Affairs Committee, but of other Select Committees. Bipartisanship is important. It is a matter of consistency for me. In my maiden speech, given on the first day Parliament sat after the 1992 general election, I referred to the importance of Select Committees. I criticised the then Government and Opposition for being tardy in setting up Select Committees after that election. Not just the existence of Select Committees, but the need for them increasingly to improve their status and effectiveness, regardless of who is in office, is paramount to me.
  Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend has been making the point about bipartisanship in the Select Committee. Because of the way in which the press reported our last divisions, I should like to make it clear, as I am sure my hon. Friend will, that the vote on the second report was not a vote on an Opposition report or amendment; it was on our Chairman's report. Therefore, we were voting for the Chairman's report.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that valid point. The Chairman's stewardship of this matter has been principled. The circumstances have been difficult. Indeed, he has shown leadership in the preparation of the report and endeavoured to reach what has been referred to as a compromise. His efforts should be applauded. On this particular matter, the Select Committee was voting on the Chairman's draft.
  I regret that we are debating this issue on an Opposition motion, but that is not a criticism of the Opposition; this matter needed to be brought before the House. I suspect that history will not be repeated. I think that some people will have got the message that, if such circumstances ever arise again—I hope that they will not; I think that they should be avoided—the business managers should recognise that Government time needs to be made available for these matters to be explored and rehearsed.
  In her speech today, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House rehearsed many of the wrongs perpetrated by the Conservatives when they were in office in relation to scrutiny and disclosure of information, for example. She also mentioned inconsistencies in their prosecution of the Government earlier in the afternoon. Everything that she listed was valid, but we must remember, quite simply, that two wrongs do not make a right.
  918
  I am proud to support my Government in the House of Commons. They rightly made great play up to and during the general election of promoting openness, reforming the constitution and making Parliament more relevant. I hope that, in the immediate aftermath of this debate and generally, they will consider whether they should be bolder in making themselves more available to scrutiny than any Government before, rather than limiting scrutiny. In my view, one of the great legacies that the Government could hand down is a machinery that makes them open to scrutiny and accountable as never before. That would be a tremendous achievement and something of which they could be proud. I hope that that will be reflected upon.
  When we consider how we got into this difficulty, I have to say that the Government's approach has been somewhat deficient. I must just acknowledge that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) is now on the Treasury Bench and I am grateful to him for being here because, in fairness to him, I inevitably want to refer to some of the circumstances by which this matter has escalated.
  The Minister of State was originally due to appear before the Select Committee on a matter separate from Sierra Leone on Tuesday 5 May, after a bank holiday. In the weekend papers, matters relating to what is now known as the Sierra Leone issue had emerged. The Minister was asked whether he would be prepared to respond to questions arising from the weekend press reports and he generously agreed to do so. However, things got off to a bad start. It appears to me that the Minister of State had not been adequately briefed, partly because it was after a weekend and a bank holiday. I believe that he referred to that. There were some things that he needed to clarify subsequently, but they were not clarified until Friday. I do not want to labour that point in the House now except to say that that is indicative of how things are a little slow.
  I am sure you will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that on Wednesday 6 May there was a private notice question from the shadow Foreign Secretary which required the Foreign Secretary to come to the Dispatch Box. It would have been much better if my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had decided to appear at the Dispatch Box on the Tuesday afternoon. In that way, we would have had a controlled—perhaps that is the wrong term—a well-thought-out and prepared statement clarifying the position. It would have meant that the Minister of State could legitimately have declined to answer questions at the Foreign Affairs Committee meeting on Tuesday morning.
  I venture to suggest that it would have been fair to the Minister of State if the Foreign Secretary had taken the initiative and said, "An important issue has appeared in the papers. There is controversy and I will speak to the House on Tuesday afternoon." That would have been better than waiting for the granting of a private notice question on the Wednesday.
  Mr. David Heath: I have been critical of the Minister of State's evidence, but, in an attempt to be fair to him, I and other members of the Select Committee would have found it proper for him to have declined to give evidence on Sierra Leone at that first session. He could have come back at another time soon after in order to give precise

  919
  evidence. It was clear that he had not been briefed sufficiently to do the job that the Committee asked him to do on that occasion.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I am looking my hon. Friend the Minister of State straight in the eye. He has had many achievements and is held in high regard both politically and personally by Labour Members and, I hope, elsewhere. I rehearse these arguments simply to show how the Government got off to a bad start. Subsequently, trying to get sight of the documents and trying to obtain recognition of the fact that the Select Committee has a right and a duty to probe has been like extracting teeth from a whale. I use the word probe deliberately because the valid point was made earlier that there is no formal Select Committee inquiry.
  When an issue that causes some concern and controversy is placed in the public domain, the immediate duty of a Select Committee should be to scratch the surface of that issue. That is what we were doing on the Tuesday morning when the Minister of State appeared before us and subsequently. The fact that the Foreign Secretary was not readily disposed to make information available is part of the reason for the creation of the bad spirit in which we have had to try to deal with this matter. [Interruption.] Is the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) shuffling on his bottom or does he wish to intervene?
  Mr. David Davis: Since the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have the greatest admiration, has invited me to intervene, I shall do so. I simply want to give him another example. I see that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is in the Chamber. There have been occasions in the Public Accounts Committee when matters have come to the surface which were not apparent when the Committee met. A recent example is that of the Office of the National Lottery. When it first appeared before the Committee, it looked as though there was no great issue to answer, but, during the Committee's inquiries, something came up, had to be pursued. That is quintessentially the nature of Select Committee inquiries. They do not have to be fettered by guidelines, job descriptions or any of the other paraphernalia of control that we are too used to today.
  Mr. Mackinlay: Having pointed out, with the benefit of hindsight, what I believe to have been the wrong approach by the Government, I should now do a mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I can say, again with hindsight, that we on the Foreign Affairs Committee should have approached things differently. We should have resolved much more quickly at least to have had a formal initial inquiry and we should have announced it pretty damn quick. We should have tackled the constitutional issues with the Foreign Secretary much earlier. Had we done so, history may have been different. With hindsight, I can say that we should probably have approached things differently. I am sure that if it ever happened again, we would do so. That is history.
  There is one issue to which I want to return and on which I intervened earlier; the business of the setting up of the Legg inquiry. We are told that it is independent. It is independent, but it is internal. It is not set up under the tribunal inquiries legislation. We would be setting a dangerous precedent if Parliament accepted that a
  920
  Minister can set up an internal inquiry and use it to dissuade a parliamentary Committee from doing the probing to which I referred earlier. I believe that it discriminates in favour of the Government.
  I invite the House to consider an example. If the conduct or stewardship of the employees of an outside public or private corporation was the subject of some public concern and the Select Committee decided, as it often does, to inquire into their conduct, Parliament would not accept as sufficient ground to persuade a parliamentary Committee from doing the necessary probing the fact that the chairman of the corporation had set up an internal inquiry.
  When I intervened earlier, some people said, from a sedentary position, "Trade union principle." I need no lessons in trade union principles because, before coming to the House, I had for many years been a trade union official. The Foreign Affairs Committee, like all Select Committees, is sensitive to people's rights. As has been pointed out, there is an opportunity to consider matters in camera. No Select Committee would wilfully allow its inquiry to jeopardise people's employment rights or rights of appeal, but Parliament is supreme and it is essential that the setting up of an internal inquiry by the Government should not obstruct Parliament in doing its duty.
  Mr. David Davis: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention not just to the parallel that he has chosen—the private sector—but to the previous inquiry in the Foreign Office. Much has been made today of the Scott inquiry. It was not set up under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, although in every other way—except for the sub judice requirement—it mimicked it. A senior judge was in charge and its general set-up was similar. Many more people were involved whose disciplinary rights could have been transgressed. The then Foreign Secretary—rightly from his point of view—did not hold back in answering parliamentary questions and in commenting in the press. Therefore, there is a precedent in the Foreign Office of an inquiry taking place, but the rights of Parliament not being withheld.
  Mr. Mackinlay: Absolutely. If it is good for the private sector, it must be good for the Government. There should not be discrimination in favour of Ministers or Government Departments.
  Mr. Illsley: My hon. Friend may not have been in the Chamber earlier when a former member of the Trade and Industry Committee complained about documents that were part of the Scott inquiry being kept from that Committee and about how the previous Government refused to release information.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I did not raise the matter of the Scott inquiry, but I did state my view that although my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House trotted out all the wrongs perpetrated by the Conservative Government—we can add my hon. Friend's point to the list—two wrongs do not make a right. I expect a higher standard from a Labour Government. That is my point, and I intend to sustain it.
  One issue that has not been raised was my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's comment to the effect, "What's all the fuss about? The good guys won." If my

  921
  right hon. Friend chooses to say that in the circumstances of the time, it increases our duty at least to scratch the surface in these matters with some expedition. I did not make the comment; my right hon. Friend did. Again, it is a matter of restraints being put on the Select Committee while the Executive can have its way.
  Looking to the future, it would be better if, rather than Governments setting up inquiries and appointing people such as Legg, Parliament had at its disposal someone to carry out the initial scrutiny. That already happens in the general area of administration by way of the ombudsman. In addition, the Public Accounts Committee has the Comptroller and Auditor General, who can probe and examine on his own initiative. He can suggest matters for the PAC to examine, or the political members of the Committee might ask him to investigate certain matters. He might come back to the Committee with the judgment that there is nothing to worry about or that the matter does not justify an examination by the full Committee.
  Other Select Committees need such people on their staffs—and they might well be people like Mr. Legg who would be under the instruction of and answerable to a Select Committee. I am not opposed to someone making an initial investigation. It could be conducted with some privacy, which would diminish the opportunities for malicious and malevolent complaints to be made against people. That might protect those who might subsequently have to answer disciplinary action. However, that investigation should be on the initiative of the Select Committee, not the Government, who are themselves subject to the scrutiny. I hope that that point will be taken on board by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when she and others come to reflect on these issues and determine how they can be avoided.
  7.24 pm
  Mr. Bowen Wells: I hope that we can conduct this debate on the common basis that we all want the supremacy of Parliament and the privileges of Select Committees to be upheld. We want to be sure that the Executive is, at all times and through us, brought to account to the electorate. Like many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), it is our privilege to be Members of Parliament. We have to uphold the highest standards and make Parliament more effective. We have to uphold its prestige and gain the respect of the electorate.
  I regard this matter as a House of Commons affair and I am amazed at the partisanship that has been revealed within the Foreign Affairs Committee. As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said, Select Committees are at their most potent and effective when their members are working together as a team on a bipartisan basis. Of course, politics is never absent in a political arena such as the House of Commons or a Select Committee, but the effective way to call the Government to account is for the Select Committee system to be allowed to develop and to increase—rather than to reduce—its powers.
  What galvanised me to take part in the debate and to support the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, was the report, presented by the hon. Member for Swansea, East
  922
  (Mr. Anderson), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, that it was the Government's contention that, first, his Committee could not investigate a matter of concern when the Foreign Secretary had established an internal inquiry and, secondly, that his Committee must await the report of that internal inquiry before the Foreign Secretary would answer questions and allow the Committee to see relevant papers.
  If the House allowed that ruling to stand, we would forfeit, on behalf of the electorate, the capacity to hold the Executive to account in any meaningful way. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) listed the ways in which we could do that. We are aware of the ineffectiveness of asking questions and how that process has been undermined as a method of holding the Government to account. Select Committees are crucial to the perpetuation of the view that the House has supremacy. In fact, we may as well give up responsibility to the presenters of the "Today" programme who, over the past few years, have claimed that it is their responsibility to hold the Government to account—unelected as they are and unappointed as they are under the BBC's mandate. However, they claim that we are not doing our job. If we had allowed the Foreign Secretary's ruling to stand, we would have forfeited our rights.
  In effect, our fox has been shot because the Foreign Secretary has now said that he will allow the Select Committee to look at the telegrams in summary and for that summary to be effectively scrutinised by one or two members of the Committee—presumably selected by the Committee, not by the Foreign Secretary—to verify that it is in all ways honest and truthful. That is how the matter should have been conducted initially. It is also how the previous Foreign Affairs Committee looked into the Pergau dam matter.
  There was no division between Labour and Conservative Members who served on the previous Foreign Affairs Committee. The previous Committee wanted to hold the Government to account on the Pergau dam, and so it did. Government Members have made much of Pergau as a reprehensible incident in the previous Government's conduct of affairs. The previous Committee was absolutely right to hold the previous Government to account, and I support its actions. I hope that the current Select Committee will do the same with the current Government.
  I should like to deal with a point that has been made by the hon. Member for Swansea, East. There are occasions on which Select Committees have to ensure that they maintain confidentiality between the Committee and the Executive. There are several obvious issues to consider in maintaining confidentiality, the first of which is reporting by high commissioners or civil servants to Ministers.
  If we require all such correspondence—whether in the form of faxes, telegrams or letters—to be reported and recorded in the House, any self-respecting Minister or high commissioner will, because of fears that the correspondence will be published in full, for full public consideration, restrict the type of honesty that is necessary for efficient conduct of Government business. They will not include in their telegrams very important confidential—possibly personally libellous—information that they would otherwise report and which is necessary for a judgment to be made by Ministers.

  923
  It is right that Select Committees should use the mechanisms that we developed in dealing with the Pergau dam matter. The International Development Committee has already agreed with the Secretary of State for International Development to use those mechanisms when dealing with a case involving commercially sensitive information and the Trade and Industry Committee has used them.
  The International Development Committee has asked the Commonwealth Development Corporation to tell us exactly why it has proposed investing in projects in competition with private sector investors. The Secretary of State has offered to let the Committee see all the information—including a summary of commercially sensitive information that we will be able to check. I think that that is the right way to go about such matters.
  We require confidentiality in cases involving reporting from civil servants and high commissioners to Ministers, commercially sensitive information and serious security issues. We would not wish Select Committees to betray secrets that would in any way endanger the safety of the United Kingdom. In those three important examples, we must compromise Select Committees' rights to see absolutely every document.
  We must conserve also the immediacy and relevance of Select Committee work, much of which is lost because time is not on a Committee's side. We therefore object to the Government establishing an inquiry and saying that it will be able to report in two and a half months—although, in the case of guns to Iraq, for example, it took an inquiry two years to report. Select Committees should be able immediately to call Ministers, to call for papers and to report to the House so that the House will be able immediately and relevantly to debate issues of very great concern to the country.
  One of the problems with the Sierra Leone case is that we have not had such immediacy. Although I hesitate to criticise the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Thurrock said that the Committee perhaps should have immediately entered into discussions with Ministers. However, perhaps the Committee would have been hindered in doing so by the Foreign Secretary himself—thereby providing another reason for me to speak in this debate and to object very strongly to such action, in defence of the House's capacity to hold the Government to account and to inform the nation of the Government's actions on their behalf.
  Today's debate has enabled the possibility of the Government giving way on the matter. I am not certain that we would have received quite such an emollient letter from the Foreign Secretary without the pressure that has been brought to bear on both him and the Government. I believe that, in the end, the Government have acted honourably and properly and that the Select Committee system will consequently be enhanced, which I very much welcome. The result has been achieved by work by hon. Members on both sides of the House, in defence of the very important privileges that we possess and the duties that our electors expect us to discharge.
  7.35 pm
  Mr. Eric Illsley: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate—first, because I am a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee; and, secondly, because I am a member of the Procedure
  924
  Committee, as I have been for a number of years. I am somewhat unique in the House because—despite two or three periods as an Opposition spokesperson or in the Whips office—I have been a Select Committee member since being elected to this place. I am therefore somewhat struck by the naivety of some hon. Members when they speak about Select Committees—specifically about confidentiality and bipartisanship.
  I give the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) an example of confidentiality and bipartisanship from 1990, when a leak from the Energy Select Committee occurred before the Committee had even received copies of its report. The leak involved a situation in which one Secretary of State wanted to have a little dig at another Secretary of State, including in the Chairman's draft report the word "dilettante" to describe the latter Secretary of State. The description was leaked to the weekend press, which was up in arms about the leak. The Committee therefore met for the first time to deliberate on the report against a background of press derision about a Select Committee describing a Secretary of State as a "dilettante". However, the Select Committee had not even seen the report.
  The upshot was that the Committee decided to delete any reference to the word "dilettante". To this day, I have not been able to trace the origins of that word in the report. However, the fact is that Select Committees leak like sieves and very rarely act in a bipartisan manner.
  Mr. David Heath: I am not as green as the hon. Gentleman is perhaps portraying me. Of course Select Committees leak, and—dare I say it—it may have happened even within the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. However, I do not believe that there are examples of Select Committees leaking matters that are clearly identified as matters of national security or national interest. I do not believe that the Intelligence and Security Committee, for example, has ever been found guilty of leaking confidential information provided to it. I believe that we should have confidence in the Foreign Affairs Select Committee to take the same responsible attitude on important matters of state.
  Mr. Illsley: I am sure that both the House and the Foreign Secretary have that confidence in the Committee. In my view, the Foreign Secretary has acted in good faith by offering the Select Committee a summary of the telegrams, which could be verified by Committee members. The offer has been available to the Committee for a considerable time.
  The Sierra Leone issue has been pushed and extended by Opposition Front Benchers. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), in moving the motion, had to be prompted by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) to mention the Committee's "inquiry into Sierra Leone". The Committee is not conducting an inquiry into Sierra Leone. It has no terms of reference dealing with Sandline or with Sierra Leone or anything connected with it.
  At a previous meeting, Committee members agreed not to call various named individuals and not to undertake an inquiry, on the basis that it would duplicate the Legg inquiry and simply be trying to call the same witnesses, who would say, "I refuse to give evidence to the Committee on the basis that I will incriminate myself"—

  925
  rather as the Maxwell brothers said to the Social Security Select Committee. Although the Maxwell brothers spoke to the Committee, they said absolutely nothing. The House almost decided that they were in contempt.
  That is what would have happened had we tried to hold an inquiry, but, for some reason, we decided to call for the telegrams. It has to be pointed out that we are not undertaking an inquiry into Sierra Leone. The whole issue of Sandline and arms to Sierra Leone has prevented the Committee from producing one serious, substantive report.
  I am surprised that this debate is taking place on an Opposition day and that, in drafting their motion, the Opposition have taken paragraph 6 of the second special report by the Foreign Affairs Committee. It is there for all to see:
  "it is wrong in principle for the Executive to seek unilaterally to impose prior conditions"
  and so on. However, the previous paragraph of the same report states:
  "The Committee welcomes the Secretary of State's willingness to make available summaries of the telegrams and to allow nominated members…to verify them. It also welcomes the Secretary of State's willingness, as set out in his letter to the Chairman…to consider specific requests to extend the offer".
  I am surprised that the Opposition have decided to use paragraphs from our report as the basis for their motion. I think that it is an abuse of the House's procedures to take a report by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, or a report by any Select Committee, and debate it—
  Sir Patrick Cormack rose—
  Mr. Illsley: I withdraw the phrase "abuse of the House's procedures"; I shall simply say that it is unusual for the Opposition to take as the subject of an Opposition day debate a report by a Select Committee. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, pointed out, perhaps there should have been other ways for the report to be debated—through the Liaison Committee, and so on.
  I want to talk about confidentiality and the supposed powers of Select Committees to call for documents. If we look into the powers of a Select Committee to call for papers and documents, we find that there are none. The Standing Orders state that a Select Committee can send for papers and documents, but the power to call for papers rests with the House. The reason is that the House cannot delegate to a Committee more powers than it has itself, and the House is restricted in the powers that it has to call for documents. I shall deal with that in a moment.
  There are members of the Committee, which is now split down the middle, who are quite happy with what the Secretary of State has offered. We have never accepted his offer to look at the summaries of the telegrams. We have been involved in this for weeks, but not one of us has said that we should get the Committee to agree to do that so that we can find out whether there is anything to warrant our prolonged consideration of the Sandline issue in parallel with the Legg inquiry.
  As we now know, the Foreign Secretary has agreed to come to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on two occasions—16 and 28 July. He has agreed to give
  926
  evidence, because we decided at the last Committee meeting to invite him—perhaps if we had decided to hold an inquiry into Sierra Leone, or if we had decided that it was now appropriate to examine the telegrams, we would not be in this situation. I believe that a great deal of the time of the House and the Select Committee has been wasted.
  I said that Select Committees have no power to call for documents. The reason for that is that when Select Committees were established in 1979, the then Government did not give them any power to call for documents. The present Select Committee structure is based on the 1978 report of the Select Committee on Procedure. It is one of the better reports that the House has received because it dealt not only with Select Committees, but with many other issues which the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons is even now only just getting around to considering.
  As I said, the power to call for a document rests with the House of Commons, and it rests in an address by a Member. As, since 1902 and the Balfour reforms, the agenda is now in the power of the Government, there is no opportunity for a Member to move an address for the return of a document, so, basically, that power does not exist. As long ago as 1859, "Erskine May" set out some of the conditions relating to what could and could not be called for. One condition was that a paper or document was not confidential, and another was that calling for it would not be against public policy. Even then, there were restrictions on what information the Government could make available.
  When the Clerk of the Committee gave evidence to the Select Committee on Procedure in 1978, he spoke about the limitations on the House's power to send for a paper from a public Department. Before the Committee reported, he said:
  "when sought from government departments",
  the document should not be
  "of a public and official character, and should not be private or confidential."
  He went on to say:
  "It is ministerial refusals to produce documents which have provided the greatest problems for Select Committees in the conduct of their inquiries…There have been other occasions on which committees may have wished to have more information in the form of papers and records from Ministers, but in such cases a compromise has been reached."
  They are the words of the Clerk of the Committee in 1978 before the Select Committee got around to dealing with the issue.
  The Select Committee then set out its views on the release of papers. Its idea was that a refusal by the Government to release papers should be followed by a special report to the House. When the House had had the report for six days, public business should be interrupted and the matter debated. That was the Select Committee's recommendation, although it was eventually thrown out. When the Committee made that recommendation, it clearly stated:
  "We envisage that the procedure set out above would be invoked rarely, if at all. It would stand as an ultimate weapon…We would expect that Committees would continue in certain circumstances to accept the arguments of departments and their Ministers that the provision of some information requested was undesirable and to respect the requests of some departments for some evidence to be given on a confidential basis."

  927
  The Select Committee thereby admitted in 1978 that there was an argument for confidentiality.
  In 1979, the Conservative Government acted on that report and brought into being the present Select Committee structure. I think that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne who said earlier this evening that the powers of Select Committees should be strengthened when the Government have a sizeable majority in the House, and he referred to the present Government's majority. However, the present Select Committee structure, perfect or imperfect, was set up when the Government of the day had a majority of around 150. That argument pertained in 1979, but was perhaps not taken on board.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: That is not quite right. Select Committees were set up when the Government's majority was 44. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, at a later election it went up to 143, with 1 million fewer votes being cast for the Conservatives.
  Mr. Illsley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that correction, but the Government nevertheless had a substantial majority in the Parliament in which Select Committees were established. In the debate on Select Committees at the time, the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, now Lord St. John of Fawsley, said:
  "The Government will make available to Select Committees as much information as possible, including confidential information for which, of course, protection may have to be sought by means of the sidelining procedure."—[Official Report, 25 June 1979: Vol. 969, c. 45.]
  So even then there was some measure of confidentiality in respect of calls or requests for papers by Select Committees, and the Standing Orders were drawn up on that basis.
  The Leader of the House referred to the code of practice that is mentioned in the Government amendment. Paragraph 4 of that code refers to the disclosure of documents in relation to inquiries or proceedings. However, paragraph 1, under the heading "Reasons for Confidentiality" sets out the exemptions to the disclosure of information, including:
  "Information whose disclosure would harm the conduct of international relations or affairs."
  and
  "Information received in confidence from foreign governments"
  and so on. Some of the information that the Foreign Affairs Committee has asked for has to be considered on that basis.
  Initially, the Foreign Secretary said that the telegrams that we had requested contained confidential information, some of which might have referred to issues other than the one in which we were interested. It might have related to other Governments or individuals involved in Sierra Leone at the time.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: I am sure that my hon. Friend would wish to remind the House that the concern expressed by the Foreign Secretary related not just to what was contained in those telegrams, but to the fact that it would be the first time ever that any Foreign Secretary had allowed anyone to look at telegrams and that when it became common knowledge outside the House that such
  928
  telegrams were being viewed by Select Committees, the content of those telegrams would suffer and they would become less helpful.
  Dr. Godman: More bland.
  Mr. Ross: Not only would they become more bland, but they would probably lose their usefulness.
  Mr. Illsley: My hon. Friend makes a very good point that was also made by the Foreign Secretary and considered by the Committee—that the content of future telegrams might suffer if the senders thought that they would be made public and brought before Committees on a regular basis.
  I pay tribute to the Clerk of the Foreign Affairs Committee as he has advised us very well on procedure. He has given us excellent briefing on the procedures available to the Select Committee. His advice on the issue has been very good. Let me quote from two documents prepared by the Clerk, where he states:
  "The Foreign Secretary describes this proposal"—
  to make a summary of the telegrams available to the Select Committee—
  "as following the Pergau precedent, but in one sense it goes further. In the Pergau case, it was certain agreements between the United Kingdom and Malaysia that were subject to verification by Members. In the present case, it is telegrams between Posts and London, a rather broader category of document. If the Committee accepts the Foreign Secretary's offer, this could represent a useful extension of the Pergau precedent."
  Not only did we refuse to look at the telegrams, but we turned down the chance of producing a precedent for future Select Committees and we missed a trick.
  Ms Abbott: My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), said a few moments ago that had we been allowed sight of the telegrams in any formal fashion it would have been the first time that an outsider had sight of Foreign Office telegrams. However, in the Select Committee, he told us that he himself, in his capacity as chairman of the Labour party Back-Bench committee on foreign affairs had had sight of such telegrams in particular circumstances. I remember thinking at the time that it was odd that there should be circumstances in which he should have sight of telegrams, but it could not possibly be appropriate for members of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee to see telegrams in any formal fashion.
  Mr. Illsley: I listened with interest to what my hon. Friend said.
  I was referring to the advice received from the Clerk. Further advice stated:
  "The practical difficulties in exercising the formal powers to require Secretaries of State to produce documents have led Committees instead to seek to negotiate a compromise with Ministers."
  So throughout the history of Select Committees, the issue of confidentiality has arisen and has usually led to compromise.
  I agree that perhaps Select Committees do not have sufficient powers to call for documentation. Perhaps the Opposition would have done better framing today's debate around the powers of Select Committees and

  929
  whether or not they should be increased. I know that the Procedure Committee is considering Select Committees in the face of devolution; most Select Committee Chairmen will have received letters from the Procedure Committee on that issue. By turning down the precedent that we were offered, perhaps we missed the chance to extend the powers of Select Committees.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) that the Opposition have used the Foreign Affairs Committee as a way of prolonging interest in the Legg inquiry and keeping the issue on the agenda in view of the fact that the Legg inquiry is now proceeding. It is interesting that on the day when we were to take evidence from Sir John Kerr, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe released his evidence to the Legg inquiry. I recall hearing him on the radio that morning talking about the 464 questions and the 63 pages of evidence that he had produced for the Legg inquiry. It is also interesting that members of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe are now using the same language in their press releases. They both referred to the Secretary of State's actions as putting a blowtorch under the Select Committee structure.
  The Foreign Affairs Committee has no inquiry on Sierra Leone, no terms of reference in respect of such an inquiry and no formal proceedings on Sierra Leone, so many of the issues that we are debating today are outside the remit of the Select Committee. We are not undertaking an inquiry and perhaps we should have addressed that some time ago. The Government set up the Legg inquiry to deal with the matter and, as far as I am concerned, we have been made offers that go further than those made by the previous Government in similar circumstances and we have not taken up those offers. I remain of the view that the Select Committee is being led politically. It is being used as a way of airing the issue, outside the Legg inquiry. The sooner the Legg inquiry reports and the Foreign Affairs Committee makes a decision on the matter, the better off we will all be.
  7.56 pm
  Mr. Michael Colvin: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley). I have been a member of a Select Committee ever since I came to the House—first the Employment Committee and then the Energy Committee, when I served with the hon. Gentleman. I, too, remember the incident of leaks and the so-called dilettante Minister. The hon. Gentleman will also recall that on that Select Committee there was what I can describe only as a Government stooge whose job was to ensure that the views of the Secretary of State of the day were forcefully presented. That did not improve the debate within the Select Committee, but none the less consensus eventually prevailed and the results of our deliberations were all the better for it.
  The work conducted by right hon. and hon. Members on Select Committees is some of the most constructive and satisfying that we can do in this place. All Select Committees have difficulty in getting information out of Government Departments. There is nothing new in that. To some extent, all Select Committees leak the information that they receive. That is one of the problems
  930
  of getting information out of Departments in the first place. If Select Committees did not leak, they would find it much easier to get the information that they required in order to do their job properly.
  I well understand the current concern about the failure of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to release to the Select Committee information relating to the Sierra Leone arms investigation, so I support the motion tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends, which is about the principle that we are debating today—the role of Select Committees and how they can get information from the Government. I congratulate the Foreign Affairs Committee on the wording in its report, which has been used in the motion tabled by the official Opposition, notwithstanding the remarks of the Chairman of the Committee about those words being taken somewhat out of context.
  Rather than dealing with the specifics of the Sierra Leone affair, I shall limit my remarks to the way in which our Select Committees are working or, in some cases, are not working satisfactorily.
  Ministers can run their Departments only if they have money. The only way in which they can get money is by coming to Parliament and asking us to vote for it. Once we have voted them that money, it is our job, as the elected representatives of the people who pay the taxes to produce the money, to hold Ministers accountable for the way in which they have spent that money.
  It amazes me that it was not until 1979 that Parliament had the sense to establish the broader departmental Select Committee system that we now have. I endorse what hon. Members have said about the importance of being able to cross-question Ministers and civil servants. The mandarins in Whitehall are powerful. They do not like appearing before Select Committees. Some Ministers are good at it and some are not so good, but I have found that, on the whole, civil servants are reluctant to appear, and when they do, they sometimes do not perform as well as Ministers. It is also an important part of a Select Committee's work to be able to cross-question not only civil servants, but those outside Whitehall who have an interest in the matters that the Select Committee is investigating and for which the Department of State is responsible.
  A number of hon. Members have referred to the importance of unanimity. Some responsibility for assisting Select Committees eventually to reach unanimity lies with the Committee of Selection, which no one has yet mentioned. The Committee of Selection has the task of deciding who serves on Select Committees. I deplore the efforts of the Whips of any party to twist the arms of members of the Committee to try to get people on a Select Committee who effectively become placemen for the party concerned.
  It is the job of the Committee of Selection to find men and women of judgment. Part of the difficulty about their being given access to classified and confidential information is the way in which members of a Select Committee will use that information. Having been privy to it, it is up to members to use their judgment in the national interest and to decide whether they should disclose the information. If the members of the Select Committee display such judgment, the system will work well. However, it is up to the Committee of Selection in the first place to try to ensure that the right sort of people go on the Select Committees.

  931
  If the Committees are to do their job properly, they need information. Often they already have the knowledge. It is one of the features of the Select Committees on which I have served that, because of the continuity of membership of the Committee from one Parliament to another, members of a Select Committee often know more about the subject than the Ministers who come before them in the dock. That can have unfortunate consequences.
  I well remember the occasion on which I was pinned up against the bookshelves of the Aye Lobby during a Division by a Minister of State who was very much larger than I was, when I was Chairman of the Defence Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name him."]—I would not dream of doing such a thing; I am far too courteous—in order to persuade me that there was a certain matter that the Defence Committee should not investigate. That merely reinforced my impression that the Defence Committee certainly should investigate the matter. I may say that when the Minister came to give evidence before the Committee, he performed extremely well.
  I pay tribute to the staff of Select Committees. It amazes me how much our staff manage to achieve when compared with congressional committees on Capitol Hill. On the Defence Committee we have only four Clerks, but we employ the valuable services of someone seconded from the National Audit Office, which was mentioned earlier. Every Select Committee could benefit from having a member of the NAO on its staff.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the House would benefit from having the equivalent of the general accounting office in Washington, where a unit is available to give detailed information of the kind to which he referred, and which, for us, would normally come from the National Audit Office? The general accounting office provides information on the problems of the day and advice to members as they are considering particular aspects of policy.
  Mr. Colvin: That is a valuable contribution, which right hon. and hon. Members on the Front Benches will take on board. Select Committees tend to be reactive. The more proactive they become, the better. The hon. Lady's suggestion would be one way of assisting Select Committees to be proactive, provided of course that the rules of the House permitted it.
  It is difficult to get information out of Ministers and Departments. Much of the information that the Defence and the Foreign Affairs Committees require to do their job properly impinges on national security and is therefore highly sensitive.
  Our Defence Committee sees some extremely highly classified material. In fact, information on the level of classification that we are allowed to see is itself classified information, so I cannot tell the House what it is. All I can say is that when we are privy to it, we usually sit in a room in the Ministry of Defence and our notes are put through the shredding machine when we leave. In our office, less highly classified material is locked in the safe, and we frequently go into private session when we are considering the sort of information that may well have come before the Foreign Affairs Committee in relation to Sierra Leone.
  That reinforces my point about hon. Members' judgment. The House of Commons Defence Committee has never leaked. There was an occasion on which part of
  932
  a report got out a little early, but that was purely accidental. On the whole, we are an extremely secure Committee and we have invariably succeeded in reaching a consensus on our reports. With many new members on the Committee, all the evidence is that we shall continue to reach a consensus, which is to the benefit of the work that we do and the defence of the realm.
  To put the matter of classified material into context, I should say that the Committee receives details of about 50 highly classified documents in a parliamentary Session, so we see a great deal of important information.
  Two problems that Select Committees face have been briefly touched on in the debate. The first involves commercially sensitive information, and the second is the matter of advice to Ministers, as it is called. Both issues concern alternatives put forward to Ministers. On Select Committees, it is our job to react to decisions that Ministers have made. Civil servants put forward alternatives to Ministers. I have seen advice to Ministers, and sometimes it is amazing how many different alternatives are put—"Well, Minister, on the one hand you can say this, but on the other hand you have to say something else"—memories of "Yes, Minister" come to mind. Many alternatives are always put forward, both as general advice and on procurement decisions, when Ministers have to decide whether to accept this or that bid for a contract.
  A good case can be made for Select Committees becoming more involved in the proactive work of giving their advice to Ministers when alternatives are being considered. In the United States of America, the Appropriation Committee often does that, and it has real power. I know that the Americans' constitutional set-up is completely different from ours, but many Select Committees are now beginning to think that some of the financial decisions made by Ministers would be better if the Select Committee had some knowledge of what the alternatives were—perhaps in the form of the final shortlist before the ministerial decision is made.
  Forty per cent. of this country's defence budget relates to procurement decisions, and, with our knowledge, better decisions might be made if the Defence Committee were given, in private, the sort of information on which its members could make a judgment before the Minister had to make his. The Liaison Committee was discussing that at the end of the previous Parliament—it is on the record of our Committee's proceedings—and as has already been said, the Procedure Committee is doing the same thing at the moment.
  The most recent example of advice to Ministers being misused rather than used arose during the inquiries that the Defence Committee was conducting into the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. As part of the strategic defence review, about which we shall all know much more tomorrow, the Ministry of Defence examined options for the future of DERA to meet requirements for defence industrial diversification.
  The options were contained in DERA's 1998 corporate plan, and the Defence Committee asked for a copy to assist us with our inquiry, which was published only last week. Ministers refused to provide a copy, and instead sent us a memorandum, arguing that the corporate plan was classified as advice to Ministers, and should not therefore be disclosed to Parliament.

  933
  I hope that when the Minister responds, he will clarify how advice to Ministers ought to be construed. Access to such key documents is essential if Select Committees are to have a meaningful and well-informed scrutiny role. Restrictions on such access undermine proper accountability to Parliament.
  The continuing business of getting information out of Departments of State is a bit of a dogfight. In the Defence Committee, we feel that the system that we have adopted is working tolerably well—but that system relies entirely on mutual trust between the Committee and Ministers. In the case of the arms to Sierra Leone affair, that trust has broken down, which has put the whole business and process of parliamentary accountability in jeopardy.
  8.12 pm
  Ms Diane Abbott: Contrary to what some hon. Members have said, this is a very important debate—a debate, ultimately, about the rights and powers of Select Committees. There are several reasons why it is important.
  First, it is vital that the debate—both on the Floor of the House and in the media and elsewhere outside the House—about the role of the legislature versus the Executive has taken place early in this Parliament. This may be quite a long Administration, and it is important to shed some light on such matters at the outset.
  The debate is also important for the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), the Chairman of the Select Committee, has set a gold standard for Select Committee Chairmen. From now on, no Chairman can afford to be less bold and resolute than he has been, in what everyone agrees were difficult circumstances. Another reason why the debate is important is that, for reasons on which I shall expound later, in this Administration we are faced with certain difficulties concerning proper parliamentary scrutiny on the Floor of the House.
  Finally, the debate is important because, thanks to the offer that the Foreign Secretary has made today, never again can any Minister use an internal inquiry as a means of stopping legitimate parliamentary inquiry. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee has drawn an important line in the sand.
  There has been a lot of misinformation in the debate, so, for the avoidance of doubt, let me explain that the offer by the Foreign Secretary that we are hearing about today—an offer of unconditional access to a summary of the telegrams—is the first such offer that has been made. It is not an offer which has been available for weeks and weeks.
  Mr. David Heath indicated assent.
  Sir John Stanley indicated assent.
  Ms Abbott: Other members of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee are nodding. Only today have we had sight of a letter from the Foreign Secretary conceding unconditional access to the summary. It is important to have that fact on the record, because some colleagues may inadvertently have misled the House on the subject.
  934
  Again for the avoidance of doubt, let me remind the House of the sequence of events. On 12 May, nearly two months ago, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee wrote to the Foreign Secretary asking for the telegrams. On the same day, I raised the matter on the Floor of the House. At that time, the Foreign Secretary rejected our proposal. Indeed, he went further and wrote back to my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee confirming his rejection.
  On 21 May, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee published its first special report. If, as some Members have suggested this evening, the Foreign Secretary was so anxious to meet us half way and offer a deal, I wonder why he did not take the opportunity of our first special report on 21 May to come forward with unconditional access to the telegrams. He did not. On publication of our first special report, the Foreign Secretary was still saying that there would be no access to the telegrams.
  On 1 June, the Foreign Secretary wrote again to the Select Committee. He had moved incrementally, but he still said that he would offer only a summary, and even that was not on offer until after the Legg inquiry had concluded. Let me say a word about that inquiry: again, today is the first time that we have heard about the possibility that it might report before the House rises for the summer recess.
  All along, we have pursued the negotiations with the Foreign Secretary with the fear in some of our minds that the Legg inquiry would, as is sometimes the way with such civil service inquiries, report, conveniently, right at the end of the Session. That would give no time for any further inquiries by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. In effect, all parliamentary scrutiny of the matter would have been closed down until October when the House returned, by which time Ministers presumably imagined that everyone would have forgotten about it, and its subject matter would have been overtaken by events.
  People should be clear that the point at issue was whether the Government would allow proper parliamentary scrutiny of the Sierra Leone affair now, or—as would have been the effect of the deals that the Foreign Secretary was offering a month ago—parliamentary scrutiny would be closed down until October.
  On 1 June, the Foreign Secretary was saying that we could have a summary—an offer which was prised out of him—but not until after Legg had reported. On 15 June, he wrote again offering the same summary after the Legg inquiry had reported. We could get no sign whatever from him about whether we could hope to see the Legg report before the end of the Session.
  On 23 June, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee published its second report. If the Foreign Secretary, as some Members have suggested, was so keen to meet the concerns of the Select Committee, he could have offered a deal at that point. Yet he waited until the day of this debate to write to the Select Committee offering unconditional access to the summary of the telegrams, which is what we have been asking for all along.
  I put it to the House—and to any fair-minded person listening to the debate, or reading it subsequently—that I cannot accept that, if we had not reported to the House not once, but twice, the Foreign Secretary, would have come forward with the compromise he has offered today. That is one of the reasons why this is an important debate. The Foreign Secretary has only conceded the principle of

  935
  unconditional access under duress. That is why it was right and proper for the Select Committee to report to the House.
  As I said, this is an important debate because it concerns the rights and responsibilities of Select Committees. As we approach the millennium, the role of Select Committees has never been more important. In practice, and for all types of reasons—most of which originated long before the Government took office on 1 May—the possibility of serious scrutiny on the Floor of the House has diminished and is diminishing.
  Many decisions in relation to legislation have passed from this House to Brussels. I do not criticise that—I am pro-European. I am not arguing against it in principle—I am saying that that is the reality. Even in the short time that I have been in this House—only 10 years—I have seen more and more decisions ebbing away from the House of Commons to supranational organisations such as the legislature in Brussels.
  Mr. Colvin: The hon. Lady has missed two other forms of devolution of the powers of this House—one to the assemblies of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales and to the regional agencies in England, and the other to a reformed upper House, which will require powers over fiscal and financial matters that it does not enjoy at the moment. More and more powers will be drained from this place, yet we continue to increase our numbers. Perhaps the time has come to consider whether we need fewer Members of Parliament, rather than more.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Lady will not follow that red herring.
  Ms Abbott: The hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) makes a fascinating point, but I am well advised by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall not follow him down that interesting path.
  My central point is that this is an important debate because of the increasing difficulty of having proper scrutiny on the Floor of the House. I have talked about powers draining away to Brussels. There is also a process—for which I, as a Member, have had a ringside seat—whereby decisions which were once taken by Parliament are now, in effect, taken in the Cabinet, and decisions that were once taken in the Cabinet are now, in effect, taken by an inner circle around the Prime Minister of the day. We saw that under Margaret Thatcher when she was Prime Minister, and none of my hon. Friends would argue that that tendency has lessened under this Administration.
  The size of the majority has been referred to. The honest truth is that, if the Government were to propose the massacre of the first born, they would still have no difficulty in getting it through the House of Commons, such is the size of the majority. There is also a possible tendency in some parts of the Government to pay more attention to focus groups and marketing men than to Parliament, or even to the Labour party itself.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: I have listened to my hon. Friend and I am trying to make sense of what she is saying. On the one hand, she is saying that the Select Committee has forced the Foreign Secretary to do what he has done. On the other hand, she is trying to say that the Government's
  936
  majority is such that they can just ignore the wishes of the House. Both cannot be right. With that majority, the Foreign Secretary could simply keep on ignoring the House.
  Ms Abbott: The Foreign Secretary has had to make us an offer because the beauty of the Select Committee system is that it is the only area of activity in this House at this time where the writ of the Whips Office does not run. Once one is on a Select Committee, one is on it for the Parliament—and no doubt, even as I speak, some members of the Whips Office are gnashing their teeth at that evident truth.
  The rights and powers of Select Committees have never been more important because of the problems of parliamentary scrutiny on the Floor of the House. The choreography on the Floor of the House that we saw under the previous Government and under Mrs. Thatcher is increasing; I am not suggesting that it all started on 1 May. Increasing numbers of hon. Members are standing up to ask questions that, clearly, they have not drafted. I often feel sorry for those people. They are often reading questions that are not merely sycophantic, but poorly drafted and not in order. I often ask my colleagues, "Why do you draft those questions for those people?" That choreography has increased, and is increasing.
  There is an increasing emphasis on those on the Government Benches "being helpful"—that, we are constantly told, is the prize virtue of a Government Back Bencher. That—not representing one's constituents or holding the Government to account—is what we are increasingly judged by. On that criterion, I self-evidently fail.
  When we have a debate among Government Back Benchers about the role of Parliament in scrutinising the Government, colleagues often say that questions and the business of the House of Commons do not matter. What matters is a having a quiet word with Ministers—we could call it "the doctrine of the quiet word". I am happy to have quiet words with Ministers; I often do so in relation to my constituency. However, the "quiet word" on its own does not work, and it has proven to be ineffective. Literally hundreds of colleagues had quiet words with the Labour party leadership on the cuts in lone-parent benefit. All were completely ignored.
  If we set to one side the procedures of the House and rely, as Back Benchers, solely on the "quiet word", what happens to transparency and accountability? We can have transparency and accountability only if Members are prepared to use the formal processes of the House of Commons. That is what they are for.
  Another reason why it is becoming increasingly hard to have proper scrutiny in the House is the tendency—which we saw under Margaret Thatcher, and which we still see under this Government—to launch policy not on the Floor of the House, but at press conferences. One of the most striking examples of that was the announcement of the handover to the Bank of England of the power to set interest rates. The single most important announcement relating to economic policy made in this Parliament—whatever we think of it—was made at a press conference. That was done, I believe, because the Minister did not want to be scrutinised not only by the Opposition, but by Labour Back Benchers. Without diverting to that issue, handing over interest rates to the Bank of England has never been Labour party policy. It was never debated at conference or by the national executive.

  937
  I have detained the House a little on the argument, which is important. For all types of reasons—most of which had their genesis long before we came to power on 1 May—proper, considered and sustained scrutiny of the activities of the Government is no longer possible on the Floor of the House. That is why the powers and the rights of Select Committees are so important.
  No one on the Select Committee ever assumed that we had unqualified access to persons and papers, but there has always been a presumption that Select Committees should have reasonable access to persons and papers. After all, that was the only way in which they could carry out their duties. Those powers, as the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has found to its cost in the past two months, have never been put on a statutory basis. The reason for that was that it was always assumed that the Government would respect those rights of Select Committees.
  The problem that we have had in the past two months is that it was not clear to us, certainly at the beginning of the tussle, that the Foreign Secretary accepted that we had a right in principle—while acknowledging practical concerns—to have access to those papers. That is why I am glad to see the concession today, whereby he is giving us—at long last—unconditional access to a summary of the telegrams.
  Some misinformation has been flying around today. No member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has sought at any point to duplicate the Legg inquiry. As I said in the House when it was announced, the Legg inquiry has quite narrow terms of reference. As the Select Committee charged with oversight of the Foreign Office, we felt that we were quite entitled to inquire into wide areas concerning the internal workings of the Foreign Office and good government that could run parallel to Legg. I agree with some of my colleagues that it might have been better to announce an inquiry into Sierra Leone early in the process. However, I am surprised to see some of my colleagues proposing that idea. I am sure that some of those who are saying, "If only we had announced the inquiry" would never have voted for it at the time.
  The Select Committee is not seeking to duplicate the Legg inquiry, which I stress is not a judicial inquiry. Even until today, hon. Members and Ministers have referred to that inquiry as though it made some matters sub judice. It is an internal inquiry. Until we received the Foreign Secretary's communication today, there was no clarity whatever as to when the Legg inquiry would report. The suspicion had to be that the inquiry was being used, possibly inadvertently, to kick the issue into the long grass.
  In the Foreign Secretary's penultimate letter to us, in which he said that we could not see the telegrams until the Legg inquiry had concluded, he stated:
  "The Select Committee is not entitled to persist in pursuing a parallel inquiry by summoning officials who are bound by the collective policy of the Government."
  We are entitled to pursue a parallel inquiry—the Foreign Secretary is quite wrong on that point. One of the avenues of exploration for the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in relation to Sierra Leone is whether there were two policies regarding that country: one policy that was expressed by Ministers and pursued in good faith, and another that was
  938
  pursued possibly by some officials in Whitehall and some in Sierra Leone. The only way of unravelling the truth is by taking evidence from officials.
  As hon. Members have said, officials are very powerful. The limited amount of questioning that we have thus far been allowed to do of the permanent secretary has revealed that some Ministers received briefings about the Customs and Excise inquiry while others did not. We have revealed that a military attaché was sent into exile with President Kabbah—for what reason, we know not. There is a reason for questioning officials separately from Ministers. The Foreign Secretary is ill advised to suggest that the Committee had no purpose in seeking to question officials separately.
  In conclusion, I congratulate the staff of the Committee. As hon. Members have said, Select Committees must work with very slender staffing resources. We owe much to the hard work, commitment and dedication of our staff. That was my experience on the Treasury Select Committee, on which I served for eight years, and now on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. I am glad that the matter was reported twice to the House. I am glad that the majority of Committee members were prepared to stand fast by a principle. If we had not stood fast by that principle, we would not have received today's concession from the Foreign Secretary. Some hon. Members may jeer and ask what it is all about, but I believe that we have established an important principle regarding the functioning of Select Committees for the duration of this Administration.
  8.32 pm
  Mr. Peter Brooke: As ever, I shall be brief. It is a pleasure to follow the distinguished and surgical speech of the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), to whom I am almost a constituency neighbour. I shall echo her comments later in my speech. I take personal comfort from her reassurance about the massacre of the first born, not least because I am first born.
  I first declare an interest in the debate as a member of the Liaison Committee, although I was absent, for the first time, from its last sitting when it treated on the subject of tonight's debate. On that occasion, I was attending the final day of the Competition Bill in Committee—which was not a competing pleasure, but a competing duty. I salute the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—she has just left the Chamber—who is a fellow member of the Liaison Committee. She has sat through the whole debate and intervened periodically.
  I should also declare an interest as being highly indirectly related to Sir John Kerr. What I am about to say will sound like an extract from the table of affinity in the "Book of Common Prayer". Lady Kerr's sister is my brother's wife. From the opposite end of the telescope, Sir John would say that I am his sister-in-law's brother-in-law.
  As the debate is obviously ranging fairly widely on the subject of Select Committees, I shall—with your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker—take brief preliminary advantage and add an immediately topical footnote regarding an appearance that I once made before a Select Committee, since every Select Committee Chairman worth his or her salt always gives an examinee the

  939
  opportunity to do so. It relates to being characteristically roasted by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in a sitting of the then Select Committee on National Heritage on the subject of the delays in the building of the British Library.
  I did not know then—but have discovered since—the paragraph devoted to the initiation of that project in the memoirs of Joel Barnett, now Lord Barnett, Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the last Labour Government. I quote from memory, but he said, in effect, that the Treasury rules on which his Government set up the project were such that, if any economic difficulties occurred subsequently, it would be a miracle if the British Library were finished before the end of the century. When I found that paragraph, I felt a little better about the rather long gestation period of the Library—a building and a facility which, upon completion, I greatly admire.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that he regretted that this debate was being held in Opposition time. We all regret that. I say, in a kindly way, to the Liberal Democrats that they often wish that circumstances were other than they are, but they ignore the fact that the best is often the enemy of the good. In our party, we must sometimes settle for the good because the Government deny us the best.
  Moments in the debate reminded me of the narrative of that great historian the Rev. Sir Owen Chadwick entitled, "Mackenzie's Grave", which described a 19th century expedition to central Africa. I should make it clear that I realise that Sierra Leone is not in central Africa. I once asked Owen Chadwick whether he had had any need to travel to central Africa to research his book. He replied that he had not as he had had available to him in Cambridge the concurrent expedition diaries of the eight strong, and often colourful, personalities who had constituted the main dramatis personae of the expedition. Each diary recounted each day and the interactions between those personalities.
  I caught some of the flavour of those interactions in the multiple exchanges in this debate between the different hon. Members who serve on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. As, unlike Owen Chadwick, I did not have access to the diaries, there were moments today when I was also reminded of the riddles of one's youth where one is told that Mr. White, Mr. Brown, Mr. Green and Mr. Black live in houses that are, but not necessarily respectively, white, brown, green and black and then, on the basis of further information, one must work out who lives in which.
  Like the diaries of "Mackenzie's Grave", today is also the stuff of history. Someone referred in the debate to the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate. When NATO was forged in the post-war years, the Chairman of that Committee was the Republican Senator Vandenberg, who obviously belonged to the opposite party from Dean Acheson, the then Secretary of State. Senator Vandenberg made his first visit to Europe in that capacity. He came down the companion way of the aircraft at Le Bourget—which is where planes landed in Paris at that time—and the assembled French press asked him to say something in French. It was a language of which he was imperfectly the master, but there came into his head a single sentence from his school days—in deference to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House I shall render it in English—"There have been no great men since Mirabeau". The entire French press spent the
  940
  next three days trying to work out the significance of that remark as uttered by the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
  Mirabeau has a significance for tonight's debate as he was the first man in the history of Europe to use the word "civilisation"—although, unlike Senator Vandenberg, he said it in French. The great struggle of Parliament with the king and then with the Executive obviously goes back much further than Mirabeau's creation of the word "civilisation". However, within 10 years of his using it, we saw the Wilkes affair, which convulsed my constituency in more ways than one. Tonight is just another moment in our remarkable parliamentary evolution. It is not remotely on the same scale as Wilkes, but is still significant as a thread in the tapestry.
  Even during my time in the House, we saw the heroic figure of Miss Mary Frampton, then secretary to the Serjeant at Arms, crossing my constituency to summon the late Sir Charles villiers to the House to give evidence to one of the few Select Committees that then existed, when he had earlier declined to come—an episode about which Sir Richard Barlas may have been writing in the quotation given earlier in the debate. This debate itself will be a quarry for future historians.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley)—I hope that I have pronounced his constituency correctly; fortunately, it will end up by being spelt properly—described the three separate stands that the Foreign Secretary has taken towards the Select Committee. I shall not rehearse them again, but off two of those stands he has been driven by the Select Committee and by the force of events.
  Some years back, I stood on the field of the battle of the Imjin river in Korea on its 40th anniversary, in the presence of Sir Anthony Farrar Hockley, at that stage the adjutant of the Gloucesters, now the gallant Gloucesters, who described most vividly how the battle had gone. What was very clear that day was just how much the three days that the Gloucesters, the Royal Ulster Rifles and the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers, and a fourth Belgian battalion had held the ridge against 30,000 Chinese had mattered to the future course of the war. However, it is a little less clear to me why the Foreign Secretary has spent the best part of not three days but three months defending the Government's position on Sierra Leone, with such intended unyielding tenacity, though he has been obliged to retreat. It may be because of the old jest that the Foreign Office understands every legislature in the world except this one.
  The Leader of the House said that the Opposition had initiated the debate because we found opposition difficult. I am one of the fewer than one in five on the Official Opposition Benches who has been in opposition before. I personally have found one slips back into opposition mode as if into a glove. Today's debate has belied the observation of the Leader of the House.
  The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who has returned to the Chamber, said at 4.30 pm, more than four hours ago, that it was not clear why we were having the debate at all, given the incipient and imminent agreement between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Select Committee. The implication was that the rest of the debate would be nugatory. However, when the hon. Gentleman intervened, the game was not yet over. As I see most things in life through a filter of

  941
  cricket, it was rather like the final day of the Old Trafford test yesterday, when patently the game swung backwards and forwards and it was not over until the last ball was bowled. It is since the hon. Gentleman's intervention that the scale of the Foreign Secretary's retreat has become apparent. On the Select Committee of which I am a member we have noticed how those we are investigating set up internal inquiries to take a look at the issues that we are pursuing, although not, obviously, on the same scale as the Legg inquiry.
  In the same way, the flurry of correspondence which has potentially led to a happy detente between the Foreign Secretary and the Select Committee may have been in part prompted, as the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington implied, by the subject of the debate, given that eight approaches had previously been made to the Government to conduct such a debate in Government time. As to why it had to be an Opposition day and not one offered by the Government, I am reminded, not least by the Foreign Secretary, in his letter of 6 July offering 28 July as a date for his rendezvous with the Select Committee, of the lines by the late Sir John Betjeman in his poem about Miss Joan Hunter Dunn:
  "Her father's euonymous beckons us in
  To the six o'clock news and the lime juice and gin."
  Six o'clock is when many cricket matches end. I am left wondering whether, like yesterday evening in Manchester, the Foreign Office has not been batting out time, though for the six o'clock news in Betjeman's poem one read the summer recess, as the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington said. In that respect, the Foreign Secretary would be holding his ground. He has never in the past been a man for Tuscany in August. In opposition, he was always happiest in August facing a television camera on the green sward further down Millbank, and it is certainly a pleasanter refuge for questions than the House.
  The importance of today has been what the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), said at the end of his speech, when he commented that today's debate has been an important precedent. It will find a tiny place in parliamentary history, and it has been conducted in terms and tones, and occasional flurries, wholly worthy of that history. One of the tests that it passes today is that at a quarter to 9 it is still going strong, and the Whips on either side of the House have not had to scour and trawl the Corridors of the House to provide speakers.
  8.44 pm
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: As we await the final of the world cup competition, it would appear tonight that the Opposition have scored an own goal. If I might borrow a phrase from the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), the fox has been shot. The debate must be somewhat embarrassing for the Opposition. If the Opposition are not embarrassed, they should be. I am sure that they are embarrassed.
  As Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation, I welcome the opportunity to have a discussion on Select Committees. I have no problems in supporting the Government amendment. I say to right hon. and hon. Members who serve on the Select
  942
  Committee on Foreign Affairs that I congratulate them on getting a debate on the Floor of the House. In my function as a Committee Chairman in this place, I know how difficult it is for a Select Committee to get such a debate.
  Transparency and scrutiny must be the watchwords of the House. We know that. We saw the abuse of power by the centralised control freaks in the previous Government. It is not my intention to score party political points, but it is difficult to sit in the Chamber for the hours that we have this evening listening to Her Majesty's Opposition and to forget that for at least the 11 years of my term in the House, 10 were in opposition when the Conservatives were in government. It is a bit rich to hear some of the protestations that come from Conservative Members.
  I return to the need for transparency and scrutiny. The truth is that the Government are improving the procedures. The report of the Modernisation Committee, which has recently been published, will give more powers and influence to my Select Committee, which we welcome. Having said that, I will always advise Governments that Select Committees should not be seen as threats to Ministers or to political careers, as can sometimes happen. My Select Committee, the Select Committee on European Legislation, is well known to Government Departments. Sadly, scrutinising 1,200 documents a year is not a sexy pastime. It is not even sexy enough for the Lobby journalists, who keep telling us how to do our job. I am sure that The Guardian scribbler, who wrote such an article that appeared today, will have been sitting in the Press Gallery for hours listening to this very good debate.
  In the Select Committee on European Legislation, we have a difficult, complex but rewarding task to scrutinise European legislation. I mention in passing the excellent speech made by the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). He addressed not the issue of Sierra Leone but the need to have transparency and scrutiny and what Select Committees are all about, how they have power, and how they should use that power for the benefit of the House.
  I have been Chairman of a Select Committee during a Conservative Government and since the new Labour Government took over. That is more than six years. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of Divisions that we have had in the Select Committee in coming to decisions on the many hundreds of recommendations that we make. We take our strength from our unanimity. We take our power and it is to be hoped that we use it for the benefit of the House. It is a power that we use for the House, and in so doing we do not play the partisan games that politicians sometimes indulge in.
  We should always remember that Select Committees perform the duties that charge them with the responsibility of defending democracy. In defending that democracy, we defend the democratic process. Public service is an honourable profession. But because of the misconduct and, yes, dishonesty and lack of probity of a small number in public life our honourable profession is, on occasions, made a laughing stock.
  In addressing this important subject, I want to put down a marker. Mention has already been made about devolution in the United Kingdom. It is important that where that devolution is taking place—in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and London—people learn from our mistakes and do

  943
  not fall into the same traps that we have fallen into on many occasions here. It is vital that we consider all areas of public service in defending our democracy.
  My years in local government prepared me for this place. In the late 1970s and 1980s, the centralised powers in the hands of a few cliques in local government did great damage to our democratic process. After 18 years of Conservative Government, the centralisation of power resulted in central and local government being taken away from the people whom it is meant to serve.
  We hear many ideas about better management, more democracy, constitutional reform and the giving of power to communities and people. Without transparency, democratic accountability and real debate, our claim to be the mother of Parliaments is shallow and transparently so. Local government has its problems. Mayors and proportional representation will not solve those problems. If the management of the political and administrative process is not addressed, democracy is seriously threatened.
  When we speak about reforming our democracy and devolving power, why not look at local government and talk about having not inspectors who call in without notice, but a scrutiny process whereby back-bench councillors in scrutiny committees scrutinise their executive and management systems? I hope that we shall address that when we consider the reform of our democratic processes.
  I conclude by calling for a higher priority to be given to the need for a right of information Bill. Do not let the enemies of democracy hide behind the curtains of secrecy, deceit and self-interest. We are here to protect the democratic process that we are here to use to serve our people. We need to do that, and our watchwords must be scrutiny and transparency.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: I begin by apologising to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the House and, in particular, to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), who is looking particularly agitated, for not being here at the beginning of the debate. As I explained in a letter to Madam Speaker yesterday, my absence was due to a long-standing speaking engagement at the royal show, explaining the role of Select Committees to the Tenant Farmers Association. I hope that I was carrying at least some of the interesting messages of this debate to a wider audience served by my Select Committee, the Agriculture Committee.
  The point has already been made by many hon. Members, and I am sure that it will be made by many more before the end of the debate, that Select Committees are becoming increasingly important in the scrutiny of the Executive. That is why today's debate is so important. I listened with great care to what the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said about that.
  I am glad that the Government and the House are determined to give increased powers to Select Committees. My Select Committee will shortly play a part in scrutinising the draft Bill to establish a Food Standards Agency. I am glad about that. I am glad that the Procedure Committee, to which I recently gave evidence, is considering Select Committees' increased ability to look at Departments' estimates. That is a good thing, too. I
  944
  am also glad that the Modernisation Committee has been considering the role of Select Committees in European legislation. I have reservations about resources, but that is clearly another example of the way in which Select Committees can contribute to the good working of this place. However, I have a continuing concern that those various issues are putting an increased demand on Select Committees.
  Select Committees must respond to the demands properly and with responsibility. I am not always clear that Select Committees have discharged their functions responsibly. They can sometimes forget that their prime purpose is to scrutinise the Executive, not miscreants from a wider world. That is our job, and that is what the Foreign Affairs Committee is seeking to do so well at present.
  I recognise that the Government are right to draw attention to the problems sometimes caused by parallel inquiries. I was a special adviser at the Department of Trade and Industry when the Trade and Industry Committee decided to consider the sale of Rover at precisely the moment when the Government were trying to sell it. It is difficult to have a commercial negotiation when a Select Committee is seeking to expose one's negotiating tactics in televised evidence sessions.
  I particularly agree with what the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) said about Select Committees working best when they work on the basis of consensus. That is clearly the case. As a man who wears the party hat with pride, I have sometimes failed the test of impartiality in the Chair. I shall strive to do better in future because what the hon. Gentleman says is right.
  The point has also been made that it is important to co-operate with the Department that is being shadowed. Wherever possible, a relationship of trust should exist between the Committee and the Department. It is right that I should put it on the record that just such a relationship of trust exists between the Agriculture Committee and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for which I am grateful.
  I do not want to explore the rights and wrongs of the particular case that has resulted in today's debate. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington did that with great skill and her usual charm. Instead, I want briefly to consider the three issues of principle that the episode raises—the examination of officials bound by policy, a prejudice to the existing inquiry and the establishment of Government inquiries that Select Committees may wish to shadow.
  I shall deal first with the question of officials. In a letter to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Foreign Secretary says Select Committees
  "are not entitled to … persist in pursuing a parallel enquiry by summoning officials who are bound by the collective policy of the Government."
  I have some sympathy with the second half of that statement. Select Committees must be careful to make the distinction between policy and procedure and when they have an official before them not to push him on policy issues. However, the first part of the statement is wrong; Select Committees do have the power to pursue parallel inquiries, a matter to which I shall return.
  The second issue of principle is parallel inquiries and the damage that might be done to a Government-established inquiry by a Select Committee inquiry.

  945
  The Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Affairs Committee simply disagree about that, and the House would be right to back the views of the Committee, not those of the Foreign Secretary and the Government. In his letter of 30 June to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Foreign Secretary asserts:
  "It is the collective view of the Government that a parallel enquiry drawing on the same papers that are currently before the Legg investigation would be prejudicial to the rapid production of a balanced and considered report."
  I have to ask why. I cannot understand the logic in that statement and think that there is no such threat of prejudice. If two organisations want to conduct an inquiry, so be it—the House should always have a right to conduct an inquiry.
  That leads to the most important point in my deliberately brief speech—the establishment of inquiries by Governments.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: I know that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be brief and I shall not delay him for long, but, because he was not present when the debate started, he may not understand that the problem is that we are not pursuing an inquiry.
  Mr. Luff: I understand that point, but I want to raise the point of principle—these issues could have serious implications. In his letter to the Foreign Secretary dated 11 June, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee stated:
  "The Committee rejects the principle, implicit in your current position, that the establishment of a Government enquiry in a particular area precludes the supply to a Select Committee of factual material which may also fall within the scope of that enquiry. No area of Government expenditure, administration or policy can be `ring-fenced' from parliamentary scrutiny by the establishment of a Government enquiry, however eminent are those conducting it."
  That is the most important question that hon. Members face this evening.
  The House must remain sovereign and its Select Committees must remain sovereign to determine their own agenda—no matter what may be happening in the Executive or in the wider world—and subject only to the rules of sub judice.
  Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman was unable to be present earlier and he has given his apology, but he may be unaware that many examples were given, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), of a number of Select Committees being involved in constant disputes with Departments during the previous Parliament, when the hon. Gentleman's party was in power. Departments would not supply information that Select Committees wanted and, although some of those disputes occurred when the hon. Gentleman was a Member of Parliament, I cannot remember his protesting about them in the House.
  Mr. Luff: No party has a monopoly of virtue on this issue and I do not want to trade party points on it. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says—I have some sympathy for it—but we have to establish the point of principle that the Legg inquiry must not be used as a precedent to prevent Select Committee from looking into certain subjects. There is a risk that that will happen.
  946
  Select Committees must be free to determine their own agenda and should not be told by the Government that they are not free to pursue inquiries because the Government have conducted or are conducting inquiries. That could be the implication of the issues that we are discussing and my Committee has been faced with that dilemma.
  The Government have established an inquiry into bovine spongiform encephalopathy, which has won a freedom of information award, of which Sir Nicholas Phillips is rightly very proud, for use of the internet. I regularly follow the BSE inquiry on the internet: it is a fine inquiry, but it should be with £10 million or so to spend. My Committee has a budget for staff and other ancillary costs of about a third of a million pounds a year—to do all our work. We could not possibly match the BSE inquiry, so we did not even have a decision to take: such a well-resourced inquiry would always outshine anything that we could produce.
  That brings me back to the resourcing of Select Committees, which is important. If the Government had put the BSE inquiry out to competitive tender, my Select Committee might have bid for it and perhaps carried it out at lower cost than the Phillips inquiry. Like every other Select Committee member who has spoken in the debate, I am intensely proud of the staff who serve us. That unites hon. Members: we are well served by the Clerks and their assistants and we should thank them publicly for the work they do.
  The debate has highlighted three important matters. First, we agree as a House that Select Committees should have increased powers. That would be a good thing which would build on the reform established by the previous Government. I am glad that this Government are taking that process forward. Secondly, we also agree that we need to increase resources if we are to do our job well and effectively, although that is a problem. Thirdly, the simple message that the House must send out in the vote this evening is that Select Committees should be free to set their own agendas; they should not have them determined by the Executive.
  9.2 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) for the handsome apology that he offered for his unavoidable absence at the beginning of the debate. He mentioned me during his apology. I have no complaint whatever about being the last Back Bencher to be called to speak; you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be able to confirm that I have spoken frequently in the House this year, mainly about Northern Ireland.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) was, to a large extent, correct when he intervened on the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire to say that we are not conducting an inquiry. I differ slightly from my hon. Friend on this issue. The Committee, which is deeply divided not only on votes on the Chairman's draft report but on other matters, has drifted into an ad hoc examination of what I have described as a deeply disquieting affair.
  Not long ago, Sir John Kerr appeared before the Select Committee to discuss expenditure. I asked him about the cost of the new embassy in Moscow and said that, at £81.35 million, it was costing more than our new

  947
  Scottish Parliament. He replied that, as a Glaswegian, he knew that security risks in Edinburgh are not as high as they are in Moscow. I wanted to ask why some of that money was not spent on employing more representatives down by way of the Caspian sea, but we drifted into another examination into Sierra Leone.
  The Committee is deeply divided. The hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin), who is no longer in the Chamber, talked about consensus and unanimity, both of which are utterly absent from the Select Committee. I speak as a member of the Committee. I have demanded formal votes on a number of issues during the Committee's proceedings. I make no complaint about that.
  In case anyone thinks that I am a stooge of the Whips Office, perhaps I may explain. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) is not in the Chamber at the moment, but I nominated him to chair the Committee, much to the anger of the then Deputy Chief Whip, Don Dixon, who, like me, is a former shipwright. He gave me a shipwright's interview after that particular Committee meeting. Thus my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale owes his position to me and others who supported me when I nominated him.
  My colleagues on the Committee know where I stand on the Legg report: we drifted into that absurd inquiry. I have always demanded that a comprehensive, thorough inquiry should start when the Legg report is published. The Foreign Secretary should appear before the Committee to be cross-examined on its findings and recommendations. When that happens—hopefully in about three weeks' time—we may find that we can reveal inadequacies in the Legg inquiry. My hon. Friends and others on the Committee may then be willing to listen to my advocacy of a comprehensive investigation once the Legg committee has reported.
  I am pleased that there has been some support for my view that it is much better—for hon. Members and the public—for a Minister to be cross-examined by intelligent members of a Select Committee than for a debate to be initiated in the Chamber. I heard a Committee Chairman—a former Minister—say that it is the easiest thing in the world to brush people off when one is at the Dispatch Box. It is impossible for a Back Bencher to cross-examine a Minister in a debate because if it is a popular debate the Speaker will impose a 10-minute limit on speeches. In a Select Committee hearing, however, there is no way a Minister or an official can dodge the column. He or she is there to be cross-examined, and that is what I want to happen later this month. I want the Foreign Secretary, perhaps accompanied by Sir John Kerr, to give evidence once we have copies of the Legg report before us.
  I established some time ago that the Legg inquiry is utterly different from a judicial inquiry. In a question that I put to Sir John Kerr on 9 June, which appears on page 9 of the minutes of evidence, I said that he would surely agree with me that
  "With regard to the status of the Legg enquiry I take on board what you have said and the seriousness with which you made those observations but the Legg enquiry, is it not, is utterly different … from, say, the enquiry into Bloody Sunday which is being conducted by Lord Saville".
  That inquiry begins its public proceedings in Derry on 20 July if the families do not walk away from it because of the sparseness of legal representation that Saville has
  948
  proposed for them—but that is another story. Lord Saville is accompanied by two international jurists from New Zealand and Canada. That inquiry is utterly different from Legg, as I said on 9 June.
  I told Sir John Kerr that, in the interests of natural justice, I did not want to be a party to an ad hoc inquiry that damaged the interests of officials who faced a judicial tribunal or some form of disciplinary action.
  I agree with what has been said about the need to maintain the independence of Select Committees. The comment made by the hon. Member for Romsey—that Select Committees should offer advice to Ministers on alternatives—was strange. Select Committees must remain independent of the Executive. I cannot see how the role of critic and adviser can be mixed.
  In general terms, I agree with much of what has been said about the role of Select Committees vis-a-vis the Executive. I shall not be a Member of the Scottish Parliament—the wife may be and perhaps someone's son will be—but I want Back-Bench Committees in that Parliament to have the power to cross-examine the First Minister. I want the same to happen in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  Ms Abbott: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend will have to be patient for a moment, because I am in full spate—speaking as a trout fisherman.
  We have heard some Holy Willie speeches about the goodness and rightness of some members of the Committee. We also heard a remarkably fine speech—hon. Members will forgive me for focusing on one speech—by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). He warned us about the danger facing Committees—particularly the Foreign Affairs Committee—of falling into disrepute. I am glad that he has regained his place. I listened to him carefully. He is right about sustained leaking—not that that is happening in the Foreign Affairs Committee. The divisions in that Committee could bring it into disrepute. The classic example of that was the Scottish Affairs Committee between 1982 and 1987. Despite the remarkable efforts of Mr. David Lambie, the then Chairman, there were leaks from that Committee all the time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West will remember the Scott Lithgow inquiry, which examined a shipyard in my constituency that faced collapse with the loss of 5,500 jobs. There were 99 Divisions on the Chairman's draft report, which was not very long. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne laughs. I said, "Let's go for the century and get into the Guinness book of parliamentary records." That report, which could have been substantial, was ridiculed when it was published.
  As a member of the Committee—not that I was a leaker, you understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I moved a motion for a minority report because I was so disgusted by the way in which members of the Government were behaving. I seem to recall that one was the late Nicholas Fairbairn—I should now be murmuring, "De mortuis nil nisi bonum". He and others, including Mr. Forsyth, set out to wreck what could have been a good report.
  Ms Abbott: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend's speech. I think that he may be in danger of giving

  949
  the House a mistaken impression. Earlier, he suggested that there was some opposition on the Foreign Affairs Committee to the notion that it should take evidence from the Foreign Secretary after the publication of the Legg report.
  I do not think that anyone ever opposed the taking of evidence from the Foreign Secretary after publication of the report; in fact, it goes without saying that the Committee would take evidence on a major report of that kind. The point at issue was whether we should close down the inquiry until Legg had reported—given that, at that point, we did not know whether the inquiry would finish in the summer or the autumn.
  Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend clearly was not listening diligently enough. I referred earlier to my questions to Sir John Kerr. I said that the Committee could be trusted with the telegrams. In fact, I was complimented by the Chairman of the Committee on getting to the heart of the matter.
  I think that the famous, or infamous, telegrams should be scrutinised by members of the Committee. I disagree with the Chairman, who suggested that two Committee members should go to the Foreign Office so that the accuracy of the summary of the telegrams could be assessed; I believe that three should go there. I suggested that to the Chairman when I sought to amend his memorandum. I think that two Labour members and one Opposition member should go to the Foreign Office to check the accuracy of the summary. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) was not present when I said that.
  Let me tell the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that no one has attempted to bully me. Let us get that straight: no one in the House could bully me. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—an old friend—on the rare occasions when I vote against the Government, I always inform the Chief Whip first. We are two courteous fellows, my hon. Friend and me.
  I think that the most important speech was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. What I want to avoid is the possibility of the Committee's falling into disrepute. I do not want what happened to the Scottish Affairs Committee to happen to us. After the publication of the Scott Lithgow report, that Select Committee took on some of the appurtenances of a Standing Committee: it was Labour versus Conservatives. Occasionally a few Liberals attended, but we know what certain parties—the Scottish National party and others—are like in terms of poor attendance. In any event, the discussion became very adversarial.
  The Gartcosh report is another example. Mr. Forsyth—later Sir Michael—said at one meeting at which we were debating a draft report, "I will go for 24 hours on this." Journalists said to us, "This is mad: this is not what a Select Committee should be doing." We should at all costs avoid such a fate.
  I must finish my speech before I upset the Front Benchers, but let me say one more thing. I reminded Sir John Kerr and the Foreign Secretary that, as can be seen in subsection (j) of paragraph 28 of the ministerial code,
  "Every effort should be made to avoid leaving significant announcements to the last day before a Recess."
  950
  I said that I wanted the Legg report to be published long before the recess so that we could have the Foreign Secretary in front of us to be cross-examined on the report's findings. My view is that we should have a statement from the Dispatch Box—presumably on the day the report is published—followed by a meeting of the Select Committee at which the Foreign Secretary is cross-examined, followed by a full day's debate. Members could then have, in preparation for that debate, the Legg report and the Foreign Affairs Committee's special report on the evidence session with the Foreign Secretary. That is the way I should like things to proceed. I suspect that they will not proceed in that way.
  I deeply regret the divisions in the Select Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne is right: a majority and a minority report were not worth much. It is much better to aim for unanimity and consensus and I hope that, in future, the Select Committee can aim for unanimity and even a modicum of harmony among its members. That is a long shot at the moment, but this is an important Select Committee. It is no more important than others perhaps, but it is in danger of being ignored by the House and the outside world, and that would be a matter for profound regret.
  By all means let us examine the telegrams. I should like to be one of those who go along to the Foreign Office to assess the accuracy of what has been given to all members of the Select Committee. I suspect that other good and honourable members will be chosen, but that offer is there. I voted against that paragraph in the report when it was put forward as an amendment; it became paragraph 6. I will vote against the motion because we have now obtained concessions from the Foreign Secretary.
  It might have been better if we had decided as a Select Committee to carry out a thorough investigation of this deeply disquieting affair, but I believe the opportunity is still with us. The Foreign Secretary—I am delighted to see him coming in for my final words—has, I believe, offered to come in front of us; I think that one date is 28 July. I hope that, before that date, Sir Thomas Legg will publish his report so that we can cross-examine the Foreign Secretary on its findings. From there, the Committee—who knows?—might reach a unanimous decision to go ahead with a comprehensive investigation into this affair.
  9.22 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I think that we all agree with the closing words of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) expressing the hope that the Select Committee will be able to come to some unanimous conclusions, but we must begin by considering why this debate has been held. It has been a very good debate. It has been extremely useful and it has achieved something, but it has been held because of two sentences in two reports by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.
  In their first special report, the Select Committee's members had as their final comment the simple words:
  "The views of the House are sought."
  In their second special report, they ended their sixth paragraph with these clear, emphatic words:
  "The views of the House are sought at an early date."

  951
  The Leader of the House well knows that, for some weeks now, we have been requesting a debate, so that the House's views could indeed be ascertained. I regret that she did not feel able to find the time. It was only because she did not feel able to do so that we, for the House as a whole, decided to devote this Opposition day to this subject. Although there are some hon. Members who have regretted that, I do not think that there are many because, coming through all the speeches, although there have been differences of emphasis and degree, have been two strong points. First, there is a desire on both sides of the House to see the Select Committee system work. Secondly, there is a recognition that the debate has achieved something.
  We can feel justified in choosing this subject by the exchange of letters we have seen today—I am glad to see the Foreign Secretary on the Front Bench. We are all grateful to the Foreign Secretary for what he said in the letter of 6 July and everyone in the House is grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for agreeing that the documents should be made available to every Member of the House.
  Since the Foreign Secretary is present, I can tell him that there is one point in the 6 July letter which causes me some concern. The letter states:
  "I will not be able, before the completion of the report, to disclose information on matters that may fall within Sir Thomas Legg's remit."
  I hope that that does not negate the rest of the letter. I take the letter to be a genuine attempt by the Foreign Secretary to move towards the Select Committee. I hope that that is the case and I trust that there will be smoother progress henceforth.
  We have heard some remarkable speeches in the debate, but none so remarkable as that made by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). It was an absolutely masterly and courageous speech. She spoke without fear or favour and she spoke as a Member of the House of Commons. As I listened to her I could not help but remember some of my experiences some years ago when I found myself frozen out on certain Select Committees. I was not nominated to chair a Committee that I had hoped to chair, and so on. I hope that that fate will not befall her. She is an outstanding parliamentarian and she reminded us that we are all, first and foremost, Members of Parliament.
  The trouble today is that so many come here with the ambition to serve in government and they tend to forget that the prime role of Parliament is to hold the Executive to account and to scrutinise, not only their legislation, but their actions. That is the reason behind the creation of the departmental Select Committees. From the start, they have laboured under severe limitations. They have never had the power to ensure that their reports are debated on the Floor of the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) reminded us in his excellent speech, the power of the Committee of Selection has occasionally militated against the expressed desire of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) that Committees should be unanimous. Obviously, it is only by selecting men and women of proven judgment and independence of mind that one can have a Select Committee that will really perform its function.
  In spite of all the imperfections, the Select Committee system, as established in 1979, has a remarkable record. However, it cannot work if blocks are placed upon
  952
  discussions or investigations by the withholding of material that is vital to a Committee's inquiries. That has come through in every speech that we have heard.
  We are not, and have not been, discussing when or even whether or by whom arms were supplied to a small west African country. I do not suppose there is a single hon. Member who does not believe that the collapse of the military regime was, in the words of "1066 and all that", A Good Thing. What is most emphatically a bad thing is the refusal of Ministers to allow Select Committees proper access to information that they need to conduct their investigations and to prepare proper reports for the House. We have to remind ourselves that they are Select Committees of the House and that they are answerable, not to the Executive, but to the House. If I can paraphrase the words of Burke in his famous address to the electors of Bristol, Select Committees owe the House their industry and their judgment. They should never be cowed by any Executive.
  The survival of our parliamentary democracy depends on a certain amount of tension. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, was extremely honest about that. Those of us who have served on Select Committees while our parties have been in government know that there is some tension between one's loyalty to the House and the Select Committee and one's natural loyalty to party. That came out particularly well in the speech of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). No one could say that he is anything other than a very notable parliamentarian. He made his support—indeed, his affection—for the Foreign Secretary very plain; he is a great supporter of the Foreign Secretary. Therefore, he had a certain amount of mental turmoil to overcome in voting as he did, and we honour him the more for that.
  The other thing about Select Committees is that although they have an underlying tension, they also depend on an underlying trust. Without that, there can be no accepted ground rules and no properly functioning official channels. If the Executive of the day decides to use its majority in a steamroller fashion, it is not just the Opposition who will be crushed, but the whole mechanism by which Parliament functions.
  The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington made that point explicitly when she talked about the vast majority that the Government currently enjoy. I think back to 1983 when the Conservative Government had not quite as large a majority, but nevertheless a large majority. An arrogance crept in—there is no doubt about that—and we made some very real mistakes. I frequently found myself in the opposite Lobby from my party and it was not a pleasant experience. I say to Labour Members—but not those on the Treasury Bench because they have a particular function—that they must hold this Executive to account, just as they sought to hold us to account when we were in government.
  It is for all those reasons that we felt it necessary to table the motion. It is why I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will feel able to accept it. The Leader of the House said in her opening speech that she had been minded—I must not distort her words, she said "tempted"—to accept the motion. I would like her, for once, to yield to temptation. She is not a yielding sort—she has great strength of character and she is not easily persuaded to adopt a course different from that upon which she has set herself. However, it would be a

  953
  good thing—and the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to enlighten us on this when he replies—if the Government said, "Let us all, in the interests of Parliament as a whole, accept the motion and not divide the House."
  There were 17 speeches from the Back Benches. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) performed a signal service in the way that he conducted himself on the Select Committee. I am glad to see Labour Members nodding in agreement. My right hon. Friend has behaved as a true House of Commons man. He was right to quote "Erskine May" and say that it is a key right of Select Committees to require witnesses to answer questions.
  I have already thanked the hon. Member for Swansea, East for making the letters available. Although he made it plain that if there were a vote he would go into the opposite Lobby from us, he also made it plain that he believed that the Foreign Secretary had moved some considerable distance as a result of the report and the calling of this debate. Perhaps the whole sorry business that has brought us here tonight was best summed up in two words used by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who called it an "inglorious episode".
  There was a very thoughtful speech, as we have come to expect, from the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. No hon. Member has served Parliament better than he. He has been a distinguished Chairman of the Public Accounts Select Committee. He is now Chairman of the Liaison Committee, and speaks with great wisdom and long experience. I agree with him emphatically that it is most persuasive and always desirable if a Select Committee can speak with a united voice. However, on this occasion, for very honourable reasons, two—in some Divisions, three—Labour Members on the Committee did not feel that they could go along with a certain proposed line and therefore did not.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Sometimes four.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Yes; I accept that correction from the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), who made a very entertaining speech, in which he said that he felt that some of his colleagues were trapped in an "obsessional loop". I am not quite sure what that means, although he will undoubtedly be able to explain what he meant by that to his colleagues in the Lobby—if they go into the same one. He also defended himself for using a certain procedural device—which was an entirely legitimate thing to do. However, I thought that it was a rather weak defence to say, "Please, your honour, it wasn't the first time in 60 years that it had been used—it was the second time." That did not seem to be a terribly strong defence.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley)—the most elegant of gamekeepers turned poacher—spoke with quiet passion on the importance of Select Committees. I am sure that, in her new role on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, she will prove to be an increasingly valuable member of it.
  Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I have only a few minutes. I nearly always do give way, but—if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me—I want to give the Minister proper time to reply to the debate.
  954
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) gave a very balanced assessment of Select Committees. He said that we had probably shot the fox—I think he is right—and we are glad about that. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) did not agree with that, and said that we should not have chosen this debate. Yet almost every word he uttered proved that we had been exceptionally wise so to do.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) delivered, as he always does, an inimitably witty speech, full of literary allusions and cricketing analogies that had the House hugely entertained. He, too, is a great House of Commons man.
  At the risk of embarrassing the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood)—he is not in the Chamber at the moment—I should say that the House owes him a great debt for the way in which he has presided over the European Legislation Select Committee, to which he referred.
  We heard speeches also from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff)—straight back from the royal show, and now Chairman of the Agriculture Select Committee—and from the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), who always speaks feelingly on these matters.
  As our system of parliamentary democracy has evolved, battles have occasionally been fought with an overmighty Executive. In the 16th and 17th centuries, absolute monarchs came to realise the need of working with and then through the House. In the 18th century, the battle continued. Perhaps the most remarkable episode in that century came about in 1780, when a Colonel Dunning tabled a motion, which was passed, stating that the power of the Crown has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished—[Interruption.]
  The Leader of the House should contain herself and listen. We are debating, not the power of the Crown, but the power of an overmighty Executive. It is all very well for the Government to luxuriate in a majority of 179, but the fact is that an Executive that becomes overweening and overmighty not only sows the seeds of its own destruction but does great damage in the process.
  Dr. Godman: Like the poll tax?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Yes, as we did with the poll tax. The hon. Gentleman knows what I did on the poll tax on every occasion.
  Today, we do not have at our command the elegance of the 18th century wits. We no longer cite in evidence Drapier's letters; we are reduced to Mr. Draper's mobile telephone. What we—most of us, I hope—do have in common with our forebears is a passionate desire to preserve this institution. On the future of this institution the freedoms of our country still rest, and there is no more valuable part of Parliament now than our Select Committee system. We damage it at our peril and to the detriment of those who send us here and whom we seek to serve.
  The Leader of the House said that she was tempted to accept the motion. We were tempted to say that we would not press it to a vote, but there is still a gap between us. We believe it is important that we should send a warning and that certain hon. Members should be given the opportunity to stand up and be counted in support of

  955
  the Select Committee system. It is therefore with great reluctance but total determination that we shall go into the Lobbies at the end of this debate and, in so doing, feel that we are not dividing the House, but voting for Parliament.
  9.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): It is with some pleasure that I ask the House to vote against the Opposition motion and support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We have had a wide-ranging but not especially enlightening debate. However, it has left me in good humour, as the speeches of Conservative Members were so soporific.
  I have to make at least some reference to the way in which the debate came about. I have asked myself what was the purpose of this debate. Increasingly, as the long hours have worn on, it struck me that it is something akin to a family squabble. It is as if the members of the Select Committee cannot agree among themselves and have transferred the arguments to the Floor of the House. Indeed, I often felt like an intruder in that family squabble. Hon. Members from all quarters have made the same point.
  I must respond immediately to various remarks that have been made. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) made a number of valuable points, which assisted my understanding of what has being going on in the Select Committee. He said that there was
  "confusion between the two compromises".
  I would argue that the confusion is certainly not with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or with his Ministers at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The confusion has been among the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling waxed lyrical about accountability to the House. I cannot think of anyone who has striven more gallantly and valiantly to be accountable, not only to the House as a whole but to the Select Committee, than my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
  The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling said that the Foreign Secretary had been perfectly within his rights to take up successive positions, and nothing that I have heard today has persuaded me otherwise. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Foreign Secretary had gone much further than the Pergau precedent.
  The subject matter of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, seemed rather arcane to many of us. Nevertheless, it seems that the most appropriate place to deal with the differences of opinion that obtained in the Select Committee ought surely to be the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. It could resolve the correct way forward, not just for the Foreign Affairs Committee but for other Select Committees. He also raised the issue of accountability and said that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had gone much further than the Select Committee in effecting a compromise. I have to agree with him and repeat the message that the disagreement is among hon. Members. We shall deal later with the analogy used by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster
  956
  (Mr. Brooke) when we talk about the game that is being played. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) made a similar point.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) described Sir Thomas Legg rather disparagingly, if I may say so, as a mandarin, as if that in itself were a pejorative term. Sir Thomas Legg is an outstanding public servant, and any imputation against either his impartiality or his ability to deal with a complex situation is to be deplored. He is attended by another equally eminent and impartial figure in Sir Robin Ibbs. The hon. Gentleman's entire speech was ruined by what I considered to be an attack on civil servants, whom he strangely accused of being guilty only of following the instructions of Ministers. Civil servants do follow the instructions of Ministers and they have their own code of conduct. Anyone who has experience of working with civil servants will know that their sense of probity and the way in which they conduct themselves and their careers are mainly beyond reproach, although there may be exceptions.
  I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends who said that, for us at least, the high point of today's debate was the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who is well regarded as an expert on Select Committees. As he said, he has been a member of Select Committees ever since they were set up and he was certainly an eminent Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. He said that it was a shame—and he used that word—to see a Select Committee divided. He effectively made the point that this was not the place for such divisions to be resolved.
  The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) is not in his place. I wish he were, because some people say that he is a little arrogant, but I disagree. I find him very arrogant. His comments about the arrogance of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary are absolute nonsense. The right hon. Gentleman and many other Opposition Members need to divest themselves of the notion that they have some kind of political droit du seigneur in respect of who Select Committees can and cannot summon. They have not yet been able to demonstrate that Select Committees have that right. They do not. As has been said, it may be desirable. Indeed, it may be a future development, but to express the opinion that because my right hon. Friend acted in a responsible manner, he was somehow being arrogant beggars belief.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West gave an honest and in my view impartial account of the problems experienced in the Select Committee when he referred to the games that some people were playing.
  I am afraid that I cannot take seriously some of the comments by the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), who sanctimoniously sang the praises of the rights of Select Committees. If memory serves me correctly—and I stand to be corrected—when the right hon. Lady was Secretary of State for Health, a member of the then Select Committee, Mr. Jerry Hayes, the former Member for Harlow, leaked a report to the right hon. Lady and had to resign from the Select Committee as a result—
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Kilfoyle: No.
  Mrs. Bottomley rose—
  Mr. Kilfoyle: No. I will not give way.
  Mrs. Bottomley rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The right hon. Lady cannot remain standing—the Minister is obviously not giving way. The right hon. Lady must sit down.
  Mrs. Bottomley rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady must sit down. I am ordering her to be seated, please.
  Mrs. Bottomley: In that case, I shall leave.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is up to the right hon. Lady.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not an invariable convention in the House that when one hon. Member not only names another, but positively launches an attack on her, he always gives way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair. What is a matter for the Chair is that when I give an order for an hon. Member to be seated, that hon. Member must be seated.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: I had not even finished what I was saying, but it seems academic now.
  The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) commented, on a point of order, that the Select Committee on European Legislation had been refused the opportunity to refer certain matters to a Standing Committee. I rebut that. It was the Select Committee that changed its mind about referring matters to the Standing Committee. It is important that that should go on the record.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) is a singular individual. I am sorry that I was unable to persuade him on another occasion to vote in a certain way. I am sure that tonight he will see the sense of the Government's amendment to the Opposition motion, and I know that he will support us.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) made the point, which seems to have escaped the notice of several hon. Members, that there is at times a problem of secrecy with Select Committees. Some right hon. and hon. Members acknowledge that, but others act as if Ministers did not sometimes have to face the problem of how to deal with Select Committees. That must be recognised by all concerned.
  The hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) made a constructive contribution on the possible development of the role of Select Committees. He asked how advice to Ministers should be construed. I would construe it with great circumspection.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) rightly pointed out the importance of the debate, but I should tell her to beware of Tories bearing gifts of support. It is a poisoned chalice,
  958
  make no mistake about it. She referred to the Foreign Secretary being forced to change his mind about his response to the Select Committee. I can only say to my hon. Friend that if a Secretary of State does not wish to give information, that information will not be forthcoming.
  If my hon. Friend needs confirmation of that, I refer her to the Trade and Industry Committee's third report of Session 1995–96, paragraph 168, which refers to the former President of the Board of Trade. The Committee remarked:
  "We regret that the Government was not willing to allow the Committee, or even a single member of the Committee—a Privy Councillor and former Foreign Office Minister—to inspect the original intelligence reports."
  That is obduracy from a Secretary of State.
  Mr. Mackinlay: That does not make it right.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: It certainly does not make it right, as my hon. Friend says from a sedentary position. That is why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has offered time and again to compromise with the Select Committee.
  I agree with the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster made a witty contribution based on an analogy with the game of cricket. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) pointed out that the Opposition had scored an own goal in the debate. What came to mind was the own goal scored by Colombia in 1994, and we know what happened to the player who put that own goal into his net. I hope that the same does not happen to any Opposition Member.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) made a general contribution on the role of Select Committees and raised again the Tory myth about resources for the Select Committees. There may indeed be a huge problem of resources, but it is not a problem for the Government. That is a matter for the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not blame this Government for the situation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) presented a reasoned, sensible approach to a mutually acceptable resolution of the difficulties faced by the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  The hon. Member for South Staffordshire told us lots and lots about what we are not discussing. I am always amazed by his comments. Hon. Members are depicted as good Members of the House as long as they agree with the Conservative Opposition. He said that we should begin by asking why the debate had been held. I prefer the views of those of my hon. Friends who have said that some people are playing a game. The Tories are not interested in the way in which Select Committees are constituted, or in the powers of the Secretary of State or Ministers vis-à-vis particular Select Committees, but in scoring cheap political points.
  For example, the hon. Gentleman referred to the alleged inability of the Leader of the House to find time for today's debate. We have had today's debate now, and I did not see many Opposition Members enjoying any stage of it. The Opposition could have chosen a half-day debate, but instead they chose a full day's debate on something that has turned out to be a damp squib.

  959
  The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) started off with a whimper and ended up with a sigh—at least, there was certainly a sigh of relief on Government Benches. The right hon. Gentleman made no impact and added nothing to our understanding of the issues before us.
  What we are saying to the Foreign Affairs Committee is simple; it is "Not yet," rather than "No." There is nothing unusual about a Select Committee awaiting the outcome of a specific formal inquiry. There is nothing unusual about the Government deferring answers until such an inquiry has reported. The previous Government declined to answer parliamentary questions about arms to Iraq while the Scott inquiry was being held.
  The present Government are committed to being open with Parliament. We are not trying to frustrate the Foreign Affairs Committee's inquiry in any way. The Committee could look at the relevant telegrams in private now, and Ministers will answer outstanding questions when Legg has reported. The only issue is whether there should be public disclosure, before Legg reports, of part of the evidence that Legg is considering.
  The Legg report will be published. We want that inquiry to do a proper job and to report soon, and it cannot do so if those involved also have to answer questions in a parallel inquiry by the Select Committee. We fully respect Select Committees' right to ask for information. That is at the very heart of the way in which Parliament works, with individual Members, Select Committees and the House collectively seeking information.
  Select Committees have the powers that the House gives them. They cannot be more powerful than the House itself. The House debated Sierra Leone on 18 May and agreed a resolution that included approval of the Government's commitment to an urgent outside investigation and publication of a full report. The Chairman of the Select Committee said that
  "it would be unwise to attempt to duplicate or parallel the inquiry".
  Those are his words, not mine. He also said that if the Legg inquiry were conducted in public,
  "such an inquiry would take a long time".—[Official Report, 18 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 621.]
  Those, too, are his words, not mine.
  I hope that the Committee will now accept the opportunity, generously offered, to see the summary of the telegrams for which it has asked, on a well-precedented, confidential basis—named, ironically enough, the Pergau process, after an inquiry during the previous Administration that many in the House will remember well.
  The Foreign Secretary has offered to appear before the Select Committee, and that may prove a way for the Committee to find its own way out of its difficulties—difficulties, I have to say, that the Committee itself has created.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 339.

  Division No. 329]

  [9.57 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Amess, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Ballard, Jackie

  Arbuthnot, James

  Beggs, Roy

  960

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Blunt, Crispin

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Boswell, Tim

  Keetch, Paul

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Key, Robert

  Brady, Graham

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Brazier, Julian

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Burnett, John

  Lansley, Andrew

  Burns, Simon

  Leigh, Edward

  Burstow, Paul

  Letwin, Oliver

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Lidington, David

  Livsey, Richard

  Chidgey, David

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Chope, Christopher

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Clappison, James

  Loughton, Tim

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Collins, Tim

  Madel, Sir David

  Colvin, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Maples, John

  Cotter, Brian

  Mates, Michael

  Cran, James

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Dafis, Cynog

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Day, Stephen

  Norman, Archie

  Duncan, Alan

  Oaten, Mark

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Ottaway, Richard

  Evans, Nigel

  Page, Richard

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Paice, James

  Faber, David

  Pickles, Eric

  Fabricant, Michael

  Prior, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Randall, John

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Flight, Howard

  Rendel, David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Robathan, Andrew

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Gale, Roger

  Ruffley, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gibb, Nick

  Sanders, Adrian

  Gill, Christopher

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

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

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gray, James

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Green, Damian

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Greenway, John

  Spring, Richard

  Grieve, Dominic

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Steen, Anthony

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Streeter, Gary

  Hammond, Philip

  Stunell, Andrew

  Hancock, Mike

  Swinney, John

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Syms, Robert

  Hawkins, Nick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Heald, Oliver

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Townend, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tredinnick, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Trend, Michael

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Tyler, Paul

  961

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Willis, Phil

  Walter, Robert

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Wardle, Charles

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Woodward, Shaun

  Webb, Steve

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wells, Bowen

  Whittingdale, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Mr. Peter Brooke and

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Peter Luff.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Anger, Nick

  Cousins, Jim

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cranston, Ross

  Alexander, Douglas

  Crausby, David

  Allen, Graham

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cummings, John

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

  Ashton, Joe

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Austin, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Banks, Tony

  Darvill, Keith

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Beard, Nigel

  Davidson, Ian

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Benton, Joe

  Denham, John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Best, Harold

  Dismore, Andrew

  Betts, Clive

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Blackman, Liz

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Blizzard, Bob

  Doran, Frank

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Dowd, Jim

  Boateng, Paul

  Drew, David

  Borrow, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Edwards, Huw

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Efford, Clive

  Browne, Desmond

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Ennis, Jeff

  Burden, Richard

  Etherington, Bill

  Burgon, Colin

  Fatchett, Derek

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Byers, Stephen

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Flint, Caroline

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Flynn, Paul

  Canavan, Dennis

  Follett, Barbara

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Casale, Roger

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Caton, Martin

  Fyfe, Maria

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Chaytor, David

  Gapes, Mike

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gardiner, Barry

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Goggins, Paul

  Clelland, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clwyd, Ann

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Coaker, Vernon

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Cohen, Harry

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Coleman, Iain

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Colman, Tony

  Grogan, John

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Gunnell, John

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hain, Peter

  Corbett, Robin

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  962

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hanson, David

  MacShane, Denis

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  McWalter, Tony

  Healey, John

  McWilliam, John

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mallaber, Judy

  Heppell, John

  Mandelson, Peter

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hill, Keith

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hoey, Kate

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Home Robertson, John

  Meale, Alan

  Hood, Jimmy

  Merron, Gillian

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Michael, Alun

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Milburn, Alan

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morley, Elliot

  Hurst, Alan

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hutton, John

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mudie, George

  Illsley, Eric

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Norris, Dan

  Jenkins, Brian

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pike, Peter L

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Plaskitt, James

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pond, Chris

  Kidney, David

  Pope, Greg

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pound, Stephen

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Lepper, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Leslie, Christopher

  Purchase, Ken

  Levitt, Tom

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Radice, Giles

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Rammell, Bill

  Linton, Martin

  Rapson, Syd

  Livingstone, Ken

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Lock, David

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Love, Andrew

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  McAllion, John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McCabe, Steve

  Rogers, Allan

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Rooker, Jeff

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Rooney, Terry

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Rowlands, Ted

  McDonnell, John

  Roy, Frank

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Ruane, Chris

  McIsaac, Shona

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McLeish, Henry

  Salter, Martin

  963

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Timms, Stephen

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Sheerman, Barry

  Todd, Mark

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Touhig, Don

  Skinner, Dennis

  Trickett, Jon

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Truswell, Paul

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Vaz, Keith

  Snape, Peter

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Soley, Clive

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Watts, David

  Spellar, John

  White, Brian

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stevenson, George

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Winnick, David

  Stott, Roger

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Wise, Audrey

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Wood, Mike

  Stringer, Graham

  Woolas, Phil

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Worthington, Tony

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mr. John McFall and

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House reaffirms that, in accordance with the House's Resolution of 19th March 1997 and the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Second Edition, January 1997), Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament; recalls that the House approved on 18th May 1998 the Government's commitment to an urgent outside investigation and publication of a full report of the Sierra Leone arms investigation; believes that
  964
  nothing should be done to prejudice the conduct of that inquiry by premature public disclosure of parts of the evidence; and notes that the Foreign Secretary remains ready to make available to the Foreign Affairs Committee, on a confidential basis, the telegrams it has requested.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When a Minister makes an allegation about a fellow Member, particularly when it is entirely without substance, is it not a convention to allow the Member concerned to have some redress or to make some comment, especially if the Minister is responsible for open government?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can inform the right hon. Lady that regardless of whether there is an allegation, if an hon. Member is mentioned by any hon. Member, whether it be a Minister or a Back Bencher, it is the convention that the hon. Member who made the allegation gives way. However, it is not an enforceable convention. The Chair cannot enforce it. I know that the incident to which the right hon. Lady is referring happened shortly before the vote. Perhaps it would have been helpful, when I suggested that the right hon. Lady be seated while I was standing, if she had resumed her place. We might then have been able to sort out the matter.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) looks at the record tomorrow, she will see that when she was having an altercation with the Chair, I had not finished the point that I was trying to make. It became academic once she had left the Chamber.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps we can move on to the next business.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it not be in conformity with the courtesies that most of us like to expect if the Minister gave an apology?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order and it is not a matter for me. [Interruption.] Order. The House must settle down. We have further Opposition business.

  Social Security Regulations (Lone Parents)
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: I beg to move, That the Social Security Amendment (Lone Parents) Regulations 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 766), dated 16th March 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th March, be revoked.
  I am pleased that we are having this debate tonight on the regulations—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I appeal to hon. Members to leave the Chamber quietly.
  Mr. Burns: I am pleased that we are having this debate on the regulations because they are a direct consequence of the rebellion last December when 47 Labour Members came off-message and voted against their Government on the decision to equalise the benefit system with regard to lone parents and married couples. If that rebellion had not taken place, I can assure the House that we should not be having this debate tonight.
  It is worth looking further behind the wider issue before questioning some of the details of the regulations. Perhaps the area of our greatest domestic failure is in the system of welfare. There is a deep sense of dissatisfaction among recipients and Government alike about what welfare has become during the past 30 years and where it seems to be going. The rebellion on the lone parents policy last December typifies the tensions and conflicts that arise in any attempt to reform the system.
  Welfare is many things to many people. To the recipient, it may be the difference between living and surviving. To the taxpayer, facing rising inflation and mortgage payments, it may be an unwarranted imposition on an already overburdened tax bill. The unchallengeable fact is that the bill is rising further every day. With this enormous public expenditure, it might be expected that the recipients would be satisfied, but they are not hence the problems last autumn when the Government proposed those changes to lone-parents payments.
  Lone parents and other recipients of social security are as dissatisfied with the social security system as everyone else in Britain. To some, that may be considered gross ingratitude, or is it more a sign of how the welfare system has failed? What are we to make of a system that seems to satisfy neither the giver—in this case the taxpayer—nor the recipient, and which embitters all those who come in contact with it? More basically, welfare has done much to divide our people; to alienate us from one another. That is why, however tortuous their journey, I welcome the Government's conversion on the road to Damascus on the question of lone parents.
  The root problem is in the fact of dependency and the feeling of uselessness and the despair of unemployment. No one would argue that the answer to the problem, and what would help lone parents, is work, jobs and self-sufficiency rather than—
  Audrey Wise: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what his Government were doing for 18 years if the welfare system is the shambles and disgrace that he describes?
  Mr. Burns: The problem with the welfare system—over those 18 years and before that—is that its cost has
  966
  risen inexorably. Although more people are being given help, some of whom had previously been unable to get assistance, the system is still inefficient, riddled with fraud and not targeted properly. That causes the tensions between taxpayers and the recipients of welfare, who all too often think that they should get a better deal from the system. [Interruption.] I shall return to discussing the system; the Minister for Welfare Reform, who is good at intervening from a sedentary position, should listen for a moment.
  The Minister for Welfare Reform (Mr. Frank Field): Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise)?
  Mr. Burns: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was listening. I said to the hon. Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) that the problem with the welfare system is that its cost has risen inexorably—year after year, and during those 18 years and before that. Recipients of welfare, many of whom have been brought into the system by the Government expanding the basis—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman should listen; he may not want to intervene again. Many recipients are not happy with what they are receiving, because it is not properly targeted, and the taxpayer is similarly unhappy, as are the Government, because of the ever-increasing bills.
  Mr. Field: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Burns: No, I will not; I have answered the point.
  It is a myth that all the problems of poverty and lone parents can be solved simply by an ultimate extension of the welfare system to guarantee everyone a certain income paid for by the Government. That cannot provide lone parents with a sense of self-sufficiency, self-respect and a job. To many people, work is a mundane and unglamourous word, but it is, in a real sense, the meaning of what we are all about. We need work as individuals, as a society and as a community, so we must ask whether the regulations will help to achieve that for lone parents.
  Whatever the regulations achieve, it will not be as a result of a coherent and consistent approach to welfare reform by the Government. The regulations prescribe the circumstances in which lone parents will benefit from the family premium in council tax benefit, housing benefit, income support and jobseeker's allowance. Additionally, they introduce the concept of a 12-week eligibility criterion for maintaining the higher-rate premium in income support and JSA if a lone parent works for less than that period and then returns to the benefits system.
  The Government are simply and cynically attempting to buy back some of the support that they lost among their Back Benchers and among the special interest groups that were misled and supported the Government at the previous general election. That led to the fiasco in December when, for the first time in this Parliament, some Labour Members had the guts to stick up for what they believe in, come off-message and go into the Lobby to vote against their Government.
  Labour Members have been to-ing and fro-ing on this whole issue since my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) announced the policy

  967
  of equalisation of benefits back in November 1996. The Government's flip-flop has been justified by various members of the Government, including the Prime Minister, as simply implementing a policy that they inherited, or as a policy to save money because of the constraints on public spending. If they really believe the latter, how much will the U-turn in the regulations cost, and what is the net gain to the Treasury from this exercise? I say it every time we have a debate, but perhaps in the run-up to a reshuffle, the Minister will change the habit of a lifetime and answer the questions tonight.
  Similarly, do the Government appreciate the irony that, given their cost implications, the regulations completely undermine the initial savings that would have been made from the policy that was voted through the House in December, and totally destroy the argument that the Government made to their Back Benchers to try to justify their policy and stop them voting against the Government?
  The Government justify their actions by claiming that the regulations will create an incentive to work. Do they not understand that, far from being an incentive to work, the regulations will be a disincentive for some lone parents? They encourage those with entitlement to the lone parent premium benefit to keep that benefit if they get a job, but work for less than 12 weeks. I suspect that a number of them will simply not bother to go down that route because of the hassle and bureaucracy that they will have to put up with. When they come out of the job after such a relatively short period, they will have to return to the Benefits Agency to reapply for their original benefit. I should be grateful to the Minister if he would explain what plans the Government have to minimise that bureaucracy and to counter the view that will be abroad with some lone parents that it will simply not be worth the candle.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Burns: No. Time is limited in this debate.
  Furthermore, the regulations fail to prevent abuse of the system. What will stop some people arranging contracts with unscrupulous employers to work for less than 12 weeks to protect their benefit status? It is unclear how the Government intend to prevent such potential abuse.
  Mr. Field: You cannot have it both ways.
  Mr. Burns: The Minister may say that, but some lone parents may believe that the 12-week rule is a disincentive to get a job, whereas other lone parents and employers will abuse the system. It will not be the same people. After all, some 962 lone parents are currently on income support so there will be wide variations in behavioural patterns.
  Mr. Field: There are more than 962.
  Mr. Burns: There are 962,000. Once again, the Minister is displaying to the House the breadth of his knowledge of the welfare state. We are grateful to him
  968
  for ensuring that we get the right number of noughts on the figure. We have now established, without making a big meal of it, that there are 962,000 lone parents.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: You should have got it right the first time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may wish to get into the debate, but he cannot do so now.
  Mr. Burns: On the minutiae of the rules and regulations on the 12-week period, why have the Government chosen 12 weeks? Why did they not make it a longer period—perhaps 12 months—to encourage more lone parents to seek full-time employment? Why was 12 weeks considered to be a magical, relevant or applicable period? Why could not the Government consider making the period longer to create a greater incentive for lone parents who may think that 12 weeks is too short a period and cannot be bothered with it? It would not be that costly to take such a measure and I wonder whether the Government have given any consideration to it.
  The regulations neither create enough incentive to encourage some lone parents to take up permanent employment nor produce the savings for which the original cuts were passed in December, and about which the Government made such a big deal at that time, not least to their own Back Benchers.
  As the Minister will know, 75 per cent. of lone parents totally disregard the invitations that they receive to attend a new deal interview. Only 2,017 lone parents have got jobs under the new deal, and 309—which is 15 per cent.—have since gone back on benefits because they have lost their jobs after a relatively short time. As the Department of Social Security's figures show, 1.4 per cent. of lone parents get jobs, over and above those outside the pilot areas. However, the figure can be reduced by 0.8 per cent., because 0.6 per cent. are leaving income support but are not going into work.
  The new deal achieves only a 0.8 per cent. success rate, which is 201 lone parents at a total cost of £6.1 million. The taxpayer is spending about £24,000 per job. If the present trend continues, the £200 million that the Government plan to spend on the new deal for lone parents will help just 6,566 out of a possible 9,600—sorry, 9,600.
  Mr. Field: The figure is 962,000.
  Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It will help 9,000—62,000.
  Mr. Field: It is 962,000.
  Mr. Burns: Thank you—962,000 lone parents. The regulations do virtually nothing to alleviate the problem. If the Government are not careful, the new deal and the regulations will become a policy paved with good intentions but, sadly, remembered for its failure to meet the expectations that it has aroused. It will be consigned to history as little more than an expensive experiment in soundbite politics.
  10.31 pm
  Mr. David Rendel: I am delighted to have the chance to speak to the House briefly on this subject. I must confess that I was slightly surprised that the Conservative party had found this matter important enough to table a prayer. We had no intention of praying against the regulations, because we believe that they are an improvement on what has gone before. If the Conservative party chooses to call a vote on this issue, we shall vote with the Government. Although we believe that what the Government have done to lone parents generally is appalling—we have made that point on several occasions—at least the regulations amend the previous ones in the right direction.
  It surprises me that the Conservative party chose to call for the debate and to force the issue on to the Floor of the House. Many other regulations that, to my mind, were much more important and controversial have been taken in Committee. Having heard the speech of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), I am now even less sure about why this item has been brought to the Floor of the House.
  The hon. Gentleman did not seem to be clear in his own mind about whether there would be a greater incentive to work as a result of the regulations, and they should therefore be further improved. He did not explain whether there should be a linking mechanism of 12 months or the shorter period being allowed. If he thinks that the regulations would not give any greater incentive, because the bureaucracy will be too great, does he believe that they should be scrapped? That is what the Conservative ex-Secretary of State suggested in his response to the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee, which discussed the proposed lone-parent regulations. At that time, the ex-Secretary of State made it clear that he did not think that there should be a linking mechanism. That question is still open, so perhaps when the Opposition spokesman winds up, he will say whether they agree with their ex-Secretary of State that a linking mechanism should not be introduced, or whether they think that it should be introduced and increased to 12 months. I think that there is much to be said for increasing the linking mechanism to 12 months. I agree that, as has been said, the cost must be comparatively small, and that an even greater incentive must be given to lone parents to take up work when it is available to them.
  The arguments advanced by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford struck me as remarkably muddled. As he has accused the Labour Government of performing something of a U-turn, it will be interesting to see whether he now accepts the points made by the ex-Secretary of State in his response to the SSAC, or whether he himself, and his party, have performed a U-turn. If he and his party do not in the end choose to call for a positive vote against the regulations, in that sense they will have performed a U-turn. If they act in that way, it seems to me that they will have lost the opportunity to increase work incentives. I should have thought that the Conservative party would favour that.
  As they stand, the regulations take up one of the two main recommendations made by the SSAC. That recommendation is divided into three parts, but I understand that all three are covered by the regulations, and I welcome that. However, the Labour party has not chosen to implement the second recommendation, which I consider a major fault in the regulations.
  970
  The other SSAC recommendation was there should be
  "a systematic study of relative costs, incomes and expenditures of lone parent and two parent families on benefit and in work. This should be carried out before the regulations"—
  the changes in lone-parent benefit—
  "are proceeded with."
  That is the recommendation of the SSAC, which neither the Labour party nor the Conservative party accepted when the regulations were first laid before the House. They should have accepted that recommendation.
  I know that many Labour Members would have wanted the Government to do so, and it is a great pity that they did not take that on board. They would have saved themselves a lot of time and trouble if they had, and they would have won a lot of support in the community. It is a failure on the part of the Labour Government that they did not take up the recommendation then, and that they failed to take it up again this year when they made the change. I wish that they had, but at least the regulations go part of the way in the direction that the committee would have liked, and we shall support them tonight.
  10.37 pm
  Audrey Wise: I think that I can offer an explanation of why the Conservative Opposition tabled the motion. I think that they are playing an elaborate and rather silly game—dancing some sort of minuet. I must tell the Opposition that, if they think that that will have any effect on Labour Members, they are entirely mistaken. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) wishes to intervene, by all means let him do so—but it appears that he has changed his mind.
  If the Conservatives press the matter to a vote, they will again be voting on the wrong side. They voted on the wrong side in December, unfortunately, and they will have the honour and distinction of repeating their error if they call a Division tonight. It is clear that the regulations are an improvement on the status quo ante. It is a pity that they are necessary; it is a pity that the lone parent benefit was tampered with in the first place; but the fact that the Government are now introducing a 12-week linking period constitutes a considerable improvement.
  I note that one of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford's main arguments against the 12-week linking period is that unscrupulous lone parents will abuse it.
  Mr. Burns: And employers.
  Audrey Wise: And employers. There are rather more unscrupulous employers, but the hon. Gentleman is attacking lone parents. Throwing in a sop—acknowledging that there are unscrupulous employers—will not do. If we follow him down his road, those who will suffer will be not employers, but lone parents, who will not have the opportunity to take work, to give it a try and to see if it works out, without suffering a penalty if it does not.
  All sorts of things can happen when a lone parent seeks and takes a job. The child may find that it is not happy with the mother going to work. The mother may find that the child-care arrangements break down. The child may become ill. There may be more stress on the family than

  971
  the parent had anticipated, so having an opportunity of a 12-week period in which the premium is not risked is a wholly good thing, compared with the previous arrangement, where there was to be no linking period.
  Having complained about 12 weeks, the hon. Member for West Chelmsford expects us to believe that he is seriously proposing a year's linking period. I am interested that he did not say anything about that last December. He has never said anything about that until this evening. I am sure that, if the Government had brought forward that proposal, which I would have accepted and supported, he would have said, "Oh dear me. It is going to cost the taxpayer a great deal of money." All he and Conservative Opposition are doing tonight is proving their complete hypocrisy and lack of understanding of what the controversy about lone-parent benefits on the Labour Benches was all about.
  Therefore, if the Conservatives call a vote, we win and they expose themselves as wanting to depress the standards of lone parents and take away this opportunity. If they do not call a vote, they expose themselves as being silly and hypocritical.
  Mr. Rendel: Does the hon. Lady accept that one thing that the Conservatives have managed to do is unite the Labour rebels with their party?
  Audrey Wise: I think that perhaps the Government Front-Bench team might owe the Conservatives some little debt of gratitude for that, but that is not the mainspring; that is not what motivates us. Their silly games have nothing to do with what we on the Labour Benches do. We consider the issues and the Government have given—well, I was going to say, "A crumb." Perhaps I will say, "Half a loaf."
  Ann Clwyd: A crust.
  Audrey Wise: Yes, a crust. A compromise. I am not one to throw away a crust. Being of a very thrifty turn of mind, I accept all the crusts and crumbs that are going.
  Any lone parents who get some glimmering of what the Conservative Opposition are playing at tonight will be thoroughly disgusted because those parents will want a linking period and the opportunity to take a job without being penalised, and they are certainly not scroungers and unscrupulous people, in the main.
  Mr. Burns: Who said that they were?
  Audrey Wise: I thought that one of the hon. Member's major objections to the regulations was that unscrupulous people would take advantage of them, take a job for 11 weeks, go back on full benefit for a little while and take another job for 11 weeks. That is the picture that the hon. Gentleman was painting. [Interruption.] Oh yes it was. "Unscrupulous," he called them. I say that lone parents are burdened with the difficult job of child rearing on their own. They have far too much and far too many serious things on their mind to go in for the sort of shenanigans and twisting that is more commonly found in the realm of tax evasion. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is judging lone parents and people on low incomes by the standards of those whose main characteristic is greed and who milk the tax system at every available opportunity.
  972
  I am happy to be able to assure my right hon. and hon. Friends that we will all be in the Lobby with the Government if the Opposition are silly enough to call a vote.
  10.45 pm
  Mr. John Swinney: There are often occasions when it strikes me that the House spends too long debating certain items of business. I do not want to detain the House any longer than is necessary to discuss this business.
  The hon. Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) made an effective speech in the debate about lone parent benefit cuts in December and has made another effective and important contribution to today's debate. She used an analogy about the Conservative party playing games and I shall continue with that for a little longer.
  I do not believe that the lone parents I see in my constituency surgeries are playing games with their lives. They are not trying to find some devious dodge here and there to find something in the system that will advance their position and allow them to dodge here, there and everywhere. Most of the lone parents who come to see me are in very difficult circumstances and have come to their Member of Parliament for assistance as a place of last resort. They are usually looking for a way through a labyrinth of difficulties through which they cannot find a way themselves. The idea that lone parents will be rushing off to the public information sources in my constituency to look through the regulations to find a dodge that will enable them to prosper is an insult to people who live in difficult circumstances.
  Mr. John Hayes: Surely the hon. Gentleman realises that we are not talking about dodges. In many constituencies, including mine, seasonal and part-time work are a way of life for many people. How will the regulations deal with that? What explanation have we had for that? My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) talked about having a longer period which would, effectively, stop that being an issue. The regulations do not take account of those factors.
  Mr. Swinney: With great respect, I do not think that we heard anything from the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman that provided a better solution than the proposal before us. I was in the Lobby with the hon. Member for Preston and others in December. We have to recognise that this is a step forward from the material that we were faced with then, and we should consider the regulations in good faith.
  A great deal was said by the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman about work incentives. We can look at these issues as work incentives or some form of work compulsion, but we heard nothing from the Conservative spokesman that would make it easier, more advantageous or appealing for lone parents to find their way into employment.
  Much of what we have heard tonight has been about the systematic fraud of the benefit system that we are told is always going on. We heard much of that rhetoric in the origins of the benefit integrity project. Not surprisingly, in that analysis fraud has been found to have been much

  973
  less of a factor than was thought. Obviously, if fraud exists in the system, it must be tackled and rooted out. It deprives those who are genuinely entitled to benefit.
  However, I cannot accept the idea that somewhere out there are people in desperate circumstances, calculating their way through the system and that those individuals are in a majority. The regulations mitigate some of the harsher effects of the legislation that we were faced with at the tail end of last year and it is important that we do not take any steps tonight that would undermine the step forward that the regulations deliver.
  10.48 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: I want to make a few brief remarks about the linking period of 12 weeks. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) that it is a step in the right direction. Perhaps the one serious question raised by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) is why it is 12 weeks. The hon. Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) made the important point that a lone parent might try a job only to find that the child care falls through. Perhaps 12 weeks is a reasonable time for such things to be determined one way or another.
  The longer-term issue is the job market in short-term contracts. I hope that, in responding to the debate, the Minister will say what analysis his Department has made of the job market for entrants from unemployment or income support. What sort of jobs are available to them, and what sort of jobs do they take? Are they fixed-term contract jobs? Are they three months or six months contracts?
  There are people in my constituency who are afraid to move off income support in case they lose help with their mortgage because the linking period is too short. They are offered a three-month contract job, but they cannot take it or they will lose help with their mortgage. It is exactly the same principle with the lone parent premium. I hope that the Minister will tell us what assessment he has made of the job market for lone parents who move into low-paid work and how long the contracts are for.
  I put a paradox to the Minister. He may say that we have to draw the line somewhere, and that 12 months might cost too much money. I have to tell him that if there are no lone parents going into short-term contracts, it will not cost the Government anything; if there are lots of lone parents going into short-term contracts, 12 weeks is too short a period. I ask him to tell us what evidence he has used to decide on a period of 12 weeks and to consider making the period longer.
  10.50 pm
  Dr. Lynne Jones: The fact that no Conservative Back-Bench Members have risen to speak in the debate, together with the fact that so few of them are here, shows that the analysis by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) of the Opposition's motivation in bringing the debate to the Floor of the House is, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, absolutely right.
  I will not detain the House for many moments more on what is a wholly unnecessary debate. However, in welcoming the Government's proposals and the reversal of the cuts in benefits for vulnerable families, I want to ask one question of my hon. Friend the Minister.
  974
  Last July, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security published her response to the Social Security Advisory Committee's report. Although that report was in response to the proposals by the former Secretary of State, it was published in July under the name of this Government. At the time, the Government refused to accept both of the committee's recommendations. I regret their failure to act on that advice. Today, the Government are accepting one part of that advice. What made them change their mind?
  10.52 pm
  Mr. Shaun Woodward: It was interesting to listen to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones). As she rightly said, this is a reversal by the Government. The hon. Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) must feel rather pleased that she has managed to move the Government quite so far along the rails. We want to know why it has happened and why they did not have the courage of their convictions to say so last December. Why have they decided on a period of 12 weeks? Hon. Members have already asked what evidence was used to decide that 12 weeks is the right period. The fundamental question is: where is the coherence that pulls together Government policy?
  There is no doubt that the problems of lone parenthood are a serious and proper matter for the House to consider. It ill behoves the hon. Member for Selly Oak to try to undermine the Opposition for wanting to discuss it this evening. I was the deputy chairman of Childline, an agency involved in child protection. I tell the hon. Lady that this is a subject that I care a great deal about and in which I have been involved for a great deal of my professional career. It is inappropriate for her to criticise Opposition Members for allowing her to speak before they have had a chance to do so.
  We should consider why the Government are today offering a proposal that was completely unavailable last December—when the Secretary of State repeatedly turned her face against Labour Back Benchers by refusing to hear their criticisms. I have no quarrel with the idea that all children should be treated equally—which is why I think that the previous Government's policy was right, and why I think that the new Government were right completely to change their policy in government from their policy in opposition. The Government completed their U-turn in December, by supporting the Conservative party's policy on the issue.
  I say with no qualms that I fully admire the Secretary of State for very bravely standing at the Dispatch Box, with the hon. Member for Preston and other Labour Members behind her, and arguing the case that Conservative Members intelligently and coherently made when in government and which we continue to support today.
  There is no question but that it is necessary to back lone parents. However, how do we most effectively back them? There is no question but that lone parenthood co-exists with all kinds of poverty in the United Kingdom. Almost 2.5 million children are raised in the United Kingdom in very difficult financial circumstances. How will we deal with that situation and change it? The question is not how we accept or alleviate the situation but how we make the situation better.
  Conservative Members support the idea of getting people out of welfare and into work. However, I think that the Government's regulations will turn that policy on

  975
  its head. Far from encouraging people from welfare into work, the regulations may—because of their ludicrous, arbitrary time limit—encourage people from work back into welfare. The Minister must today explain to the House why 12 weeks is the right time period.
  Lone parenthood is a serious problem which very badly affects children. Security in a home is crucial. Although I am not saying that lone parents cannot provide security, I think that all hon. Members will accept that single parents very often have a tougher job—simply because he or she must face all sorts of problems that are more easily faced by families fortunate enough to have two parents.
  I do not take a moral view on the subject. A modern, civilised society should not apply moral judgments to such families, for the very simple reason that such judgments have a very nasty habit of hurting the children. As I have argued, as a director of Childline, I am fundamentally concerned with protecting children.
  I must ask whether the regulations are the right way of protecting children and of making their lives better. I again ask the Minister what has happened in the seven months since December to change Ministers' minds—so that they have gone from brazenly saying no to the 50 or 100 Back Benchers who wanted the policy changed in December, to holding a completely different policy today.
  As the Secretary of State said in a previous debate on the issue,
  "We are trying to ensure equality of opportunity for lone parents".
  Equality in December; now, in July, it is inequality.
  The Secretary of State boasted in that debate:
  "Clause 70 of the Bill provides power to equalise rates of child benefit for lone parents and couple families."
  Today, we are debating inequality for lone parents and couple families.
  The Secretary of State also said:
  "The lone mothers in my constituency say to me, 'We want to work—we do not want to be dependent on benefit'"—[Official Report, 10 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 1086–89.]
  Yet, in July, we are debating in the House measures that are applauded by the hon. Member for Preston—who has a very serious position on the issue, with which I do not agree but fully respect. As I said, I find myself at a loss to understand what has happened to change the Government's position.
  It is a shame that the Secretary of State is not in the Chamber today to explain her position. It is interesting that she was prepared to be here last December, but that she is absent for this debate—in which we are considering a partial U-turn in the Government's policy. Where is the encourage of her convictions today? The answer is "somewhere else".
  Mr. Rendel: I am getting just as confused about the hon. Gentleman's policy and what he wants as I was about what the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said. A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman seemed to be arguing that a presumably infinite period should be allowed; now he is arguing that there should be no linking at all and that the time limit for lone parents should be cut at a stroke. The two arguments seem completely contradictory.
  Mr. Woodward: I am grateful for that intervention because it gives me the opportunity to make very clear
  976
  what I believe. The Government should be thinking creatively about more opportunities to get people off welfare and into work, but we are debating proposals which will take people out of work and put them back onto welfare. The time limit will be very bad. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said, it will encourage some, not all, people to think about short-term contracts. It will not encourage them to think about ending their dependency. The danger is that, having sent one signal last December, the regulations will send a confused signal because they will encourage some people to fall back into dependency.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman has finished his speech.
  11 pm
  Mr. John Hayes: I do not want to continue the eulogy of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) about the Secretary of State's performance last December. I thought then, and have no reason to change my opinion now, that the frailty of her arguments on that occasion was matched only by the inadequacy of their delivery.
  The fundamental point in this debate is the acceptance by Conservative Members that the fortunate have a responsibility for the unfortunate. Let us be open and frank about saying that. We are debating not that principle, but how it is enacted in terms of public policy. The problem for the Government in this debate which seems to have been misunderstood by hon. Members around the Chamber, is the hypocrisy implicit in the proposals.
  When the Government introduced this contentious policy last December, they did so on the ground of cost savings. If the proposals before us are put into practice, the cost savings will be substantially reduced, so the force of the argument that was used, which divided the House and the country and which brought so much criticism on the Government in this place and elsewhere, has now dissipated because the money will no longer be saved.
  A second question that needs to be amplified is that if one is going to choose a time limit, on what basis does one choose it? Surely, it must be on the basis of a proper analysis of the sorts of jobs that lone parents are likely to get if they take work. The issue of short-term contracts and occasional, seasonal, part-time, informal and flexible work needs to be addressed, and I shall be expecting some concise, pithy and powerful arguments from the Minister.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hayes: I will, so long as the hon. Lady is not going to quote the Prime Minister again.
  Dr. Jones: I shall make the point that I was going to make to the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). Does the hon. Gentleman think—perhaps this is the point that he is making—that, in these times of flexible labour markets, lone parents, and many other workers, do not have a choice about what kind of work they take?

  977
  They are often forced to take short-term contracts. Is the hon. Gentleman proposing that we should change that and remove those opportunities?
  Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. The nub of this debate is the Government's hypocrisy, but if she wants a straight answer to that question, I shall give it. Because of the nature of the opportunities—or choices, as she calls them—given to them, the sorts of jobs that lone parents take are precisely those that I defined. In my area, for example, where there is relatively full but low-paid employment, lone parents seeking work will be disproportionately attracted to precisely those short-term, seasonal, occasional jobs with which the proposals do not cope. I accept the hon. Lady's point that the choices for lone parents are likely to be more limited, and that lone parents are consequently disproportionately likely to be driven to the sort of jobs that I described.
  To give the hon. Lady a straight answer, I would like a longer period, as 12 weeks is inadequate. It is a figure plucked out of the air. It does not deal with the issues. At best, it is a palliative; a crust. It is an insult. It has even been described in this debate as crumbs. Are we being told to pat the Government on the back for throwing crumbs to lone parents? If we are, we ought to examine our consciences.
  Mr. Rendel: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene for the third time. I am interested in his argument. We are considering the possibility either of going back to the original regulations, which had no linking time, or passing these, which have a linking time of 12 weeks. The hon. Gentleman seems to want longer than that. Will he vote against 12 weeks because it is worse than none at all?
  Mr. Hayes: I take no advice about sitting on the fence and having it both ways from a party that has made a profession of doing just that. The question is whether it is better to support a measure that is impractical, unworkable and will not do what it claims to do and to put in place something that will not deliver the goods, or to remain with the status quo. That is an open question. It is a moot point. I suspect that the proposed 12-week period has been plucked from thin air because it costs the minimum that the Government thought they could get away with to pacify their critics in the House and elsewhere. I do not think that it is workable. We have not had answers to some of the key questions that even the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) was perceptive enough to pick up. Unless we have those answers tonight, I would be very surprised if hon. Members on either side of the House will support the Government if there is a Division at the conclusion of the debate.
  11.6 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Keith Bradley): I should like to respond to the prayer against the regulations by putting the measure in context. I start by thanking all hon. Members who have spoken in tonight's short debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) for her important contribution.
  978
  The Government believe that the social security system should support families and tackle child poverty. The electorate have given the Government a mandate to reform social security. Supporting families is a key principle guiding that reform.
  We are committed to supporting all families with children because we recognise that all families have extra costs as a result of bringing up children. That is why we are committed to retaining child benefit as a universal benefit. It is why we are increasing the standard rate of child benefit for the first child by £2.50 a week—the biggest ever one-off increase in child benefit.
  The Government also believe that the tax and benefits system should take account of the specific difficulties and extra costs that some families face on account of their children.
  Families who are unable to work, or who have lower disposable incomes because of their parenting responsibilities, need extra help, so we are introducing measures that increase the incomes of those families. We are increasing the standard family premium in the income-related benefits by £2.50 a week, and are increasing the child personal allowance for the under-11s by a further £2.50 a week. The increases together will mean that a family bringing up two young children on income support can be better off by £7.50 a week.
  Our working families tax credit will increase support for working families on lower incomes. It will provide around £5 billion of help to around 1.4 million families—that is £1.5 billion more than is spent on family credit, and 400,000 more families will receive help. The working families tax credit will guarantee every working family an income for full-time work of at least £180 a week, and around 2 million children will be better off as a result.
  Those measures demonstrate the Government's commitment to ensure that vulnerable families receive an adequate income when out of work and to address the barriers that they face in moving into work. Even when taken together with measures that align family premium and child benefit rates, they will mean that around 1.5 million lone parents will be better off overall. That is why, within that context, we are changing the benefits structure.
  Under the previous Government, there were no substantive measures to help more lone parents to work, despite the comments of the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). Without the last election, that would continue to be the case.
  Our approach is different from that of the previous Government. Work is at the heart of our proposals and the opportunity to work is at the heart of the Government's approach. We want to offer lone parents the opportunity to improve their lives, but lone parents often need practical help with finding a job and sorting out the changes to life that need to fit round a job. They need help with finding accessible, affordable, quality child care. Help with child care makes a job feasible and gives lone parents a genuine chance to work. That is exactly what the Government are delivering through the new deal for lone parents and the national child care strategy.
  The new deal offers lone parents a tailor-made, one-to-one service from personal advisers who will offer advice on job search and will help them to sort out their benefits and child maintenance. Child care and training

  979
  requirements will also be considered, to ensure that lone parents overcome the barriers to work, wherever they may be.
  The interim findings of the independent evaluation of the new deal for lone parents show that it is helping more lone parents leave income support. Those who have been helped into work are, on average, £39 a week better off in work with family credit than they were on income support, and their benefit dependency reduces by an average of £42 a week.
  The new deal for lone parents is real welfare reform in action. The figures cited by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) are meaningless, as independent research has made clear.
  Mr. Burns: The figures were based on figures provided by the Department and examined and verified by the House. If the Minister says that they are so inaccurate, that implies that he has examined them, rather than taking some independent person's view. Will he publish the figures that prove that our figures are wrong, so that we can get to the bottom of the matter and see who is right?
  Mr. Bradley: I am happy to do that. It is clear from the figures given by the hon. Gentleman that he cannot add up or divide by two. Independent researchers say that his figures are meaningless.
  Child care is essential to many lone parents. For too long, Britain has lagged behind other countries in developing good quality, accessible and affordable child care. It is needed to offer equal opportunities to parents to support them in their choices, whether their choice is to enter work or to improve their employability through training, and to promote the well-being and development of children. That is why we pledged to implement a national child care strategy
  We need to ensure that child care is affordable. Affordable child care is crucial if lone parents are to have the same opportunities to work as other families. We recognise that many lone parents face substantial child care costs, so we are providing help specifically to address those costs
  We have already increased help with the costs of child care through the child care disregard in the in-work benefits. The improved help means that a lone parent with two or more children can receive up to £95.50 a week towards the cost of child care—nearly £40 a week more than was previously available.
  That is just the first step. There will be more help with the cost of child care through the child care tax credit, which will provide extra help for all working families who need help with child care costs. It will provide help of up to 70 per cent. of eligible child care costs up to a limit of £100 for families with one child and £150 for families with two or more children. Lone parents will be the main beneficiaries of the child care tax credit, and they will receive more help with child care costs than ever before. Moreover, the structure of the credit will ensure that the poorest families benefit in full.
  We are addressing the real barriers to work through our new deal for lone parents, our national child care strategy, the working families tax credit, and by introducing a minimum wage. We are also providing more help with paying for child care so that all lone parents can enjoy the opportunity to work.
  980
  I remind the House that existing recipients will continue to receive the higher rate of family premium so long as they continue to satisfy the entitlement conditions. So, there will be no cash losers—[Interruption.] That is made clear in the regulations, as the hon. Member for Witney would know if he had bothered to read them.
  However, that protection was causing some difficulties for some lone parents. Lone parents participating in our new deal pilots told us—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) would listen, he might hear some of the answers to the questions that have been raised. Those people told us that the absence of a linking rule in income support was affecting their confidence in taking work. They were worried that if a job did not work out they would have to return to out-of-work benefits on a lower rate than before.
  That is why we introduced a 12-week linking rule, so that lone parents receiving either of the benefits with the higher premium will now be able to take work knowing that if it turns out to be short term they will not be worse off if they have to return to benefit.
  I shall consider carefully the point made by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), but, at this stage, I can say that most jobs being taken are permanent. We already have statistics showing that 80 per cent. of lone parents in work in 1991 were still in work four years later.
  A 12-week linking period is in line with the recommendation of the Social Security Advisory Committee, which recommended a linking period of "at least eight weeks". We believe that that provides lone parents with enough time, once they have started work, to decide whether any problems that arise—with child care, for example—can be resolved. Our new deal for lone parents will also provide in-work support to help them address those problems.
  However, if lone parents decide that a problem is insurmountable they will be able to return to benefit at the same rate as before. There is absolutely no evidence to support the contention by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Chelmsford, that lone parents are deliberately trying to manipulate the system by moving backwards and forwards between income support and work.
  The linking rules will be further supported by the Government's overall commitment to an active modern service that will ensure that lone parents not only get help through their personal advisers when seeking work, training or child care, but continue to be supported in work by those advisers, so that any new barriers or crises that arise can be dealt with, and they do not have to leave work but can remain in the job.
  We have been accused of implementing the previous Government's policy, and of completing some kind of U-turn in order to do so. Neither accusation is true. The previous Government intended to cut lone benefits, in isolation.
  The present Government have provided new and innovative support to help lone parents who want to work to do so—a working families tax credit to ensure that work pays, the biggest ever investment in child care provision, substantially improved help with meeting the cost of child care through the child care tax credit, and an investment in excess of £1 billion in improving benefit support for families, including extra help for the most

  981
  vulnerable and the introduction of the linking rule. That is the context against which the regulations should be judged.
  The electorate have made clear that they expect more from social policy than the previous Government ever offered. They have told us that they want an active approach to welfare so that everyone can take part in society and can work for their living, if they can. We promised that we would provide help to lone parents in moving into work, and that is what we have delivered. We promised that we would protect vulnerable families who are unable to work, and we have delivered that, too. That is why the House will overwhelmingly dismiss this prayer tonight.
  Question put and negatived.

  Harlow Playhouse
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  11.19 pm
  Mr. Bill Rammell: I am pleased to have this opportunity to have an Adjournment debate on Harlow playhouse. I want, first, to praise the work of the theatre in Harlow; secondly, to highlight the importance of a thriving community theatre to a community such as Harlow; thirdly, to point out the need for theatres such as Harlow's to receive better funding—a cry which, I am sure, will be heard from many theatres across the country; and, fourthly, to express my concern, which is shared across the eastern region, at the inequitable way in which the Eastern arts board is distributing funds to theatres in the eastern region.
  Before I do that, however, it is worth providing some background and the history of the theatre in Harlow. Harlow playhouse was incorporated in the master plan that established the new town when it was founded in 1947. Although the design was in the original planning concept, the need for a local theatre was established quickly by the plethora of amateur groups that were set up in the early years of the new town.
  The town had its first home-grown opera by 1953, and professional ballet arrived in 1957. In 1963, Harlow became the first town to sponsor a resident chamber music ensemble, the Alberni. Amidst the many amateur drama groups that were established, Harlow also developed a strong tradition of visiting professional companies. At that stage, it provided work for a visiting stage manager by the name of Alan Ayckbourn—something the town is still proud of.
  With such activity, the pressure to build a theatre grew. People involved in theatre and drama wanted a theatre established. In 1957, the council—as then was—set up a working party to look at the need for a theatre and how it might be paid for. The working party—which did an enormous amount of good work—concluded that what was needed was a combination of amateur community productions and visiting professional theatre. To this day, that vision is being carried out, with some in-house production by the playhouse.
  With that level of activity and with the pressure building, there followed in March 1967 a public inquiry into whether the council should be allowed to borrow money to build the theatre. Even in those days, concern for public expenditure constraints under a Labour Government were very much to the fore. Despite the constraints, the approval was granted and a contribution of £50,000 came from a new fund, set up under the Labour Government by the then Arts Minister, Jennie Lee. That really set the ball rolling for the theatre. I understand that Jennie Lee came to Harlow to lay the foundation stone of the new theatre and called for more touring by the Covent Garden opera company. It is worth stating, some 30 years later, that Harlow is still waiting for such a tour to take place.
  The playhouse opened in 1971 for live theatre, films and exhibitions, and has developed and increased its range of activities considerably since then. For the next 23 years of its existence, Harlow playhouse worked effectively. However, in hindsight, I believe that it became overly

  983
  reliant on funding from one source: the district council. That funding ceased in 1993 when Harlow council was capped by the previous Conservative Government. I was a member of the authority at that time and I can register the fact that the council received the biggest percentage cap in one year—50 per cent.—of any local authority in the country. The playhouse saw its funding cut from more than £500,000 per annum to about £150,000. Regrettably, that led to the playhouse's closure for one year to regroup and restructure and seek new funding streams.
  As a result of that restructuring and reshaping, the new playhouse re-opened in 1996 with a mission to re-establish itself as a community theatre with atmosphere, a busy amateur programme and lots of events for young people by new groups while continuing to host touring professional productions. It has been a success story and the playhouse regularly sells out—it has had 23 sell-outs since January this year. The pantomime, which is a huge event in the local community, played to 93 per cent. capacity houses and received rave reviews in The Stage More important, in 1997–98, 350 performances played to more than 45,000 people—the equivalent of more than half the population of Harlow. That statistic registers the vibrancy of the theatre.
  It is worth highlighting the considerable efforts of three people, among many others, who helped to relaunch the theatre. Jon Harris was appointed to re-open the theatre, and his enthusiasm and integrity were a driving force in getting things off the ground. His successor, Laurence Sachs, who is the current manager, is, I hope, successfully guiding the theatre in a new direction. Councillor Jean Clark, who chairs the council committee overseeing the playhouse, has been absolutely tireless in championing its cause.
  When the playhouse was relaunched, the council and the playhouse management were absolutely clear that financial support and theatre management structures had to be undertaken on a partnership basis so as to widen the streams of financial support for the theatre and not let it rely on funding from one source—the district council. Furthermore, there was a strong recognition that, in this day and age, different agencies with different backgrounds, perspectives and attitudes can bring more to the table by working collaboratively than by working alone.
  While Harlow council continues to provide major financial support to the theatre, support also comes from neighbouring district councils and from parish and town councils. In addition, a very successful public-private partnership operates the playhouse restaurant and catering facilities and there are other private sponsors. In many ways, the playhouse is a model of the way theatres should be funded and managed today, but there is one glaring omission from the funding bodies that might reasonably be expected to support such a theatre: Arts Council of England funding through the Eastern arts board. As I have said before, that area is in need of fundamental reform.
  The basic problem, among many others, is that theatre funding in the eastern region is based not on merit but simply on the pattern of historic funding. That is certainly the case with Arts Council funding through the Eastern arts board. The board provides considerable financial support to several theatres: the Wolsey theatre in Ipswich receives more than £322,000 per annum; the Mercury in Colchester receives £230,000 per annum; and the Palace in Watford receives £204,000 per annum. I am sure that
  984
  all three are very good at providing productions for their local communities. I have nothing against them and do not wish to criticise them, but, because of the weighting of funding from the Eastern arts board towards them—they take about 66 per cent. of the funding—other theatres in the region receive meagre grants or nothing whatsoever, as is the case with Harlow playhouse.
  My other concern is that the three top theatres to which I have referred received exactly the same money in 1996–97 as they did in both 1994–94 and 1995–96; there is not even an attempt to iron out the problem over a period. Essentially, my key criticism is that the Eastern arts board is carrying those three substantial theatres, to the detriment of everyone else.
  The problem with such an unequal funding system was identified by the new chairman of the Arts Council, Gerry Robinson, in an article in The Guardian today. He argues:
  "The past approach of equal misery for everyone is cowardly and fails to reward success. If all we are to do is dole out the same share of the pot to the same institutions year after year (and it is close to that) we should be replaced by a computer at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport."
  I would not go that far—certainly not at this stage.
  I hope that the Arts Council can learn some lessons, although the track record of the Eastern arts board is not particularly encouraging. I say that because when I raised this issue at Question Time a couple of weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Minister for Arts replied:
  "the record of the Arts Council and regional arts boards in backing new companies and developments is less than inspiring—their priority has tended to be the defence and preservation of existing companies."—[Official Report, 1 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 2.]
  I think that my hon. Friend was right.
  The response of the Eastern arts board, however, was not to listen to that view and not to take that criticism on board. Instead, it claimed through its public relations office that I had misrepresented the Minister and that he was not criticising the board. If my hon. Friend had said, "their record is less than inspiring but I specifically exclude the Eastern arts board from those criticisms," I could have understood the justification and the defence that the board tried to make, but he did not say that.
  I would be grateful if, this evening, my hon. Friend would reaffirm his view that
  "the record of…regional arts boards in backing new companies and developments is less than inspiring",
  that that general criticism applies and that it does not exclude the Eastern arts board.
  There are two other criticisms that I would make of Eastern arts board funding. The first concerns the length of time the review it has at long last initiated is taking. It initiated the review in September 1997, but not until 1998 did it agree a timetable. The initial results are not likely to emerge until nearly Christmas. I welcome the fact that a review is taking place, but I feel that there is a need for a greater sense of urgency and that all the theatres in the region should be actively involved in it.
  My second criticism concerns Eastern arts board members' apparent direct interest in the decisions they make. Let me be clear that I am not talking about a personal financial interest. I ask the House to reflect on the fact that five Eastern arts board members are members of arts bodies that are in receipt of substantial funding.

  985
  There has been concern about that nationally, certainly in the Arts Council. Gerry Robinson said that the problem with the old structure is that people were looking after their own interests. He said that it was
  "nearly impossible for them not to be influenced by that."
  That is a criticism which could have been made of the national situation as well as of regional arts boards structures. As we go forward, that factor needs to be taken into account.
  Theatre is essential in broadening horizons, increasing educational opportunity, giving entertainment and, in a sense, civilising society. In Harlow, we have a vibrant and successful theatre doing exactly that and in a way that deserves support, but it is being poorly served by the Eastern arts board. I hope and believe that it will take on board the criticism that I am making and restructure its finances over time to give the playhouse in Harlow the support that it and the people whom it serves deserve.
  11.34 pm
  The Minister for Arts (Mr. Mark Fisher): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) on securing tonight's Adjournment debate and offer him my sincere apologies for missing the beginning of his remarks.
  My hon. Friend has expressed his concern about Harlow playhouse with great clarity and passion and, in doing so, he raises important issues about regional theatre that are common to towns and cities throughout Britain. Those issues concern the current state of regional theatres, their funding and their audiences, and how drama is organised in the regions and on what basis. Those are important matters, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving the Government the opportunity to debate them, because they concern anybody who is interested in and a supporter of drama in Britain.
  My hon. Friend understandably began by praising Harlow playhouse, which is well regarded and which contributes to the life not just of Harlow but of the surrounding area, which provides a surprisingly high 75 per cent. of its audiences. My hon. Friend will recall that I visited the playhouse during the previous Parliament and was impressed by what I saw.
  Although the playhouse is primarily a receiving house, providing a venue for touring productions, it produces every year what is, as my hon. Friend said, the largest community pantomime in the country, involving scores of local amateurs. The playhouse also has an active youth programme and links with schools and colleges locally. Its production this year of Timberlake Wertenbaker's "Our Country's Good", which is a superb play and on A-level English and theatre studies syllabuses, will play not only in Harlow but throughout Essex. Therefore, it is clear that what my hon. Friend said about the playhouse truly contributing not just to the cultural life but to the educational and community life of the area is correct.
  In the light of such a record, my hon. Friend is understandably frustrated that the playhouse is not supported financially by the Eastern arts board, although it receives £150,000 a year from the local council, to which it adds more than £200,000 in ticket sales and hirings, with the remainder of its £400,000 turnover coming from catering, advertising and sponsorship.
  986
  The question that my hon. Friend raises is whether the Eastern arts board should do more for Harlow playhouse. The board is responsible for providing good-quality drama for the 5.87 million people in its region, spread over some important towns throughout the six counties there. The board spends £1.22 million on drama out of its £4.67 million grant from the Arts Council of England—that is, it spends approximately 25 per cent. of its total grant on drama, almost all of which is spent, as my hon. Friend rightly said, on four producing houses: the Mercury theatre, Colchester; the Palace theatre, Watford; the Palace theatre, Westcliff; and the Wolsey theatre, Ipswich. That leaves excellent receiving houses in Cambridge, Bury St. Edmunds, Norwich and other towns, including Harlow, without substantial support.
  However, my hon. Friend will accept that those receiving houses benefit from the £2.84 million that the Eastern arts board receives from the Arts Council of England for touring and other activities, such as festivals, and some of them, such as the Cambridge arts theatre, have benefited substantially from the £8.5 million lottery money that has gone to theatres in the region. This is not only a matter of the core grants from the Eastern arts board.
  My hon. Friend will realise that the Eastern arts board, like other regional arts boards, faces difficult choices in trying to provide, with just over £1 million, good-quality theatre to all the communities in the eastern area. That produces choices about how best to respond to the theatre needs and the talents of the region. To take a fresh look at precisely those difficulties, the Eastern arts board is undertaking a detailed review of its funding, and considering its funding patterns and the needs of arts organisations such as the playhouse in its region.
  My hon. Friend asked whether the six to eight months that the review has lasted is too long, although he will agree that it is important that detailed consultation with organisations such as the playhouse should be thorough. I understand that new policies arising from the review will be published later this summer, which is somewhat earlier than he expected. I welcome that, and welcome the whole process. I agree with him that, for too long, funding throughout the arts funding system has been allowed to stagnate: historic commitments are silting up available funds, and good-quality projects and new initiatives are not receiving the support that they need and deserve.
  That is a matter of urgent concern to the new Arts Council of England and to its chairman, Mr. Gerry Robinson. In respect of the eastern region, I am delighted that Lou Stein, the chief executive of the Eastern arts board, and Professor Stuart Timperley, the chair of the board, have anticipated the radical review that the Arts Council of England will undertake nationally. I am glad that my hon. Friend paid tribute to Mr. Robinson's article and trenchant remarks in The Guardian Mr. Robinson is right, and the Government's confidence in appointing him is justified, because he will take a fresh look at the system. I obviously cannot anticipate the outcome of the review, but, knowing Mr. Robinson, who will work at national level, and knowing Mr. Stein and the Eastern arts board in my hon. Friend's region, I am sure that the local review will be radical, imaginative and thorough.

  987
  My hon. Friend raised the important and interesting question whether it is appropriate for people serving on regional arts boards to be associated with organisations or companies that receive grants. Those who appoint the boards—the Government and the Arts Council of England—face a genuine problem: should they put on those boards people who are involved with the arts and have a genuine engagement with and understanding of them, although that would run the risk that some grants may touch on their concerns, or people who are not involved in the system, which would ensure that all grants were seen to be totally objective?
  I believe that having on the Arts Council of England and regional arts boards people who really know and care about the performing and visual arts, nationally or in their region, is erring in the right direction. My hon. Friend will have noticed that the Secretary of State has, in creating the new Arts Council of England, deliberately put on it known and respected practising artists such as Mr. Antony Gormley, Mr. Anish Kapoor, Miss Deborah Bull and others, to ensure that it returns to what it was in the 1950s and 1960s—an organisation based on living practice and the respect of fellow practitioners. My hon. Friend will understand that that runs risks, but I think that it is the right way to consider the issue.
  988
  My hon. Friend has done a service to all those who care about regional theatre by raising these important issues and putting a regional spotlight on the difficult choices that the system faces now and will face in the future. To address those choices, the Government have reconstructed the Arts Council of England and, with Mr. Robinson, given it a new direction. I believe that that will play out through the regions and produce exciting and interesting results.
  I reassure my hon. Friend that the Government are determined that regional theatre should face a better future. As he says, regional theatre is absolutely central to the cultural life of communities such as his. It provides a core of creative energy in the middle of communities, which must be preserved and strengthened. It is to that end that the Government are directing all their energies and imagination.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me, and I wish Harlow playhouse well. Whatever the result of the review, I am sure that the good work that the playhouse does will continue. Let us hope that we get a better future for regional theatre.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Twelve midnight

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Government Policies
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the projects undertaken by her Department since 1 May 1997 to research public reaction to(a) Government policies and (b) potential new policies; and if she will place the results of the research in the Library. [46678]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 30 June 1998]: In line with the practice of successive Administrations, the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments routinely consult the public, interested parties and client groups, by way of consultation papers, discussion papers, and White Papers on a wide range of policies and proposed legislation. I have therefore confined my reply to other major exercises.

  9 March–18 May 1998

  Research to assess public attitude and reaction to a range of issues covering personal confidence in the future; attitudes to paramilitary violence; and the Belfast Agreement. The results are available on request to political parties.

  Integrated Schools
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the(a) numbers and (b) percentage of the total, of those studying in integrated schools in the (i) nursery, (ii) infant, (iii) junior, (iv) secondary, (v) further education, (vi) higher education and (vii) teacher training sectors of education in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement. [48298]

  Mr. Worthington
  In the schools sector, only primary and secondary schools have integrated status. There are 3,846 pupils at integrated primary schools, which represents 2.1% of total primary enrolments and 4,308 pupils at integrated secondary schools which represents 2.8% of total post-primary enrolments.

  The religious composition of students at further education college and universities is mixed. There are 85,669 enrolments at further education colleges and 39,178 enrolments at universities in Northern Ireland.

  There are 1,530 enrolments on initial teacher training courses in Northern Ireland. Of these, 25.4% are at universities where the religious composition is mixed. The remaining 74.6% are at: St. Mary's College, where the religious composition of enrolments is predominantly Roman Catholic, and Stranmillis College, where the religious composition of enrolments is predominantly Protestant.

  Belfast Harbour
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the value of the contract for the development of Belfast Harbour Exchange Retail and Leisure Park. [47894]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 3 July 1998]: I understand from the Belfast Harbour Commission that the value of the development agreement between the Commissioners and the developer of the D5 site, is represented by future rental income for the land resulting from the granting of leases to future occupiers of the development when completed. As these leases have still to be finally negotiated, it is not possible to put a specific value on the rental flow.

  The £65 million estimate mentioned in recent press reports is the value which the commercial property market might place on the development when completed and fully let, and does not reflect the cost of constructing the development, which is the responsibility of the developer.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which company has been awarded the contract for the development of the Belfast Harbour Exchange Retail and Leisure Park. [47895]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 3 July 1998]: I am advised by the Belfast Harbour Commissioners that they have appointed the joint venture group of Aquis Estates Limited and Anglia General Developments (Harbour Exchange) Limited as the preferred developer of the D5 site, known as Belfast Harbour Exchange.

  Fair Treatment Analyses
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to make policy appraisal and fair treatment analyses available to those who contribute to, or are affected by, them. [48357]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: Appraisals carried out under the terms of the 1993 Policy Appraisal for Fair Treatment (PAFT) guidelines are not published. The implementation of PAFT is reported on in annual reports, which are available from the Central Community Relations Unit free of charge. A report for 1997 is in preparation. The White Paper 'Partnership for Equality', contains proposals for a statutory obligation on the public sector to promote equality of opportunity which would include a requirement for equality appraisals of policies, superseding the PAFT initiative.

  Injuries Compensation (Lisnevin)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many boys have been compensated for injuries received in Lisnevin which were inflicted by(a) staff and (b) other children since 1991. [48351]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: Two boys were compensated for injuries allegedly inflicted by staff in Lisnevin during the eight-year period. One incident occurred in 1995 and the other in 1996.

  Training Schools
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list all Social Services Inspectorate reports on training schools since 1991. [48353]
  423
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: The Social Services Inspectorate have carried out part or full inspections of the four Training Schools as set out in the table.

  Year

  Training schools

  1991

  None

  1992

  All training schools

  1993

  Rathgael and St. Patrick's

  1994

  St. Joseph and Lisnevin

  1995

  None

  1996

  All training schools

  1997

  Rathgael, St. Patrick's and Lisnevin

  1998

  St. Joseph's

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the maximum capacity of each training school in relation to(a) boys and (b) girls in (i) 1993, (ii) 1994, (iii) 1995, (iv) 1996, (v) 1997 and (vi) 1998. [48354]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: The table indicates the capacity in each of the Training Schools for offenders over the period 1993 to 1998. Rathgael is the only school which accommodates boys and girls and there are no limits imposed on the maximum number of either sex within the capacity of the Centre.

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Rathgael (Boys and Girls)

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  St Patrick's (Boys)

  54

  54

  19

  19

  19

  19

  St Joseph's (Girls)

  5

  5

  5

  5

  4

  4

  Lisnevin (Boys)

  56

  56

  40

  40

  40

  40

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date Rathgael Training School ceased to be classified for use by non-Roman Catholics; and what the reasons were for the change. [48350]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: At no time has Rathgael Training School been classified for use by non-Roman Catholics only. The Rathgael and Whiteabbey Management Board have always run the Centre on a non-denominational basis.

  Ombudsman
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to extend the remit of the Northern Ireland Ombudsman to include the operation of the Northern Ireland Office (Criminal Justice Services) and related agencies. [48352]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 3 July 1998]: The Northern Ireland Office and its agencies come within the remit of the GB Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. There are no plans to extend the remit of the Northern Ireland Ombudsman.

  Forensic Science Agency
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what key targets were set for the Forensic Science Agency of Northern Ireland in 1997–98; what further plans have been prepared by the Agency; and what arrangements have been made for the publication of this year's plans. [49637]
  424
  Mr. Ingram
  The following key targets were set for the Forensic Science Agency of Northern Ireland in 1997–98.
  Service Provision
  1. To have satisfied the Royal Ulster Constabulary that their essential needs for forensic science services are being met, through appropriate measurement by survey.Financial Performance
  2. To recover the full economic costs of the Agency.
  3. To have service level agreements in place by 1 April 1998 with the Agency's main customers which quantify the volume of service expected, the quality of the service and the estimate of cost.Quality of Service
  4. To turnaround 97 per cent. of alcohol analyses within 30 days of the job request and all within 40 days throughout the year.
  5. Based on a maximum intake of 4,250 other cases, to turnaround an average for the year of 42 per cent. within 30 days of the job request and 90 per cent. within 120 days. The target will be modified depending on the intake as shown in the Business Plan.
  6. Based on an annual intake of 240 cases in which people are remanded in custody, to produce 90 per cent. of reports within 90 days of first remand (or of notification if that happens to be more than 10 days after first remand). The target will be modified depending on the intake as shown in the Business Plan.
  7. To have reduced the number of cases older than 120 days to 75 at 31 March 1998.Quality of Science
  8. To have retained accreditation for the named scientific processes whose continued accreditation is justified by the business needs of the Agency.
  9. To have made formal application for the accreditation of the named scientific processes by 31 March 1998.
  10. To receive accreditation for the named scientific processes.Human Resources
  11. By 31 March 1998, the competencies of appropriate staff to carry out the named processes will have been assessed against competence frameworks.Efficiency
  12. To secure efficiency savings of £40k.
  13. To have an accurate unit cost for the Agency calculated for the year ending 31 March 1998.
  Achievement against these key targets will be recorded in the Agency's Annual Report for 1997–98 which will be published as soon as possible.
  The Agency has published a summary of its Corporate Plan 1998–2001 and Annual Business Plan 1998–99 which explains its business and organisation, describes its key targets for 1998–98, and sets out the assumptions about workloads and resources which support its planned activities. Copies of the summary plans have been placed in the Library of the Houses. Copies will be available to the public from the Agency.

  Prison Service
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Northern Ireland Prison Service intends to publish its 1998–2001 Corporate and Business Plan; and what performance targets have been set for 1998–99. [49638]
  425
  Mr. Ingram
  The Northern Ireland Prison Service's Corporate and Business Plan for 1998–2001 was published today. The following key performance targets have been set for 1998–99:

  1. To ensure 100 per cent. security for prisoners in high and top risk categories.

  2. To ensure at least 99.5 per cent. security for prisoners in medium and low risk categories.

  3. To ensure that the number of significant breaches during 1998–99 does not exceed 7.1 per 100 prisoners.

  4. To increase the target number of hours of constructive activity undertaken each week by prisoners by 3 per cent. from 23 hours to 23.7 hours.

  5. To establish baseline information for each establishment on the number and duration of, and potential improvements to, visits.

  6. To offer sentence planning to all eligible prisoners and to achieve a 50 per cent. uptake.

  7. To achieve an average of 5 days training and development per member of staff.

  8. To ensure that the average cost per prisoner place does not exceed £75,7661 (a reduction in real terms of 3.9 per cent. on the target for 1997–98).

  1The average cost per prisoner place is based on a staffed prisoner places figure of 1776. Due to the completion of two new house blocks at Maghaberry and events elsewhere in the prison estate, this figure may change during the year.

  Assembly (Verbatim Record)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what will be the estimated cost of the published verbatim record of proceedings of the Northern Ireland Assembly. [49462]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The cost will depend, in part, on the number of plenary meetings during the year—a matter not yet discussed by the Assembly. As an indication of cost, one meeting each week for 40 weeks in a full year is estimated to cost in the region of £800,000 per annum.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will ensure that a verbatim record of proceedings of the Northern Ireland Assembly will be available(a) in the Vote Office and (b) on the Internet. [49461]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  An official report of debate on the Northern Ireland Assembly will be available in the Vote Office. Whether it will be on the Internet is a matter which the Assembly might wish to decide.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent on dealing with problems of rough sleepers in each of the past five years; and what estimates he has made of the total numbers sleeping rough for each of those years. [49184]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive whose Chief Executive has advised me that research has failed to find evidence of a rough sleeping problem in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, the Executive is to be represented on a steering group which will provide a "street outreach service" in Belfast, which should assist with early identification of problems and inform decisions on whether any further research may be necessary.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Over-lenient Sentences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Attorney-General in how many cases in 1997 appeals against over-lenient sentences resulted in an increase in sentence. [48325]

  The Attorney-General
  In 1997, the Law Officers referred the sentences imposed on 70 offenders to the Court of Appeal for their sentences to be reviewed under the provisions of section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Of the References that have been heard, sentences have been increased in respect of 43 offenders. One References was withdrawn. Three References are yet to be heard.

PRIME MINISTER

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the work of the Social Exclusion Unit on rough sleepers. [49465]

  The Prime Minister
  I am today publishing the Government's conclusions on the second report of the Social Exclusion Unit on rough sleeping. The report sets out a new strategy to cut the numbers of people sleeping rough by two thirds within three years.

  A new Ministerial Committee, led by the Minister for Local Government and Housing, will be responsible for co-ordinating the policy across Government.

  The Committee will lead a programme of prevention to ensure that the most vulnerable, often from institutional backgrounds, are better equipped to live on their own.

  In London, where the problem is most acute, the Government will consult on setting up a new body to take over all the different programmes currently targeted on rough sleepers. Outside London, local authorities will be helped to coordinate activity better.

  The rules of the New Deal will be changed to mean rough sleepers can qualify for the intensive help available under the scheme from the moment they sign on for benefit. This is a tremendous opportunity to break the "no home, no job" cycle. Finally, there will be a programme to challenge the business and voluntary sectors and the worlds of art and sports to make their own commitment to help rough sleepers. The Government will support a rough sleeper mentoring initiative if a suitable proposal is made.

  Copies of the report are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Hunting
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to bring forward legislation to give local authorities the power to license or not license hunting with hounds. [47641]
  427
  Mr. George Howarth
  Several approaches to the question of hunting with hounds are being discussed, including the option of local referendums.

  Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total amount of charges (i) imposed, (ii) collected and (iii) waived since 1987 under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987; and what is the total amount of charges outstanding. [49169]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Charges totalling £117.3 million had been levied to 31 May 1998. Of this sum, £78.3 million had been paid, and £28.7 million waived following representations from carriers. £10.3 million remained outstanding.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how staff numbers in his Department have varied between 1 May 1997 and 31 March 1998. [48872]

  Mr. Straw
  Figures covering the period 1 April 1997 to 1 January 1998 (available in the Library1, and on the Internet2) are summarised in the table. It is not possible to provide information retrospectively for the specific dates requested except at disproportionate cost.

  Area

  FTE3 staff numbers at 1 April 1997

  FTE staff numbers at 1 January 1998

  Home Office Main (excluding Agencies)

  9,358

  9,195

  Fire Service College

  215

  261

  Forensic Science Service

  1,185

  1,208

  UK Passport Agency

  1,407

  1,220

  Home Office Main (including Agencies)

  12,165

  11,884

  Her Majesty's Prison Service

  37,704

  38,779

  Total Home Office including Agencies and Prison Service

  49,869

  50,663

  1 Civil Service staff in post summary at 1 April 1997

  2www.open.gov.uk/co/cseg/pmcsd/stats/apr97int.htm

  3 Full Time Equivalents: in FTE part-time staff are counted as a proportion of full-time hours worked

  Ministers (Threats)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Ministers are personally informed of the details of threats made against them. [49134]

  Mr. Straw
  Ministers are personally briefed if there is a significant threat to their personal security.

  Mr. Roderick Henderson
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will offer the assistance of Scotland Yard to the French police in their investigation the death of Mr. Roderick Henderson in Paris. [48864]

  Mr. Michael
  The investigation into the death of Roderick Henderson is a matter for the authorities in France, where he died. The police in England and Wales do not offer their services to investigating authorities overseas but will respond positively to requests for 428
  assistance; the French authorities have not requested the presence of a British police officer in France to assist with this investigation.

  Mr. Henderson was attacked on the Champs Elysees in Paris by a gang of rollerbladers during the early hours of Sunday 27 October 1997. He was kicked in the head by a rollerblade and died on 28 October from his injuries. He was with his son-in-law at the time. His wife and daughter had returned to their hotel by taxi.

  French police have confirmed that the case is being treated as a murder investigation. An Examining Magistrate, M. Deparis, has been placed in charge of the investigation. Consular officials do not have access to the Magistrate's confidential file on the investigation. However, Mrs. Henderson's lawyers do have access to this file.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, through consular staff in Paris, are in regular communication with the Examining Magistrate and the French Police regarding the investigation. Our Consul met the Examining Magistrate on 29 April to underline the importance that is attached to the case and our Deputy Head of Mission raised the matter with the French Diplomatic Adviser to M. Chevenement, the French Interior Minister.

  The French authorities have confirmed that police officers are assigned full-time to the investigation. They appear to have made little progress and have few leads to follow.

  The Coroner for North Kent has opened an inquest and, through the consulate, has requested copies of reports relating to Mr. Henderson's death. Kent Constabulary are in liaison with the family and are assisting the Coroner with his inquiries. The National Central Bureau of Interpol are liaising with the French Police as are the European Liaison Unit of Kent Constabulary.

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many explanatory statements have been(a) received and (b) dispatched to the Independent Appellate Authority for listing of appeals from the date on which his Department assumed responsibility for the dispatch of explanatory statements following refusal of applications by entry clearance offices in British missions overseas; and if he will make a statement. [48742]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Since 1 December 1997, 3,625 explanatory statements have been received and 3,194 dispatched. These include approximately 900 explanatory statements processed under the previous arrangements but received after 1 December 1997. I regret that the necessity of dealing with this backlog, together with other administrative problems, which have now been addressed, initially caused delays in dispatch.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letters dated 12 March, 16 April and 21 May sent to him by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Abdul Wahort, 208 Park Bank Lane. [48146]

  Mr. Straw
  I sent a reply to my right hon. Friend yesterday. I regret the delay in responding.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Royal Collection
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the inventory of works of art in the Royal Collection was completed; and if he will make a statement. [48501]

  Mr. Fisher
  I understand from the Royal Household, which is responsible for the Royal Collection Department, that the computerised inventory of the Royal Collection was completed in December 1997. Further development work on the use of the inventory, especially to enhance electronic public access to the Royal Collection, will take place over the next five years.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many Grade I and Grade II listed buildings have been destroyed since 1992. [48600]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him on 7 February 1996, Official Report, column 284, which gives the figures for the financial years 1993–94 and 1994–95, and the answer given to him on 14 May 1996, Official Report, column 438, which gives the figures for 1992–93. The figures for the last three years are:

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Grade I

  2

  1

  0

  Grade II*

  0

  5

  2

  Grade II

  49

  55

  56

  The figures represent cases where local planning authorities notify the Department that they intend to grant consent for the total demolition of a listed building, consents which the Department issues and other total demolitions which are brought to the Department's attention. Since the House of Lords judgment in the case of Shimizu (UK) Limited v. Westminster City Council, the demolition of a curtilage building is likely to amount only to an alteration and hence is no longer included in the demolition statistics form 1997–98.

TREASURY

  Mortgage Companies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new action the Government are planning in respect of mortgage companies which specialise in attracting clients with poor credit ratings. [49181]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In response to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin), I announced on 7 April 1998,Official Report, column 151, that the proposed legislation to establish the Financial Services Authority as a single regulator will include reserve powers which could enable it to regulate mortgages. The Treasury is monitoring the operation of the mortgage code introduced by the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) to see whether it is capable of protecting all mortgage
  430
  borrowers—not just those with poor credit ratings—to the standard that the Government are determined to see achieved.

  Royal Mint
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if a prior options review will be undertaken at the Royal Mint. [49423]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government will be reviewing all the options for a public/private partnership for the Royal Mint, including full and partial sale and other forms of private-sector involvement, to enable it to take advantage of new commercial opportunities.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 29 June 1998,Official Report, column 28, on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link guarantee, what risk assessment the Government applied to the project; and what were their conclusions. [48691]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 3 July 1998]: The Government commissioned external consultants' assessments of the commercial and construction risks. The assessments concluded that, under the deal announced on 3 June 1998, the various private sector parties are taking a substantial level of risk. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister set out the conclusions regarding Government support of the project in his statement to the House of 3 June 1998, Official Report, columns 367–70.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 29 June 1998,Official Report, column 28, on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, if he will place a copy of (a) the assessment and (b) the review of that assessment prepared by external consultants, in the Library. [48690]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 3 July 1998]: No. The model of London and Continental Railways' future finances, which was reviewed by external consultants, is commercially confidential.

  Education Spending
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much capital spending on education increased(a) on average over the period 1978–79 to 1997–98 and (b) in 1998–99. [46432]

  Mr. Darling
  Table 3.7 of Public Expenditure: Statistical Analyses 1998–99 (Cm 3901) shows figures for central Government and local authority capital spending on education for 1992–93 to 1997–98. An equivalent figure for total capital spending on education in 1998–99 has not yet been published. Data on a comparable basis are not readily available back to 1978–79, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. National Accounts data for general government capital expenditure on education, which use a slightly different definition and are presented on a calender year basis, show an average fall in real terms of around 0.2 per cent. per annum over the period 1978 to 1996. A figure consistent with this series for 1997 is not yet available.

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he takes to ensure that payments made from European structural funds towards projects in Wales and Scotland are additional to the expenditure blocks defined by the Barnett formula; and if he will make a statement. [48818]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Article 9 of Structural Funds Regulation No 2082/93 stipulates that Structural Funds allocations may not replace structural or comparable expenditure undertaken by the Member State. This additionality requirement applies to each of the Structural Fund Objectives in the whole of the territory eligible under that Objective. So, for example, the UK must demonstrate each year that it has complied with the additionality requirement for Objective 2, taking the expenditure in all eligible regions of Scotland, Wales and England into account.

  Forecasting Staff
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the staff numbers involved in forecasting in his Department; and what is the estimated cost of forecasting to his Department in the current financial year. [48996]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Around 8 members of staff in the Treasury work mainly in preparing forecasts of the economy and the public finances. Their full costs, including pay, employers' contributions, superannuation, and share of accommodation and other common services will range from about £44,000 to £73,000 per head in the current financial year depending on grade.

  These individuals are engaged mainly, but not exclusively, in forecasting activities. Similarly, other members of staff contribute to the Treasury forecasts but are engaged mainly with other duties. KPMG Management Consulting's Final Report "Market Testing the Treasury's Macro-Economic Forecasting Function" (May 1997) gave a breakdown of resources devoted to forecasts and other forecast-related activities on a full-time equivalents basis (Table 1, page 15).

  That report concluded that the quality of Treasury forecast output is generally perceived to be high, and that the potential for net quality improvements or net resource savings was not sufficient to justify a market test. A copy of the Report is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contingency plans his Department is making in the event of the failure of computer systems to recognise the year 2000; when he expects them to be in place, and tested; and if he will make a statement. [48841]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Treasury is currently working on a wider review of the business continuity plans for the Department as a whole. We shall build on the results of this review to ensure that Treasury's plan deals adequately with year 2000 issues. We aim to have this completed by the end of 1998.

  NUTS 2
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy not to support a reduction in the size of the EU structural funds for the period 2000 to 2006 in a manner which will lessen the chances of those NUTS 2 areas which, on current criteria, would qualify for Objective I status, from so qualifying. [48899]

  Mrs Liddell:
  The Government believe that it is in the interests of the United Kingdom, as a substantial net contributor to the EC budget, to resist any large increase in the size of the Structural and Cohesion Funds, particularly in the light of the forthcoming enlargement of the EU to Central and Eastern Europe. This view is shared by all the major net contributors to the EC budget.

  At the same time, the Government are actively seeking a fair deal for the United Kingdom and its constituent countries and regions. The Government recognise that, in order to ensure that enlargement is affordable, all the current Member States must be prepared to accept reductions in their Structural Fund receipts. But those reductions must be shared equitably: the Government would strongly resist any proposals which hit the United Kingdom disproportionately hard, particularly in comparison with richer Member States.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 29 June 1998,Official Report, column 24, if he will make a statement on those areas contained in the new NUTS 2 areas for Wales. [48822]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The statistical justification for the new NUTS 2 areas for Wales was provided in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms) of 29 June 1998,Official Report, column 24.

  Personal Pensions
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he has taken to encourage independent financial advisers to complete their reviews of personal pensions. [49559]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Today, I have met senior representatives from large firms of independent financial advisers (IFAs), and the IFA networks to emphasise the priority the Government attach to early action to put right past mis-selling and to ask them to take personal responsibility for their firms' actions. Together, the 30 firms invited account for over half the IFA market.

  Last year, I called in senior representatives from over 40 large firms, mostly life insurance companies, to give them the same message. I have been reporting to this House on their progress, most recently on 17 June 1998, Official Report, columns 208–10.

  At last, most of those firms have now made big strides—both in terms of their actual progress with the review and in their attitude towards the review.

  The picture in the IFA sector is strikingly different. Little progress has been made by many IFAs, and all too many firms still seem to have the attitude that their inaction is defensible. I have been particularly troubled to see how many IFAs, when faced with the second phase of the mis-selling review, have chosen to blame everyone except themselves for the problem. The truth is people have lost out as a result of having been sold products that

  433
  were wrong for them. IFAs have a clear responsibility to sort out whether any of their customers deserve redress as a result and to make redress where that is warranted.

  Yesterday, the Personal Investment Authority announced disciplinary action taken against 41 IFAs for failings connected with the pensions review. This makes absolutely clear to all IFAs that discipline is a real prospect if they fail to deal with their cases. IFAs' reviews must be tackled with professional diligence and businesslike rigour.

  IFAs rightly make much of their independence, their ability to provide impartial advice as agent of the customer, to offer a full financial planning service, and deliver ongoing customer care. The reality as displayed by many firms' conduct in the pensions review is that, all too often, the customer is neglected. Failure to take reasonable steps to identify cases, failure to conduct reviews properly, inadequate resourcing, and ultimately failure to resolve and redress cases. All these failings are failures of customer care. In the long term, if the IFA sector fails to put its house in order, and genuinely command the trust of customers, it will call into question not only the viability, but possibly the desirability, of the current industry structure.

  In my opinion, people should think long and hard before using an IFA. Some have clearly set their faces against doing a proper job of finding and putting right past mis-selling, and hopelessly poor progress has been made by others. My recommendation to anyone thinking of taking advice is to check out the IFA thoroughly. Check their attitude to the consumer protection that regulation provides, and to putting right past problems—including their progress with the pension review. Ask if they have ever been fined or disciplined by the regulators.

  Hospital Repairs
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) of 29 June 1998,Official Report, column 29, if he will publish the classification rules for the national accounts. [48792]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 30 June 1998]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Nick Gibb, dated July 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on the classification rules of the national accounts.
  The methodology underlying the national accounts is, like all methodology underlying ONS outputs, made available to users. In this case the current rules on the treatment of hospital repairs are in Chapter 12 of United Kingdom National Accounts Sources and Methods published by HMSO in 1985. Methodological Notes in subsequent annual editions of United Kingdom National Accounts—The Blue Book have updated some sections of Sources and Methods. Copies of both publications are available in the House of Commons Library.
  Paragraph 10 of chapter 12 of Sources and Methods says: "Expenditure on current repairs and maintenance make good breakages in fixed assets and keep them in proper working order, while outlays on capital repair and alteration lengthen the productivity of the goods significantly. The capital outlays should consist of significant alterations and additions to, or replacements
  434
  in, the parts of fixed assets. In order to be classified as fixed capital formation, the newly incorporated parts should have an expected lifetime of use of one year or more and involve substantial outlays and should also lengthen the expected lifetime of the use of the fixed assets, or alter the character or volume of services which they yield".
  The ONS will be publishing a new version of Sources and Methods in the Autumn consistent with the 1995 version of the European System of Accounts. There is no change to the rules concerning the classification of hospital repairs.

  Abortions
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of abortions were funded by the National Health Service for residents of each constituency in(a) 1996 and (b) 1997. [48925]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 3 July 1998]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Fiona MacTaggart, dated July 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on abortions.
  Abortion statistics are not available by parliamentary constituency. ONS produce abortions statistics by regional office and health authority.

  Causes of Death
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times(a) heroin, (b) ecstasy, (c) cocaine, (d) LSD, (e) cannabis, (f) amphetamines, (g) temazepam, (h) paracetamol, (i) alcohol, (j) solvents, (k) co-proxamol, (l) methadone and (m) tobacco have appeared on death certificates in each year between 1992 and 1996. [48070]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 30 June 1998]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated July 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on deaths.
  Data for 1992 may be obtained from Table 10 of Mortality Statistics: Injury and Poisoning 1992, Series DH4 no.18, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library. The attached table lists all substances mentioned in the records of deaths assigned to accidental and other poisoning by solid or liquid substances. 1992 data on cases of drug dependence or non-dependent abuse of drugs would only be available at disproportionate cost.
  Often a number of drugs (including alcohol) are listed on the death certificate. If, for example, both heroin and cannabis are mentioned on a death certificate, the death will occur twice in the table, once under 'Heroin' and once under 'Cannabis'.

  Deaths in England and Wales 1993–1996

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Heroin

  55

  90

  129

  187

  Ecstasy

  13

  23

  10

  12

  Cocaine

  12

  21

  19

  15

  LSD

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Cannabis

  9

  12

  10

  4

  Amphetamines

  22

  20

  40

  29

  Temazepam

  179

  165

  140

  95

  Paracetamol1

  324

  278

  331

  288

  Alcohol

  3,240

  3,457

  4,018

  4,372

  435

  Deaths in England and Wales 1993–1996

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Solvents2

  57

  49

  57

  n/a

  Co-proxamol

  133

  176

  174

  177

  Methadone

  221

  259

  299

  357

  Tobacco

  58

  47

  48

  29

  1 Figures are for mentions of the word 'paracetamol' only and not any of the associated compounds, although co-proxamol has been given separately as requested

  2 Data supplied by St. George's Hospital Medical School and include those deaths involving all volatile substances. Figures for 1996 will appear shortly in their report 'Trends in Deaths Associated with Abuse of Volatile Substances 1971–1996. Report 11'

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how many people in (i) the constituency of Worthing, West, (ii) the borough of Worthing, (iii) the district of Arun, (iv) West Sussex, (v) England, (vi) Wales, (vii) Scotland, (viii) Northern Ireland and (ix) the United Kingdom earn less than the proposed national minimum wage, broken down by(a) gender, (b) age and (c) full or part-time employment. [48687]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Peter Bottomley, dated 7 July 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on earnings.
  The national minimum wage (NMW) will become effective in April 1999 and has been set at £3.60 for those aged over 21. A development rate of £300 per hour will apply for workers aged 18 to 21. The proposals also include a provision for a rate of £3.20 which will apply to those over 21 years receiving accredited training during the first six months of a new job with a new employer, but we are unable to provide data on this. Workers aged 16 and 17 and all those on formal apprenticeships will be exempt.
  The Low Pay Commission, in arriving at their recommendations, had to adjust 1999 pay rates to 1997 values. Their methodology produces £3.40 and £2.80 as the 1997 values of the government's preferred rates and I have provided supplementary data for these levels.
  The attached tables present adjusted New Earnings Survey (NES) and Labour Force Survey (LFS) data for the number of employees earning less than the proposed NMW rates. I will arrange for a copy of the tables to be placed in the House of Commons Library. These estimates are based on our preferred method for assessing the coverage of the proposed NMW. This method adjusts for the fact that the NES is based on a one percent sample of employees in the PAYE system and is therefore likely to under-represent relatively low paid staff, earning below the tax-threshold, and in particular those who work part-time.
  It is not possible to use this method for small areas and where necessary data solely from the NES have been provided.
  The extent of the bias in the NES data may be estimated for the South East by using the adjusted NES and LFS data. This suggests that the estimate of the overall proportion of employees aged over 21 years earning below £3.60 could understate the true position by as much as 3 percentage points. However, it is unlikely that the occurrence of lower paid jobs is uniform across the region, and so it would be wise to treat this figure as broadly indicative rather than a precise estimate.

  Registration Records
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to receive an options paper from the Registrar General about improved access to registration records; and if he will make a statement. [48814]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated 7 July 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on registration.
  No timetable has been set for the production of the options paper.
  The options paper will consider the use of information technology to improve the service to customers and to provide better data management. It will also consider the possibility of working with a wide variety of organisations outside the public sector.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Multinationals (OECD Guidelines)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what consultations her Department has had with the Department of Trade and Industry regarding the current review of the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises. [49158]

  Clare Short
  Officials in my Department are in regular contact with officials in the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), which has lead responsibility within the Government for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Most recently, officials from my Department worked with DTI officials to prepare for a meeting of the OECD Committee on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises on 26 June. At that meeting, the Committee agreed to proceed with a review of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. DFID is now working with the DTI to establish specific objectives for the review.

  Billiton
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to Billiton plc regarding the social and environmental implications of their proposed Eastern Cape Zinc Refinery Project, South Africa. [49427]

  Clare Short
  None. I have asked my officials to make inquiries about the project and I will write to the hon. Lady.

  Exchange Rates
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what mechanisms exist to alleviate the impact of fluctuating currency rates on overseas development aid. [48897]

  Clare Short
  For bilateral assistance, the Department for International Development's general policy is to provide agreed inputs, primarily goods and services, and make payment in sterling. Where payments are made in foreign currency, the Department, rather than developing
  437
  countries, bears the exchange rate risk within our overall financial resources. We do not pay in advance of need, thereby minimising the exchange rate risk.

  The Department also bears the exchange rate risk in making contributions to international organisations, including European Commission activities, where these are called in currencies other than sterling.

  EU Banana Regime
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the impact of the Agriculture Council's recent decision on the EU banana regime. [48866]

  Clare Short
  The Government welcome the agreement reached in the Agriculture Council on the revised arrangements for the EU banana regime. The UK fought hard for the interests of Caribbean banana producers and the Government believe that it was the best deal available taking into account both Lomé and WTO obligations. It will provide the Caribbean banana industry with continuing access to the EU market.

  The European Commission's proposals for additional aid to the Traditional ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) banana producers should help them to adjust to the new market conditions building on on-going efforts to improve their efficiency and quality. We hope that this can be agreed quickly.

  Although the unallocated Traditional ACP quantity does not guarantee Caribbean suppliers a particular share of the market, at 857,700 tonnes, it is significantly larger than current levels of imports from Traditional ACP suppliers. Furthermore, the Traditional ACP suppliers are working together to ensure that competition among them does not undermine the ability of the more vulnerable producers such as the Windward islands, to market their produce.

SCOTLAND

  Refuse Collection
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which councils in Scotland have adopted the use of wheeled bins for refuse collection. [48989]

  Mr. Macdonald
  This information is not held centrally.

  Eviction Actions
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many eviction actions have been taken by(a) local authorities and (b) housing associations in each of the last eight years for (i) anti-social behaviour and (ii) rent arrears. [48963]

  Mr. Macdonald
  This information is not held centrally.

  Housing Refusals
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many households were refused housing by local authorities last year for(a) previous housing
  438
  debt including rent arrears, (b) council tax arrears, (c) suspected anti-social behaviour and (d) previous eviction for anti-social behaviour. [48987]

  Mr. Macdonald
  This information is not held centrally.

  Home Insulation
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses he estimates will be insulated through the New Deal energy efficiency funds; and what will be the expected average change in energy rating. [48964]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Up to 30,000 homes may benefit in the current year. The exact number will depend on the number of New Deal trainees available for energy efficiency work and the type of improvements carried out. The most common package of measures is likely to include draughtproofing and loft, tank and pipe insulation. The improvement in energy ratings will vary between houses. A typical three-bedroom semi-detached house should see an increase in its Standard Assessment Procedure rating of 5 and in its National Home Energy Rating of 0.5 as a result of this package.

  Association of Chief Police Officers
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library copies of the annual accounts for each of the last five years of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland). [49220]

  Mr. McLeish
  The accounts of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland are contained in the Association's annual report. I have arranged for copies of the annual reports for 1993–94 to 1997–98 to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Local Government
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish guidance to councils on the rules governing the use of council finance to pay for public relations consultants or staff to publicise issues which do not relate clearly to the council's provision of services. [49318]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Councils are obliged by section 4 of the Local Government Act 1986 (as amended) to have regard to the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity which was published on 15 August 1988 as Scottish Development Department Circular 16/88. I have ensured that a copy is available in the Library of the House.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent to deal with problems of rough sleepers in each of the past five years; and what estimate he has made of the total numbers sleeping rough for each of those years. [49182]

  Mr. Macdonald
  In 1997–98, £2 million was spent on dealing with the problems of rough sleepers through the Rough Sleepers Initiative in Scotland and a further
  439
  £14 million will be spent in 1998–99 and 1999–00. There was no specific allocation of funds to help rough sleepers before 1997–98. There is no overall estimate of the numbers of rough sleepers in Scotland. One-night counts of rough sleepers, carried out by 17 local authorities between 1996 and 1998 identified 150 rough sleepers but this is unlikely to be a reliable guide to the overall size of the problem.

  National Museum of Scotland
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the membership of the Board of Trustees of the National Museum of Scotland, indicating who appoints them and to whom they are responsible. [49270]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Trustees are appointed by the Secretary of State. They are responsible for the care and exhibition of the collections, subject to the provisions of the National Heritage (Scotland) Act 1985. Reports on the exercise of their functions are submitted to the Secretary of State and laid before Parliament. The current membership o the Board of Trustees is:

  Mr. Robert H. Smith, Chairman

  The Countess of Dalkeith

  Professor Thomas M. Devine

  Dr. Lesley Glasser

  Sir Alistair Grant

  Mr. Sandy Grant Gordon CBE

  Professor Veronica van Heyningen

  Professor Peter Jones

  Professor Aubrey Manning

  Professor James Murray

  Dr. Anna Ritchie OBE

  The Countess of Rosebery

  Sir John Thomson GCMG.

  Scottish Museums Council
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on levels of Government funding to the Scottish Museums Council since 1993; and what assessment he has made of its performance. [49271]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Scottish Museums Council is an independent company with charitable status. It is subject to appraisal and assessment through Scottish Office scrutiny and discussion of annual corporate plans, examination of statements of accounts and reports and through regular attendance of officials at general and extraordinary meetings. Government funding since 1993 is shown in the table:

  Year

  £

  1993–94

  811,000

  1994–95

  847,000

  1995–96

  782,000

  1996–97

  911,000

  1997–98

  807,000

  1998–99

  840,850

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Business Formation
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance is currently made available to young people with regard to start up costs for new businesses. [48528]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: Business Link partnerships have a range of advisory services to suit the needs of all businesses. Start-up and micro-firms can benefit from access to high quality information and advice, guidance, counselling, and related services. An important feature of Business Link is the informed referral to other services provided locally by partners or other business support organisations. Young people starting a business will usually be referred to the local Enterprise Agency partner or the Prince's Youth Business Trust (PYBT). The PYBT helps young people set up in business by providing grants and loans and other help, including counselling and mentoring. Business Link partners will be aware of, or directly involved in, any local projects or schemes for start-up businesses. These will include New Deal, Single Regeneration Budget Challenge, and European structural funds. The New Deal for young unemployed people provides extensive help and guidance for those wishing to enter self-employment.

  Innovation Strategies
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what encouragement she is giving for the creation of innovation strategies in each English region. [47622]

  Mr. Battle
  Innovation is vital to competitiveness and my Department has taken a keen interest in the development of these strategies, which are bringing together the key public and private sector partners involved in developing and enhancing the innovative capacity of a region. Amongst other regional visits I recently spoke at the Innovation Forum in Wakefield in support of an example of successful partnership in Yorkshire and the Humber.

  Government Offices are involved, with partners, in formulating and implementing the strategies and my Department is supporting them in this role. For example, my officials seek to facilitate the spread of best practice between regions.

  In the future, the Regional Development Agencies will have responsibility for co-ordinating the regional innovation strategies and my Department will, of course, continue to provide advice and support as required.

  Industrial and Commercial Development
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are her Department's relative priorities in securing and facilitating industrial and commercial development as between(a) the regions of England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland. [48900]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Government's policies to boost competitiveness and prosperity extend to all parts of the United Kingdom. I work closely with my right. hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland to implement these policies.

  Price Maintenance (Medicines)
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade she last met the Director General of Fair Trading to discuss resale price maintenance on over-the-counter medicines. [48219]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 30 June 1998]: I and my ministerial colleagues from time to time discuss a range of issues with the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures her Department is taking to raise awareness among businesses of the range of Government funding available to small and medium enterprises for training purposes. [48534]

  Mrs. Roche
  Government funding to SMEs for training purposes is the responsibility of the Department for Education and Employment. However, the Department publicises funding available to SMEs for training purposes through its publications, such as the recently published Small Business Action Update, where companies are signposted to sources of funding such as TECs and other organisations.

  Coal Mining
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the Government's forecast of the change in the number of coal mining jobs in the United Kingdom over the next year. [48591]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 2 July 1998]: Levels of employment in the coal-mining industry will depend upon commercial decisions taken by the private sector coal companies.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement about the results of the benefit review of child benefit. [49558]

  Mr. Field
  The review of Child Benefit is part of the Benefits Agency Security Strategy. All major benefits will be reviewed to establish the amount and extent of fraud and incorrectness within the system.

  False claims for children allegedly in full-time further education and unreported living together make up the majority of Child Benefit fraud—53 per cent. and 23 per cent. respectively. Fraud was found in 1.7 per cent. of the caseload with an estimated annual loss of £51.6 million; 3.7 per cent. of the caseload had a high suspicion of fraud with an estimated annual loss of £132.5 million.

  The Government take fraud against the Social Security system very seriously. If it goes unchecked, it undermines the integrity and purpose of the system. The system should encourage openness and honesty and the gateways to benefit should be clear and enforceable.
  442
  The Green Paper on Welfare Reform outlined proposals for improved detection, more effective deterrence and better prevention. The Child Benefit Centre is at present looking at ways to improve 16–19 year old benefit claims and Automated Credit Transfer checking methods.

  The results of the benefit review of Child Benefit were aggregated from a random sample of 4,493 customers who had their benefit entitlement reviewed. The study showed 92.4 per cent. Child Benefit claims, like the majority of all Social Security claims, are claimed legitimately and administered accurately.

  Contributions Agency Computer System
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures her Department is taking to ensure that widows, newly-retired pensioners and people entitled to incapacity benefit are not disadvantaged by the change to the Contributions Agency computer system and the consequent delay in processing applications until 3 August. [47242]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department is committed to minimising the impact on customers. There are contingency arrangements in place to ensure benefit continues to be paid.

  The Department has made arrangements to ensure that Retirement Pension claim packs continue to be issued to those people approaching pension age. This will ensure that pension can continue to be awarded and put into payment.

  During the change-over to the new computer system there will be limited access to National Insurance records. Therefore, widows will receive at least the full basic rate benefit including any increases for children.

  The Departmental Central Index will be used to ensure that the vast majority of new claims to Incapacity Benefit can be dealt with and payment made in the normal way. New claimants may be asked to provide additional information to enable a speedy decision to be made on their claim.

  Benefits (Minimum Wage)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people will lose(a) zero, (b) more than zero but less than 10 per cent., (c) more than 10 per cent. but less than 20 per cent., (d) more than 20 per cent. but less than 30 per cent., (e) more than 30 per cent. but less than 40 per cent., (f)more than 40 per cent. but less than 50 per cent., (g) more than 50 per cent. but less than 60 per cent., (h) more than 60 per cent. but less than 70 per cent., (i) more than 70 per cent. but less than 80 per cent., (j) more than 80 per cent. but less than 90 per cent. and (k) more than 90 per cent. of the rise in family income resulting from a minimum wage set at £3.60 for adults and £3 for those aged 21 or under, as a result of offsetting reduction in means-tested and other benefits. [47524]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 25 June 1998]: The measures announced in the budget reduce substantially the number of people facing high marginal

  443
  deduction rates. The Working Families Tax Credit will reduce the rate of withdrawal from 70p in the pound in Family Credit, to 55p in the pound. As a result, over half a million families will see their marginal tax rates reduced and the number of families with rates over 70 per cent. will fall by two thirds. All families facing higher marginal tax rates will be better off, and they will see improved returns from working compared with being on benefit.

  The number of beneficiaries in receipt of each benefit who experience an off-set of that benefit following the introduction of a minimum wage

  Number of benefit units with reduction

  Percentage of increase in earnings offset by reduction in net income

  Income Support/Jobseeker's Allowance (income-based)

  Working Families Tax Credit

  Housing Benefit

  Council Tax Benefit

  0–10

  *

  *

  *

  5,000

  10–20

  *

  *

  5,000

  5,000

  20–30

  *

  5,000

  5,000

  20,000

  30–40

  0

  10,000

  5,000

  10,000

  40–50

  0

  10,000

  5,000

  10,000

  50–60

  0

  60,000

  5,000

  5,000

  60–70

  *

  100,000

  15,000

  10,000

  70–80

  0

  20,000

  45,000

  15,000

  80–90

  *

  30,000

  100,000

  55,000

  90–100

  5,000

  20,000

  20,000

  15,000

  100%

  30,000

  0

  0

  0

  Greater than 100%

  *

  0

  0

  *

  Total

  40,000

  255,000

  195,000

  145,000

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are based on the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey, uprated to 1998–99 levels of caseloads, but with the October 1999–2000 tax and benefit structure imposed.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest 5,000, * denotes a figure less than 2,500. Figures may not sum due to rounding. Figures for Working Families Tax Credit are full year averages.

  3. These estimates exclude a small number of recipients with a reduction in benefit due to an increase in non-dependant deductions, as a result of an increase in earnings of another household member in another benefit or non-benefit unit.

  4. Estimates are based on the first-round effects of the minimum wage, no other factors are taken into account.

  5. The information is not directly comparable with published data on marginal deduction rates within the tax/benefit system for a number of reasons, including (a) it measures the full effect of the minimum wage, not the marginal effect—it therefore includes floaters off benefit (b) it gives estimates for each benefit separately, rather than the overall impact on benefit units who may be in receipt of more than one benefit; and (c) it includes benefits paid to people working under 16 hours a week.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 7 May to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, copied to her Department, regarding savings and council tax benefit, (Ref. 3/3644/31). [49295]

  Mr. Field
  A reply was sent to my hon. Friend on 3 July.

  Habitual Residence Test
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans her Department has to record the ethnic origin of those applicants refused income support on the habitual residence test. [48321]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We are currently reviewing all aspects of the habitual residence test, including the arrangements for monitoring details of those passing and failing the test. We hope to bring forward our recommendations later in the year.

  Acquired Brain Injury
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what account is taken of psychological and
  444
  Not all beneficiaries of the minimum wage or all benefit recipients will experience a reduction in benefit as a consequence of the introduction of a minimum wage.

  The information requested is set out in the table. Recipients of more than one benefit are counted against each benefit they receive, therefore figures for each benefit cannot be added together.

  cognitive impairments arising from acquired brain injury in application of the all work test and the grant of incapacity benefit. [48319]

  Mr. Denham
  The all work test determines whether, as a result of disability arising solely from their medical condition, a person should be regarded as incapable of doing work of any kind for purposes of entitlement to incapacity benefits. The test assesses the effects of physical, sensory and mental disabilities in specified areas of activity.

  The test is not applied to people with severe mental disabilities, who are identified early in the process from medical evidence, and exempted. People with less severe mental disabilities are assessed, by a specially trained doctor, in a wide range of activities relating to completion of tasks, daily living, coping with pressure and interaction with other people.

  Social Security Tribunals
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the procedure by which people are appointed by her Department to social security tribunals. [48323]
  445
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Department of Social Security does not have responsibility for appointing members of appeal tribunals (including Social Security Appeal Tribunals, Disability Appeal Tribunals and Medical Appeal Tribunals).

  Power to appoint lay members to tribunal jurisdictions is vested in the President of the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS). Responsibility for appointing tribunal chairmen lies with the Lord Chancellor in England and Wales or the Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland. The constitution of particular appeal tribunals is specified in legislation (Social Security Administration Act 1992 and Schedule 6 to the Social Security Act 1998).

  Housing Benefit
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the amount of housing benefit expenditure in Scotland for 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98, broken down into(a) the private rented sector, (b) housing association sector and (c) the public sector. [47976]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information available is set out in the table.

  Scottish housing benefit expenditure

  £ million

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Private rented Sector

  197

  199

  Housing Association Sector

  78

  101

  Public Sector (Council and New Town Tenants)

  275

  300

  All Housing Benefit

  550

  600

  Note:

  Expenditure rounded to the nearest million

  Source:

  1. 1998–99 Social Security Departmental Record

  2. Housing Benefit Management Information System (HBMIS) 1 per cent. samples

  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will extend the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1997 (S.I. 1974) until the interdepartmental funding review has completed its report. [48008]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We are considering an extension to the duration of these Regulations and we expect to make an announcement shortly.

  Residential Care Allowance
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make the residential care allowance available to people in local authority homes as it is to those in private homes; and if she will give the reasons which underlie her decision. [48069]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  I refer my hon. Friend to my Written Answer to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) of 19 January 1998,Official Report, column 448.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many benefit recipients are currently being required to co-operate with the CSA; and how many of these are resident in Derbyshire; [48455]
  446
  (2) what is the current average time taken (a) nationally and (b) in Derbyshire for the CSA to make assessments; [48454]

  (3) how many deductions from earnings orders issued by the CSA are currently in force; and how many of these are for orders issued in Derbyshire; [48457]

  (4) how many people resident in Derbyshire are being pursued for payment by the Child Support Agency; and what is the figure per 1,000 residents in the United Kingdom. [48456]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  One of our key aims for the Child Support Agency is to ensure that more non resident parents pay the maintenance they owe. The regular payment of maintenance is central to our strategy as recognition of fathers' continuing responsibilities to their children; to help lone mothers move off income support into work; and to get more money to children in low income working families. We have been looking closely at all aspects of the child support scheme to see where improvements can be made. I refer my hon. Friend to the oral statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security on 6 July 1998,Official Report, columns 739–54.

  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 6 July 1998:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency.
  I cannot provide precisely all the information that you have requested, but have provided as much as possible from the most recent information available.
  The Agency is organised into 7 Business Units; figures are available at Business Unit level but not at county level. Derbyshire is dealt with by our Midlands Business Unit, for which information has been given.
  All parents with care in receipt of a prescribed benefit (Income Support, Family Credit, Income-based Job Seekers Allowance and Disabled Working Allowance) have a requirement to co-operate with the Agency. The large majority of the Agency's live and assessed caseload relate to parents with care in receipt of these benefits.
  The Department of Social Security Analytical Division publish quarterly a summary of statistics relating to child support. The last report was published on 14 May and showed at 28 February 1998 the Agency had a total of 662,000 parents with care with a full maintenance assessment; of which 564,000 (85%) were in receipt of one of these benefits and therefore required to co-operate with the Agency. The Midlands Business Unit had 108,000 parents with care with a full maintenance assessment, of which 94,000 (87%) were in receipt of a benefit.
  Child Support Legislation has provisions known as 'Good Cause', which allows parents with care not to co-operate if the Agency finds that they have a good cause not to do so. This may be because we believe that there is a risk of harm or undue distress to the parent with care of any children living with them if we contact the non-resident parent.
  From the launch of the Agency up until 28 February 1998 the Agency has investigated 669,953 cases were the parent with care had claimed Good Cause; 177,462 cases were accepted as having Good Cause for not co-operating with the Agency. This represents 26% of the cases investigated. Of the remaining cases, the Good Cause application is either withdrawn and the parent with care agrees to co-operate or a Reduced Benefit Direction is referred to Benefits Agency.

  447
  The imposition of a deduction from earnings order is considered when the non resident parent defaults on an agreement or refuses to come to an agreement. This step is taken as a last resort and every effort is made to secure the compliance of the non-resident parent before a deduction from earnings order is issued. Information on the number of deduction from orders "in force" is not collected, however information is available on the number of deduction from earnings orders issued from April 1993 to November 1997, details are shown below:

  Year

  Number

  1993–94

  2,600

  1994–95

  32,027

  1995–96

  52,931

  1996–97

  57,898

  (9,146 from Midlands Business Unit)

  1997–98 (to 30.11.97)

  45,273

  (8,320 from Midland Business Unit)

  We are increasingly becoming more effective in issuing deduction from earnings orders where the non-resident parent fails to make a maintenance payment or reach an agreement for repayment. This is demonstrated by the increase in the average monthly number of orders issued; from 4,825 in 1996/97 to 5,659 in 1997/98.The Agency does not collect information on average processing times for the clearance of maintenance assessments. The Agency measures the clearance of maintenance assessments against a target set by the Secretary of State. For 1998/99 the target is that 65% of new maintenance applications be cleared within 22 weeks. At 31 May 1998 the Agency had cleared 67% of maintenance applications within 22 weeks and the Midlands Business Unit had cleared 59% of maintenance applications within 22 weeks.In 1997/98 the Agency cleared 595,000 maintenance applications—an increase of two-thirds on the 357,000 cleared in 1996/97. At the end of May 1998 our live and assessed caseload stood at 784,160, compared with 609,800 in May 1997 (an increase of 29%) and is expected to rise to around 1.2m by 2003/04.At 30 April 1998, the Midlands Business Unit had 128,160 live and assessed cases. At the same time, that Business Unit's work-on-hand stood at 37,907; approximately 15,000 of which were backlog cases.Any maintenance application which is over 52 weeks old is considered to form part of the Agency's backlog.The Agency has developed and is now implementing a strategy for meeting its undertaking to clear the backlog. All Business Units have put in place operational plans which will guide them towards the achievement of our stated objective of clearing the backlog by 31 March 1999.The total caseload for the Midlands Business Unit of 166,067 equates to around 3 cases per 1,000 people, based on a GB population of around 57.2 million.I hope this is helpful.

DEFENCE

  Anthrax
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of(a) Navy, (b) Army, (c) Air Force and (d) other Ministry of Defence personnel (i) are fully vaccinated and (ii) have commenced a vaccination programme against anthrax bacteria; and if he will make a statement. [31473]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 26 February 1998]: A small number of Service personnel and MOD civilians will have received anthrax vaccinations either in connection with research into protection against biological weapons being undertaken at CBD Porton Down and its predecessors,
  448
  or in connection with arms control activities. Details of vaccinations received by Service and other MOD personnel are normally held only on individual medical records and not recorded centrally.

  Many Service personnel and MOD civilians who took part in the Gulf conflict are likely to have commenced a programme of immunisation against anthrax in early 1991. Records relating to this vaccination programme are incomplete. So far as MOD is aware, none of these personnel would have completed a full course of immunisation, because operations concluded before the fourth dose of vaccine would have been scheduled.

  On 3 March this year, the Ministry of Defence announced that UK Service personnel and MOD civilians posted to the Gulf region were being offered immunisation against anthrax. Arrangements have been made for the uptake of anthrax vaccine under this programme to be reported centrally. So far an estimated 3,879 UK Service and MOD personnel have been offered immunisation and 1,428 are recorded as having commenced a course of anthrax vaccinations. This figure comprises 384 Royal Navy personnel, 46 Royal Fleet Auxiliary, 144 Army personnel, 847 RAF personnel and 7 MOD civilians. This amounts to 0.85 per cent. of all Royal Navy personnel, 0.13 per cent. of all Army personnel, 1.49 per cent. of all RAF personnel and 0.05 per cent. of all MOD civilians, including those in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Individuals who have chosen to be immunised will not receive the fourth dose of vaccine, and thereby complete the current programme, until November this year at the earliest.

  Ship Hulls
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the differences between(a) military and (b) civilian specifications of ship hulls. [48985]

  Mr. Spellar
  Warships are required to operate in very different ways and conditions compared with commercial vessels and also need to be able to withstand damage sustained in action. Naval engineering standards adopted for the construction of warships reflect this and incorporate some indispensable military features such as shock precautions, magazine safety, fire safety and watertight subdivision. Commercial standards are however applicable to some areas of warship design and construction, where their use offers cost savings and is compatible with the vessel's operational role.

  RAF Pilots
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average number of annual flying hours undertaken by RAF pilots in each of the last 10 years. [44129]

  Mr. Field
  The information requested is given in the table and has been broken down by aircraft type. Figures are available only from 1991. Information prior to this date can be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  449

  Average annual flying hours per pilot1 by aircraft type 1991–97

  Aircraft type

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  BAe 125

  436

  365

  328

  317

  349

  353

  310

  BAe 146

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  283

  256

  Canberra

  199

  189

  190

  167

  177

  304

  334

  Chinook

  491

  309

  266

  261

  315

  303

  271

  Harrier

  151

  206

  214

  227

  207

  201

  163

  Hercules

  573

  479

  447

  421

  410

  471

  503

  Jaguar

  203

  213

  191

  207

  195

  189

  204

  Nimrod

  408

  407

  448

  471

  459

  400

  442

  Puma

  384

  255

  276

  294

  282

  314

  310

  Sea King

  358

  388

  378

  363

  402

  381

  385

  Sentry

  718

  720

  916

  840

  829

  577

  493

  Tornado F3

  215

  227

  231

  218

  216

  193

  209

  Tornado GR1/A/B

  207

  217

  223

  216

  199

  210

  208

  Tristar

  652

  584

  586

  439

  471

  643

  642

  VC10

  456

  464

  422

  369

  367

  363

  409

  Wessex

  452

  359

  313

  295

  318

  371

  369

  1Pilots are interpreted as fully trained operational pilots

  Note:

  These figures do not include pilots on Staff/Ground Tours

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how staff numbers in his Department have varied between 1 May 1997 and 31 March 1998. [48878]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is given in the following table.

  Full time equivalent

  1 May 19972

  1 April 1998

  Permanent Staff

  All MOD

  109,076

  104,163

  Agencies1

  62,341

  59,526

  Other MOD

  46,735

  44,637

  Casual Staff

  All MOD

  3,344

  2,154

  Agencies1

  1,356

  1,131

  Other MOD

  1,988

  1,023

  1Agency numbers include staff working in Trading Funds

  2The 1 May 1997 breakdowns between agencies and other MOD have been estimated

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of each Territorial Army battalion in 1997–98. [43643]

  Dr. Reid
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 June 1998, c. 489–90]: I regret to inform my hon. Friend that there were errors in my original response. The correct answer to this question is given.

  There are 33 Territorial Army infantry battalions and these are listed in the table together with their identifiable costs for the year 1997–98. The figures given are for manpower only, and include the costs of TA personnel, (including bounty payments), Regular Army, civilian and Non Regular Personnel Staff employed by the units. Other
  450
  costs are not separated from wider Army financial provision and cannot therefore be directly attributed to particular TA units.

  Cost of Territorial Army infantry battalions 1997–98

  Unit

  £ million

  3rd (Volunteer) Battalion The Worcester and Sherwood Regiment Fusiliers

  2.118

  3rd (Volunteer) Battalion The Duke of Wellington's Regiment (West Riding)

  2.172

  3rd (Volunteer) Battalion The Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire

  2.194

  4/5th Battalion The Green Howards (Alexandra Princess of Wales's Own Yorkshire Regiment) (Yorkshire Volunteers)

  1.922

  4th (Volunteer) Battalion The Parachute Regiment

  2.576

  6th (Volunteer) Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment

  2.067

  6th Northumberland Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  2.349

  7th Battalion The (Durham) Light Infantry

  2.103

  7th (Volunteer) Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment

  2.184

  7th (Volunteer) Battalion The Devonshire and Dorset Regiment

  2.273

  6th Battalion The Light Infantry (Volunteer)

  2.433

  2nd (Volunteer) Battalion The Royal Gloucester Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment

  2.327

  5th (Volunteer) Battalion The Royal Green Jackets

  2.088

  5th (Volunteer) Battalion The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment

  2.343

  6/7th (Volunteer) Battalion The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment

  2.087

  3rd (Volunteer) Battalion The Staffordshire Regiment (The Prince of Wales's)

  2.200

  4th (Volunteer) Battalion The Queen's Lancashire Regiment

  2.276

  4th (Volunteer) Battalion The Kings Own Border Regiment

  2.311

  5/8th (Volunteer) Battalion The King's Regiment

  2.479

  5th (Volunteer) Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  2.150

  5th Battalion The Light Infantry (Volunteer)

  2.347

  3rd (Volunteer) Battalion The Cheshire Regiment

  2.143

  2nd (Volunteer) Battalion The Royal Regiment of Wales

  2.467

  3rd (Volunteer) Battalion The Royal Welch Fusiliers

  2.251

  4th (Volunteer) Battalion The Royal Green Jackets

  2.241

  10th (Volunteer) Battalion The Parachute Regiment

  2.397

  451

  Cost of Territorial Army infantry battalions 1997–98

  Unit

  £ million

  The London Regiment

  2.344

  3rd (Volunteer) Battalion The Highlanders (Seaforths Gordons and Camerons)

  2.173

  3rd (Volunteer) Battalion The Royal Highland Fusiliers (Princess Margaret's Own Glasgow and Ayrshire Regiment)

  2.053

  3rd (Volunteer) Battalion The Black Watch Regiment (The Royal Highland Regiment)

  1.851

  7/8th (Volunteer) Battalion The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (Princess Louise's)

  2.034

  The Lowland Volunteers

  2.148

  4/5th (Volunteer) Battalion The Royal Irish Rangers

  2.504

HEALTH

  Occupational Health
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the National Health Service trusts in each region with access to an occupational health service, indicating which are led by a consultant in occupational health. [43739]

  Mr. Milburn
  These figures are not held centrally. All National Health Service trusts should provide their staff with access to a competent and confidential occupational health service. A number of trusts buy in their occupational health provision from other trusts.

  Drugs (Parallel Trading)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the revenue impact of parallel trading in drugs. [47801]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information is not collected on which such an estimate could be made.

  NHS Staff
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the(a) number and (b) cost of extra doctors and nurses required to staff the extra 2,000 beds to be opened this year. [48059]

  Mr. Milburn
  This is a matter for local employers to determine in the light of local needs and priorities.

  Continence Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the sums announced for the reduction of NHS waiting lists health authorities are permitted to use to reduce waiting lists for the provision of continence supplies. [48307]

  Mr. Milburn
  All health authorities should ensure provision of continence services from their general allocation. The extra £500 million that we announced on 18 March 1998,Official Report, columns 1290–92, will be used to tackle waiting lists for hospital treatment. It will fund record increases in the number of surgical and medical sessions, targeted investment in primary care, community, mental health and social services and steps to modernise the waiting list system.

  Student Bursaries
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average bursary given to(a) nursing students, (b) medical students and (c) dental students in the most recent year for which figures are available; what calculation is made for additional earned income within the formulae for calculating such grants; and if he will make a statement. [48444]

  Mr. Milburn
  The National Health Service currently provides bursaries for nursing students undertaking a pre-registration diploma programme (Project 2000). Information on the average bursary for nursing students is not held centrally. However, the current rates are:

  £

  London

  Elsewhere

  Age under 26 at start of course

  5,230

  4,450

  Age 26 and over at start of course

  5,785

  5,010

  The bursary is non-means tested and therefore there is no calculation for additional earned income.

  Medical and dental students do not currently receive NHS bursaries. However, for those who enter training from 1 September 1998, the NHS will meet tuition costs and fund means tested bursaries in years 5 and beyond.

  Leigh Infirmary
  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of the Leigh infirmary. [48446]

  Mr. Milburn
  Decisions concerning Leigh Infirmary are the responsibility of Wigan and Leigh Health Services NHS Trust, in consultation with Wigan and Bolton Health Authority. We understand that, with the support of the health authority, the trust has invested considerably in the Infirmary in recent years and that its plans for the future include the provision of elective surgery, mental health services and a nurse-led minor injuries unit.

  Dental Health
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the population over(a) 30, (b) 40,(c) 50 and (d) 60 years in each health authority area in England have no natural teeth. [48601]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information is not held centrally in the form requested. Data which were collected in the Adult Dental Health Survey conducted in 1988 are available for southern England (SE), the Midlands (M) and northern England (NE) and show that the following percentages of people had no natural teeth.

  Percentage

  Age

  SE

  M

  NE

  25–34

  —

  1

  2

  35–44

  1

  6

  4

  45–54

  8

  23

  22

  55–64

  22

  40

  53

  65 and over

  57

  69

  80

  Residential Care
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the guidance issued to local authorities on the funding arrangements for residential care as regards(a) individuals whose ordinary residence is established and (b) individuals placed by another authority; and if he will make a statement. [48907]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have no plans at present to review the existing guidance to local authorities on ordinary residence. However, we intend to issue guidance shortly that will clarify the responsibilities of local authorities for people requiring residential care who have, or who are likely to receive, capital in excess of the upper capital limit of £16,000 and who may be placed, or move to, a different local authority area. This new guidance will assist authorities in determining responsibility for individuals who enter residential/nursing home care outside their usual area of residence.

  Dementia
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) of 16 June 1997,Official Report, column 20, concerning dementia research, how much in each of the last five years his Department has spent on dementia research; and how much is allocated in the current financial year. [49329]

  Mr. Boateng
  Spending on research into dementia in the last five years and an estimate for the current year are:

  £000

  Year

  Policy research programme

  National Health Service research and development programme

  1993–94

  181

  23

  1994–95

  196

  75

  1995–96

  167

  187

  1996–97

  91

  421

  1997–98

  198

  554

  1998–99

  292

  373

  The figures for 1998–99 are estimates. The figures for the NHS research and development programme are approximate.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 15 July 1997,Official Report, column 162, concerning dementia, what conclusions he has reached concerning national guidance on new medicines for Alzheimer's disease. [49331]

  Mr. Boateng
  Guidance on anti-dementia drugs has been prepared by the Standing Medical Advisory Committee and was issued on 30 April 1998 to health authority directors of public health and National Health Service trust medical directors in England.

  Medicines Control Agency (Freedom of Information)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Medicines Control Agency review of the impact of the Freedom of Information White Paper will be published. [49307]

  Ms Jowell
  The Select Committee on Public Administration wrote to the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) in December 1997 asking various questions about the impact of the Freedom of Information White Paper on the MCA. A copy of the Agency's reply of 9 February 1998 has been published by the Select Committee. Since then the MCA has continued to review its policies to identify what further action can be taken to make more information available in advance of the freedom of information legislation.

  Carers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 12 June 1997,Official Report, columns 529–30, (1) concerning the health problems of carers, when the study of carer burdens and associated costs in dementia care over time will be published; [49330]

  (2) concerning the health problems facing carers, when the results of his Department's research into outcomes of social care for adults will be published; and if he will make a statement about interim findings from the research. [49332]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Department has commissioned a major new research initiative on outcomes of social care for adults, consisting of a linked series of studies which began earlier this year. The individual projects are due to last for between two and three years. Copies of the first issue of the programme newsletter will be placed in the Library.

  Drugs Licences
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to encourage co-operation between pharmaceutical companies applying to license new drugs. [49306]

  Ms Jowell
  We encourage collaboration between companies where it is appropriate and likely to be in the interests of public health. However, decisions about co-operation must be for the companies themselves.

  Medicines Act
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to amend section 118 of the Medicines Act 1968. [49308]

  Ms Jowell
  We are aware that Section 118 of the Medicines Act, which currently governs disclosure of official information about medicines in the United Kingdom, is often criticised for encouraging excessive secrecy. Indeed, it is one of over 200 pieces of legislation which we are currently reviewing to see whether it is appropriate to repeal them, once new freedom of information legislation is in place.

  Heroin
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 8 June 1998,Official Report, columns 464–65, what assessment he has made of the information supplied in the conference in the United States in June on the Swiss programme for using injectable heroin to reduce drug use and drug-related crime. [49185]

  Ms Jowell
  The Swiss programme showed that it is feasible to use diamorphine (pharmaceutical heroin) under strictly controlled conditions as part of a comprehensive social and psychological intervention. We were already aware of these basic findings and no new information appears to have emerged at the conference.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent by his Department on research into ME in 1997–98; and what spending is planned for 1998–99. [49460]

  Ms Jowell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on 27 April 1998,Official Report, columns 53–54.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to assume responsibility from the social services budget for the funding of individuals who need nursing home care. [48958]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have no plans to remove the duty placed on local authorities by the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 to arrange nursing home placements for people whom they have assessed as needing such care.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter dated 8 June regarding primary care groups. [49364]

  Mr. Milburn
  I replied to my hon. Friend on 6 July 1998.

  Family Planning
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into differences in the prescription of contraceptive methods between GP-based and other family planning clinics. [48968]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department's policy research programme and the central National Health Service research and development programmes are not currently supporting any research into differences in the prescription of contraceptive methods between general practitioner-based and other family planning clinics. Records are not, however, held centrally of all research carried out in the NHS. While related research is evaluated when received by the Department, we are unaware of recent research specifically covering differences of prescription/supply of contraceptives from various sources.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received on Government targets on the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by 2010. [47626]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have discussed the Government's targets for tackling the threat of climate change with a great many people. This summer, we will publish a consultation paper on policy options for meeting those targets.

  Regeneration
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what organisations are being set up in Dorset to replace local economic regeneration organisations, with particular reference to work formerly carried out by the south Dorset economic partnership; and what funds are being made available by the Government for these initiatives. [47627]

  Angela Eagle
  Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Economic Partnership has been established as a coherent group for Dorset and is developing an economic strategy for the whole of Dorset. The financial implications of the strategy are as yet unknown.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress of the local government finance review.[47628]

  Mr. Raynsford
  On 30 March, the Government published three consultation papers:

  Improving local financial accountability;

  Business rates; and

  Capital finance.

  The consultation period closed on 1 June. We are currently considering the responses and will take account of these in preparing our planned White Paper on modernising local government.

  Business Rates
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to return control of business rates to local authorities. [47630]

  Ms Armstrong
  Our recent consultation paper "Modernising local government: Business rates" contained a proposal for a local supplement on the business rate. The consultation period finished on 1 June. We are now considering the many responses we have received. We shall announce our conclusions in a White Paper to be published this summer.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he intends to take in order to protect small businesses from disproportionate increases in non-domestic rates; and if he will make a statement. [47631]
  457
  Mr. Raynsford
  Our consultation paper, "Modernising Local Government: Business Rates" looked at options for giving local authorities a measure of local discretion over the business rates, but made it clear that any local arrangements would contain safeguards against authorities increasing rates disproportionately. It also invited views on whether we should change the rating system to limit the rates bills of small businesses. We are currently considering responses to the consultation paper and will announce our conclusions in a White Paper to be published later this year.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his policy on local business rates. [47636]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Our recent consultation paper "Modernising Local Government: Business Rates" contained a proposal for a local supplement on the business rate. The consultation period finished on 1 June. We are now considering the many responses we have received. We shall announce our conclusions in a White Paper to be published this summer.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps his Department is taking to promote sustainable development with respect to regional development agencies. [47632]

  Angela Eagle
  Subject to the passage of the Regional Development Agencies Bill, currently in another place, regional development agencies will have a statutory purpose to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will revise the boundaries of his proposed regional development agencies to create an agency based exclusively on the counties of Worcestershire, Herefordshire, Shropshire and Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement. [47629]

  Angela Eagle
  Regional development agencies will serve the same areas as the Government Offices for the Regions. They will need to co-operate with other agencies in addressing issues which extend beyond regional boundaries.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to tackle youth homelessness. [47633]

  Ms Armstrong
  Too many young people, starting on the road to independence, have their lives and development blighted by the lack of a suitable home. To tackle this problem, I have invited the voluntary sector and Local Government to join Central Government in a Youth Homelessness Action Partnership. I will be chairing the inaugural meeting on Tuesday 14 July.

  Workplace Car Parks
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers the Greater London authority will have to levy parking charges on workplace car parks. [47634]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Our White Paper "A Mayor and Assembly for London" (Cm 3897) said that, if new powers to enable road user charging or a parking levy were made available, the Mayor, working through the new body Transport for London, would be well placed to plan or implement the use of such powers. The Government's conclusions on whether to introduce the necessary enabling legislation will be set out in the forthcoming transport White Paper.

  Coalfields Task Force
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the recently published coalfields task force report. [47637]

  Ms Angela Eagle
  The Deputy Prime Minister will give the Government's initial response to the Coalfields Task Force Report's recommendations at the Coalfields Conference to be held at Ollerton Miners' Welfare on Monday 13 July. In the autumn, the Government will launch a detailed programme of action for the coalfields.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from the coalfields task force regarding road links to the former coalfields in the Bolsover/Mansfield area. [47661]

  Dr. Strang
  The Coalfield Task Force's Report was published on 18 June. The Report listed seven "regeneration road" schemes which the Task Force believe would be of major significance in opening up employment sites in the old coalfields. Two of these roads are in the Bolsover/Mansfield area—they are the Mansfield Ashfield Regeneration Route, Nottinghamshire, and the new M1 Junction 29A at Markham Colliery, Derbyshire.

  Worcestershire
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the Worcestershire county council document "Shaping the New Worcestershire"; and if he will make a statement. [47638]

  Mr. Raynsford
  "Shaping the New Worcestershire" is a document seeking views of local people on a number of housing and job-related development options to inform preparation of the Structure Plan for the new County. This is very much in line with the Secretary of State's statement in the House on 23 February 1998,Official Report, columns 21–25, when he said that he wanted local people to be consulted as early as possible in the process so that they fully understand the consequences of decisions on releasing land for housing and can have a say in the choice of locations. My Department has chosen not to comment on the options at this stage but we expect to examine the Council's definitive proposal's at the next stage of the Structure Plan process.

  Leaseholders
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many representations he has received from associations of leaseholders representing former council tenants. [47639]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Since May 1997, my Department has received 13 letters from associations of leaseholders representing former council tenants, either sent directly or via their Member of Parliament. We have had a similar number of telephone calls.

  Endocrine-disrupting Chemicals
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he plans to take to control endocrine-disrupting chemicals. [47640]

  Angela Eagle
  Use of a number of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals under debate are already banned or restricted (for example, tributyltin, DDT). The risks from others are being assessed through the European Community Existing Substances Regulations (for example, nonylphenol, bisphenol A, several phthalates) which may result in the need for restrictions on their marketing and use.

  International efforts are underway to agree guidelines by which endocrine-disrupting chemicals can be identified. When these are in place, the risks from chemicals identified as endocrine disrupters can be assessed and appropriate measures taken to reduce these risks if necessary on a precautionary basis.

  My Department's forthcoming strategic review of the sustainable use of chemicals will examine policy on all chemicals in the environment, including endocrine disrupters. Earlier this year, the Environment Agency issued a consultation document proposing an Agency Strategy on endocrine-disrupting chemicals. This examined possible approaches within its duties and powers which could be taken by the Agency given the current uncertainties in our understanding of the issue. The consultation period ended on 30 April and the Agency will finalise its strategy by the end of the year.

  Newcastle Green Belt
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that the extra 2,500 houses proposed for Newcastle's green belt do not undermine regeneration prospects in the central and western areas of the inner city. [47642]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Until a master plan for development of land deleted from the Green Belt in the adopted Newcastle UDP has been widely consulted upon, it is inappropriate for development to commence. Both plans will ensure a phased release of development land which will ensure that regeneration of Newcastle's inner areas is not adversely affected.

  Landfill
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is 460
  his estimate of the reduction of household waste going to landfill as a result of the increase in landfill levy in the Budget. [47643]

  Angela Eagle
  The recent review of the landfill tax indicated that it is already having some impact on behaviour but that the rate needs to be higher to ensure a significant increase in waste recycling, recovery, and minimisation. I therefore welcome the Chancellor's decision to increase the standard rate of the tax from £7 to £10 from 1 April 1999. I expect that the immediate impact on household waste will not be substantial, simply because some Local Authorities are tied into long-term disposal contracts, but that the longer-term impact will be significant.

  Water Meters
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received regarding Thames Water making a charge for the installation of water meters only to certain types of properties; and if he will make a statement. [47644]

  Angela Eagle
  My Department has received numerous representations regarding Thames Water's metering policy. The cost of meter installation is one of the issues considered in our review of water charging in England and Wales. We recognise that, for some customers, meters can be an attractive option and in our consultation paper 'Water Charging in England and Wales—A New Approach' we propose that in future domestic customers should have the choice of a meter, free of charge, if it suits their needs.

  Emissions
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to ensure his Department plays its part in reducing carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions to the Government's target levels. [47645]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have placed the environment at the heart of Government. Later this summer, we will publish our climate change consultation paper which will build on the outcome of initiatives such as the integrated transport policy, energy review and measures in the Budget and consider further options to deliver emission reductions.

  Wind Turbines
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to revise his policy on the erection of wind turbines. [47646]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Our policy towards the development of wind turbines remains as set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 22, 'Renewable Energy'. That provides guidance to decision makers on a range of land use planning considerations relevant to the siting of wind turbines. It is necessary to consider both the immediate impact of renewable energy projects on the local environment and their wider contribution to secure sustainable energy supplies and to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on council tax charges on second homes. [47647]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Since the election, we have received 84 representations about the council tax discount for second homes, and in response to the consultation exercise we received a further 40 representations. Of these, 105 are in favour of the abolition of the 50 per cent. discount.

  Thames Gateway
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the prospects for regeneration in the Thames gateway area. [47648]

  Angela Eagle
  The Thames Gateway area provides some of the main opportunities for development and regeneration in the South East. A number of substantial developments have already taken place, others are in progress and more in prospect, which will produce significant regeneration benefits for the area.

  A key factor in realising the full potential of the area is the completion of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. The link underpins the strategy for the Thames Gateway with international stations at Stratford and at Ebbsfleet, both within the Gateway area, and at King's Cross/St Pancras.

  An assessment carried out in 1992 put a value of £500 million on the regeneration benefits of the link. A recent re-assessment by my Department suggests that the link would produce regeneration benefits of about £650 million in the areas around the three stations. This is broadly in line with the earlier estimate, after allowing for inflation. If we were to try and deliver the same level of benefits through regeneration programmes, it could cost around £1 billion at today's prices.

  Fishing (Safety)
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many lives have been lost at sea in the fishing industry in each of the last three years; and what measures he proposes to improve the safety record of the industry. [47656]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Nineteen fishermen were lost at sea in 1995; 20 in 1996, and 29 in 1997.

  A number of measures are in hand to improve the safety record of the fishing industry. A joint initiative with the fishing industry organisations is under way to reduce accidents and encourage positive attitude to safety amongst fishermen. Regulations implementing EC Directives on occupational health and safety on board fishing vessels came into force earlier this year. Work is continuing with industry on the development of a Code of Safe Practice for smaller fishing vessels.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to modify the rules and regulations governing the occupational safety of the crews of United Kingdom-registered fishing vessels. [47665]
  462
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The occupational safety of crews in the United Kingdom fishing vessels is being pursued through regulations which implement EC health and safety directives. Some regulations, including the Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessel (Health and Safety at Work) Regulations 1997, are already in force. Further regulations will be introduced later this year.

  Airports
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received concerning the financial arrangements for local authority-owned airports. [47657]

  Dr. Strang
  Our proposal to free financially sound local authority airport companies from the controls over their borrowing has been warmly welcomed.

  Rail Network
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans for the future of the rail network. [47658]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Our proposals for improving the regulation of the railways will be set out in our forthcoming White Paper on integrated transport. We will establish a new strategic rail authority to provide clear, coherent and accountable regulation of the network, and ensure that the railways are run firmly in the public interest.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the reliability of train services between England and Wales. [47662]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We recognise that delays and cancellation have been disrupting many services into Wales, particularly those provided by Great Western. The Franchising Director has recently imposed a performance penalty system on Great Western to incentivise better performance.

  Eurostar
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he is making on securing fast regional Eurostar rail services. [47659]

  Dr. Strang
  The consortium chosen by LCR to operate Eurostar have been asked to review urgently the feasibility of regional Eurostar services, and to put proposals to the Government before the end of the year.

  Speed Limits
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the advantages of reducing the speed limits in and around built-up areas, with particular reference to areas close to schools. [47660]
  463
  Dr. Strang
  I receive a considerable number of letters from people seeking a reduction in the 30 mph urban speed limit particularly near schools. We have announced proposals for local authorities to decide 20 mph limits for themselves. Consultation on the details ended on 30 June.

  Rail Operators (Penalties)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he is planning to introduce which would penalise train operators who consistently fail to meet the core elements of the bid on which they won their franchise. [47663]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Successful bidders are now bound by the contractual obligation in their franchise agreements. The Franchising Director has contractual and statutory powers to enforce the performance of these obligations. These can include financial penalties and, as a last resort, termination of the franchise.

  The Government are reviewing the regulation of the railway as part of our overall review of transport policy, and our proposals for the long-term reform of the railways will be published in our forthcoming White Paper. In the interim, we have issued the Franchising Director with revised objectives, instructions and guidance which require him to secure a progressive improvement in the quality of passenger and station services and to manage existing franchise agreements in a manner which promotes passengers' interest.

  Light Rapid Transit Scheme (Nottingham)
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received about the proposed light rapid transit scheme in the Nottingham conurbation. [47664]

  Dr. Strang
  Since 1 May 1997, the promoters of Nottingham Express Transit have met with DETR Ministers or officials on 13 occasions. We have also received 35 written representations on the subject.

  West Coast Main Line
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received about the future of services on the west coast main line. [47666]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 18 June 1998, Official Report, columns 276–77.

  London Underground
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much private sector investment he expects to attract to London Underground in the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [47667]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The timing and level of investment under a private finance deal is the responsibility of the private sector partner—the contract will specify the demanding performance targets to be achieved, not the investment needed to achieve them. However, London Underground estimate that, for the next 464
  five years, the level of private investment in the underground which should result from deals already signed, or close to signature, is as shown in the table.

  £million

  Year

  Investment

  1998–99

  115

  1999–2000

  57

  2000–01

  56

  2001–02

  58

  2002–03

  41

  In addition, the innovative Public/Private Partnership we have announced should bring in a further £7 billion of private investment over 15 years.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the names of companies who bid for consultancy, legal and financial work on the new financial arrangements for London Underground, indicating the value of each bid. [48647]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A notice was posted in the Official Journal of the European Community on 6 April seeking firms to provide advice, jointly to the London Transport and the Government, on implementation of a Public/Private partnership for London Underground.

  Twenty expressions of interest were received in respect of legal advice. Tenders were invited from, and submitted by, the following six firms:

  Ashurst Morris Crisp

  Denton Hall

  Freshfields

  Herbert Smith

  Slaughter and May Wilde Sapte.

  Nineteen expressions of interest were received in respect of financial advice. Tenders were invited from nine firms, and were submitted by the following:

  Coopers and Lybrand

  KPMG

  Lazard Brothers

  Price Waterhouse

  Societe Generale.

  For reasons of commercial confidentiality, it is not possible to state the value of each bid.

  Freshfields and Price Waterhouse (now PricewaterhouseCoopers) were selected as, respectively, legal and financial advisers. Competitions for other advisers are currently in progress.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what mechanisms will be established to ensure the safety of air passengers following the privatisation of National Air Traffic Services. [47668]

  Dr. Strang
  The UK's safety record is second to none. It will be our concern, and that of NATS to ensure that this remains the case. Under our proposal for a Public Private Partnership, Air Traffic Control safety regulation
  465
  will be made independent of Air Traffic Control service provision. The safety regulation will ensure that safety remains the overriding priority.

  East-west Rail Link
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions the Minister for Transport in London has had concerning the east-west rail link. [47669]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I met representatives of the East-West Rail Consortium and Railtrack in February, who briefed me on the project. I requested a detailed business case from them, and subsequently officials from my Department and OPRAF have sought sufficient details to carry out a proper assessment of the project against the interim Planning Criteria published by OPRAF last November. This assessment is still in progress.

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps have been taken to reduce noise caused by older aircraft. [47670]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The UK has consistently pressed for higher noise standards internationally. In the 1980s, we implemented the removal of non-noise certificated aircraft at the earliest date allowed by international agreements. Subsequently, we argued for phasing out jet aircraft meeting the Chapter 2 standard. This is now implemented in an EC directive, ensuring that, from 1 April 2002, such aircraft will not normally be used in Europe. At the Transport Council in June, we secured political agreement on bringing forward measures against aircraft which have been recertificated to meet by only a bare margin the current noise standard (Chapter 3). The UK was also in the lead in proposing stricter standards for single-engined, light, propeller-driven aircraft. We anticipate that this will be shortly agreed internationally.

  Rural Bus Services
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what(a) conditions have been imposed on and (b) guidance has been given to local authorities on the extra money for rural bus services. [47671]

  Dr. Strang
  The proposed conditions which will apply to use of this money by English local authorities are set out in a Special Grant Report under Section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. This Report was laid before the House on 17 June. A copy of the associated guidance issued to local authorities has been placed in the Library.

  Central Railway
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment has he made of the new proposals of Central Railway plc. [47672]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No proposals have been received from Central Railway plc during the term of this Government.

  A419-A417
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received regarding noise on the new A419-A417. [47673]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have received over 130 representations, a number from the same people. The Highways Agency have been asked to look at the situation regarding noise from the A419-A417 and have reported to Ministers. Discussions are now taking place and we will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Vehicle Emissions Testing
  Mrs. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what have been the results to date of roadside vehicle emissions testing in the seven local authority trial areas. [47635]

  Mr. Meacher
  Statistics provided to date by the seven local authorities trialling the new powers to carry out roadside vehicle emissions enforcement show that, of almost 8,000 vehicles tested, 1,300 (16%) were found to be exceeding the prescribed emissions standards. The authorities have issued 450 fixed penalty notices to the drivers of the most seriously polluting vehicles (over 5% of the total vehicles checked).

  Housing (London)
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many affordable rented homes(a) have been provided and (b) are planned under the rules applying from PPG Note 3 and Circular 13/96 in Lambeth, Southwark and Wandsworth boroughs; [48574]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the amount of on-site affordable housing units provided under Circular 13/96 and PPG 3 in the boroughs of Southwark, Lambeth and Wandsworth; and if he will make a statement; [48577]

  (3) if he will list (a) the number of units of accommodation given planning permission on the riverside stretches of Southwark, Lambeth and Wandsworth boroughs, (b) the cash in lieu payments for the same and (c) the number of on-site units of affordable housing provided for the same since 1996. [48578]

  Mr. Caborn
  This information is not held centrally.

  River Thames
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will amend the guidance to local authorities on designation of the River Thames from its present status as an area of special character to full conservation area status; [48580]

  (2) what measures he proposes to ensure that the special character of the Thames is protected; [48571]

  (3) if he will review the (a) nature and (b) scale of development currently underway on the banks of the Thames; [48579]

  (4) if he will make a statement on development along the banks of the River Thames. [48573]
  467
  Mr. Caborn
  Strategic Planning Guidance for the River Thames, published in February 1997, designates the stretch of river from Hampton to Crayford Ness as a Thames Policy Area. This recognises the special character of the Thames as it flows through London and carries with it more detailed guidance for local planning authorities to follow in framing their Unitary Development Plans and reaching decisions on planning applications. The Guidance recognises the strategic importance of the river within London's urban environment and the many conflicting pressures placed upon it. It sets out a series of policies and objectives for Thames-side development, and aims to achieve a greater degree of consistency between riparian authorities in their implementation of policy.

  Renewed interest in the river has led to an upturn in development proposals. These have the potential to bring new viability to the riverside and make a significant contribution to the renaissance of the Thames and London, especially where the local environment is degraded and in need of improvement. Developments incorporating a mix of uses can bring employment opportunities and a range of new activities. But they must be judged in terms of sustainability and how they relate to the local context. Thames Guidance places a great emphasis on the need to protect local amenity and the successful co-existence of the broad range of functions which the river serves. Over-exploitation of the current commercial interest in development would not satisfy these objectives.

  Thames Guidance includes measures to secure a high quality of design for riverside development. It places responsibility both on the local planning authority and developer for the preparation of design briefs which assess the impact of a proposed development in relation to a wide range of factors, including its all-important relationship with the local context. In addition, the Government have indicated that we will review the possibility of additional Guidance on high buildings and strategic views in London following the receipt of advice on these issues from the London Planning Advisory Committee.

  The designation of the Thames Policy Area for the entire stretch of river and its immediate hinterland as it flows through London confers a special status which did not exist prior to Thames Guidance. The Thames Policy Area recognises the strategic significance of the river and the need for a consistent approach to policy formulation and decision-making. Through the Unitary Development Plan review process, riparian authorities are strengthening and refining their policies relating to the river to reflect the additional requirements placed on them by Thames Guidance, and to incorporate the Thames Policy Area within their plans. We believe this special planning designation is the most appropriate way of dealing with the varied character and uses of the riverside environment. Although some stretches of the riverside also have conservation area status, we do not believe this would be appropriate along the entire length of the river in London.

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what criteria he uses in deciding to call in development applications in the Thames-side area. [48570]

  Mr. Caborn
  The policy on call-in is as set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 1: General Policy and Principles, Paragraph 7 of Annex D.
  468
  This explains that the policy on calling in planning applications is to be very selective and such action is generally taken only where issues of more than local importance are involved. Examples are applications which raise significant architectural and urban design issues, which could have wide effects beyond their immediate locality, which give rise to substantial national or regional controversy, which may conflict with national policy on important matters, or where the interests of foreign governments may be involved.

  Pensioners (Tenancies)
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate how many pensioners live in(a) pre-1989 regulated tenancies in the private sector and (b) pre-1989 housing association secure tenancies. [48554]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Survey of English Housing gives the following estimates:

  Pensioner households with regulated and secure tenancies in England: annual averages, year ending March 1997

  Number

  Pre-1989 private sector regulated tenancies

  166,000

  Pre-1989 housing association secure tenancies

  137,000

  Notes:

  1. Pensioner householders are defined as those where the householder, and their partner if they have one, are both over the State pension age, that is 65 for men and 60 for women

  2. Like all estimates from samples surveys, these figures are subject to sampling variability

  Floodlights
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make the floodlighting of buildings the subject of planning consent; and if he will make a statement. [48572]

  Mr. Caborn
  Local authorities may attach conditions to planning permissions for new developments and these may extend to the design and operation of lighting systems. For existing buildings, however, the courts have ruled that floodlighting cannot be a planning matter, because light itself is not "development" and there would be no feasible means of assessing it for enforcement purposes. We give advice on floodlighting in Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 'Sport and Recreation'. The guide issued last year jointly by my Department and the Countryside Commission, 'Lighting in the Countryside: Towards good practice', also gives guidance on what can be done to lessen the intrusive effects of lighting schemes associated with development.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what contingency plans his Department is making in the event of the failure of computer systems to recognise the year 2000; when he expects them to be in place, and tested; and if he will make a statement. [48848]
  469
  Angela Eagle
  The Department has a business continuity/disaster recovery plan which is managed by the Departmental Security Officer. The plan is reviewed annually. It is intended that the plan will take account of Year 2000 issues in its iteration for 1999/2000.

  The Department's Agencies are in a similar position to the Centre; contingency plans are in place, or are being developed as appropriate, in good time to address Year 2000 issues.

  The DETR Programme Manager is monitoring the position across the whole department, including its associated bodies, as part of his responsibility for assuring business continuity through the Year 2000 date change and beyond.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure that railway signalling and other electrical equipment involved in rail safety is millennium compliant; and by what date that compliance will be achieved. [48641]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  It is the responsibility of the railway operators to ensure that all equipment is safe up to and beyond the millennium. The Health and Safety Executive's (HSE's) Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) is closely monitoring the state of preparedness of the industry.

  All the railway operators are assessing their systems for millennium compliance and, where necessary, developing programmes of remedial action. Railtrack in particular is devoting considerable resources both to ensuring compliance in its own systems and to co-ordinating the activities of the train operators on its network.

  In practice, the signalling and other safety critical systems which have been assessed to date have been found to be largely millennium compliant, and it is anticipated that all safety critical systems will have been assessed and any deficiencies remedied well before the millennium.

  The Government already have in place a number of mechanisms to ensure that both public and private sector service suppliers are taking appropriate action to prevent damage from the failure of electronic systems. A ministerial sub-committee is also actively reviewing the state of preparedness in all sectors of the national infrastructure including London Transport and the Rail industry.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of his proposals for new financial arrangements for London Underground on its work to ensure millennium compliance within the organisation. [48634]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has made no proposals for partial privatisation of London Underground. For the past two years, London Underground and London Transport have been progressing a comprehensive project to ensure their business is year 2000 compliant. Whilst the project is ongoing, they assure me that they are meeting their objectives and will be taking account of any implications for millennium compliance of the work to take forward the Public Private Partnership for the Underground.
  470
  This Government already have in place a number of mechanisms to ensure that both public and private sector service suppliers are taking appropriate action to prevent damage from the failure of electronic systems. A ministerial sub-committee is also actively reviewing the state of preparedness in all sectors of the national infrastructure including London Transport and the Rail industry.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what studies his Department has undertaken concerning the millennium compliance of the computer systems used in the operation of the Channel Tunnel, Le Shuttle and Eurostar; and if he will make a statement. [49448]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This is a matter for the operators of the Channel Tunnel. However, in accordance with its obligation to advise and assist the Intergovernmental Commission with all matters relating to safety in the Tunnel, the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority has been discussing the issue in its regular meetings with Eurotunnel.

  This Government already have in place a number of mechanisms to ensure that both public and private sector service suppliers are taking appropriate action to prevent damage from the failure of electronic systems. A ministerial sub-committee is also actively reviewing the state of preparedness in all sectors of the national infrastructure including London Transport and the Rail industry.

  As regards Eurostar's operations on the domestic network, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave today to the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway).

  Number Plates
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has consulted the number plate industry on his new number plate format proposals; and if he will make a statement. [48769]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The number plate industry were, along with the motor industry generally, and other interested parties, including the police and public, included in last year's consultation on proposals for a new vehicle registration format. Their views were taken fully into account. More recently, in response to representations from the number plate industry, DETR officials met number plate industry representatives in May. Their views were considered fully before the Government's public announcement on the new format was made on 10 June. That announcement included a commitment to undertake further research on the memorability of the new format, in particular on whether the random letters should be placed on the left or right of the plate. As a result of the number plate industry's continuing concerns about the spacing of numbers and letters, the Department will be considering these detailed points as a part of this further research.

  Wheelchairs (Trains)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance
  471
  has been issued to train operating companies with regard to the number of wheelchair spaces which should be provided on trains. [48745]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Railways Act 1993 imposes an obligation on the Rail Regulator to publish a Code of Practice which offers practical advice and guidance on the special needs of disabled people to those engaged in the delivery of railway passenger services. The Code of Practice "Meeting the Needs of Disabled Passengers" was published in July 1994. The specifications, which suggest a minimum of two wheelchair spaces per train, contained in the Code are not mandatory but provide a reference point for train operators, who are required to take into account the Code when producing their Disabled People's Protection Policies for approval by the Regulator, in accordance with the requirement of their operator's licence.

  In addition, we will be using powers under Part V of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to require all new trains first brought in to use after 31 December 1998 to be accessible to disabled people. We have recently completed a consultation exercise on draft Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations. This included a proposal for a minimum of two wheelchair spaces for trains consisting of between two and eleven vehicles and four wheelchair spaces for longer trains. We are currently reviewing this and other proposed requirements in the light of the responses received from the rail industry and from disability organisations. The final regulations will be published later this year when they have been approved by Parliament.

  Ofwat (Customers)
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how Ofwat customer service committees seek the views of water customers. [48892]

  Angela Eagle
  This is a matter for the Director General of Water Services. He has agreed to write to the hon. Gentleman. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many members of the Ofwat customer service committees have been appointed. [48889]

  Angela Eagle
  Ten customer service committees have been established and are maintained by the Director General of Water Services under section 28 of the Water Industry Act 1991. Section 28(4) of the Act provides that a customer service committee shall consist of a chairman and such number (not less than ten nor more than twenty) of other members appointed by the Director as he may determine. Details of the membership of each of the committees are contained in'The annual report of the OFWAT National Customer Council and the ten regional Customer Service Committees', copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many meetings of the Ofwat customer service committees have been held in the last two years; when these took place; and who attended. [48891]
  472
  Angela Eagle
  The dates and venues of meetings held by each of the Ofwat customer service committees, but not lists of attendance, are given in each year's copy of'the Annual report of the OFWAT National Customer Council and the ten regional Customer Service Committees', copies of which are available in the Library.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how staff numbers in his Department have varied between 1 May 1997 and 31 March 1998. [48875]

  Angela Eagle
  My Department does not hold data for the dates specified and could not obtain them without disproportionate cost. However, the number of staff in the Department reduced by 596 (3.8%) between 1 April 1997 and 1 April 1998.

  1 April 1997

  1 April 1998

  DETR (Central)1

  3,809

  3,589

  Of which:

  Permanent staff

  3—

  3,506

  Casual staff

  3—

  83

  Government Office staff

  955

  903

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  3,824

  3,839

  Highways Agency

  1,657

  1,494

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency2

  991

  891

  Planning Inspectorate

  647

  631

  Driving Standards Agency

  2,047

  1,844

  QEII Conference Agency

  51

  55

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  86

  84

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  1,534

  1,675

  Total

  15,601

  15,005

  1DETR(C) did not exist on 1 April 1997. The figures given are the combination of the former Departments of the Environment and Transport

  2On 1 april 1997 the Maritime and Coastguard Agencies were separate. This shows a combined figure

  3No breakdown available

  Note:

  Numbers of staff are shown as full-time equivalents, i.e. they are counted as a proportion of full-time hours worked

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps are being taken to enable the East Coast Main Line to connect to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. [48910]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The track layout designed for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link at St. Pancras includes a connection between St. Pancras station and the East Coast Main Line.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what contractual penalty LCR will incur if the company fails to complete the CTRL by the year 2007. [48681]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  LCR and Railtrack have stated their intention to complete the CTRL by 2007.

  The revised Development Agreement will contain an obligation to complete the whole link. Failure to comply with the relevant provision will provide grounds for termination

  Portsmouth Harbour Order
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what factors underlay the deferral of the laying of the proposed Portsmouth Harbour (Gunwharf Quays) Order; [48764]

  (2) under what powers he intends to lay the proposed Portsmouth Harbour (Gunwharf Quays) Order. [48763]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The application by the Berkeley Festival Waterfront Company Ltd. for this Order under section 3 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 is being considered, and will be determined, by the Secretary of State. It is not subject to any Parliamentary procedure.

  Rail Modernisation
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the amount Railtrack has invested on route modernisation since 1995 by route. [48639]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Published information about investment on individual routes is not available in the format requested.

  Rail Journeys
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list, as a percentage, by how much rail passenger journeys have changed in each year since privatisation; and by how much growth is predicted to rise in each of the next three years. [48679]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  For the past two years, passenger journeys have grown as shown in the table, and I understand that the Association of Train Operating Companies is expecting passenger journeys to rise up to 10 per cent. each year for the next three years.

  million

  Year

  Passenger journeys

  1995–96

  610

  1996–97

  649 (+6.3%)

  1997–98

  695 (+7.0%)

  Source:

  Association of Train Operating Companies (CAPRI)

  London Transport (Appointments)
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in which publications he advertised the recently filled post of Chief Executive of London Transport; on how many occasions these adverts appeared; and what is his policy on advertising future London Transport board appointments. [48636]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Our policy on appointments to the London Regional Transport Board is to be guided by the Code of Practice on Public Appointments Procedures, and to choose individuals who through their abilities, experience and qualities match the needs of the organisation. We consider whether to advertise on a case-by-case basis, bearing in mind that, if Parliament approves legislation to establish the Greater London Authority, the Board will be wound up, its responsibilities passing to Transport for London. In restructuring the 474
  LT Board to face the challenges of the next two years, we are striking a balance between continuity and outside recruitment. We have appointed recruitment consultants to seek a new non-executive Chairman: the new post of Chief Executive of London Transport is being filled by an existing executive Board member; and the post of Managing Director, London Underground, is being advertised.

  Rail Statistics
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the total number of trains operating and the total number of miles covered by them in each year since privatisation. [48638]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Detailed information relating to the number of trains operating is not available. I understand that, in the present timetable, there are 18,000 scheduled services each day on the network. The total number of train miles operated in each year since privatisation is listed in the table:

  million

  Year

  Train miles

  1995–961

  29,924

  1996–971

  31,998

  1997–981

  34,191

  1Financial years from April to March

  Source:

  Association of Train Operating Companies (CAPRI)

  Greater London Authority
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to announce the location of the building to house the Greater London Authority. [48659]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A list of buildings and sites to be examined in detail will be announced shortly. The timing of the announcement on a final decision depends on the progress of negotiations on the chosen building and on the timing of legislation to implement the GLA.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his Department's average response time to correspondence from members of the public; and how such response times are monitored. [48661]

  Angela Eagle
  During the period 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998, my Department and its Agencies received 672,980 pieces of correspondence from members of the public. 96 per cent. of these were responded to within the Department's target of 15 working days. A variety of methods for monitoring the response times to correspondence are used within the Department according to individual needs.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many road schemes in each of the past five years have been built under section 106 agreements; and if he will list the schemes and their estimated total cost. [48916]
  475
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department does not maintain central records of road schemes built in accordance with agreements made under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

  Joint Nature Conservation Committee
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the total budget of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee for 1998–99; and what was the total budget for 1997–98. [48657]

  Angela Eagle
  The total budget for the JNCC in 1998–99 is £871,000; in 1997–98 it was £4,317,000.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what additional resources(a) have been and (b) will be made available to the Joint Nature Conservation Committee in order to fulfil its responsibilities with respect to advising the Secretary of State on applications for exploration and production licences following the implementation of the Offshore Petroleum Production and Pipelines (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1998. [48656]

  Angela Eagle
  No additional resources have been made available to the JNCC to fulfil these responsibilities.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee's budget is derived from voluntary contributions from the oil and gas industry; and what restrictions are associated with the use of such funds. [48658]

  Angela Eagle
  The oil and gas industry will voluntarily contribute 9.5 per cent. to the Joint Nature Conservation Committee's total budget in 1998–99. These funds are exclusively dedicated to research and survey offshore, including around the Falkland and Faroe Islands.

  Donana Pollution Incident
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he had in Spain concerning the Donana pollution incident; and if he will make a statement. [48646]

  Angela Eagle
  The Deputy Prime Minister visited the Donana National Park on 5 June, accompanied by Juan Luis Muriel, Spanish junior environment minister, to view the damage caused by the spill of toxic mining waste. At the EU Environment Council later that month the Deputy Prime Minister proposed that there should be a review of current provisions for responding to such disasters and, if these proved unsatisfactory, that there should be a conference to discuss possible alternatives. The Commission responded positively to this proposal and will report on their findings in the Autumn.

  Special Areas of Conservation
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the adequacy of consultation by English Nature over the inclusion of part of the River Wye and its tributaries in the list of candidate special areas of conservation being sent to the European Commission under Directive 92/43. [48771]
  476
  Angela Eagle
  I am satisfied that the consultation process has provided all those with an interest in the proposals with an opportunity to comment. The statutory nature conservation agencies were asked to consult local landowners, statutory agencies and interested bodies on each specific site. My officials have consulted national interest groups and representative bodies on the list as a whole.

  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the list of candidate special areas of conservation under European Directive 92/43 has been forwarded to the European Commission in advance of the intended deadline of June 1998; and when he proposes to forward outstanding candidates. [48770]

  Angela Eagle
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment indicated in his written reply of 15 June 1998,Official Report, columns 60–61, the UK has already submitted 315 candidate Special Areas of Conservation covering over 1,650,000 hectares. We hope that a few remaining proposals will be forwarded to the Commission soon.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he received, and what public consultation he undertook, in respect of the River Wye and its tributaries being included as a candidate for special areas of conservation under EU Directive 92/43; and if he will make a statement. [48951]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: The consultation process provided all those with interest in the proposals for the River Wye possible Special Area of Conservation with an opportunity to comment. The statutory nature conservation agencies were asked to consult local landowners, local authorities, statutory agencies and interested bodies. At national level, my officials consulted national interest groups and representative bodies on the list as a whole. In the local consultations, views were sought from over 1,200 landowners and local bodies. 14 letters of support were received, including ones from the Environment Agency and the Forest of Dean District Council. 10 objections were received, including one from the former Hereford City Council. The main concern in those objections was that the designation might restrict future development of the river frontage. They were considered before the site was submitted to the European Commission on 12 June 1998.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consultations he has had with the Planning Inspectorate in respect of additional special areas of conservation being recognised; and if he will make a statement. [48953]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: The Planning Inspectorate is routinely informed of the submission to the European Commission of all candidate Special Areas of Conservation so that its Inspectors can apply the relevant planning policies to any cases they deal with in or near those areas.
  477
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what areas he has submitted to the EU as candidates for special areas of conservation under European Directive 92/43; and if he will make a statement. [48952]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: Candidate Special Areas of Conservation were sent to the Commission on 20 June 1995, 19 January 1996, 16 October 1996, 17 October 1997, 20 March 1998, 26 March 1998, and 15 June 1998. I will arrange for the lists of areas to be placed in the library of the House.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has given to local authorities to define the term "significant effects" that would require a local planning authority to refuse a development in a special area of conservation; and if he will make a statement. [48956]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: The advice given to local planning authorities on dealing with applications which may have implications for sites which have been submitted to the European Commission as candidate Special Areas of Conservation is set out in Annexe C of Planning Policy Guidance: Nature Conservation (PPG9). PPG9 advises local planning authorities to take advice from English Nature in considering whether the effect of a proposed development is likely to be significant in terms of the ecological objectives for which the site was designated. English Nature will consider each case individually.

  Dry Cleaning Industry (Chemicals)
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what legislation exists to restrict the use of chemicals in the dry cleaning industry; and if he will introduce measures to increase regulation. [48627]

  Angela Eagle
  The relevant legislation is as follows: The Dry Cleaning Special Regulations 1949; The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations 1994; The Environmental Protection (Control of Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer) Regulations 1996 and EC Regulation 3093/94 of 15 December 1994 on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Compliance with these Regulations will ensure that exposure to chemicals in the dry cleaning industry is prevented or, where that is not reasonably practicable, adequately controlled and the environmental impact is minimised.

  The European Commission has recently submitted proposals for a new regulation on ozone-depleting substances. The proposals extend the controls contained in EC Regulation 3093/94 and would prevent the use of substances such as trichlorotrifluoroethane (CFC 113) in dry cleaning equipment. The Government will shortly be consulting on these proposals.

  Traffic Accidents (A64)
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) injuries and (b) fatalities occurred as a result of traffic accidents on the A64 between Leeds and York in each of the last 10 years. [49081]
  478
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Casualties in accidents on the A64 between Leeds and york 1998–97

  Year

  Fatal

  Injured

  All

  1998

  4

  61

  65

  1989

  4

  32

  36

  1990

  2

  63

  65

  1991

  0

  65

  65

  1992

  3

  48

  51

  1993

  2

  34

  36

  1994

  1

  36

  37

  1995

  0

  43

  43

  1996

  1

  47

  48

  1997

  1

  72

  73

  Welsh Highland Railway
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce the outcome of the public inquiry into the reopening of the Welsh Highland Railway by the Ffestiniog Railway Company; and if he will make a statement. [49010]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Inspector's report following the public local inquiry is being considered by the Secretary of State. A decision will be made as soon as possible.

  Action with Communities in Rural England
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he made to the Minister for Agriculture about the title of the latter's recent speech to Action with Communities in Rural England. [49016]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: None.

  Non-domestic Rates
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what were the total amounts(a) collected throughout Greater London in non-domestic rates and (b) received by the London boroughs from the national non-domestic rates pool in the most recent year for which figures are available. [49422]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), on 18 May 1998,Official Report, column 220.

  Otterburn
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to receive the report of the inspector at the public inquiry into the Ministry of Defence notice of proposed development at Otterburn army field training centre; and when he expects to announce his decision. [48677]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: The public inquiry into the proposed development at Otterburn took place in April 1997. Because this has been

  479
  a large and complex inquiry, the Inspector's report has taken some time to produce but should be available later this Summer. The Secretary of State will consider the report and announce his decision as quickly as possible thereafter.

  Water Surges
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to make water companies responsible for damage caused by water surges. [48862]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: Water Companies are liable under the Water Industry Act 1991, section 209, for damage caused by surges on pipes which are vested in the water company itself. Water companies are not responsible under this Act for damage caused on private property resulting from water surges, although a customer may have recourse through common law, if negligence or a fault on the part of the water company can be proved to have caused the damage. At the present time, we have no plans to increase water companies' responsibility in this area.

  Rent Reviews
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to speed up the process of rent reviews. [48806]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to commercial rents. Landlords and tenants agree procedures for rent reviews when negotiating leases. The efficiency of these arrangements is a matter for the parties concerned and their professional advisers. We have no plans to introduce statutory controls, but we are discussing with the professional bodies proposals for a new scheme that would make rent reviews for small business properties cheaper and simpler to determine.

  HFCs
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what recent research(a) his Department and (b) the European Commission has commissioned into HFCs; and if he will place copies of the completed reports in the Library; [49154]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the technical background advice on HFCs commissioned from March Consulting. [49155]

  Angela Eagle
  The report of a study carried out by March Consulting entitled,UK Use and Emissions of Selected Halocarbons, was placed in the Library in August 1996. The Government have recently commissioned further research from March Consulting into current and likely future emissions of HFCs from the UK. Copies of the completed report will be placed in the Library when it is published. The European Commission is also funding research into HFCs, and copies of any report will be placed in the Library when it is available.

  Sewage Pipes
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 16 June 1998,Official Report, column 131, if pipes and fittings which comply with the draft water industry specification for plastic sewage pipes will also be deemed acceptable for use in drainage systems which need to comply with the requirements of Part H of the Building Regulations. [47759]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The requirements of the Building Regulations are cast in functional terms and do not prescribe specific solutions. The Approved Document to Part H of the Building Regulations provides guidance on how that requirement may be met. This guidance includes a list of materials which may be used for below-ground drainage pipes, and the relevant British Standards. However, products which conform to other standards may also be acceptable.

  The pipes and fittings which are the subject of the draft water industry specification for plastic sewage pipes are innovative, and are not covered by the British Standards mentioned in the Approved Document to Part H of the Building Regulations. The draft water industry specification sets out the test criteria to enable the pipes to be judged fit for their intended purpose. These tests use similar performance criteria to those in the British Standards for more conventional pipes. Pipes and fittings which comply with the draft water industry specification for plastic sewage pipes should therefore be acceptable for use in drainage systems which need to comply with the requirements of Part H of the Building Regulations.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 16 June 1998,Official Report, column 131, if the draft water industry specification for plastic sewage pipes will be expected to comply with the requirements of Part H of the Building Regulations. [47760]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The draft water industry specification for plastic sewage pipes refers to pipes for use in sewers, and sets out the test criteria to enable pipes to be judged fit for their intended purpose. The requirements of Part H of the Building Regulations indicate the performance standards required for buildings with regard to foul water drainage, cesspools, septic tanks and settlement tanks, rainwater drainage and solid waste storage. The section relevant to sewers is H1, which states any system which conveys foul water shall be adequate.

  However, the criteria which are used to demonstrate that a foul water drain is adequate and meets Requirement H1 are similar to those of the sewerage undertakers who specify the requirements for sewers. As a result, plastic sewage pipes which meet the draft water industry specification can normally be expected to comply with the requirements of Part H of the Building Regulations.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 16 June 1998,Official Report, column 131, what are his reasons for accepting different specifications and requirements for pipes used in the construction of gravity sewers from pipes used in household drainage, with particular reference to water jetting resistance ranging from 1,900 to 5,000 pounds per square inch. [47761]
  481
  Mr. Raynsford
  The Code of Practice for Sewer Jetting provides guidance on good practice when using high pressure water jetting equipment for unblocking and cleaning drains and sewers. It says that house drains should not be jetted at pressures exceeding 1,900 pounds per square inch. 5,000 pounds per square inch is the maximum pressure at which this guidance indicates sewers may be jetted, and this pressure applies to pipes in good structural condition laid in materials such as clay or concrete.

  This document was prepared by the water industry, and the specifications within it are thus not formally endorsed by the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 16 June 1998,Official Report, column 131, what plans he has to ensure that all plastic drainage and sewage pipes withstand cleaning by high pressure water jetting. [47762]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A Code of Practice for Sewer Jetting has been produced by the water industry. In addition, the draft Water Industry Standard for plastic sewer pipes includes a test for resistance to jetting. Given that the industry is already regulating itself in this way, it is not considered that there is any need for the Government to intervene.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 16 June 1998,Official Report, column 131, for what reasons pipes which comply with the draft water industry specification for plastic sewers may have a water jetting resistance of 1,900 pounds per square inch; what account he took of (a) the maximum recommended pressures set out in the Code of Practice in determining this level and (b) the requirement of Part H of the Building Regulations to minimise the risk of blockage and leakage. [47763]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The draft Water Industry Specification for plastic sewer pipes gives 1,900 pounds per square inch as the maximum pressure for jetting sewers or drains where the composition or condition is unknown. However, this Specification was not prepared by my Department but was drawn up under the direction of the UK Water Industry Engineering and Operations Committee.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much has been spent to deal with problems of rough sleepers in each of the past five years in(a) England, (b) London and (c) Bristol; and what estimate he has made of the total numbers of rough sleepers in each location for each of those years. [49183]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The first two phases of the Rough Sleepers Initiative (1990–93 and 1993–96) were focused entirely on central London where the problem of rough sleeping was at its most acute. During that time, the Government provided £182 million to help rough sleepers in the capital to start a new life away from the streets. Under the third phase of the RSI (1996–99) a further £73 million has been provided and help has been extended to cover new areas in London as well as 27 other areas 482
  including Bristol. Of the total resources available up to the end of March 1999, around £8 million will have been spent under the RSI on dealing with rough sleeping in Bristol.

  No figures are available for the total numbers of rough sleepers in (a) England, (b) London and (c) Bristol for each of the last five years. This is because rough sleeping is a fluid rather than a static problem and the number of individuals sleeping rough will be different each night. In four main areas of central London, outreach work by voluntary organisations in 1996–97, identified 2,381 individuals who slept rough at some time during the course of that year. No such detailed information exists for other areas, although Shelter have estimated that around 2,000 people may be sleeping rough on any one night throughout England. The most recent single night survey of people sleeping in areas of central London surveyed since 1992 found 282 people sleeping rough, down from estimates of more than 1,000 before the Initiative began. In Bristol, the most recent single night count for which figures have been published found 32 people sleeping rough.

  The Social Exclusion Unit have today published their report to the Prime Minister on Rough Sleeping which sets the tough target of reducing the level of rough sleeping by two thirds by 2002.

  Billiton
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has made to Billiton plc. regarding the social and environmental implications of their proposed Eastern Cape Zinc Refinery Project, South Africa. [49426]

  Angela Eagle
  None.

  Multinationals (OECD Guidelines)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consultations his Department has had with the Department of Trade and Industry regarding the current review of the OECD guidelines on multinational enterprises. [49160]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department of Trade and Industry have been liaising at official level on the review (in the form of meetings and internal communications) in preparation for the recent meeting on the guidelines at OECD in Paris. Departments will continue to liaise.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  National Grid for Learning
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure that funds allocated to schools via the National Grid for Learning are sufficient to cover the costs of necessary infrastructure, with particular reference to electric points and security systems. [48087]

  Mr. Byers
  The National Grid for Learning Standards Fund supports expenditure of over £100 million in 1998–99. It has been allocated to support schools'
  483
  investment in local network infrastructure, including costs associated with their installation, maintenance and use. Related improvements to buildings and services are the responsibility of the LEA or school governors.

  Schools would be expected to take full account of the security implications of such investments at an early stage in the planning cycle and guidance is freely available from the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency to help them in this process. Grants are available from the Standards Fund to support improvements in the security of school premises, including of IT equipment.

  Businesses (Training)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures his Department is taking to increase the availability of good quality training facilities in Coventry. [48535]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government fund a range of national programmes, through the Coventry and Warwickshire Chamber of Commerce, Training and Enterprise. This organisation is charged with ensuring—in partnership with all key players—that the availability of training facilities, the mix of different programmes and the location of their delivery are appropriate to the needs of the area. These needs are developed in partnership, with the Chamber in the strategic lead, and are reviewed on a regular basis in consultation with the Government Office through an in-year and annual business planning process.

  With regard to the quality of training and facilities, all Chambers and Training and Enterprise Councils are required to have in place a system of quality assurance which meets quality standards defined by my Department. The Chamber goes through a licensing and 3 year re-licensing process and, more recently, within the context of re-licensing we have introduced the Business Excellence Model as an additional measure designed to drive up standards.

  The National Training Standards Council has been set up and it will inspect and report on all Government funded training; it is anticipated that the Council will, over a 4 year timescale, inspect all training providers. The focus of the inspections will be on what the trainees receive and the benefits which accrue to them as customers of this training.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the role of training in encouraging the growth of small firms. [48532]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department does not have statistical proof of the effect of training on the growth of small firms, because it is too difficult to isolate the impact of training from other factors including the wider economy. However, some small firms have reported growth in terms of employment, productivity, turnover and profitability as a result of training. Research on the issue was reviewed in a DfEE Research Report by David Storey and Paul Westhead in 1997 which is available in the Library.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was allocated through his Department to small and medium enterprises for training purposes in each of the five years up to 1997. [48533]
  484
  Dr. Howells
  The Department contracts with, and funds, Training and Enterprise Councils to arrange work based training for young people and unemployed adults, and to support organisations to be recognised as Investors in People. Many small and medium enterprises are involved with, and benefit from these initiatives locally. However, we do not have information about the split of funding between different sized enterprises.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what statistics his Department has collated on the effect of training on staff turnover rates in small and medium firms in the United Kingdom. [48536]

  Dr. Howells
  Studies investigating the relationship between training and labour turnover typically use data from surveys of individuals, so statistics are not available on the effect of training on turnover by firm size. A recent study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies used data from the Labour Force Survey and National Child Development Study to examine this relationship, and found that labour mobility was lower for individuals who had previously received work-related training, particularly if this training was employer-funded.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if Government funding will be provided to non-denominational schools for new classrooms in order to meet the target of class sizes of 30 or under for five to seven year olds. [49292]

  Mr. Byers
  Yes. Denominational and non-denominational schools alike will benefit from the £40 million allocated to reduce infant class sizes, announced on 3 July.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many Church primary schools in Chorley will benefit from Government funding for new classrooms in order to reduce class sizes to 30 or under. [49291]

  Mr. Byers
  St. Laurence Church of England Primary School, Chorley, the only Church primary school in Chorley put forward, has been allocated £66,329 in 1998–99 to fund an additional classroom to reduce infant class sizes to 30 or below. More funding will be made available in future years where additional classrooms are needed to reduce infant class sizes.

  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average class size in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in (i) Barnsley and (ii) Doncaster. [45823]

  Mr. Byers
  The latest available information for Barnsley and Doncaster Local Education Authority areas is shown in the table.

  Average size of classes taught by one teacher in maintained Primary and secondary schools—January 1998 (Provisional)

  Primary

  secondary

  Barnsley LEA area

  29.1

  23.4

  Doncaster LEA area

  28.2

  21.5

  485
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the costs of reducing class sizes to under 30 for all pupils in the first three years of school in the years(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000. [48361]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: Our pledge is to reduce infant class sizes to 30 or below by the end of the Parliament using the savings made from phasing out the Assisted Places Scheme. For 1998–99, we have allocated £62 million for extra teachers and classrooms to help LEAs and schools to begin to achieve the pledge.

  Lifelong Learning
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures he has taken to involve the over-60s in lifelong learning. [49428]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment published his proposals for lifelong learning for all in the Green Paper,The Learning Age: A Renaissance for a New Britain (Cm 3790), on 25 February. We would welcome comments on these proposals from people of all ages, including the over-60s. Access to learning will also play a part in the Better Government for Older People programme launched by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 5 June.

  Seasonal Work (Horticulture)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to facilitate the recruitment of United Kingdom nationals for seasonal work in horticulture. [49190]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We are looking at disincentives to work, including the position of seasonal workers, as part of the welfare state review. We are aware that administrative procedures associated with making a repeat claim for Jobseeker's Allowance, following short periods of casual work, can act as a disincentive for unemployed people to take up such opportunities. DfEE, along with those in the Department of Social Security, are considering ways in which the process can be made simpler, in order to address the disincentives which exist. Jobseekers can already use a shortened repeat claim form where they return to Jobseeker's Allowance within two weeks of leaving.

  Education Action Zones
  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the terms of the education action zone to be implemented in Wigan. [48447]

  Mr. Byers
  Wigan Education Action Zone, which covers the West Leigh area of Wigan, will start in January 1999. It will receive some £3,000,000 in additional funding over a 3 year period.
  486
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the names of each school covered by each of the education action zones announced on 23 June, indicating for each the latest available GCSE results or Key Stage 2 results as appropriate. [47815]

  Mr. Byers
  The information requested is shown in a table, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  New Deal(Costs)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much has been spent on the New Deal programme to get 18 to 25 year olds back to work in the year 1997–98; and what are the estimated costs for(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000. [48509]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: The provisional amount spent on the New Deal for Young People (18 to 24 year olds) for 1997–98 is £36 million. The majority of this amount represents expenditure incurred centrally in supporting the early implementation of the New Deal. A final figure will be available by the end of August. The New Deal is financed from the receipts of the Windfall Tax on the privatised utilities. Expenditure is planned over the Parliament as a whole and unspent resources in any single year are available for spending on the New Deal in future years.

  The estimated cost for 1998–99 is £594 million and for 1999–2000 £675 million. The New Deal is demand led and actual provision for any particular year will be decided in the light of the level of unemployment and experience gained in running the New Deal.

  The above figures are for Great Britain and reflect the cost of the New Deal for Young People to the Department for Education and Employment.

  Further Education Colleges (Hampshire)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the current financial state of further education colleges in Hampshire. [48569]

  Dr. Howells
  The Further Education Funding Council keeps under review the financial status of further education colleges in England.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the number of further education colleges in Hampshire incapable of fulfilling their duty to provide adequate and sufficient facilities to their students. [48568]

  Dr. Howells
  The Further Education Funding Council has a statutory duty to ensure that there are adequate and sufficient facilities for further education in England.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the percentage of 16 year olds in(a) Kent schools and (b) schools in other shire counties in the year 1996–97 who entered higher education. [48820]
  487
  Dr. Howells
  Available information on higher education participation rates of 16 to 19 year olds from Kent, other shire counties and the whole of England is given in the following table.

  Entrants to higher education courses at UK higher education institutions in 1997–98 by age and region of domicile and as a proportion of the regional population

  Domicile

  Age1

  Entrants

  Population2

  Proportion (per cent.)

  Kent

  16

  1

  19,729

  0

  17

  49

  19,603

  0

  18

  3,729

  18,724

  20

  19

  1,733

  16,984

  10

  Other Shire Counties3

  16

  24

  368,704

  0

  17

  908

  371,891

  0

  18

  73,076

  357,310

  20

  19

  34,136

  325,028

  11

  England

  16

  55

  611,215

  0

  17

  1,517

  621,690

  0

  18

  118,009

  605,296

  19

  19

  57,688

  558,083

  10

  1Age as at 31 August 1997

  2Populations at 1 January 1998, by age at 31 August 1997. Based on projections from the Government Actuary's Department and the Office for National Statistics

  3Includes the following regions as they existed prior to local government reorganisation in 1997: Avon, Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Cheshire, Cleveland, Cornwall, Cumbria, Derbyshire, Devon, Dorset, Durham, East Sussex, Essex, Gloucestershire, Hampshire, Hereford and Worcester, Hertfordshire, Humberside, Isle of Wight, Lancashire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, North Yorkshire, Northamptonshire, Northumberland, Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Shropshire, Somerset, Staffordshire, Suffolk, Surrey, Warwickshire, West Sussex, Wiltshire

  Schools (North Tyneside)
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the(a) first and (b) primary schools in North Tyneside which currently have a budget (i) surplus and (ii) deficit. [48539]

  Mr. Byers
  Information on the position at the end of the financial year 1997–98 is not yet available centrally. It will be available when local education authorities publish their outturn statements in the Autumn. I will write to my hon. Friend in due course, and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library.

  Secondary Schools (Performance Targets)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his latest estimate of cost for the recently announced programme of national performance targeting for secondary schools; and if he will make a statement. [48179]

  Mr. Byers
  Target-setting is good practice and many schools already set targets for pupil attainment. The requirement for secondary schools to set targets for pupils' achievement at the end of Key Stage 4 will not require additional resources.

  Teachers (Restraint Procedures)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers have undergone training in approved restraint procedures. [47885]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information is not available.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidelines his Department has issued to schools on the training of teachers in approved restraint procedures. [47886]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department has not issued any specific guidance about this. We intend to issue guidance to schools in July about the provisions of Section 550A of the Education Act 1996 which comes into force on 1 September. That clarifies the powers teachers have to use reasonable force to control or restrain pupils. Amongst other things, the guidance will discuss the circumstances in which physical intervention might be appropriate, and the factors teachers should bear in mind when deciding whether to intervene. We are also considering guidance to assist staff in choosing strategies for restraining pupils who present challenging behaviour and may have special educational needs.

  Special Educational Needs
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidelines his Department has issued to pupil referral units on the enrolment or non-enrolment of children on their registers. [47888]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department has provided guidance on this matter to pupil referral units in Circular 11/94 'The Education by LEAs of Children Otherwise than at School'. We will be consulting on revised guidance on the education of children out of school, including in pupil referral units, later this year.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list(a) the primary and (b) the secondary independent schools with the facility of emotional and behavioural difficulties specialty by local authority in England. [47993]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The requested information is given in tables which have been placed in the Library. List A shows independent schools approved under s.347(1) of the Education Act 1996 for the admission of pupils with statements of special educational need specifying emotional and behavioural difficulties, by authority in which the school is situated and by age range specified in its terms of approval. List B shows schools with provisional or final registration under s.465 of the Act which have indicated that they can cater for this group of pupils: in most cases this has been verified by OFSTED but such verification may still be awaited for a few recently registered schools. Before a local education authority places a child with a statement in one of the schools on List B, it requires the consent of the Secretary of State under s.347(5)(b) of the Act.

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many jobcentres were(a) open and (b) closed in each region in each of the last 10 years; and how many closures are currently planned; [48297]
  489
  (2) if he will list the name and location of each jobcentre which has been designated for closure. [48294]

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

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 1998:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions concerning the opening and closure of Employment Service Jobcentres. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  It may be helpful if I explain that the Employment Service's Agency Framework Document includes provision for the Chief Executive of the Agency to make changes to the Jobcentre network. This provision reflects the need to make adjustments from time to time in response to changing circumstances and needs.
  With regard to your question on the numbers of Jobcentres which have been opened and closed over the last ten years, I regret that I am not able to provide the full information you have requested. Between 1989 and 1995 the Employment Service rationalised its estate through a programme of 'integration' which brought together the previously separate networks of Jobcentres and Unemployment Benefit Offices. During this period the Employment Service estate was reduced by over 900 offices to a total of approximately 1,030 locations. Since December 1995, 10 Jobcentres have been closed and details of these are shown in the attached annex.
  As far as planned closures are concerned, we are currently proposing closure of Dronfield and Eckington Jobcentres in Derbyshire, following public consultation, and considering closure of Liphook Jobcentre in Hampshire and Padiham Jobcentre in Lancashire on which public consultation is currently taking place.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Annex

  Office

  Area

  Full/part time

  Date of closure

  Gorleston

  Norfolk

  Part time

  December 1995

  Bourne

  Lincolnshire

  Full time

  March 1996

  Kirkby in Ashfield

  Nottinghamshire

  Part time

  March 1996

  Blaenavon

  Wales

  Part time

  July 1996

  Kidwelly

  Wales

  Part time

  July 1996

  Pontardulais

  Wales

  Part time

  July 1996

  Penygroes

  Wales

  Part time

  July 1996

  Buckley

  Wales

  Part time

  August 1996

  Burgess Hill

  West Sussex

  Full time

  September 1996

  Stocksbridge outreach facility1

  Sheffield

  Part time

  December 1996

  1Stocksbridge outreach facility was a local arrangement maintained on a part-time basis by staff from Hillsborough Jobcentre

  Mathematics
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to implement the recommendations concerning better contact between schools, examining bodies, the inspectorate and professional mathematicians contained in the 1995 report, "Tackling the Mathematics Problem". [48837]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I understand that the 1995 Report's recommendations were considered by the Government of the day and their response was made publicly available.
  490
  The Department for Education and Employment has given top priority to raising standards in mathematics. The Numeracy Task Force established by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which includes as a member one of the authors of the Report, has been considering the available evidence relating to mathematics. The Task Force's main objective has been to establish a national strategy to raise standards in mathematics in order to reach the national numeracy target by 2002. Its preliminary report, Numeracy Matters, was the subject of wide consultation earlier this year. Its final report, which will be published shortly, will contain firm recommendations and a practical agenda for implementing the National Numeracy Strategy.

  The National Curriculum review for 2000, on which work has begun, will reflect the priority being given to raising standards in mathematics.

  Welfare-to-work Programme
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many firms have made offers of permanent employment as part of their commitment to the welfare-to-work programme. [47039]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Over 15,000 employers have so far signed formal Employer Agreements committing them to considering New Deal candidates for vacancies.

  Education (Hereford and Worcester)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the education standard spending assessment adjusted for local government reorganisation and nursery vouchers(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95, (d) 1995–96, (e) 1996–97, (f) 1997–98 and (g) 1998–99 for Hereford and Worcester local education authorities (i) in cash terms and (ii) at 1998–99 prices. [47316]

  Mr. Byers
  The table sets out the education SSA for Hereford and Worcester local education authority for each year since 1992–93 in cash terms and in 1998–99 prices. The table also sets out in cash and real terms the year-on-year changes after allowing for local authority changes of function, including nursery vouchers.

  £ million

  Year

  Education SSA

  Year-on-year cash change

  Education SSA at 98–99 prices

  Year-on-year real terms change

  1992–93

  241.9

  —

  282.5

  —

  1993–94

  211.6

  2.6

  240.1

  -3.5

  1994–95

  216.5

  4.9

  242.1

  1.8

  1995–96

  219.8

  4.8

  239.1

  -1.2

  1996–97

  229.0

  9.2

  242.0

  2.8

  1997–98

  230.8

  5.8

  237.5

  -0.3

  1998–99

  245.0

  10.3

  245.0

  3.5

  Notes:

  1. The year-on-year cash and real terms changes take account of local authority changes of function such as nursery vouchers and the transfer in 1993–94 of responsibility for most further education to the Further Education Funding Council

  2. The figures for 1998–99 represent the aggregate totals for Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how staff numbers in his Department have varied between 1 May 1997 and 31 March 1998. [48882]

  Dr. Howells
  Information on staff numbers in the Department and the Employment Service can be found in Annex F of the Department's Annual Report (Cm 3910) and in the Civil Service Staff in Post Summaries for 1 April 1997 and 1 January 1998. Copies of these publications are available in the Library. Information on the numbers employed at 1 May 1997 and 31 March 1998 is not readily available. The next Civil Service Staff in Post Summary—for 1 April 1998—will be published by the Cabinet Office.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what contingency plans his Department is making in the event of the failure of computer systems to recognise the year 2000; when he expects them to be in place, and tested; and if he will make a statement. [48847]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department fully recognises the importance of doing all it can to minimise the effect of the Year 2000 problem. Remedial action to adapt and test all our computer systems is underway. Within my department, we have identified the systems on which we depend for the conduct of normal business. As we test the effectiveness of remedial action (during the course of this year), we will assess the impact of system failure and develop appropriate contingency arrangements for each one. We are also in the process of identifying key technical personnel who will need to be available over the Millennium period.

  GCSE achievements of 15 year old pupils entered for GCSE science subjects, in Norfolk schools from 1992 to 1997 (maintained schools only)

  Grades achieved by 15 year old pupils entered

  A1

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  U

  X

  Total

  1991–921

  Single Award Science

  —

  42

  80

  409

  354

  384

  313

  158

  78

  75

  1,893

  Double Award Science

  —

  510

  570

  1,484

  1,027

  746

  437

  162

  48

  44

  5,026

  Other Science

  —

  2

  4

  16

  15

  28

  17

  11

  4

  9

  106

  1992–931

  Single Award Science

  —

  23

  56

  285

  297

  301

  251

  143

  93

  71

  1,520

  Double Award Science

  —

  433

  534

  1,667

  1,074

  769

  454

  240

  92

  48

  5,309

  Other Science

  —

  2

  5

  20

  17

  29

  22

  15

  5

  6

  121

  1993–941

  Single Award Science

  0

  10

  82

  88

  268

  328

  261

  126

  68

  48

  1,279

  Double Award Science

  144

  331

  1,313

  1,089

  1,295

  887

  430

  120

  47

  97

  5,752

  Other Science

  0

  2

  5

  8

  8

  11

  6

  1

  2

  5

  48

  1994–95

  Biological Science

  0

  3

  12

  6

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  23

  Chemistry

  1

  2

  6

  14

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  24

  Physics

  3

  6

  11

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  24

  Single Award Science

  2

  8

  85

  135

  332

  376

  244

  103

  38

  69

  1,392

  Double Award Science

  206

  410

  1,214

  1,457

  1,252

  893

  386

  88

  35

  105

  6,044

  Other Science

  0

  3

  3

  7

  13

  22

  7

  1

  0

  2

  58

  492
  The Employment Service, who provide vital services to the public, are developing and improving existing contingency plans to ensure they address Year 2000 issues. These will cover all services as appropriate.

  We are also working closely with other organisations in the education, training, and employment sectors to encourage them to develop contingency measures where appropriate, especially where services to the citizen could be affected.

  Chemistry Students
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the effectiveness of the A-level chemistry curriculum and exam in preparing students for degree courses in chemistry and biochemistry. [48744]

  Dr. Howells
  The 1996 joint report by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA) and the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) on examination standards over time concluded that there was some evidence of a marginal reduction in the knowledge and understanding demonstrated by A level Chemistry candidates between 1975 and 1995, but that it did not appear that any change in attainment of those entering undergraduate courses in chemistry had adversely affected the distribution of final degree classes over recent years. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is currently drawing up new criteria for all A level syllabuses which will reflect the recommendations in the SCAA/OFSTED report for ensuring that A level standards are maintained.

  Science Students
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the achievement grades at(a) A-level and (b) GCSE in each of the science subjects in Norfolk schools in each of the years 1992 to 1997. [41160]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 8 May 1998]: The information requested for GCE A levels and GCSEs is shown in the following table.
  493

  GCSE achievements of 15 year old pupils entered for GCSE science subjects, in Norfolk schools from 1992 to 1997 (maintained schools only)

  Grades achieved by 15 year old pupils entered

  A1

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  U

  X

  Total

  1995–96

  Biological Science

  1

  7

  25

  15

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  52

  Chemistry

  3

  4

  19

  23

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  51

  Physics

  2

  9

  16

  16

  7

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  51

  Single Award Science

  1

  9

  109

  171

  369

  375

  251

  88

  57

  56

  1,486

  Double Award Science

  200

  497

  1,209

  1,382

  1,342

  897

  447

  109

  79

  94

  6,255

  Other Science

  5

  11

  15

  19

  19

  19

  16

  4

  3

  4

  115

  1996–97

  Biological Science

  0

  3

  9

  7

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  20

  Chemistry

  1

  2

  6

  11

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  21

  Physics

  1

  0

  9

  9

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  19

  Single Award Science

  1

  14

  101

  129

  347

  331

  233

  86

  42

  30

  1,314

  Double Award Science

  233

  553

  1,290

  1,459

  1,407

  847

  392

  98

  68

  106

  6,453

  Other Science

  2

  7

  15

  27

  10

  14

  6

  4

  3

  2

  90

  1Less than 10 candidates were entered for GCSE biology, chemistry or physics in 1991–92 to 1993–94

  GCE A level achievements of 16–18 year old pupils entered for science subjects, in Norfolk schools from 1992 to 1997 (maintained schools only)

  Grades achieved by 16–18 year old pupils entered

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  N

  U

  X

  Total

  1991–92

  Biological Science

  21

  48

  66

  77

  89

  49

  43

  5

  398

  Chemistry

  26

  54

  57

  51

  58

  30

  40

  2

  318

  Physics

  33

  46

  44

  69

  61

  55

  44

  2

  354

  Other Science

  4

  5

  9

  21

  10

  4

  4

  0

  57

  1992–93

  Biological Sciences

  30

  45

  46

  75

  71

  48

  23

  3

  341

  Chemistry

  17

  31

  47

  37

  23

  31

  30

  2

  218

  Physics

  31

  31

  47

  43

  39

  26

  30

  2

  249

  Other Science

  5

  5

  3

  11

  6

  5

  3

  0

  38

  1993–94

  Biological Sciences

  41

  59

  76

  83

  83

  43

  33

  4

  422

  Chemistry

  45

  34

  36

  42

  35

  32

  27

  2

  253

  Physics

  51

  50

  38

  38

  34

  24

  12

  0

  247

  Other Science

  11

  16

  6

  16

  8

  6

  2

  0

  65

  1994–95

  Biological Sciences

  52

  64

  63

  90

  61

  36

  25

  5

  396

  Chemistry

  46

  34

  39

  40

  28

  23

  15

  3

  228

  Physics

  41

  34

  34

  48

  39

  17

  7

  1

  221

  Other Science

  8

  4

  15

  13

  15

  5

  0

  0

  60

  1995–96

  Biological Sciences

  33

  54

  64

  91

  85

  53

  39

  2

  421

  Chemistry

  36

  39

  45

  44

  37

  11

  3

  0

  215

  Physics

  41

  30

  44

  47

  48

  18

  10

  2

  240

  Other Science

  7

  4

  9

  19

  6

  6

  0

  0

  51

  1996–97

  Biological Sciences

  49

  76

  74

  108

  74

  38

  26

  2

  447

  Chemistry

  57

  49

  51

  39

  53

  22

  16

  0

  287

  Physics

  47

  42

  47

  37

  30

  15

  9

  2

  229

  Other Science

  3

  7

  10

  10

  11

  4

  1

  0

  46

  494

  GCSE/GNVQ Scores
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the average GCSE point scores in 1997 of each equal twentieth group of(a) male, (b) female and (c) all 15 year old pupils when all such pupils are ranked by their total GCSE point scores, the number of pupils and the average number of GCSEs entered per pupil in each group; what proportions

  Average GCSE point scores for 1997

  Males

  Females

  Males and Females

  Number of 15 year olds

  Average number of attempts

  GCSE points

  Number of 15 year olds

  Average number of attempts

  GCSE points

  Number of 15 year olds

  Average number of attempts

  GCSE points

  14,975

  0.0

  0.0

  14,363

  0.0

  0.0

  29,338

  0.0

  0.0

  14,976

  2.0

  0.4

  14,363

  4.0

  3.0

  29,339

  2.9

  1.3

  14,975

  4.7

  5.8

  14,363

  6.4

  11.4

  29,338

  5.4

  8.1

  14,976

  6.5

  11.4

  14,362

  7.7

  17.9

  29,338

  7.1

  14.2

  14,975

  7.4

  16.0

  14,363

  8.2

  22.9

  29,339

  7.8

  19.1

  14,976

  7.9

  20.0

  14,363

  8.5

  26.8

  29,338

  8.2

  23.2

  14,975

  8.3

  23.5

  14,363

  8.7

  30.3

  29,338

  8.5

  26.7

  14,976

  8.5

  26.8

  14,363

  8.9

  33.4

  29,338

  8.7

  30.0

  14,975

  8.7

  29.9

  14,363

  9.0

  36.3

  29,339

  8.9

  33.1

  14,976

  8.9

  33.0

  14,363

  9.1

  39.0

  29,338

  9.0

  36.0

  14,975

  9.0

  35.9

  14,362

  9.1

  41.7

  29,338

  9.1

  38.8

  14,975

  9.1

  38.7

  14,363

  9.2

  44.3

  29,339

  9.2

  41.6

  14,976

  9.2

  41.6

  14,363

  9.3

  46.9

  29,338

  9.2

  44.3

  14,975

  9.2

  44.4

  14,363

  9.3

  49.3

  29,338

  9.3

  47.0

  14,976

  9.3

  47.2

  14,363

  9.4

  51.9

  29,339

  9.4

  49.7

  14,975

  9.4

  50.2

  14,363

  9.4

  54.6

  29,338

  9.4

  52.6

  14,976

  9.5

  53.5

  14,362

  9.5

  57.4

  29,338

  9.5

  55.6

  14,975

  9.6

  57.3

  14,363

  9.6

  60.7

  29,338

  9.6

  59.2

  14,976

  9.8

  62.3

  14,363

  9.7

  64.9

  29,339

  9.7

  63.8

  14,975

  10.2

  71.6

  14,363

  10.2

  72.7

  29,338

  10.2

  72.2

  299,509

  7.9

  33.5

  287,257

  8.3

  38.3

  586,766

  8.1

  35.8

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what contingency plans his Department is making in the event of the failure of computer systems to recognise the year 2000; when he expects them to be in place, and tested; and if he will make a statement. [48845]

  Mr. Morley
  In recognition of the importance of the Year 2000 issue, the Department has established a major programme of work and intends that all business critical systems will be millennium compliant by April 1999. However, in case of possible failure of some systems to recognise the Year 2000, we are following central (CCTA) advice on contingency planning and related risk management.

  Contingency plans are being prepared for all key systems/areas and will be in place by mid-1999. Key elements of the plans will be tested in the same timescale.

  Dairy Farm Inspections
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the circumstances which necessitate the carrying out of unaccompanied inspections of dairy farms by inspectors 496
  of pupils in each group also took (i) an intermediate GNVQ, and (ii) a foundation GNVQ, indicating the numbers gaining each grade. [44955]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 9 June 1998]: The information requested in respect of average GCSE point scores for 1997 is shown in the following table. However, information on the proportion of pupils in each group who took GNVQs is not available.

  from the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency when the farmer is absent at the time of the inspector's unannounced visit. [48754]

  Mr. Rooker
  Normally inspections are not made where no one is available on the farm. However, if conditions appear very bad, a list of faults is left on the farm. The producer is contacted as soon as possible after the visit by the Dairy Hygiene Inspector to discuss the situation. Such a visit is chargeable.

  Dairy Products
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to review the Dairy Products (Hygiene) Regulations to improve their compatibility with Welfare of Animals Regulations. [48755]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Dairy Products (Hygiene) Regulations 1995 (as amended) already lay down animal health standards, and conditions for housing of animals, as well as general conditions of hygiene for production holdings which require that all animals should be clean and well kept. I am not aware of any incompatibility with welfare legislation.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those countries which have an import ban on UK dairy products; and if he will make a statement. [48644]
  497
  Mr. Rooker
  The countries which have an import ban on UK dairy products are Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Uzbekistan, Guatemala, Tanzania, Tunisia, Argentina, Guinea Bissau and Syria. Action taken by the Government to encourage these bans to be lifted includes the provision of evidence from independent bodies including the World Health Organisation, the International Epizootics Organisation, the European Union's Scientific and Standing Veterinary Committees and the UK Spongiform Encephalophy Advisory Committee (SEAC), confirming the safety of UK dairy products in relation to BSE. Similar bans in a number of other countries have now been lifted.

  MAFF staff in post summary table

  Permanent staff

  Casual staff

  Total staff

  Department/Agency

  1 April 1997

  1 January 1998

  1 April 1997

  1 January 1998

  1 April 1997

  1 January 1998

  Core MAFF

  5,649

  5,748

  629

  614

  6,278

  6,362

  Farming and Rural Conservation Agency

  436

  512

  55

  60

  491

  572

  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science

  410

  409

  23

  27

  433

  436

  Central Science Laboratory

  521

  549

  44

  22

  565

  571

  Meat Hygiene Service

  796

  905

  415

  539

  1,211

  1,444

  Pesticides Safety Directorate

  194

  192

  13

  13

  207

  205

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  986

  992

  39

  45

  1,025

  1,037

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  100

  105

  4

  2

  104

  107

  MAFF total

  9,092

  9,412

  1,222

  1,322

  10,314

  10,734

  Note:

  Staff numbers expressed as Full-Time Equivalents (FTE) with part-time staff counted as a proportion of net conditioned hours worked.

  Ruminants (Foodstuffs)
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date his Department was informed of the Swedish Government's ban on the use of animal remains for foodstuffs to ruminants; what action was taken in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [49309]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Swedish Government banned the incorporation of meat and bone products in ruminant feed in December 1990. This ban was extended, in December 1993, to include all products from ruminants except fats, milk and milk products, and amended in February 1995 to prohibit protein derived from mammalian tissues.

  An EU-wide ban on the feeding of mammalian protein to ruminants was introduced on 27 June 1994. It therefore falls to the EC Commission to ensure that Member States comply.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultation the Advisory Group on Quarantine has had with disability organisations about prioritising quarantine reform in respect of guide dogs and hearing dogs. [49290]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Advisory Group on Quarantine has sought the views of Hearing Dogs for the Deaf, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and the Royal National Institute for the Blind on specific points relating to its

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how staff numbers in his Department have varied between 1 May 1997 and 31 March 1998. [48877]

  Mr. Morley
  Figures from 1 May 1997 to 31 March 1998 are not readily available. The latest comparable information published in the quarterly Civil Service Statistics covers the period 1 April 1997 to 1 January 1998 and is detailed in the table. This shows how the numbers of staff in my Department and its Agencies have varied between the two dates. Quarterly Civil Service Statistics are available in the Library of the House and on the Internet.

  review of rabies control policy. The Advisory Group has also received advice from the Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People.

  Fishing Limits
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under which procedure the derogation permitting six and 12-mile fishing limits will be renewable, and if unanimity will apply. [49328]

  Mr. Morley
  Renewal of the restrictions on access by foreign fishing vessels within Member States' 6 and 12 mile limits after 2002 will require the agreement of a qualified majority of the Council to a proposal from the European Commission. Although only a qualified majority vote is required, there was unanimous support when the restrictions were last renewed in 1992.

  Surplus Beef
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to the European Union Agriculture Ministers about the rule prohibiting the distribution of surplus beef to pensioners who are not on income support; what steps he is taking to change the law to allow such distribution; and if he will make a statement. [48957]

  Mr. Rooker
  The EU legislation governing this Scheme requires Member States to ensure that the produce is distributed only to the most deprived citizens in the community. To comply with this requirement in the UK, the criteria for eligibility were set in consultation
  499
  with the Department of Social Security. Persons on Income Support, Family Credit, Disability Working Allowance and Jobseeker's Allowance (income-based only) are all eligible to receive produce, as are the homeless and destitute and those living in welfare hostels. Pensioners as a group are not included since receipt of a State pension is not considered to be a sufficient indicator of need in itself, although those pensioners who meet one or other of the criteria are eligible. The Government have no plans to seek a change in EU law which would materially alter this position.

  Action with Communities in Rural England
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he received from the Deputy Prime Minister on the subject of his recent talk to Action with Communities in Rural England, with particular reference to its title. [49017]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: None.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the(a) original and (b) final titles of his recent address to Action with Communities in Rural England. [49015]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: The title of this address, delivered by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, was 'An Integrated Strategy for Rural Affairs'.

  (£/ha)

  Farm type

  Conventional net margin

  Final organic system net margin

  Additional profit (loss) from organic system

  Specialist dairy1

  1,489

  1,654

  165

  Mainly dairy1

  1,077

  1,178

  101

  Mainly arable2 (major change to enterprise mix)

  642

  544

  (98)

  Mainly arable2 (minimum change)

  517

  583

  66

  Stockless arable3

  745

  767

  22

  Lowland livestock2

  621

  556

  (65)

  Upland livestock2

  450

  482

  32

  Hill livestock4 (i.e. mainly rough grazing)

  338

  318

  (20)

  1Assumes premium of 3.5p/1 for organic milk

  2Assumes premia £40/tonnes feed wheat, £70/tonne milling wheat (arable scenararios only, 50% of wheat assumed to be of milling quality), 10% livestock. Organic profitability would be significantly higher if potatoes could be included in the rotation

  3Assumes premia £40/tonne feed wheat, £70/tonne milling wheat, £70/tonne potatoes, 10% livestock

  4Assumes premium of 10% for livestock

  Further details are contained in the Review of the Organic Aid Scheme, a copy of which has been placed in the House.

  These figures are based on models of average farms and the economics for individual businesses will vary. Farmers considering conversion to organic farming should assess the implications for their own businesses. Free advice, including a telephone help line and on-farm advisory visits, is available from the Organic Conversion Information Service (01179 227707), funded by the Ministry.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has evaluated into the feasibility of organic hill farming. [48787]

  Dairy Farmers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the retail price of milk has gone to dairy farmers in each of the last five years. [48783]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 3 July 1998]: The proportion of the retail price of milk that has gone to dairy farmers in each of the last five years is approximately as follows:

  Year

  Percentage

  1993

  46

  1994

  48

  1995

  53

  1996

  51

  1997

  46

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the additional costs associated with organic farming. [48786]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 July 1998]: Estimates of the comparative costs of organic and conventional systems were prepared in summer 1997 by the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency. These estimates are based on average yields for both systems and reflect a conservative view of organic premia (i.e. that the premiums for organic produce will be lower than at present). The results for eight farm types considered were as follows.

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 July 1998]: Since 1991, the Department has funded a large-scale system study at ADAS Redesdale in Northumberland to explore the practical and financial implications of organic hill farming. The project has also involved comparisons with the performance of a range of commercial organic hill farms. This research has been guided by a steering group involving organic farmers and the results have been widely disseminated. The project will cost £220,000 in 1998/99 and has recently been extended to March 2001.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the proposed Rural White Paper. [48794]
  501
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 July 1998]: We are considering the best way of taking forward and presenting rural policy, on which we have received a number of representations.

  Ministry of Rural Affairs
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the proposed Ministry of Rural Affairs. [48793]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 July 1998]: The Agriculture Committee in its report of 11 December 1997 on the MAFF/Intervention Board Departmental Report 1997 recommended, among other things, that the Department be re-incarnated as a Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Affairs and Fisheries. This recommendation was made in the context of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR). Some external organisations have expressed views similar to those of the Committee while others have argued against the creation of a Ministry of Rural Affairs.

  The Government's response to the report explained that the Committee's recommendations would be taken into account in the review group's deliberations. The outcome of the CSR has not yet been decided. Decisions about changes in the machinery of Government would ultimately be a matter for the Prime Minister.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with Labour Rural Revival on the subject of the proposed Ministry of Rural Affairs. [48795]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 July 1998]: None.

  Pig Exports
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 20 April 1998,Official Report, columns 488–89, how many of the pigs exported for breeding purposes in 1997 were exported in consignments of (a) 200 to 299, (b) 300 to 399, (c) 400 to 499 and (d) over 500 pigs per lorry; and from which ports these consignments departed. [48027]

  Mr. Rooker
  The figures given in my answer of 20 April were corrected in my pursuant answer of 5 May 1998,Official Report, columns 303–04. Information on the numbers of animals per lorry and the ports through which they were exported could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Information is, however, available on the numbers of animals per certified consignment as follows:

  Consignment size (pigs for breeding)

  Number of certificates issued

  (a) 200–299

  88

  (b) 300–399

  56

  (c) 400–499

  31

  (d) over 500

  15

  This information was obtained from Departmental computer records. They remain provisional and subject to amendment.

WALES

  Health Service Management
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to improve management skills in the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [47915]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Responsibility for management training lies with the NHS in Wales and Health Authorities fund the running of management training schemes through the NHS Staff College Wales. However, over the next few months, in line with our proposals set out in the White Paper "Putting Patients First", steps will be taken to develop a Human Resource Management Strategy sensitive to the needs of NHS Wales. I will be taking a close interest in ensuring that people with appropriate opportunities to develop their skills are in place to improve the management of a complex service.

  Tourism
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many tourists visited Wales during the most recent 12 months for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [48328]

  Mr. Hain
  In 1996, the latest year for which data are available, there were an estimated 11.8 million tourist trips to Wales according to figures published by the Office for National Statistics.

  Dyfed Powys Health Authority
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to approve the revised strategy, April 1998, of the Dyfed Powys Health Authority. [48652]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I met the Chair and other members of the Health Authority Board last month to discuss the strategic plan "Effective Care and Healthy People" and it is to be considered further at a meeting later this month between the Department, the Health Authority and NHS trusts in Dyfed Powys. In the light of these discussions, we will want to consider whether the plan represents a sound basis for NHS provision in Dyfed Powys.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide a breakdown of the potential savings of £350,000 per annum cited in paragraph 4.2.5 of his recently published consultation document on his proposal to dissolve the existing NHS trusts in the Dyfed Powys Health Area. [48653]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Paragraph 4.2.5 relates to the proposals to dissolve the Carmarthen and District and the Llanelli Dinefwr NHS Trusts. The reconfiguration project team for these proposals have identified by the year 2000–01 total savings as:

  £

  Direct board savings

  240,000

  Management costs

  75,000

  Admin and technical support

  175,000

  Non staff

  145,000

  635,000

  503
  When off-set by recurring additional costs of £285,000, a recurring net saving of £350,000 will be realised.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the accuracy of the assumption contained in paragraph 4.4.2 of his consultation document on proposals to dissolve the existing NHS trusts in the Dyfed Powys Health Authority Area that Dyfed Powys Health Authority will receive financial support of £36 million between 1999–2000 and 2001–2002. [48650]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The paragraph in question gives Dyfed Powys Health Authority's estimate (at the time of preparation of the consultation document) of the amount of financial support needed to maintain services at their current level if trust reconfiguration were not to proceed. The Welsh Office is working with the health authority and trusts to refine their strategic plans and reduce this amount. The actual amount of financial support provided to the health authority over the three years will be decided on the basis of need and the availability of resources.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the previous examples of the mergers of small to medium NHS trusts cited at paragraph 1.4 of his recently published consultation document on his proposals to dissolve existing NHS trusts in the Dyfed Powys Health Authority Area. [48654]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  In Wales, the merger of the Pembrokeshire and Derwen NHS Trusts realised savings of £750,000 per annum, and, in England, the merger of the Isle of Wight Community Healthcare and St. Mary's Hospital NHS Trusts realised savings of £660,000 per annum.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the total cost in a full year of increasing the pay of the 33 per cent. of the staff of the Llanelli/Dinefwr NHS Trust, referred to at paragraph 4.1.6 of his recently published consultative document on his proposals to dissolve the existing NHS trusts in the Dyfed Powys Health Authority Area, to the comparable pay of the majority of the staff of the Carmarthen NHS Trust. [48655]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Costs of harmonising pay and terms and conditions would depend on the precise outcome of negotiations with staff representatives, and no estimate is currently available to the Department. A new national pay system for NHS staff, with an emphasis on individual job evaluation, is under consideration by the Government and this should help ease the process of harmonisation in respect of staff employed by the Llanelli/Dinefwr and Carmarthen NHS Trusts if the proposals are approved.

  Carmarthen and Llanelli NHS Trusts
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the discretionary capital allocation available to the(a) Carmarthen and (b) Llanelli NHS Trusts for 1998–99. [48648]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  (a) Carmarthen £1,129,000 and (b) Llanelli £868,000.
  504
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the cost to the proposed Carmarthenshire NHS Trust(a) to put in place common systems and (b) to standardise processes across the Trust. [48649]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The latest estimate for standardisation provided by the reconfiguration project team for the proposed Carmarthenshire NHS Trust is:

  £150,000 in 1999–2000

  £75,000 in 2000–01

  £75,000 in 2002–02.

  The figures provided do not differentiate between costs of implementing common systems and standardising processes.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the cost of establishing the slimline headquarters for his proposed Carmarthenshire NHS Trust. [48651]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  This information is not currently available. Ultimately, it would be a matter for the new Trust, if established, to determine the location of its headquarters and the detailed arrangements for putting it in place, subject to policy guidelines for such developments.

  Rhuddlan Borough Council
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the extent of(a) audit and (b) other inspection activity carried out by his Department on the capital grants received by Rhuddlan Borough Council. [48751]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Capital grants paid to local authorities are subject to conditions and criteria specified by my Department. Local authorities are required to confirm compliance with these when submitting applications for grant support. The Appointed Auditor certifies the accuracy of the final claim submitted in respect of each scheme.

  Progress reports are received on major schemes, meetings are held when problems arise, and site visits or inspections are made when necessary. On occasions, as in the case of Rhuddlan's accounts, it is open to interested parties to request a Quality Control Review of the audit process.

  NUTS 2
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the precise specifications of the new NUTS 2 areas in Wales; if Eurostat has accepted these areas for the purposes of evaluating structural fund allocations for the period 2000 to 2006; and if he will estimate the value of European structural funds which have been paid to projects within each of the new NUTS 2 areas in Wales during the last five years, or during such similar period for which figures are conveniently available. [48825]

  Mr. Hain
  A list of the precise specifications of the new UK NUTS areas can be found in the Government Statistical Service Press Notice of 29 June, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. The European Commission has proposed that NUTS 2 and 3 areas be used to draw up the new EU Structural Funds
  505
  map for the period 2000 to 2006. The Government expect that the new UK NUTS boundaries will be used. The information on Structural Funds expenditure over the past five years, within the new NUTS 2 areas, would be available only at a disproportionate cost.

  Lamb Exports
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made on proposals to re-establish the export of whole lamb carcases to France; and if he will make a statement. [48772]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The Government have recently issued proposals for statutory consultation to amend the Specified Risk Material Regulations 1997 to allow the export of sheep carcases from animals over 12 months of age (or which have at least one permanent incisor tooth) with the spinal cord intact to premises designated by the French authorities. The period for consultation ended on 3 July. The Government are considering the comments made during the consultation and it is likely that legislation will be forthcoming in the near future.

  Refuse Collection
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which councils in Wales have adopted the use of wheeled bins for refuse collection. [48990]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Returns to the 1996–97 municipal waste management survey show that the following county and county borough councils use wheeled bins for refuse collection to varying degrees:

  Caerphilly

  Cardiff

  Conwy,

  Denbighshire

  Gwynedd

  Merthyr

  Tydfil

  Neath

  Port Talbot

  Newport

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  Torfaen

  Vale of Glamorgan

  Wrexham and

  Ynys Môn.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been spent on dealing with problems of rough sleepers in each of the past five years; and what is his estimate of the total numbers sleeping rough for each of those years. [49205]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Grant is paid under section 180 of the Housing Act 1996 (and previously under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985) to support specific projects run by voluntary organisations to prevent and alleviate 506
  homelessness and rooflessness, and also as core funding for the relevant voluntary organisations. Figures are given in the table.

  £000

  Year

  Projects

  Core funding

  1993–94

  184

  361

  1994–95

  195

  336

  1995–96

  181

  378

  1996–97

  241

  320

  1997–98

  312

  306

  From 1997–98, the section 180 programme for projects has been targeted exclusively at initiatives to alleviate the problems of rough sleepers.

  Provision under section 180 in the current year totals £650,000, of which £336,000 has been allocated to schemes to help rough sleepers.

  The number of rough sleepers can vary from one night to the next and may not be a reflection of the total incidence of rough sleeping. In 1996, a snapshot survey of the number of rough sleepers was conducted in 13 diverse areas of Wales. This found 86 people sleeping rough, but these results cannot be extrapolated to provide an estimate for the whole of Wales.

  Crickhowell House
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the defects liability period on Crickhowell House is still extant. [49445]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The defects liability period has not been formally extended beyond 31 March 1998. The Welsh Health Common Services Authority has served the Landlord with a defects Notice which has been acknowledged and is the subject of on-going discussions.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 2 July 1998,Official Report, columns 255–56 what guidelines have been issued to non-departmental bodies which he sponsors in relation to the time taken to respond to requests for assistance from the Parliamentary Commissioner under the Code of Practice on Requests for Government Information; what action he plans to take in respect of the length of time taken by bodies to supply information to the Parliamentary Commissioner; and if he will make a statement. [49463]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The following general guidance has been issued to Chief Executive Officers of non-departmental public bodies:CEO 8/94 A copy of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information together with the Welsh Office Citizen's Charter leaflet on Open Government.
  CEO 29/94 The bilingual version of the Code of Practice.
  CEO 39/94 Summaries of recent Ombudsman cases relating to the Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
  CEO 10/96 "Handling of Complaints" guidance accompanied by the Citizen's Charter Complaints Task Force documents "Putting Things Right" and "Good Practice Guide".
  CEO 30/96 Office of Public Service Guidance on Redress Under the Citizen's Charter.

  507
  CEO 4/97 Revised Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Second Edition).
  CEO 16/97 Complaints Review Arrangements in Public Services.

  The Code of Practice states that responses to requests for information should be provided as soon as is practicable. The target for responses to simple requests is 20 working days from the date of receipt. I have no plans to issue further guidance at this time.

  Gwent Tertiary College
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much European Social Fund money was paid to Whitbread Brewers in 1996 for the World Class Manufacturing Project by Gwent Tertiary College. [49430]

  Mr. Hain
  The handling of European grants by GTC is currently being investigated by the Department of Employment Fraud Investigation and Audit Unit and by Gwent Constabulary. It would not be appropriate to comment on individual ESF cases while these investigations are underway.

  Economic Strategy
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what responses he has received to the Economic Strategy consultation document issued in October 1997; and if he will make a statement. [49486]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The consultation document produced over 140 written responses. On the basis of those responses, and of further work by my Department and others, I am publishing today "Pathway to Prosperity—A New Economic Agenda for Wales". Copies are available from the Vote Office and in the Libraries.

  "Pathway to Prosperity—A New Economic Agenda for Wales" will be the subject of a debate in the Welsh Grand Committee on 13 July.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gibraltar
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the occasions in the last three months when the Royal Navy took action to stop reported illegal fishing in Gibraltarian waters by Spanish fishing vessels. [45495]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]: The Royal Navy has not had to take action to stop illegal fishing in British waters around Gibraltar by Spanish fishing vessels in the last three months. The Royal Gibraltar Police (RGP) has been able to enforce Gibraltar fisheries legislation in these waters. The Governor has assured the RGP of his full support, and that of HMG.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the rights of residents in Gibraltar to vote in elections to the European Parliament. [49293]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on 9 December 1997,Official Report, column 499.

  Tanzania
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on UK-Tanzanian relations. [48329]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We enjoy excellent relations with Tanzania, illustrated by a number of recent high level bilateral visits. President Mkapa had an audience with the Queen at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in October 1997. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary also met Foreign Minister Kikwete. In March 1998 I made a working visit to Tanzania and met President Mkapa, Prime Minister Sumaye and Foreign Minister Kikwete. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development intends to visit Tanzania in August.

  Our historic ties contribute to mutual understanding and we are able to engage in serious dialogue on a range of international issues, including our concerns about political and human rights issues with Tanzania. Tanzania is a significant and growing trading partner. Tanzania is also a major recipient of UK bilateral development assistance. DFID are currently working with the Government of Tanzania to develop a new country strategy paper.

  Former Yugoslavia
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's role in the OSCE Dayton Arms Control Verification Organisation in former Yugoslavia. [48290]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The United Kingdom has provided technical arms control assistance to all the parties to the Dayton agreement. Two arms control experts from the UK's Joint Arms Control Implementation Group work in the OSCE arms control verification offices in Vienna and Sarajevo. They help to co-ordinate inspection activity and report to the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairman in Office on the implementation of the arms control provisions of the Dayton agreement.

  Disarmament Conference
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters he intends to table for the Agenda of the next meeting of the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. [48301]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Conference adopted its Agenda on 20 January and a work plan on 26 March. We continue to press for the establishment of Ad Hoc Committees to work on widening the ban on anti-personnel landmines and on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty.

  Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he intends to approve the comprehensive proposals on adapting the CFE Treaty's Flank position, tabled on 31 March. [48286]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The proposal to which the hon. Member refers was tabled on behalf of all NATO states in the course of the negotiations under way in Vienna to adapt the CFE Treaty. All NATO member states had approved the text before it was tabled.
  509
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to amend the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty to reflect the changing European security environment. [48288]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The CFE Treaty was negotiated at the end of the Cold War, and limited the number of heavy weapons held by the countries of NATO and the Warsaw Pact in the area from the Atlantic to the Urals. The adapted Treaty will replace a bloc-to-bloc balance between two military alliances with limits on individual nations' weapons holdings, and territorial limits for equipment. This fundamental change will be accompanied by a series of enhancements to the detailed provisions of the Treaty, with the aim of further reducing tension between the States Parties, preventing the destabilising build-up of forces in the Treaty area, and improving military transparency.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what limits on manpower levels have been imposed upon the United Kingdom as a result of the concluding act of the negotiation on personnel strength of conventional armed forces in Europe. [48287]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The limits on manpower levels for all participating States are set out in the Concluding Act, a copy of which was placed in the Libraries of the House (Command Paper 2164, presented in April 1993). The UK's limit for military personnel is 260,000.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reductions the United Kingdom has announced in its Treaty Limited Equipment entitlements. [48289]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Between 1991 and 1993, the United Kingdom reduced its holdings of equipment limited by the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty by 183 main battle tanks, 30 armoured combat vehicles, and 5 attack helicopters, to bring the holdings into line with the limits agreed under the Treaty. Further reductions in entitlements may result from the adaptation of the Treaty, negotiations on which are continuing in Vienna.

  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will promote the proposition of an international treaty against missile proliferation. [48303]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Members of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), of which the UK is a founder member, discussed the merits of an international treaty against missile proliferation in September 1995. They concluded that there were insuperable difficulties in achieving such a treaty. These included the gaining of a widespread international agreement, reaching consensus to determine which missile systems should be controlled by the treaty, and achieving a credible multilateral verification process.

  The UK remains committed to tackling missile non-proliferation through the MTCR as outlined in the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on 16 June 1998, Official Report, columns 196–97.
  510
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Her Majesty's Government are doing to encourage(a) Brazil, (b) Cuba, (c) Israel, (d) India and (e) Pakistan to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty; and when he expects them to do so. [48302]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are delighted that, on 1 July, the Brazilian Congress approved Brazil's accession to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It now remains for the relevant instrument of ratification to be drawn up and deposited.

  We continue, both bilaterally and in all relevant international forums to urge the remaining four non-NPT signatories to accede to the Treaty at the earliest possible date.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is his policy that the Non-Proliferation Treaty should continue in force indefinitely.[48333]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty decided that, as the majority of States party supported its indefinite extension, the Treaty should continue in force indefinitely. The UK fully supports this decision.

  Vienna Document 1994
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the range of Confidence and Security Building Measures provided for in the Vienna Document 1994. [48292]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Vienna Document 1994, a copy of which was placed in the Libraries of the House (Cmnd 2791 of March 1995), lists a wide range of confidence and security building measures, including an annual information exchange; constraints on, notification and observation of certain military activities; military contacts provisions; and a verification regime.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what options he is considering for revising VD94 to reflect the change in the European security environment; and if he will make a statement on discussions held with the OSCE on this matter. [48291]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Vienna Document 1994 on Confidence and Security Building Measures is currently being reviewed in Vienna by all participating States. Participating States, including the UK, have made many proposals to revise the Vienna Document to reflect the changed security environment in Europe. These are being discussed against the criteria of military significance, additional transparency benefits, possibility of verification and cost effectiveness. We hope that the negotiations will be completed by the end of 1998.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty on exports of plutonium by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. [48330]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We do not expect the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty to have any impact on the export of plutonium by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.
  511
  The Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty will ban the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons and other explosive devices. The UK has already ceased the production of fissile material for these purposes.

  All exports of civil plutonium from the UK are subject to strict controls to ensure that the material is not diverted for use in nuclear weapons. Further information on these controls was given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Small Firms, Trade and Industry on 1 June 1998, Official Report, columns 119–20.

  Missile Technology Control Regime
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the signatories to the Missile Technology Control Regime. [48305]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The following countries are Members of the Missile Technology Control Regime:Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America.

  Strategic Arms Reduction Talks
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is his policy to accept an invitation to the United Kingdom to join the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks process and participate in START III. [48293]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The US and Russia have made it clear that START III will be a bilateral process.

  Our manifesto made it clear that we will include British nuclear weapons in multilateral negotiations once we are satisfied with verified progress towards our goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons.

  Wassenaar Agreement
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British defence export orders have been blocked under the Wassenaar Arrangement. [48304]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Initial Elements of the Wassenaar Arrangement state that the decision to transfer or deny transfer of any item will be the sole responsibility of each Participating State. Participation in the Wassenaar Arrangement does not therefore entail automatic refusal of any export. However, in line with our responsibilities as a Participating State, we seek to ensure that our transfers of conventional arms and dual-use goods and technologies do not undermine the Arrangement's goals of contributing to regional and international security and stability. The arms export licensing criteria announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 28 July 1997,Official Report, column 26–29, state that an export licence should be refused if approval would be inconsistent with the UK's commitments to the Wassenaar arrangement.

  Chemical Weapons Convention
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he took during the British EU Presidency to promote the implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention. [48295]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are committed to the universal implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention. To this end during our EU Presidency, we undertook a series of demarches with Partners to encourage accession by non-States Parties to this important multilateral treaty.

  In addition, we have continued to play an active part in the work of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague to ensure the full and effective implementation of the Convention.

  UK Nationals (Defence Lawyers)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial assistance his Department has provided towards the cost of providing defence lawyers to UK nationals held in prison pending trial in each of the last three years. [48327]

  Mr. Fatchett
  None. Our consular staff overseas help British nationals to find local lawyers for their defence, but we cannot help with the costs involved.

  Embassy, Berlin
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what competitive tendering procedures were applied in relation to the construction work for the new British Embassy in Berlin; and if he will list those companies which tendered. [49135]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The competition for the PFI contract for the new British Embassy was conducted in accordance with EC rules and advertised in OJEC, the Official Journal of the European Communities. The advertisement prompted interest from 27 companies.

  In accordance with PFI guidelines, a shortlist of 3 was produced from whom formal tenders were invited. They were: Norwest Holst; Embassy Partnerships; and Bebcon, the winners of the tender process, subsequently renamed Arteos.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the legal status of the site of the new British Embassy in Berlin; and to whom the freehold belongs. [49136]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Under the terms of the PFI contract, signed on 23 June, the FCO granted a 62 year lease to Arteos, the PFI Operator, to enable it to provide an Embassy building, structure, Equipment and Services for an initial term of 30 years. Thereafter, the contract will be retendered for a second 30 year term. The lease will be assumed by the winner of that tender process. The FCO will retain the freehold.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the arrangements to protect the security of the new British Embassy in Berlin during and after its construction. [49137]
  513
  Mr. Fatchett
  The PFI Contract between the FCO and Arteos, the PFI Operator, requires Arteos to comply with all FCO security requirements at all times, that is, during both the construction and the operating phases. Appropriate security safeguards will also be provided by the FCO during both phases. It is HMG's policy not to release detailed information on security arrangements at overseas posts.

  Regional and Minority Languages
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), of 4 June 1998,Official Report, column 350, what assessment he has made of the benefits of including Cornish within the Council of Europe Charter for Regional and Minority Languages. [49011]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Government have not yet reached any conclusions on the position of Cornish under the Charter.

  Immigration Cases
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the reasons for delay in processing the application of Fazal Ur Rehman, at Islamabad, under ref GV100/42016, whose wife lives at 6 Edgecote Court, Leicester; when this case was referred to the Home Office; and when an outcome is expected. [48937]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have asked our High Commission in Islamabad for the latest position on this case and my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will write to my hon. Friend within one week of receiving their response.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the case of Sukvinder Kaur, reference-IMM/ECR/0195/98/8 the wife of Rajinder Singh of 13 Woodland Road, Leicester. [48939]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have asked our High Commission in New Delhi for a detailed account of the case as soon as possible. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will write to my hon. Friend after this has been received.

  Piracy
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government are taking to combat the problem of piracy and armed robbery at sea; and if he will make a statement. [49639]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have improved our published advice to UK shipowners and seafarers in order to ensure that they are fully aware of the risks and take all possible precautions against attacks. Where attacks on UK nationals have occurred, we have asked the Governments concerned, most recently in Indonesia and Brazil, to investigate the incidents and take steps to avoid repetitions. We are also encouraging wider international action to combat what is a global threat to safety at sea and international trade. This year we have helped finance counter-piracy missions organised by the International Maritime Organisation. In the autumn we will draw the 514
  attention of the UN General Assembly to the problem. All these measures have been in consultation with the UK shipping industry and trade unions, including through recent discussions hosted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  East Timor
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cause of the early departure from East Timor of the European Union Troika envoys. [49300]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The EU Troika Heads of Mission were able to complete their business earlier than originally scheduled.

  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the recent visit to East Timor by the EU Troika Heads of Mission from Jakarta. [49640]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The EU/Troika Ambassadors from Jakarta visited East Timor from 27 June to 30 June 1998. They were accompanied by the representative of the EU Commission based in Jakarta and a representative of the EU Council Secretariat. This was the first visit to the territory undertaken by EU Ambassadors. It was undertaken at the initiative of the British Presidency of the European Union.

  The purpose of the visit was to mark the EU's continuing concern about the situation in East Timor, to improve our knowledge of the situation there and to support the UN process of searching for a fair, comprehensive and internationally acceptable solution to the problem.

  We very much regret the death of Orlando Marcelino da Costa who was shot in Baucau during the Troika visit on 29 June and have asked the authorities to carry out a full investigation into the incident.

  Although marred by this tragic incident, the visit achieved its objectives. The Ambassadors met a broad cross-section of interlocutors, including key local political figures, members of the security forces, community leaders, the churches and NGOs. They made clear the EU's engagement in the search for a solution, a message which was widely appreciated.

  The outcome of the visit will be considered with EU partners under the Austrian Presidency of the EU.

  European Union
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment the Government have made of proposals for establishing a court of political auditors to scrutinise EU initiatives. [49298]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Heads of State or Government of EU Member States will meet during the Austrian Presidency to continue their discussion at the
  515
  Cardiff European Council of the future development of the EU, including ways to enhance democratic legitimacy. Like other Member States, the Government will be considering a wide range of ideas in this context.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government have to launch a fundamental review of policy towards the European Union. [49299]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We are considering future developments in the European Union and how Britain should approach them. That was one of our top priorities when we came to office last year: we want to use the opportunities that our membership of the European Union provides in order to get the best possible deal for the British people.

  It is timely that we should return to this issue now the Presidency is behind us, and in the context of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's decision to begin at the Cardiff European Council a debate on the future of Europe.

  Iraq
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Iraq, following the recent incident over the Southern Iraq no-fly zone. [49297]

  Mr. Fatchett
  None.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the recent statement by Chancellor Kohl on the implications for political union of the single currency. [49303]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Single Currency clearly involves a major pooling of economic sovereignty by participating Member States. Its launch, along with enlargement, economic reform, and cooperation in the fight against organised crime, is an important part of the background to the discussion about the future development of the European Union launched by the Prime Minister at Cardiff. That discussion will be taken up by Heads of Government in October.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of democratisation in Hong Kong under the guidelines set out in the Basic Law. [49294]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Elections to the first Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region were held on 24 May, in accordance with the provisions of the Basic Law. We hope that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government will build on these elections and work towards early realisation of the goal of a legislature elected entirely through universal suffrage.

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

Addicts: Residential Care Facilities
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for the replacement of Lorne House, the only institution in the country offering residential care to young drug addicts and alcoholics, which has been closed following the withdrawal of grants.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that the Government do not directly provide local services for health or social care. Lorne House was funded in a complicated way by local authorities, health commissioners, the Probation Service and charities. None the less, in the last financial year the Department of Health gave crisis funding to Lorne House of £50,000 but did not feel that this action could be unilaterally repeated. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health, together with my honourable friend the Minister for Public Health, recently met with the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator, Mr. Hellawell, to discuss ways in which cross-Government action could be taken to improve the financial stability of residential drug treatment services such as this one. I am glad to say that the three remaining residents of Lorne House have been successfully resettled.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Government should not take credit for the £50,000 to which she referred, as it was given by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege? Will the noble Baroness, whose courtesy in this matter I greatly appreciate, do her best to persuade the department, before they allow a valuable enterprise such as this to disappear, to take a careful look at the record of people saved and the possibility that there might perhaps be something to learn from those who run such places?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, yes, indeed, we are very aware of the good work that has been done by Lorne House and its parent organising body, Turning Point, which, as the noble Lord will know, is a national organisation. I am glad to say that, in a letter to the Department of Health about this project, Turning Point said:
"we do intend to use the experience we have gained [at Lorne House] … to develop new and innovative options for young people's services".
1086
The Government are committed to working together with Turning Point on those new and innovative services. It is to that end that my right honourable friend has met the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator to try to formulate a general policy.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I apologise to the House for my excess of zeal, but I was so inspired by watching the launch of the homelessness initiative this morning that I felt that this could only be the other side of the coin. I ask the Minister to reconsider whether this and other such projects cannot be given continued funding.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I hope I indicated in my reply to the original Question, the Government appreciate the good work done by these organisations and regret it when individual institutions cease to offer services which have probably been useful. I believe it is true to say that there are different ways of dealing with this issue, of which, as I described in my answer to the supplementary question by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, the organisation sponsoring Lorne House is aware. We very much want to see those developed. I am advised that there are still over 100 centres in the United Kingdom which provide residential care in this area, although not all of them deal specifically with this young age group.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, bearing in mind the alarming increase in heavy drinking by teenagers, which was disclosed in an Answer given to me by the Government at the end of last week, and the fact that many homeless teenagers suffer from alcohol addiction, does the Minister think that additional funds should be directed at helping homeless young alcoholics? Does she think that enough is being done to prevent young people taking up drink and becoming homeless?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, no, I do not think enough is being done. This is one of the programmes which is actively under consideration for development by my honourable friend the Minister for Public Health, who has, as I explained in my original Answer, recently met with those involved in the UK co-ordination of this policy. We very much want to see these services developed. We recognise that this is a serious problem.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if magistrates do not have residential places to which to send these young people, they will have to send many of them to prison? Does she further agree that there are now far too many young people residing in prison and not receiving rehabilitation?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I think we are all very aware of the problems created when people who should be in specialist residential care for problems of this kind end up in the prison system. That is of concern right across the Government. As I said, I believe that there are a number of residential

1087
institutions that specifically cater for this area; but, as has been demonstrated again this afternoon, there is clearly not yet enough provision of this kind, although we should not think that residential care is the only answer.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, the Minister may be aware that the General Synod of the Church of England debated this subject last weekend in York. I was present at the debate. A unanimous resolution was passed to welcome the Government's attempt to improve the co-ordination of efforts to tackle drug abuse. However, we have two concerns which I wish to put before the Minister.
One concern is the lack of sufficient, speedy, effective treatment for drug addicts, which is mentioned in the Government's own report. What extra resources will the Government make available to increase access and make access more readily available for effective treatment for drug addicts, particularly those who encounter genuine opposition when they try to get into training and employment?
The second concern relates to support for local community careworkers and projects—not for rehabilitation centres but for local community care on the streets. Could resources be diverted from the assets seized from drug barons who have helped these people get into the dilemmas in which they find themselves?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for drawing attention to the suggestions made last weekend. Overall, funding is an area of policy which will be considered in the light of the outcome of the comprehensive spending review. We hope to achieve significant changes in the allocation of special resources to help authorities. On the more general point, that again is a question for co-ordinated government action and not something I can answer on behalf of the Department of Health. It needs discussion with, for example, my right honourable friends in the Home Office.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, following what the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said, has the Minister ever visited Lorne House? I did so when I had her job and was deeply impressed by everything that it was doing. Is it not a great pity that something which is working extremely well should be destroyed by a lack of what is relatively little money?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I did not visit Lorne House, but for many years I worked with Turning Point—the parent organisation which was specifically involved with its activities—when I was working for the National AIDS Trust 10 years ago. I am therefore familiar with the good work done by that specific organisation across the whole area of addiction. As I explained, this was an institution which we felt was providing a useful service. However, it was considered
1088
to be somewhat expensive. As I said in my original Answer, there were only three residents in Lorne House when it was finally closed.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the fact that there were only three residents—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but we are now eight minutes into Question Time. We should move on.

Housing Benefit Review
2.45 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
What principles will underlie their review of housing benefit.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government remain committed to ensuring that people can afford reasonable accommodation. Therefore any changes in the principles underlying the Government's review of housing benefit will be designed to make it more user friendly by making it easier to understand and simpler to administer. The Government will also seek to minimise work disincentives and the risk of fraud.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that commitment to ensuring that people can afford accommodation. In the light of recent attempts to cap levels of housing benefit, does the department believe that there is any evidence to suggest that caps on housing benefit may lead landlords to reduce the level of rent?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government remain committed to a private sector which is uncontrolled and private landlords will not be affected by rent controls. The question of capping does not arise.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it a fact that the rents set for accommodation for which housing benefit is payable are determined by a valuation officer? Is it also correct that in central London the rent for a one-bedroomed flat is £185 a week, £250 for a two-bedroomed flat and £350 for a three-bedroomed flat? People who are in such accommodation in central London have a tremendous disincentive ever to take employment. How could they afford, in anything but the highest paid job, to pay those sort of amounts per week out of a net income? Would it not be wise for the Government to consider setting a ceiling upon housing benefit? I understand that some central London rents are being paid from housing benefit at £900 a week.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the noble Baroness has a point. Rental variations occur throughout the country. The housing benefit system at the moment does not differentiate between those tenants who need to look for more economic premises and those who do not.

1089
However, systems are in place to evaluate what is an economic rent in different areas. There is a big variety of rentals in different areas of the country.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, can the Minister say whether it is still the case that the Government abide by the principles of the 1986 Act; namely, that income support is not normally intended to cover rent? Is it still seen as a separate issue from the rent which people have to pay?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, on the whole, income support is not intended to cover housing costs. We have a separate housing benefit scheme which pays up to 100 per cent. of rent. It is not our intention to leave claimants out of pocket. However, for home owners, income support, with the mortgage interest scheme, provides a contribution towards mortgage interest payments for the purchase of a home and for some repairs and improvements to it.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the Government's document, A New Contract for Welfare, contains a large section on housing. However, when it comes to success measures, all it says is that there has been an improvement in the quality of housing and housing management. That is so vague as to be utterly meaningless. Will the review being carried out include quantitative measures as to whether or not the Government have been successful?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government are intending to improve the quality of housing, and the review will include quantitative measures.

Diana, Princess of Wales: Memorial Gardens
2.49 p.m.
The Earl of Drogheda The Earl of Drogheda asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether an alternative site for a garden dedicated to the memory of the late Diana, Princess of Wales, could be found, in view both of the effect on Kensington Gardens of the one currently under discussion and of the need for more parks and gardens in other parts of London.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, people will continue to visit Kensington Gardens to remember Diana, Princess of Wales and the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Committee has advised the Government that, subject to public consultation, the gardens should be enhanced in a simple, elegant, dignified and sympathetic way as a place of remembrance.
A preliminary consultation exercise will open to the public on Friday, 10th July with an exhibition at the Albert Memorial Visitors Centre. A summary of the
1090
proposals and a questionnaire will be distributed to local residents of Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster asking for their comments by 7th August.
The Earl of Drogheda: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. But does he not agree that it is a shame to spend large amounts of money on a garden which is already very beautiful and which will certainly not be improved by that money? Does he not also agree that many areas of London are in great need of parks and gardens and would benefit not only from them but from the accompanying tourism, which would cause great detriment to the area around Kensington Gardens?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Committee has been meeting since January of this year and has received more than 10,000 submissions with suggestions as to what projects should be undertaken in memory of the Princess. Overwhelmingly, the largest single response was in the form of requests for gardens and in particular for an enhancement of Kensington Gardens. Whether we like it or not, Kensington Gardens are already a place of memorial for the Princess. The numbers of people going there have increased from 2.8 million a year in 1995 to 5 million in the past year. This is simply a recognition of what people want. As to the point about other parks and gardens, of course they can be considered and the Government Office for London and the London Planning Advisory Committee are carrying out a major study of the adequacy of provision of parks and gardens in the London area.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a site to the north of Kensington Palace would be preferable and slightly less disruptive than one to the south, which I think is quite unacceptable? Has he considered the effect this will have on the embassies in Kensington Palace Gardens? Many of their gardens abut on Kensington Gardens and they will be considerably disturbed. I am thinking particularly of the residencies of the French Ambassador and the Russian Ambassador.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not want to anticipate the consultation process which will start on Friday but I do not think it is unreasonable for me to say that the intention is that any changes in the southern part of the western end of Kensington Gardens should be as simple as possible and that in the northern end, which has better public transport and already has a coach park, it will be more possible to carry out imaginative changes such as more provision for children and the disabled. As to the embassies, the Paddock lies between Kensington Gardens and the back gardens of the embassies.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, is it possible to believe that the affection in which the memory of Princess Diana is held will be enhanced by the creation of a permanent traffic jam in Kensington?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have to recognise what people think, what they feel and what

1091
they want to do. They are already going to Kensington Gardens and will do so whether or not there is a memorial to the Princess in the gardens. The indication I have given that the emphasis will be on the north end rather than on the south end ought to reassure the noble Lord to some extent.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, has the Secretary of State called in this application as a change of use?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are a long way off that. After consultation there will be further proposals. My understanding is that when those further proposals are developed it will be treated as Crown development under the 1984 order.
Lord Montague of Oxford: My Lords, can consideration be given to the Mile End Park, which is to have some £20 million spent on it almost immediately, £10 million of which is coming from the Millennium Commission? As my noble friend will know, the park is only one mile away from the City. It is a fine park and is in an area where Princess Diana did a great deal of wonderful work for the people and where the thought of her presence would be greatly welcomed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a welcome and valuable suggestion which I am sure the memorial committee will consider. My noble friend is right about the Mile End Park, which has been a very long time in development but is now starting to show its true potential.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, when does my noble friend think we will get to the stage when Princess Diana will be allowed to sleep in peace and we will get rid of all this debate?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am only reflecting, on behalf of the Government, the representations which have been made to them by the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Committee, which includes a representative of the Royal Household, representatives of her family, and others who are concerned. The individual feelings of all of us must play a part in our response to that. But there can be no doubt that there is a public outpouring of feeling and that there are many people who believe that that should have a physical expression in the form of the projects which the committee is proposing.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, would it be possible to extend the consultation period from four weeks? Whereas the memorial committee has had six or seven months to consider the matter, the residents of Kensington and other people who are interested will have only from 10th July to 7th August to do so. Bearing in mind that summer holidays and other things are going on at the moment, would it not be possible to extend the period by around four weeks?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I take the noble Baroness's point. But the consultation exercise is
1092
being started before the main holiday period, at least as far as your Lordships are concerned. An extension of another four weeks would probably not be particularly effective. The consultation will be thorough. In addition to the exhibition at the Albert Memorial Visitors Centre, questionnaires will be distributed house to house to all of the local residents. I hope that within a four-week period they will have an opportunity to respond.

Teaching Profession: Public Appreciation
2.57 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to enhance public appreciation of the teaching profession and understanding of the contribution it makes to the wellbeing of the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the support, enthusiasm and commitment of good teachers underpin all that we are trying to achieve in driving up standards in schools. We must, and do, take every opportunity to celebrate the achievements of the best of the profession.
Last month, the Government announced the National Teaching Awards. This month the Secretary of State will present certificates to the first cohort of successful candidates for the new national qualification for headteachers. The Teacher Training Agency's campaign, "No one forgets a good teacher", has also helped to raise the profile of teaching.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. Does she not agree that, in a society in which success is increasingly measured in material terms alone and in which the spirit of service can be too easily demeaned, it behoves us all to spend a good deal more time talking up the dedicated and devoted service of the majority of the teaching profession and also to ensure that, by the conditions of service which the profession enjoys, its significance to the future of Britain is recognised? Does my noble friend agree that this is an urgent issue if the worrying signs in the recruitment of teachers are to be put right?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords, I very much agree with what my noble friend has just said. It is extremely important that we talk up the commitment of the many hundreds of thousands of excellent teachers who work in our schools. It is one of the most important professions that any young person can take up. To have charge of our children and to teach them is enormously important. It is also important that the right terms and conditions of service are provided for teachers. It is for the School Teachers' Review Body, the independent pay review body, to recommend changes to teachers' statutory pay and conditions of employment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the figures showing the decline in the number

1093
of those taking higher education courses which lead to primary school teaching? Does she believe that particular action needs to be taken, including higher initial pay, to encourage people to take up primary teaching as a potential career?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, there is concern about the number of recruits to training places for both primary and secondary teachers. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that places for primary school teachers are over-subscribed. The Government are more concerned about recruitment to the secondary school teaching profession where shortages are greater. The Government are taking action to monitor what is happening and to encourage as far as possible many young people and also mature entrants to apply.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the noble Baroness's reply to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, mean that the Government welcome the drop of 15 per cent. in applications for Bachelor of Education courses for primary teachers? Is it not regrettable that although the fees have been waived for students doing a PGCE in a fourth year for the Certificate of Education they have not been waived for young people taking four-year Bachelor of Education degree courses in our universities in higher education?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, of course the Government do not welcome the decline in the number of applications for teacher training places, wherever that may be. However, for next year those teachers who are taking four-year B.Ed. primary teaching courses will continue on the same basis as at present. Teachers who decide to take PGCEs will be starting a new course. The Government have decided to make a concession. However, we shall be monitoring the position as regards potential primary schoolteachers on four-year B.Ed. courses.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is important to attract male teachers into primary schools so that boys can have appropriate role models?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes. It is very desirable for more young or mature men to enter primary teaching. At the moment the proportion is approximately 20 per cent. I do not believe that it has changed much in recent years. But anything that can be done to enhance that proportion would be highly desirable.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is it not important above all that students should appreciate what their teachers do for them? Therefore, will the Government find a way of encouraging students who, at any rate, have obtained A-levels to write to thank the headmaster of the school for the help that they were given in doing so?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am not sure that that is for the Government. I certainly agree that
1094
showing appreciation is always very nice. As a former university teacher, when I received such letters it made my week. I certainly believe that parents might encourage their children to write and thank the teachers who have supported and helped their pupils. It would be a good thing for them to write and thank the teachers. It is not really a matter for the Government.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the decline in the number of applications for B.Ed. courses has placed in some financial difficulty higher education institutions which have a major element of teacher training? Does she further accept that some of those colleges are now at some risk? They are colleges which, in the past, have had a fine record of producing committed and highly valued teachers. Does the Minister accept that their future should be as secure as possible?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is extremely important that the future of such institutions should be secure. The Government have absolutely no evidence that they are in fact insecure. As I said earlier in answer to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, there is substantial over-subscription for primary school B.Ed. courses. So although the total number of applications may be down, the Government do not expect places to remain unfilled.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in view of what the Minister said about the problem of recruiting secondary school teachers, can she say why there appears to be such difficulty in secondary teachers with considerable experience finding jobs? I believe that, primarily, it is because of the pressures on school budgets, which means that the schools are more inclined to employ newly qualified teachers rather than those who have some seniority in the profession.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, mature entrants to the profession should not be affected. If they are starting as teachers their salaries will not be any different from those of young people starting in teaching. There is no reason whatever why any school, even with pressures on its budget, should reject a newly qualified mature applicant compared with a newly qualified younger applicant.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the noble Baroness has not answered my question. It was about experienced teachers with several years seniority in the profession. It was not about mature teachers.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I apologise if I did not fully understand the noble Baroness's question. The Government do not have evidence that well qualified senior teachers in secondary education are failing to find jobs. On the contrary, I believe that schools are very pleased to be able to recruit such people, particularly in shortage subjects.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that among those with responsibility in colleges of

1095
education there is growing anxiety about the problem of recruiting to the profession people in sufficient numbers and of the right calibre? Does she not agree that, on reflection, we have had a surfeit of headlines which seem to denigrate the profession? Does she further agree that it is important for someone like her, with her commitment to the profession and her understanding of it, to have a word with some of those who might change the form of their remarks to a more encouraging tone?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am not sure that I can change the approach of headline writers to these matters. However, I believe that it would be very helpful if newspapers were to report more favourably on the many successes of our schoolteachers throughout the country.

Teaching and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reasons be now considered.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MOTIONS TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO A LORDS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF A COMMONS AMENDMENT AND INSISTING ON COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO WHICH THE LORDS HAVE DISAGREED
[The page and line refer to Bill (145) as first printed for the Commons.]
COMMONS AMENDMENT
64 Clause 19, page 14, leave out lines 31 to 49.

LORDS AMENDMENT IN LIEU
The Lords disagreed to the amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu—
64D Clause 19, page 14, line 31, leave out subsections (6) and (7) and insert—
("( ) Regulations under this section shall ensure that any arrangements for the payment of grant in respect of tuition fees for the fourth or any subsequent year of study at a higher education institution in England or Wales apply equally to a student whose parental home or normal place of residence for purposes other than attendance at that institution is in Scotland or Northern Ireland as they do to a student whose parental home or normal place of residence for purposes other than attendance at that institution is in England or Wales.").
The Commons disagreed to the amendment proposed by the Lords in lieu of their amendment and insisted on their amendment for the following reason:
64E Because the said Lords amendment and the disagreement by the Lords to the Commons amendment involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to move, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 64D in lieu of Commons Amendment No. 64, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 64E, but do propose the following amendment in lieu of the words so left out of the Bill—

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO A LORDS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF A COMMONS AMENDMENT
64G Clause 19, page 14, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations under this section may make provision for the Secretary of State to secure that any arrangements for the payment of grant in respect of tuition fees for the fourth year of study at a higher education institution in England or Wales apply equally to a student whose parental home or normal place of residence for purposes other than attendance at that institution is in Scotland or Northern Ireland as they do to a student whose parental home or normal place of residence for purposes other than attendance at that institution is in England or Wales.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 64F standing in my name. With it there are two other amendments, one standing in my name—namely, Amendment No. 123G—and one standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, Amendment No. 123E.
Amendments Nos. 123E and 123G are at the centre of the disagreement your Lordships are having with the other place. Perhaps I may explore the issue for a few minutes. I believe it is a very simple one. I can persuade your Lordships that we ought to disagree with the other place again.
Honours degrees at Scottish universities take four years. That is a long and honourable tradition. I was very surprised to read in Hansard of the other place for 8th of June (col. 794) that the Scottish Education Minister, Mr. Brian Wilson, described it as a "bogus tradition". I can assure your Lordships that there is nothing bogus about it. The Scottish universities and their graduates feel it to be a serious slur on the high reputation of Scottish universities to describe the four-years honours degree as bogus.
When the Government decided to charge £1,000 a year in tuition fees—we are not arguing about that today—they realised quite quickly that charging £4,000 for an honours degree in Scotland and £3,000 for an honours degree at an English or Welsh university, was not right. The Scottish Office rapidly agreed to fund the fourth year at Scottish universities only for Scottish-based students. So full marks to the Scottish Office. It did the right thing when it saw this issue coming up. However, it is a pity that yet again the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, has been put into the firing line to defend decisions which are not his and when his department well realised what the problem was.
Having said something kind about the Scottish Office, I suspect that, unfortunately, lateral thinking is not its strong point. Many students from outside Scotland attend Scottish universities and they will all have to pay the extra £1,000, making a total of £4,000. That would at least have some logic about it, although it would have been unfair to students from elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
However, along came the killer punch for the Government, changing what I submit would be unfair into what I suggest is plain daft. Students from countries in the European Union have to be charged the same as Scottish students; in other words, the Scottish Office will have to fund the fourth-year tuition fees of anyone from Italy, France, the Republic of Ireland or any other member state of the European Union, except other parts of the United Kingdom. As I explained recently to your Lordships, when Mr. Brian Wilson, the Minister for Education and Industry, was asked on "The World at One" why a student from France should be asked to pay only £3,000 while a student from England will be asked to pay £4,000, he replied, "Because France is in the European Union", to which the interviewer replied, "Isn't England?". There is no answer to that.
We are now in a position where students from North Berwick in Scotland, from Bonn in Germany and even from Bosisio Parini in Italy, which some of your Lordships know is dear to my heart, will have to pay £3,000, yet students from Berwick-upon-Tweed in England will have to pay £4,000.
Perhaps I may look briefly at the Government's defences, if that is what they call them. The first defence is that the changes that your Lordships would like to make would cost £27 million and not the £2 million that everybody in the world, bar the Government, think that they would cost. I believe that the Government's assumptions are based on the proposition that they would have to pay for the fourth year of every student at an English or Welsh university. That has never been our intention. We have never asked for that. Your Lordships are not asking for that. What we have said—we do so again in Motion No. 64G—is that if the Government ever decided to introduce a special provision for Scottish students attending English and Welsh universities, that provision should not relate to only English and Welsh students but to all students from the United Kingdom. That is what Motion No. 64G seeks. Those provisions give the Government order-making powers. The ball is entirely in the Government's court. We are not forcing them to do anything.
If the Minister can say to me that the Government have no intention of introducing a grant for the fourth-year payment for any student attending an English university, I would be content to withdraw my first Motion. My intention is not to deal with England and Wales, but to ensure that there is no discrimination and that students from Scotland and Northern Ireland would not have to pay more if they went to an English university than would students from England and Wales. If I can be given the assurance that any future change made by the Government will treat students attending English and Welsh universities on the same basis, wherever they come from, there will be no great argument over my first Motion.
It is on my second Motion and on that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, that we have a problem. Perhaps I may therefore consider all the other defences to the amazing proposition that students from all parts of the UK who are attending Scottish universities should not be treated in the same way.
1098
I note that it has been argued that all students coming from elsewhere in the UK to study at Scottish universities are "little rich kids" who attended private schools such as Eton, Wellington, Charterhouse and Westminster. Those schools were mentioned by Brian Wilson in the House of Commons. The class war will never be over as long as one breath remains in Mr. Brian Wilson's body.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said in an intervention when we last debated this, "What about the little rich kids from Scotland?". I do not know why I pluck this out of the air, but what about those "little rich kids" from Scotland who went Fettes'? Why should they receive a subsidy of £1,000 from Scottish taxpayers? The private school argument is bogus and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will not use it.
What about Northern Ireland? Are students from Northern Ireland "little rich kids" who have attended private schools? Perhaps I may quote briefly from a letter that I have received from Richard Baker, the president of the National Union of Students in Scotland. It states:
"NUS Scotland has been inundated with telephone calls from anxious students from Northern Ireland who wished to know if they could escape the additional £1,000 fee by gaining Scottish residency. We arranged to meet with a large number of them in Belfast".
I understand that there is the ploy that if those students spend one night in Scotland just before they go to university, they might be able to claim Scottish residency and thus be absolved from the fee. I say "Good luck to them".
Mr. Baker continued:
"Of 40 or so students we met, not one was from a 'privileged elite'. None were well able to afford fees, none were confident of missing out the first year of the four year degree, and most did not have that option".
The Minister will tell us that if students do not come from the privileged élite, their parents will be means-tested and they will not have to pay, but there is a whole chunk of youngsters in the middle whose parents have reasonably well paid jobs but who are by no means rich or belong to the privileged élite, and they will have to pay. Those are the facts about Northern Ireland. Is it not ridiculous that when we are attempting to bring together people in the island of Ireland we have the proposition that if a youngster from Belfast attends Glasgow University he or she will have to pay £4,000, whereas a youngster from Dublin will have to pay only £3,000. That is unfair on any count.
Then there is the argument about what will happen to student numbers. The Scottish universities are particularly worried about this because a proportion of their students—in some universities, quite a high proportion—come from outside Scotland. To be honest, it is too early yet to say positively what will happen, but we do know that after years of seeing an increase in the number of applicants from England to Scottish universities, according to the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, applications from England are showing a slight fall this year. That fall was initially denied by the Prime Minister, who said on 24th June that the numbers were up, not down. A week later, he had to put the record straight and admit that it was true

1099
that overall, for all Scottish education, there had been a fall in such applications. Perhaps the Prime Minister had been misinformed previously. However, he has now been properly informed. I know that it is his finger on the trigger, so I hope that he will look at this afresh, given that the facts that he seemed to be using are not correct.
There is also the point about second-year entry to Scottish universities. Only a tiny number of youngsters from outside Scotland enter in the second year. Your Lordships will be told in a little while that this year double the current number will be second-year entrants. Perhaps I should point out that "double the number" means an increase from 600 to 1,200. That is a lot, but when it is set against the background of 25,000 youngsters from England, I think that your Lordships will see that the vast majority of youngsters enter at the beginning of the first year. As I said when we last discussed this—I shall not go over it again because noble Lords who were present then will remember—the Association of University Teachers made it abundantly clear in a letter that it did not think that second-year entry was a sensible or wise option. Indeed, the association did not think that such a move was successful because within a few weeks of entry many second-year entrants—a very small proportion of all the youngsters attending Scottish universities—fall back from the second year to the first year. The fact is that the argument about second-year entry is bogus and the Government should not use it.
The last argument with which I want to deal is that youngsters in Scotland spend a year less in senior school than do youngsters in England. The proposition is that youngsters in Scotland go to university at the end of their fifth year. When we last discussed this, I reminded your Lordships that in a previous life I was the head of a mathematics department in a large comprehensive school which, I am pleased to say, sent many youngsters to Scottish universities. I must tell your Lordships that the vast majority of those youngsters stayed on for two years, taking more Highers or studying what was at that time the certificate of sixth-year studies, which in many ways was the equivalent of A-levels.
This bogus argument has been exposed not only by me but by Mr. Dennis Canavan, a Member of the other place, who was also the head of a mathematics department. (That is about the only thing that we have in common.) Mr. Canavan underlined the point that I have made to your Lordships when he said that in his experience the vast majority of youngsters went to university at the end of the sixth year.
All the arguments are bogus. I hope that I do not hear again the "fifth-year" argument. Nothing shows people's ignorance of the Scottish education system more than an argument such as this; it demonstrates that they are unaware of something upon which they are pontificating. I know that the noble Lord will not do that because he comes from the University of Aberdeen and knows what happens on the ground.
However one looks at this, the Government are in a hole and insist on continuing to dig. This afternoon noble Lords have before them an amendment that allows
1100
the Government to stop digging and throw away the spade. That appears to be the most sensible course to take.
I end where I began by referring to those who agree with me, or us if I may include the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood: the National Union of Students, which is not usually in the same camp as me; the Association of University Teachers; the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals; and all the Scottish media. That is certainly a novel experience. I have a letter from Mr. Baker, president of the National Union of Students Scotland, in which he writes:
"On behalf of the students of Scotland and in the interests of all UK students I ask you again to defend fairness. What was unjust and bad legislation last week has not been altered by the Commons this week. I recognise that we are asking Peers to vote against the Government for a third time on this issue and understand the possible consequences and sensitivities this will raise. I wish you to know that this is not a request that NUS Scotland would make lightly and is motivated by genuine indignation on the part of students at the inequity that the proposals seek to introduce".
I do not want to hear about the constitution or anything like that. Your Lordships will be in agreement with everyone else outside if you return this matter to the Commons today. You will be in agreement with the letter that appears in today's Times from the president of the NUS, the president of the NUS Scotland, the convenor of the NUS Northern Ireland and the president of the NUS Wales. Will the Government stop digging and start to listen?
Lord Barnett: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he will be aware that I always enjoy the noble Lord's bit of fun, particularly in a case where I have a great deal of sympathy with the point that he makes. However, he did not deal with why the other place rejected the amendment; namely that it involved a charge on public funds. I do not argue about the £27 million, £1 million or £2 million. But there is a major problem here. This is the third time that this matter is being considered. I am aware that the noble Lord has changed the amendment slightly, but basically he is rejecting the amendment of the elected Chamber and seeking to send it back. Is the noble Lord telling noble Lords that he is prepared to do that three times, four times or five times?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may rehearse what has happened. This Bill started off in this place. The first time on which noble Lords voted on the issue and inserted an amendment into the Bill they were not disagreeing with the Commons. They may have been disagreeing with the Government, but that is a different matter. The Bill then went to the Commons, who sent it back to us. We sent it back to the other place. This is only the second time that we have disagreed with the Commons. As I would expect from a former Chief Secretary, the noble Lord reminds me that the Commons believe this to be about money and that that reason may be deemed to be sufficient. I have read out the letter from the NUS. I do not believe that it is the view of the NUS that it is sufficient or that the public regard it as sufficient. I believe that we should ask the Commons to think again.

1101
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 64D in lieu of Commons amendment No. 64, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 64E, but do propose Amendment No. 64G in lieu of the words so left out of the Bill.—
(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, normally when I rise to speak following the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, it is strongly to disagree with him. Therefore, this is a very pleasant change. It takes my mind back to the time when he and I debated together as students at Scottish universities, no doubt paid for by the state. I see the noble Lord nodding in agreement. Certainly, it was paid for in my case. We had the good fortune to be students in the days when we were financed by the State, in my case for five and not four years. I was not a dilatory student but took two co-ordinated degrees. It is a pleasure to follow the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. The fact that he has covered the ground so fully means that I can speak briefly.
I begin by dealing with the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. My Amendment No. 123E is much more tightly drawn than the proposal previously rejected by the Commons, costing some £27 million. If the noble Lord looks at the Marshalled List he will see that my amendment is even more tightly drawn than his second amendment. My amendment refers specifically to the fourth year of study for first degree courses at Scottish universities. The estimated cost to public funds is £2 million, not £27 million, and does not come into effect until the year 2001. We are considering here a very modest amount of public expenditure to remove a glaring anomaly in the Bill which would arise if we rejected the proposal of the Commons without putting anything in its place.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The amount of money involved in this case is irrelevant. The reason that has been given is that it involves a charge to public funds. That is the reason given by the other place, not that the cost is £27 million or £500,000.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord has said, but surely the amount involved is relevant. It will be for the Commons to consider the matter if we send back a new proposal which is more limited. In considering that matter, the Commons will take into account the cost of the proposal contained in the Bill. That is my plea to the House this afternoon.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has said, when the proposal to introduce tuition fees was put forward, this particular anomaly had not been spotted. When the Scottish Office quite properly reached its decision to extend the payment of fees through to the fourth year and this anomaly was spotted, the reaction of the Government was one of ministerial bluster in both Houses. That has been the situation throughout. We have heard bogus arguments about how Scottish students tend to leave school in the fifth and not the sixth year. That is untrue. Unfortunately, we do not have
1102
any statistics but anecdotal evidence based on our particular experience shows that, like myself, most students who enter Scottish universities stay on for a sixth year at Scottish schools, just as students in England do. All the schools in Scotland, not just Fettes, at which students take O and A-levels instead of Scottish Highers—there are many of them—presumably will be allowed to send on their pupils, who will have their fees paid, whereas students who take exactly the same examinations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will not.
That is an indefensible proposition. We on these Benches have been advised that on legal grounds it is so indefensible that, ironically, just as the House proposes to introduce into our legislation the European Convention on Human Rights it is possible that the first challenge against the Government will be on this very issue. Rather than spend money on legal fees defending this issue in the courts, the Government would be wise to incur the modest amount of public expenditure that is required to put right this anomaly.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, kindly spared us yet more of his family history. We all begin to feel part of his extended family in Italy. But he is right that the anomalies are so gross that a student from Cumbria will have to pay the £1,000 but a student from Umbria will not; a student from Birmingham will have to pay the £1,000 but a student from Barcelona will not; a student from Colchester will pay the £1,000 but a student from Cologne will not; and a student from Doncaster will pay £1,000 but a student from Düsseldorf will not. I could go on. The comparison that I particularly like is between the student from Rotherham who pays £1,000 and the student from Rotterdam who does not. But the most glaring anomaly is the one raised by the noble Lord; namely, that relating to the island of Ireland. How can we, at this fraught moment, be passing a Bill which suggests that students from Northern Ireland pay £1,000 whereas students from the south do not? It is an absurd proposition.
Perhaps I may quote a little further from the letter from the president of the NUS of Scotland to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, referred. I do so because I welcome the presence on the Government Front Bench of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, who, when I first knew her, was president of the Scottish Union of Students. We all bowed down to her and we bow down to her again today. I hope that she will listen to what her successor in office says on this matter. He, referring to the students from Northern Ireland, states:
"These students wish to study in Scotland for various and very genuine reasons. Most wish to study courses that are not offered by the few higher education institutions in Northern Ireland. Having to leave Northern Ireland to study, many students also stated that Scotland was nearer; that the Scottish education system was attractive; that they had family connections or other ties there; and were familiar with a wider Scottish culture over that of the rest of the UK. Their choice of study in Scotland, and not elsewhere in the UK, is now to have greater financial consequences for their parents, and is clouding a time for optimism with dilemma and doubt".

1103
I believe that he is right.
He concludes his letter by saying:
"Students in Scotland greatly value the diversity of the student body. We seek to defend the equal choice of all students to benefit from Scottish higher education, and their residence in the UK remains an arbitrary distinction void of educational or moral ground".
I believe that to be the case. I know that the Government may try to advance the constitutional argument, and so I address it finally.
We are a revising Chamber. It is not up to us to overturn finally the views of the other place. We are a revising Chamber. What does that mean? It does not mean that we have to do whatever the Government wish, and certainly not when the Government command an overwhelming majority in the other place, and when on this issue there have been at least 30 abstentions on the government side in the other place, because of the great concern, especially among Scottish Members.
This proposal appeared nowhere in a manifesto. No one would write such an absurd manifesto. Therefore, it is reasonable that we ask for a modest rethink by the Government. I hope that they will accept my Motion No. 123D. If they do not, I intend to press it to a Division, because it is no part of our function to legislate nonsense, and certainly not when it is nonsense on stilts.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, it would be incomplete if this chorus of complaint was not joined by at least one Labour voice. I am certain that what I have to say reflects the strong majority opinion of my colleagues on these Benches. I must say that I think also that what I am going to say will reflect the opinion of most of my colleagues in the other place, who, if they were allowed a free vote on the issue, would make quite clear their own feeling of repugnance at what is being proposed. I use the word "repugnance" deliberately.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, went straight to the heart of the matter, and deployed the strongest argument of all, which is that this is a matter of principle; it is a matter of discrimination. It is discrimination against our fellow countrymen. It is discrimination in the sense that while Scottish students, very properly, are being exempted in their fourth year from payment of fees, English students who go to Scottish universities are having to pay for the fourth year. Welsh students are having to pay; Northern Ireland students are having to pay.
On top of that, which is discrimination that to me is wholly unacceptable, we learn that the whole of the student population of our 14 neighbour states in the EU is to be exempt as well, while our own people, our own students, are to have this imposition placed upon them. My Lords, this is incredible! It is folly beyond all belief. It is not just discrimination; it is reverse discrimination. It is positive discrimination in favour of the 14 countries of the EU—a new dimension of positive discrimination, and positive discrimination against the people of our
1104
own land. Never will we accept this. I tell my right honourable friends now that they have to take this back, and they have to think about it again.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Lord and make a further, even wider, point. During the debate in another place the responsible Scottish Office Minister, Mr. Brian Wilson, commented that this is a peripheral aspect of the Bill. Noble Lords will appreciate that it is not peripheral. There cannot now be many people in Scotland who think that it is peripheral: first, because of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Shore, has just made—it is unjust and it is discrimination—and, secondly, because of its crucial political implications from Scotland's viewpoint.
To charge UK students from outside Scotland for the same course in Scotland more than resident Scots are charged will undermine one of Scotland's greatest assets. Many students who choose to come to Scotland do so because they are attracted by our four-year honours degree. They find themselves enjoying life north of the Border, and stay on to work or live there, or return later in their lives as opportunity offers. That helps Scotland to be the cosmopolitan, outward-looking, talented place that it is.
At present, the SNP's anti-English thinking, and the threat that that thinking may be reflected as time goes on in the policy of the Scots parliament, is a great worry, I know, to many of your Lordships. It is certainly a worry across Scotland. Had the noble Earl, Lord Perth, been here he would have made that point.
This Labour Government are insisting on sending out the same SNP-type message: English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students must pay more just because they do not live in Scotland. The matter is no less frightening because it happened, as several noble Lords have said, as a result of a mistaken, snap decision by Scottish Office Ministers. Indeed, it is widely known—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett—that Mr. Brian Wilson wanted to put the matter right by producing the necessary £2 million from the Scottish Office budget. Presumably he had the money set aside to do so, but that was blocked, I understand, by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment himself. I am not sure what the Minister's part in this was, but the noble Baroness certainly knew the feelings in this House, and I am sure responded to them.
Second chambers have their uses. It may well be that this example indicates that the Scots parliament may need a second chamber. In the meantime, this is the second Chamber of the Parliament of the whole of the UK. The Government have made a damaging mistake. The other place should have the courage, even now, to recognise that, to stand up to the Government and to put it right. This House should give it that opportunity by voting for one or other of these Motions.
For the sake of many students of the Scots universities, of the universities themselves, and, above all, for the future of the Union, I hope that your Lordships will express a sensible opinion.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: My Lords, Perhaps I may reinforce some of the thinking behind what the noble

1105
Baroness, Lady Carnegy, has just said. First, I declare a non-financial interest as Chancellor of the University of Aberdeen. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, pointed out, it will not be unknown to the Minister, who was a distinguished and effective member of staff.
This is not an issue of fees, as has already been said. Fees are tough on many students, but they are justifiable as a way of financing our universities. I do not believe that it is even a question of numbers. As regards the University of Aberdeen, up to now the effect on numbers of good students applying does not seem to be great.
I suggest that the real issue is different: it is more subtle; it is more important. It is the psychology of what we are in danger of putting in place if we are discriminatory. That is particularly important at this moment in the history of Scotland. It is surely a time when we should want our universities in Scotland to have the maximum number of young people from elsewhere in the United Kingdom enjoying a shared experience. It is surely not a time when people who come from outwith Scotland to Scottish universities should feel that they are being discriminated against. Whether or not they can afford it, the psychology of that discrimination is wrong, and in particular at this moment in the history of Scotland.
I imagine that at this stage it is impossible to guess what will happen at the end of this yo-yoing on amendments between your Lordships' House and another place. However, at the end of the day when the dust has settled and the guns are silent, perhaps I may appeal to the Government and Ministers to look for ways in which the universities in Scotland can be inclusive and including and not exclusive and excluding.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney is not alone. He beat me on to his feet. I am glad that he did so because he spoke with the enormous experience and authority of a long reign as Secretary of State and from holding many posts in the Labour Party. He was absolutely right. From my conversations, many people on this side of the House are most unhappy about this matter. Indeed, I can assure the House that many on this side of the Chamber are unhappy that we are charging tuition fees. Many people joined this party because they believed in equality of education. It is part of the classless society about which New Labour is talking; that there should be no discrimination in education; and it has brought us to this point. Had we not decided that we should charge tuition fees, we should not be arriving at this absurd point in time where the Government are insisting that people from England, Wales and Northern Ireland should be charged more for being educated in Scottish universities than people from almost anywhere in the world.
It is nonsense. The danger to the Labour Party is that this sort of nonsense will undermine its position. It will not be the great affairs of state but the little things that people cannot understand. Ordinary working folk, the people in factories and offices, will not understand why English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students have to pay £4,000 for a course in Scotland, while Italians,
1106
Southern Irish and Scots have to pay only £3,000. They will laugh their sides off. They will ask, "What sort of people can do this? Who is advising them? Why do they take the advice that they are receiving if that sort of nonsense is being handed out to them?" I appeal to my noble friend to understand what damage it will do to the new Government out in the country among the ordinary people, who are commonsensical and will not understand the discrimination being imposed on many of our countrymen by the Bill when it becomes an Act.
Finally, we in this House not only have the power, we have the duty, if we feel we are right, to insist on amendments. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 are specific. They give this House limited power; and that limited power is to delay legislation. It is perfectly right, proper and reasonable for this House—it is the only second Chamber and revising Chamber that we have—to use its powers to the full. If the House were restricted in any way because expenditure were involved—expenditure is involved in any Bill we discuss—the Speaker of the House of Commons would have certified it as a money Bill and that would have restricted us completely.
So we have the power. We have the desire. If my noble friend will not accept the amendment, let us hope we have the will to insist once again that we will not vote for nonsense and absurdity.
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and the noble Lord, Lord Steel, is overwhelming. It is based on principle. The principle has been made entirely clear by the two noble Lords and others who have spoken: that those from England, Wales and Northern Ireland should not be discriminated against in relation to Scots for the fees that they pay at Scottish universities.
Against that, no decision of principle is placed as a counterweight. It is a matter of expediency. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, put a figure on that expediency. It is not a large figure: it is £2 million. When principle is opposed to expediency, there can be only one way forward. Some noble Lords will have noted the exhibition in Westminster Hall on the life of William Ewart Gladstone and will have seen at the heart of that exhibition the sentence that his parliamentary life was based upon the supremacy of principle over expediency. I believe that to be entirely right. That is the issue at stake in this matter. This House should say to the other House that it is a matter of principle and we believe that the principle should triumph.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I speak as someone who moved from the English system to the Scottish system. My parents were in the income bracket at which I would have been expected to pay fees. While not receiving full funding support under the new arrangement, there would not have been sufficient income to make the matter irrelevant. Under such circumstances, no English student will go into the Scottish system where he is required to pay more money. It would place an extra burden on parental support.

1107
One is not best prepared to enter such a system by A-levels. One needs the extra year. Four years' work are required for an honours degree. Therefore one effectively asks people to go into a new system for which they are not prepared through their current examinations. It is universally accepted that the A-level system is not the perfect way to encourage people into higher education. It is exclusive. Could anyone construct a system which is better designed to put off students from within the same sovereign state? I suggest that you would have to try pretty damned hard to come up with something as good.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the court of Napier University in Edinburgh. The court of Napier is not impressed by the Government's arguments on this issue. It had hoped that the recent sizeable vote in your Lordships' House would have persuaded the Government to think again.
It is not a question of money, although that is certainly part of the issue we are debating today. As the noble Lord, Lord Shore, said, what is important is that it is positive discrimination and that cannot be tolerated. That is why, if the Government are not going to weaken on this issue, I advise your Lordships to resist.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, is any Labour Back Bench Peer going to be supporting the Government on this point?
Lord Dearing: My Lords, while the Back Bench Labour Peers make up their minds, perhaps I may offer myself once again as the villain of the occasion. I have listened with respect and admiration to the speeches. I confess that when I left your Lordships' Chamber after the last debate I wondered whether the solution to the dilemma might be for the Secretary of State for Scotland to find the £2 million to enable the one year's charge to be forgone for students of Wales, Northern Ireland and England. I found that an attractive solution.
I then read the speech by the Secretary of State for Scotland in another place on 1st July when he explained that he was not persuaded that it was a good policy to do that. If I recall the essence of his argument, it was that there are 33,000 applicants for places at Scottish universities from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. If I remember rightly, there are about 4,000 to 5,000 places normally taken. The Secretary of State's conclusion was that out of the 33,000, there will surely be enough to fill 4,000 to 5,000 places. He did not think that Scottish universities would be short of entrants in consequence. Therefore, it seemed to him, as I read his argument, that Scotland would not gain from spending that £2 million which I had envisaged as being the answer.
I would describe what we are discussing as a bizarre anomaly. The second element in the equation is whether a concession of £2 million by the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he were so minded, could be offered without making a similar concession to all those students in England, Wales and Northern Ireland who also take a fourth year. On what grounds could that be done? If, as a
1108
matter of principle—and the principle is being debated—there should be equality for all our young people, that would mean an additional cost of £27 million.
Looking at the three political parties which gave evidence to my committee, I asked myself whether money is plentiful. The resounding answer is that it is very scarce. Is it therefore in the interests of the Secretaries of State responsible for England, Wales and Northern Ireland to allocate £27 million for that purpose rather than for other needs which exist?
In education, there is real devolution, and rightly so. Countries have their distinctive traditions. Scotland has a very great and proud one. In my reports I have often advocated adoption of Scottish practice. However, to turn to those other countries, what is Northern Ireland's greatest need? Do your Lordships know that, not through choice but through lack of places, 40 per cent. of students have to leave Northern Ireland to find a place in a university. The pressing need there is for the capital to greatly enlarge its university establishment. It also needs money for research.
I turn next to Wales. In that country, the level of funding per student is lower than in England and 10 per cent. lower than in Scotland. One is concerned about that. Is the level of funding adequate for the students we have? And then there is the need for research to support the Welsh economy.
In England there is a crisis over funding for research. World-class quality research is in peril because, over the years, the funding has not been provided. In addition, the participation rate, as in Wales, is now only just over 30 per cent. In my view, it is very much in the national interest to follow Scotland's example and push that figure up to 45 per cent. I agree again that the Secretary of State for Scotland has been very wise because I believe that 40 per cent. of those places are at sub-degree level to meet the need for high-level technicians in our economy.
Therefore, there is an issue of principle. Can one do this for Scotland without doing the same for England? Perhaps the Secretary of State for Scotland, had he been so minded, might have differentiated but he was not willing to do so. Therefore, there is an issue of principle for your Lordships to consider; namely, equity. Is what I would describe as a bizarre anomaly under which 354 students from other parts of the European Union have a free fourth year sufficient cause for spending £27 million? My position would be that if a Secretary of State for Scotland had been prepared to find the £2 million and the students' union had recognised that in equity that should not be offered to students going to institutions in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, I should vote for the amendment. But, as a matter of equity, were that not so, I should find it very difficult to do so.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, on rising in place of Labour Back Benchers. But before I turn my attention to him, I should like first to take up the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, to whom I listened with great care, attention and, as always on Treasury matters, with respect.

1109
I understand that privilege is now being claimed by another place for the first time because it is the first time that it is sending the matter back to us. I agree with the noble Lord that where privilege is claimed, that is normally taken as sufficient. But it is worth continuing to the second half of the sentence in the Companion which states:
"But they",
that is, this House,
"may offer amendments in lieu of amendments which have been disagreed to by the Commons on the ground of privilege".
Those words are perfectly clear and unambiguous. It says that we are well within our rights in doing what we are doing now. Those words in the Companion echo exactly the words on page 803 of Erskine May. If another place wants once again to insist on privilege, it may do so. But it has not yet done so.
The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, addressed his argument very largely to an assumption of a cost of £27 million. As my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood said, that was not our intention and never was. It is not the effect of the present amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, asks how we should address that distinction. Between England and Scotland, there is a clear distinction on ground on nationality. If you are going to condemn discrimination at all, discrimination on the ground of nationality is one of the clearest ones to condemn.
I do not intend to defend discrimination between subjects, which is what we have with the English fourth year. But where there is a discrimination in terms of subject, it is at least a discrimination in terms of what people are actually doing. People doing different things are treated in different ways. While I do not like that, I do not see in it the clear iniquity which I see in discrimination on the ground of nationality.
The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said also that the Scots would continue to be able to fill their places. That may well be true. But it is a vital principle of academic selection that you should select on academic merit. Why should we be discouraged from doing that?
For the third and, I hope, the last time, I wish to raise the question of whether what the Government are doing is contrary to European law. I accept fully that it is not contrary to European law to discriminate between your own subjects. Discrimination between English and Scots is not contrary to European law. But discrimination between the English on the one hand and people from Rotterdam, Cologne, Dusseldorf, Umbria, or wherever, bears an appearance of being contrary to Article 7 of the Treaty of Rome. The Minister told me in Committee that he was confident that that was not so. I still await an explanation of his confidence. If I do not receive it, I shall conclude that either the Government are not confident, as they allege, or they do not give a tinker's cuss whether or not what they do is contrary to European law.
I would regret either of those conclusions. It is not often in this House that amendments are carried by a majority of 123. It is not often that we move to send amendments back to another place a second time. However, the argument in this case is so clear and the
1110
content so small that this seems to me to be one issue on which this House may well press another place to think again. It is small enough for us to pass. As I was told when I arrived in this House, we are the Mrs. Mops of the legislative process. This is the dust behind the door which, in puckish mood, I wish to sweep away, and I see no reason why I should not.
If noble Lords were not allowed to change something as small as this, then I wonder whether the Government really want a revising chamber because it is no good having a revising chamber which only revises when you want it to.
I remember in 1990 my noble kinsman Lord Stanley of Alderley introduced an amendment to bring in dog registration. The then Prime Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, formed the opinion that dog registration is socialism. This House knows a good deal about dogs. It was not persuaded. My noble kinsman set out to ask the House to think again, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was so disturbed by this that she made a Minister who had just got off an aeroplane in Tokyo for an important international meeting come straight back to London in order to vote my noble kinsman down. That, I am told, is one of the moments which led people to decide that the noble Baroness's time had come, as six weeks later it had. It took the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, 10 years to get to that point; the present Prime Minister has done it in one.
4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, the amendments are being debated in one group so it will be helpful for me to indicate now that the Government assume that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, intends the amendments to be taken as a package and that, accordingly, if Amendment No. 64G is passed, the Government will take that as a decision also in favour of Amendment No. 123G.
The substance of today's debate is a product of the fact that the United Kingdom does not have a single, uniform education system, and long may that be the case.
There is diversity, and the Government rightly rejoice in that diversity. But diversity has the potential to create anomalies, and that is essentially what we are debating today.
The English school system articulates primarily with the English higher education system. The Scottish school system articulates with the Scottish higher education system. In England, transfer from school to university takes place after the two-year 'A' level course. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, listens carefully to my next words. In Scotland, transfer from school to university takes place after Highers, which are single year courses. Of course, many Scottish students, my own children included, stay on for a sixth year, but in doing so either add additional Highers to the batch they took in the fifth year or follow the single year Certificate of Sixth Year Studies. They do not follow an integrated two-year progressive course. That is a fundamental difference between the two systems.

1111
It is because of these differences that the two education systems produce two lengths of honours degrees: in England the traditional honours degree, following a two-year A-level course has been a three-year course, while the honours degree in Scotland, after Highers, has been obtained over four years. That was recognised by the Garrick Committee, the Scottish committee serving the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. Its report stated:
"The two frameworks are different, most notably at the level of, and articulation with, school-level qualifications. This has a concomitant effect upon the rest of the higher education system in Scotland".
Clearly a difficulty arises with the introduction of charging for tuition fees. Prior to that it was not, I accept, a great concern. If nothing had been done to recognise that disarticulation between the two systems, then the English student attending an English university would have been charged £3,000, while the Scottish student attending a Scottish university would have been charged £4,000 for the same final qualification, an undergraduate honours degree. That situation would have been iniquitous: there is total agreement across the House on that point. That was the anomaly that both Dearing and Garrick recognised.
The Garrick Report, in recommendation 29, stated:
"We recommend to the Secretary of State for Scotland that, if a graduate contribution is introduced, the Secretary of State should ensure that the contribution from Scottish graduates for qualifications gained in Scotland is equitable with the contribution for comparable qualifications gained elsewhere in the UK".
Dearing supported that position. Garrick and Dearing recognised the anomaly; they proposed an equitable solution, and that is precisely what the Government have sought to include in the Bill.
Our proposal, as we have heard this afternoon, has the support and endorsement of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. I ask noble Lords to reflect upon the highly analytical and persuasive contribution that the noble Lord has made to the debate.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, of whose pronouncements I have long experience, and I was totally unconvinced. He suggested that somehow or other the concession would spill over from Scottish four-year courses to English four-year courses and therefore that the amount could rise from £2 million to £27 million. He might as well have said that we can spend a lot more money on aircraft carriers. You can always drown any case for expenditure if you make the reference wide enough.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I shall reply directly to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, because it is actually bound up with the proposals that the House is being invited to support by the two Opposition parties. Indeed, rather than removing an anomaly, the proposal before us this afternoon would actually create a greater anomaly.
I ask the House quite simply to consider the example of a family living in England in, say, Berwick. On the basis of the amendment before us, let us say that the
1112
son decides to follow a four-year degree course at the University of Edinburgh reading engineering. He would pay £3,000. However, the daughter following a similar four-year degree in engineering at, say, the University of Durham, would pay £4,000. That would be the precise effect of the amendments that your Lordships' House is being asked to vote for today. I believe that that is a gross and intolerable anomaly.
The Opposition have actually sought to fight on the ground of equity, but they have actually sunk into the very ground upon which they have chosen to fight. However, let us look briefly at the other arguments which have been advanced. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Is not the defect in that argument the fact that one should look at the university and ask whether a particular student of English origins is being treated less favourably than a student of Scottish origins in relation to that university? If that is the right approach, how can the noble Lord square it with the European Convention on Human Rights, which expressly says that there should be no discrimination in relation to the right to education on grounds of anything, including nationality?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I can reply to that and I shall, at the same time, reply to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the advice that the Government have received as regards whether this action, our proposals or our policy are compatible with European law. Members of your Lordships' House know well that the detail of legal advice that the Government receive is not revealed to this House.
However, the noble Earl laid down a challenge. He said that I responded in Committee that I was confident we could stand a challenge and asked whether I could go one better than that today. The answer is yes: on the basis of the advice that we have received, I am very confident that we can withstand the challenge.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House why he is "very confident"?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, it is because I know what the advice is.
Let us move on and look briefly at some of the other arguments which have been advanced—
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister clear up the question of whether this issue is about nationality? Am I not right in thinking that if I were born in Scotland, but educated in the English system and wished to apply to a Scottish higher education system, I would be treated as an English student because I am in an English educational institution and that it is nothing to do with my nationality?
4.15 p.m.
Lord Sewel: Absolutely, my Lords. I thank my noble friend for that point. It has nothing at all to do with

1113
nationality, but it has everything to do with domicile. Indeed, domicile goes together with the school system that one passes through. My noble friend is absolutely right.
There has been scaremongering. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, because he did not indulge in that this afternoon, although he got very close to it on an earlier occasion. There has been scaremongering about a disproportionate drop in the number of other UK applications to Scottish universities. I have used these figures before. I hope that that is why the noble Lord has modified his argument. The drop in English applicants is less than the overall drop in applications to Scottish universities—a figure of 4.1 per cent. compared to one of 4.5 per cent.
I should like to deal with the argument about the European Union. I realise that this excites a great deal of interest on the part of my noble friend Lord Shore and other noble Lords. Having been a university teacher for some 30 years, I have been sitting here on the Front Bench trying to think how many students from European countries I taught who went through the full four years of a Scottish honours degree. Over the course of the debate, which lasted for about 45 minutes, I have managed to think of four. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, mentioned, the total number of European Union students in Scotland who would benefit from this anomaly—if one terms it as such—would be 354.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how long ago he did his teaching? Indeed, in the past 10 years I think he might have found that the figures would be rather different.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the answer to the noble Baroness's question is that I stopped teaching on, I believe, 30th April of last year.
It is also right to ask the question: who would actually benefit most from the proposals standing in the name of Opposition Peers? The answer is simple; namely, those in least need of assistance. The reason being—and, again, I put it simply—that it was calculated that one-third of students going from England to Scotland would pay no fee at all. Indeed, one-third would pay part of the fee and one-third would pay the full fee. That would be the impact on the students. That is a message that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, will take back to his friends in the National Union of Students in Scotland, who also happen to be my former students.
We should also remember that the full £1,000 fee would represent only about 5 per cent. of the additional cost that an English domiciled student would choose to accept in deciding to take a four-year Scottish honours degree. The additional maintenance costs and the income forgone during that extra year are much more significant than any additional fee. If we are looking for some kind of cost deterrence, it is much greater in terms of income forgone than any additional fee of £1,000. As I pointed out, the full fee of £1,000 would be paid by only one-third of the students coming across the Border from England.
It is necessary to take up the point that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, did not want us to discuss but which the noble Lord, Lord Steel, did in fact raise: namely, the role
1114
and function of this House. We must recognise that this is the third time that we have debated the issue. The history of this disagreement is that the House put its proposition to the House of Commons. The Commons replied and this House asked it to think again. The House of Commons has now done so. In sending back their reasons to us today, those in the other place have asserted their absolute right to authorise the expenditure of public funds. I trust that no one in this House would question that right of the elected Chamber. Again, I believe that noble Lords should consider carefully the points made by my noble friend Lord Barnett in an earlier intervention.
I accept—and no one is arguing against this—that it is quite proper, although I might not always like it or find it comfortable, for this House as an unelected Second Chamber to give the opportunity to the elected House to think again. But that has been achieved; indeed, it has already been done. The other place has thought again and has decided, clearly decided, to support the Government's view. I simply ask the question: what in these circumstances is the proper response of your Lordships' House? Is it to stand in the way of the clear and deliberate will of the other place?
On a radio programme broadcast yesterday morning the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, made some interesting but incomplete statements. In that interview he said:
"We're perfectly within our rights to ask the other House to think again".
There is nothing between us on that. The other House has thought again. The noble Viscount continued, referring to my noble friend Lord Richard:
"He knows as well as I do that in the end the elected chamber will win. I mean quite right too".
I invite the noble Viscount, if he wishes, to clarify not just the meaning of those words but the actions that flow from them. What should your Lordships' House take from those words today? As I said, the Government rejoice in the diversity—
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving my poor choice of words additional réclame. I can answer his challenge by saying that I hope my words mean exactly what I thought they meant, and the meaning that he intended to convey when he issued his challenge just now.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I take it from what the noble Viscount has said that he has no intention of revisiting this issue at a later date.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Sewel: My Lords, that tells us everything! I quote the noble Viscount's words again:
"He knows as well as I do that in the end the elected chamber will win, I mean quite right too".
We are getting some weasel words about wait and see now. We shall wait to see what happens, and noble Lords opposite can wait to see what happens too. This is democracy. It is the House at the other end of the building that is democratically elected and that has

1115
considered this issue, has thought again and has sent it back to your Lordships' House. That House will most likely think again, but how many times is it right and proper for an unelected Chamber to reach the stage of defying the will of the elected Chamber?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, would it not be more proper—
Earl Russell: My Lords—
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I shall answer the two, but I prefer them one at a time.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it is perfectly clear that Members of another place the first time misunderstood the question we intended to ask. They believed that we were asking a question involving £27 million; we were asking a question involving £2 million. We now wish to ask another place to think about the question we really wish to ask.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, is that the end of it?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I merely wish the Minister to use the proper words about the other place. They do not think about it; they respond.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I shall make sure that my colleagues in another place are aware of that comment. As I said, the Government rejoice in the diversity of education provision in the United Kingdom. We recognise that in some circumstances diversity of itself can, and does, produce anomalies. We have tackled those anomalies. We have followed the advice of Garrick and Dearing and dealt with the anomaly of the fourth year for Scottish students. Far from removing an anomaly the proposition we are faced with today would create an even greater anomaly. On grounds of policy and on grounds of the proper role and function of your Lordships' House, I invite noble Lords to reject these amendments.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I hope I may ask him a question on a matter which he did not deal with in the debate. There has been reference to the unfortunate political timing of the discrimination as regards fees between Northern Irish and Irish students and between English and other European students. The Minister did not cover that. If the House does not feel there is time to do so, I accept that, but I should have liked the Minister to cover that point.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, it is important that on any matter relating to Northern Ireland at this time we weigh our words carefully. I shall try to do that. It is clear that there is a major difference as regards the way students coming from the Irish Republic will be treated. There is not a great number of those students. As I said, the total number in Scottish universities from the whole of the European Union is 354. There are clearly many more
1116
students from Northern Ireland. They will be covered in the same way as students from England and Wales. I think that is fair and equitable.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I must start by saying that I have some sympathy with the predicament that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, finds himself in as I can recall a number of occasions when I spoke from that Dispatch Box in the teeth of opposition from the main Opposition party, the Liberal Democrats, the Cross Benches, the Bishops' Bench and from my own Back Benches. My only advice to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel—which I have to say I did not always take myself—is to give in gracefully because otherwise he will have to give in slowly and probably before the courts.
However, I was not in the least convinced by the argument despite the noble Lord's best endeavours. I noticed that he had changed the argument about the one year and two years in secondary education. He had changed it from the position in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, who at least came to his defence, which stated that Scottish students have had only one year's education after statutory schooling. Clearly, as we have not heard that this afternoon I have knocked that particular little untruth on the head. However, there is the subtle change that the Highers are only a single year course. Many students take a little longer than a year to obtain their Higher. Therefore, that is not entirely a good argument.
The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, thought he had delivered the killer punch, as it were, when he discussed the family in Berwick with a son who goes to Edinburgh University and pays £3,000 and a daughter who goes to Durham University and pays £4,000. However, the son who goes to Edinburgh and who, under our amendments, would pay £3,000 would be in the same queue, paying the same £3,000, as students from everywhere else in the UK and everywhere else in the European Union. The daughter going to Durham and paying £4,000 would pay the same £4,000 as students coming from every part of the UK and every part of the European Union. The noble Lord destroyed his own argument by that example.
This is the third time we have debated this matter but it is only the second time we have asked the Commons to think again. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, pointed out, the Speaker has not certified this as a money Bill. We have changed the amendments quite considerably. I thought I had laid aside the argument about the £27 million. I was sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, decided to home in on that again. I have laid it aside and I shall indicate in a second or two that I am prepared to lay it even further aside.
Your Lordships have spoken. I have invited the Government, when in a hole, to stop digging. Frankly, when I am winning I think I should stop and just let the Division occur. But before I do I wish to help the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. I am content to rely on the position in England and Wales that there will be no discrimination between Scottish and Northern Irish students at English and Welsh universities as regards fees. Therefore I shall

1117
withdraw my Motion to enable us to concentrate entirely on the other two amendments, in particular that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Steel. If, as I fully expect, the noble Lord, Lord Steel, calls a Division, I shall invite my noble friends and other noble Lords, who have listened to this argument and realise the strength of all the speeches they have heard, to join the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and myself in the Lobby to ask the Commons to think again. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 64D, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 64E, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 64.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
123 Clause 25, page 22, leave out lines 31 to 39.
The Lords disagreed to the amendment for the following reason—
123B Because arrangements for the payment of grants in respect of tuition fees at Scottish higher education institutions should be the same for students from other parts of the United Kingdom as they are for Scottish students.
The Commons insisted on their amendment for the following reason—
123C Because the disagreement by the Lords to the Commons amendment involves charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON
Lord Steel of Aikwood Lord Steel of Aikwood rose to move, That this House do not insist on their disagreement to Commons Amendment No. 123, on which the Commons have insisted for their reason numbered 123C, but do propose the following amendment in lieu of the words so left out of the Bill—

LORDS AMENDMENT IN LIEU
123E Clause 25, page 22, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) In exercising his powers under this section, the Secretary of State shall ensure that any arrangements for the payment of grant in respect of tuition fees for the fourth year of study for a first degree course at a higher education institution in Scotland apply equally to a student whose parental home or normal place of residence for purposes other than attendance at that institution is in England, Wales or Northern Ireland as they do to a student whose parental home or normal place of residence for purposes other than attendance at that institution is in Scotland.'"').
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think that any further words from me would be appreciated. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That this House do not insist on their disagreement to Commons Amendment No. 123, on which the Commons have insisted for their reason numbered 123C, but do propose Amendment No. 123E in lieu of the words so left out of the Bill.—(Lord Steel of Aikwood.)
4.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 319; Not-Contents, 108.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cox, B.

Ackner, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Addington, L.

Cranborne, V.

Ailsa, M.

Crathorne, L.

Aldington, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cross, V.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Cuckney, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Ampthill, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Annaly, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Davidson, V.

Astor, V.

De Freyne, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Denbigh, E.

Balfour, E.

Denham, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Dholakia, L.

Beloff, L.

Digby, L.

Belstead, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Biffen, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Blake, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Blaker, L.

Downshire, M.

Blatch, B.

Dundee, E.

Blyth, L.

Dunleath, L.

Bowness, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Effingham, E.

Brentford, V.

Elles, B.

Bridges, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Brightman, L.

Elton, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Erne, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Exmouth, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Falkland, V.

Bruntisfield, L.

Feldman, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Fitt, L.

Burnham, L.

Flather, B.

Butterfield, L.

Fookes, B.

Butterworth, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Byford, B.

Gainford, L.

Cadman, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Calverley, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Geddes, L.

Carew, L.

Geraint, L.

Carlisle, E.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Goodhart, L.

Carnock, L.

Gormanston, V.

Chalfont, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Greenway, L.

Chesham, L.

Grey, E.

Chorley, L.

Haig, E.

Clancarty, E.

Halsbury, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Hampden, V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Hampton, L.

Cockfield, L.

Hamwee, B.

Coleridge, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Courtown, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

1119

Harris of Peckham, L.

Montrose, D.

Haslam, L.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Moran, L.

Hayter, L.

Mottistone, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Mountevans, L.

Henley, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Hereford, Bp.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Higgins, L.

Moyne, L.

Hogg, B.

Moynihan, L.

Holderness, L.

Munster, E.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

HolmPatrick, L

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Home, E.

Napier of Magdãla, L.

Hood, V.

Nathan, L.

Hooper, B.

Nelson, E.

Hooson, L.

Newall, L.

Howe, E.

Newby, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Ilchester, E.

Norrie, L.

Inchcape, E.

Northesk, E.

Inglewood, L.

Norton, L.

Ironside, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Jakobovits, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Palmer, L.

Kimball, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Kingsland, L.

Peel, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Pender, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Prentice, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Pym, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Quirk, L.

Lawrence, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Rawlings, B.

Lewis of Newnham, L.

Reay, L.

Limerick, E.

Redesdale, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Rees, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Long, V.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Lowry, L.

Renton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Renwick, L.

Ludford, B.

Ripon, Bp.

Lyell, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Rix, L.

McConnell, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Rochester, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Romney, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Rotherwick, L.

McNair, L.

Rowallan, L.

McNally, L. [Teller.]

Russell, E.

Maddock, B.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Saatchi, L.

Manchester, Bp.

St. Davids, V.

Mar and Kellie, E.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Marlesford, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Sandberg, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Mersey, V.

Sandford, L.

Meston, L.

Sandwich, E.

Methuen, L.

Seccombe, B.

Middleton, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Shannon, E.

Milverton, L.

Sharples, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Monson, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

1120

Slim, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Wakeham, L.

Stair, E.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Stewartby, L.

Walpole, L.

Stockton, E.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Warnock, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Waterford, M.

Strathclyde, L.

Waverley, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Weatherill, L.

Sudeley, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Swinfen, L.

Weir, V.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Westbury, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wharton, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Wigoder, L

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Wilberforce, L.

Thurso, V.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Tope, L. [Teller.]

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Tordoff, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Trumpington, B.

Wise, L.

Vivian, L.

Wynford, L.

Waddington, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Hughes, L.

Alport, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Annan, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Barnett, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Islwyn, L.

Berkeley, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Borrie, L.

Judd, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Burlison, L.

Levy, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Lockwood, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Longford, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McCarthy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dearing, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Desai, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dixon, L.

Molloy, L.

Donoughue, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Dubs, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Eatwell, L.

Northbourne, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Orme, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Paul, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Peston, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gallacher, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gilbert, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rea, L.

Gregson, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Grenfell, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Hacking, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hardie, L.

Scanlon, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Haskel, L.

Serota, B.

Hayman, B.

Sewel, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Simon, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

1121

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Varley, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Whitty, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

School Standards and Framework Bill
4.46 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 176AA:
After Clause 96, insert the following new clause—
REPORT ON TRANSPORT IMPLICATIONS OF SCHOOL ADMISSIONS ARRANGEMENTS
(" .—The Secretary of State shall lay a report before Parliament one year after the commencement of this section which examines the operation of this Part with a view to assessing the implications for the school transport service, the distance which pupils travel to school, and the environmental impact of the new arrangements for school admissions.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 176AA standing in the name of my noble friends. The amendment places an obligation on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the implications of this part of the Bill for the school transport service, the distance which pupils travel to school and the environmental impact of the new arrangements for school admissions.
There are several areas within the Bill which have the potential to increase the cost of school transport. The amendment draws attention to some of those and asks the Secretary of State to report to Parliament not only on the cost to local authorities of providing school transport arising out of changes made in the Bill but also on the environmental impact of those changes.
There is increasing concern about the damage to children and to the environment as a result of the school run. Thirty years ago it was said that 90 per cent. of children walked to school. The figure is now much smaller, perhaps 20 per cent., with most children of primary-school age being accompanied by an adult. The long-term physical development of youngsters who are driven rather than walk to school is of concern. Noble Lords may remember that a recent study showed that in children who carried heart monitors for a week the heart-beat hardly raised during the course of the week. They were not taking the exercise which is the essential foundation for health in later life, unlike those who, like myself, were forced to play games every day of the school week, whether we liked it or not. It is also a
1122
matter of concern that children lose the opportunity to develop as independent individuals if they are always accompanied to school.
The amendment focuses on the cost and the environmental impact—the damage done to the environment if more cars are on the streets. We have frequently debated in this House the impact of the school run on congestion on our roads in the morning rush hour, when it has the most impact. We have also debated the effect of that congestion upon the environment and on peoples' health.
Several areas of the Bill have an impact on transport costs, including reducing parental choice via class size limits so that children have to travel further to school; school organisation, if the new school planning system does not work; but, in particular, the admissions policy. We feel strongly that admissions policies ought to ensure that there is a local place for every child and that there should be an end to the great distances that some children travel in the name of parental choice.
Finally, I should like to make a different point. This Government, I am happy to admit, are convinced of the importance of an integrated transport system and of integrating government policy across different departments. At a local level, county councillors and others who have responsibility for education have grappled with the problem of school transport and how to provide it in a period of increasing school choice. They also have the responsibility, in most cases, for highways and transport in general. They have therefore had to face up to the need to combine thinking on education with thinking on transport and the environment. Many councils have environmental policies which stretch right across their various departments.
The amendment seeks to ask whether it is time that, at a government level, a similarly integrated approach on matters of the environment and its major concomitant—transport—should be undertaken. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, this amendment would require the Secretary of State to present a one-off report to Parliament on the operation of the new school admission arrangements. The report would assess the transport, distance and environmental impact of those arrangements.
I understand the noble Baroness's intentions in tabling this amendment. But we do not believe it to be sensible for the Bill to require such a report. Protecting our environment is a high priority for this Government. In the election manifesto we made a commitment to put the environment at the heart of government, and that is exactly what we are doing.
I note also that the noble Baroness referred to our integrated transport policies which again we are now pursuing. In general, we are working to reduce car dependency. The noble Baroness will be pleased to know that that includes targeting the "school run". However, there is a danger of falling into the trap of assuming that the more distant the school, the worse are

1123
the consequential environmental effects. I am sorry to say that many parents still drive their children to school even when the journey is less than one mile.
Again, I accept what the noble Baroness says about the need for young people to take exercise and no doubt she is right in drawing our attention to the study which showed that the heartbeat of young people was not raised during a whole week. However, it could well be less harmful to the environment for those children to use public transport or to cycle to a more distant school. The interaction between a school's admissions policy and the use of public transport, walking or cycling is a little more complex than one might immediately anticipate.
My officials are working closely with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on drawing up measures to encourage admissions authorities, parents and children to consider more environmentally friendly means of getting to school, where that is feasible. It is also important that parents have their preferences met where possible. We recognise that that must be balanced by a number of considerations, including ensuring that children do not have to travel unduly long distances to find a suitable school place. There are other disadvantages to that, as well as environmental ones.
Where schools are oversubscribed, many admission authorities give priority to children who live nearest the school—sometimes measured by the safest walking route. Others give priority to children resident within a defined catchment area and others take account of transport routes. Admission authorities will continue to be able to use those oversubscription criteria.
We must of course consider how we monitor the success of our policies within this Bill. But schools' admissions arrangements and the operation of the school transport policy are local matters. Environmental considerations are essential. But the Government are tackling them in a comprehensive and coherent manner, and not piecemeal. We do not see that a report for Parliament, which this amendment would require, adds to the Government's overarching environmental policies. Therefore I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, though in some ways I found it disappointing. She mentioned again the commitment of the Government to the green linkage between policies pursued by various departments. But it is difficult to find in this legislation any evidence of that approach. It seems to be entirely based on the organisation of schools and not take into account the environmental impact of those policies, which is what one would expect the Bill to do if it had been subjected, for example, to some kind of environmental audit.
It was for that reason that we sought the possibility of an annual report; that is, to show how one aspect of the Bill may affect environmental considerations. On the other hand, I am glad to hear that her department is getting together with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. School
1124
transport is an extremely important subject. It is extremely costly, however we provide it. There are those who believe that it would be better to do it all by free school buses and others who have totally different points of view.
I do not believe that we will get any further today and therefore, despite my disappointment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Clause 98 [General restriction on selection by ability or aptitude]:
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford moved Amendment No. 176B:
Page 75, line 10, at end insert—
("( )any selection by ability consequent upon section (Admission arrangements: selection procedure);").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 176B, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 176C to 176E and 177A to 177D.
Clauses 98, 100 and 101 deal with selection, both generally and for the so-called specialist schools. The arguments of medieval scholastics as to how many angels could dance on the head of a pin were models of clarity compared to the tortured thinking that lies behind the clauses that we are now to consider.
We all know that the Government and the noble Lord opposite hate selection by ability. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, reminded us in trenchant tones the other night of his dislike of selection by ability. It was beautiful 1960s stuff and I like to hear it. But the problem is that Her Majesty's Government face the need to increase and improve standards in education. Therefore, in spite of the purity of their view in relation to selection, they see the need to have some sort of selection for their specialist schools, presumably designed, since they were introduced by the previous government, to improve standards. To a degree therefore they are impaled on the horns of their own dilemma; that is, a dislike of selection, yet having to introduce some selection and pretending that it is not selection at all. Our amendments are designed to help them away from that confusion of thought and to introduce rationality and reality into what is at present confusion and uncertainty.
Amendments Nos. 176B and 176C are direct and clear. We nail our flag clearly to the masthead. They would allow schools, subject to the approval of governors and a ballot of parents, to introduce selection by ability—straight and absolute.
Why do we do this? The Government have talked often of the right of parents to decide, and shortly we are to consider a whole raft of clauses relating to the votes on grammar schools. The Government's attitude to selection is that it is not wholly bad; otherwise they would presumably have abolished grammar schools by an Act of Parliament. But they have not done that. They have said that they will allow parents to decide either on a whole county ballot or on a ballot related in a different way to schools. In other words, they have acknowledged parental choice over the question of

1125
selection. However, it surprises me that they do it only one way. Surely logic and decency would require what my amendment suggests—the same right for other schools and parents apart from grammar schools.
I have to mention again that there is a myth unique to England—it is a myth—that selection destroys society and disadvantages the less able. As I said in an earlier debate on the Bill, that is disproved by the experience of Holland, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium and many other countries. If one says that selection is so evil that one cannot allow people to decide on it, one has also to say that we are in such a distinct society that what can occur a hundred or so miles across the Channel or the North Sea cannot occur in England. That is a myth, and socialist governments in Holland, Germany and Austria seem happy to live with selection. Strangely, if one compares the results, up to university level those countries actually do better than we do. So my noble friends and I put it straight on the face of the Bill. If you can have it one way, why not the other? I expect that I will get the old dogma thrown back at me. But remember Austria, Germany, Holland and Belgium. I put it the other way round so that one can see it one way or the other.
We then move on to Clause 100. It sets out in subsection (1) what is known in the trade as banding: each school should contain representative groups of all levels of ability. Here again one sees the problem that Ministers face as they try to adapt an ever-ageing ideology to a changing world and as they let their sociological ideals, belonging to those passé days of the 1960s, govern their educational thinking. Perhaps I may remind them—I hope not in too painful a way—that they have had to introduce these elaborate systems of banding because it has proved impossible for them—nor do they want to at the moment—to maintain the pure position of the area comprehensive.
I remind noble Lords opposite that the arrangement back in the 1960s, which was supposed to be the great argument for comprehensive education, was that banding would occur automatically because children of one area would go to one school and, as a result, one would get a variety of abilities. Why did that break down? It broke down because the parents did not like to be told to go to the school in their area; it broke down because the Government were not prepared to bus children from school to school; and it broke down because the area comprehensive was often too reflective of the sociology of the area and the children of certain disadvantaged areas also had disadvantaged schools. Therefore, the old pure gospel of comprehensive education—go to your area school and you will be with the people of your area—broke down. Furthermore, even noble Lords opposite do not like selection by house agent, which became a feature of the area comprehensive system.
So what do they do? They evolve this complex system of banding. What it means in reality is that in a school of 1,000 to 1,500 children one has to work out various ranges of ability. If one has a certain percentage at the top, one has to have a certain percentage at the bottom—all put on the surface of the Bill. I suggest to noble Lords that this will be a complex process. At least
1126
the area comprehensive was simple and understandable, although it was a dreadful system. First, IQ tests are a fallible instrument. Noble Lords who have dealt with them will know that some reflect different skills. For example, in schools of which I have been in charge, I have used IQ tests which put too much emphasis on mathematical ability. Someone else might put too much emphasis on literary ability. Therefore, precision in regard to who are the best pupils and who are the worst becomes difficult.
There will be arguments about this—considerable arguments—because on the basis of this system parents will be refused and schools will say to the parents, "Sorry, we have filled up our 10 per cent. higher ability range. Your child is too clever for us"; or, "Sorry, we have filled up our lower range. Your child is too dim for us". Then there will be arguments. I can assure the Committee that there will be arguments because parents have smelt parental choice, they have had it, and they want their children to go to what are often over-subscribed schools. Then the adjudicator and the admissions forum is brought in. It will be a nightmare. In fact, you might even side with the area comprehensive by the time you have finished.
So our Amendments Nos. 176D and 176E allow schools to decide their admission arrangements without being subject to ideology and remove the artificial rules requiring over-elaborate prescription. In other words, we open the thing out. The suggestion, and what I am putting on the record, is that the Government are still too attached to old dogmas and that they are not prepared to look across the Channel at selective systems which have produced better education for the less able. In the end they will suffer for it, as we have suffered for it over the past 30 or so years. Remember, the Bill has been put forward because of many failures in English education which have resulted from the failure of the comprehensive system to satisfy the less able. My government failed to tackle the comprehensive system because it had been too strongly entrenched. This Government will not do it because, on the whole, they are attached to it and prefer the elaborate and prescriptive method of banding.
Then we move on to the specialist schools. Although the noble Lord said late the other day that selection by ability is always hopeless, we are to have some selection. But the Government are carried screaming to the altar. The Government know as well as I do that if you say that a school specialises in languages and admits a certain percentage of its pupils on that basis, pure logic demands some test in that subject. Are they good at languages and science? Will they benefit from a specialist school in languages and science?
I say that the Government are dragged screaming to this position because they are trying to avoid reality. In this clause they never use the phrase "selection by ability". They talk of "aptitude". In the dictionary, "aptitude" is a synonym for "ability". But what do they mean if they say that "aptitude" is not "ability"? Are they saying it is just "interest"? Are they so terrified by the word "ability" that they almost approach it with garlic in their hand? If they mean that "aptitude" is "interest", will they judge that a child should go to a

1127
school specialising in languages because he smiled when he saw a French book or that he should go to a school specialising in science because he gave a little laugh when he saw a Bunsen burner? If they really mean that children should benefit, surely they need some kind of test to show that the child has some ability in French, or science, or mathematics, or whatever it be.
Our Amendments Nos. 177A to 177D face the reality. They remove the tortuous thinking of subsection (2). They allow a wider range of subjects. Prescribed subjects are mentioned on the face of the Bill. If people are going to do science it will not be enough just to do one science subject. One needs to look at an amalgam. Science subjects tend to go together with other subjects. If people wish to take science and there is a specialist school, then ability in mathematics is very important. One of the reasons why I was very bad at physics was because I could not do maths. If I were put in a specialist science school, it would have made a nonsense of the word "specialisation".
Our amendments also remove the 10 per cent. limit. How can a school be called a specialist science school—one assumes that the average entry to a school is sixth-form, with six classes of 30, making 180 pupils—if only 18 are chosen for their specialism in science? That is a tiny number. What do these specialist schools involve? It would be far better to follow the logic of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the other night. He said that he did not like selection by ability, so why have specialist schools? They seem to me to fall between two stools. They will neither fulfil the dogma of comprehensivism nor be truly specialist.
Therefore, we are trying to deliver the Government from the horns of their dilemma. In the 1920s the late dictator, Stalin, faced the same problem. In the aftermath of the revolution in Russia an egalitarian philosophy prevailed over standards of education. The late dictator, Stalin, introduced school uniforms and selection by ability, which had been a feature of the Russian system. That is why, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, knows, the Russian schools do a lot better than the schools in his local area.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, is aware that we still have four grammar schools in my area? I accept that they are excellent schools, but I would not know whether they are better than Stalin's schools in the Soviet Union.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I am delighted. During the time I spent near the noble Lord's area, his party was making great efforts to get rid of one or two of those schools. But I know that it will not want to do so now.
The fact is that the Government want to have their cake and eat it. They have accepted the partial failure of the local comprehensive school, but they have tried to maintain it in another and more elaborate form, demanding greater bureaucracy and making it a recipe for conflict. Parents will not understand banding and there will be disputes. The adjudicator will have more work and it will cost more money. The Government see
1128
the need for specialist schools, but cannot accept that in full. It is another sorry chapter in a sorry Bill. It is framework rather than standards. I am sorry I have to say this, but at least the noble Lord knows my ideology as I know his. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, these amendments were originally brought forward at the Committee stage and withdrawn. Noble Lords on the Conservative Benches have a very strong attachment to selection by ability. We are very aware of that attachment and the ideological difference between us. I do not believe that we should dispute that there is such a difference. The Government do not share their attachment.
These amendments are a direct attack on the Government's policy on selection. They are intended to completely reverse the present effect of Clauses 98 to 101, which implement the widely-welcomed commitment—which I emphasise—that we gave in the White Paper, Excellence in Schools, to rule out for the future any new selection by ability. The amendments would allow schools to propose just that. Indeed, I believe that they are pretty close to being wrecking amendments.
The new clause set out in Amendment No. 176C puts in place an entirely new mechanism for the introduction of selection—and not just partial selection by ability, but total selection by ability—running completely counter to Clauses 103 to 107 on grammar schools. It would allow a grammar school, which had been required to discontinue its selective arrangements following a parental ballot or approved statutory proposals, to seek to reintroduce full selection. Amendment No. 176B presses home the attack by making these newly-created selective arrangements a permitted form of selection by ability.
Amendments Nos. 176D and 176E seek to widen the Bill's definition of banding so as to permit even more selection by ability. There is no question but that admission by banding is admission on the basis of ability. But we believe that banding is compatible with the principle of comprehensive education, provided it is done in the way presently envisaged in the Bill. Clause 100(1)(b) of the Bill says, in effect, that if banding is to be lawful, it must not lead to substantial over or under-representation of any particular level of ability in the school's intake.
Amendment No. 176E would remove the safeguard of subsection (1)(b) and so would sanction banding which is inconsistent with the comprehensive principle. What is more, Amendment No. 176D would allow schools to admit only high ability pupils if they so wish. That is simply unacceptable to us.
Like the noble Lord's other amendments, Amendments Nos. 177A to 177D are intended completely to reverse the effect of the existing clause and so to overturn the Government's policy, this time on admission by aptitude.
The amendments remove the 10 per cent. limit on admission by aptitude and so would allow unlimited selection by this device. They remove the stipulation

1129
that schools may admit by aptitude only in subjects prescribed by the Secretary of State and so would enable schools to select by aptitude in any subject. But more than that, by removing the safeguard that any testing for aptitude must be designed to assess an aptitude for one of the prescribed subjects in which the school specialises, they would make it possible to test for other aptitudes of any kind, however remote from any specialisation, or indeed to test for general ability.
The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has raised again the issue of aptitude against ability and the distinction. It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves that the distinction has been drawn by successive governments, including those of the party opposite. That distinction has been enshrined in legislation since 1944. The last Education Act enacted by the previous government, the 1997 Act, refers in Section 10 to admission arrangements,
"admitting only pupils with high ability or with aptitude".
But even more telling, the previous government commissioned research on the strength of their belief that ability and aptitude are different. Launching the research in May 1996, the then Secretary of State said,
"To help specialist schools which want to identify pupils' aptitude for a specialist subject as opposed to ability, I am announcing today a government-funded research project. The National Foundation for Educational Research will be developing tests to identify technological aptitude as opposed to ability at the age of 11".
Perhaps I may return to the amendments. The effect of Amendments Nos. 177A to 177D would be to introduce a selection free-for-all in which any school could select and test for any percentage of its admissions on any basis it liked, under a nominal cover of selecting by aptitude. This is yet another attempt by the Opposition to bring back unfettered selection by ability.
I am somewhat reluctant to enter into the debate that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, had with my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey on the previous occasion. But I wish to say a few words about the impact that selection by ability had in the past. All too often, failure at the 11 plus meant that the vast majority of pupils were condemned to an educational environment where expectations and, consequently, opportunities, were low. Add to this the sense of failure for the majority of pupils. That cannot be right in today's competitive global environment which calls for a highly skilled workforce. It cannot be fair on pupils themselves.
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, does the Minister consider that British schools as presently constituted provide a skilled workforce able to compete in the global economy?
Baroness Blackstone: No, my Lords. After 18 years of Conservative government, this new Government are committed to raising standards in our schools and to repairing some of the damage done by our predecessors. That is what we shall do. That is what the Bill is designed to bring about.
The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, also referred to systems abroad and implied that every system in Europe is selective. Perhaps I may remind him that Sweden and other Scandinavian countries in particular have had
1130
non-selective comprehensive systems for many years. Their systems are extraordinarily successful in educating not the few, but the many. That is what this Government are absolutely determined to do.
This package of amendments is, as I have pointed out, no less—
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, before the Minister concludes, can she seek to justify why she has put on the face of the Bill that schools can continue to select according to aptitude or ability up to 10 per cent. of their total intake? What is the magic of that figure? Why not 15 per cent. or 20 per cent.? Is the Minister arguing that if 20 per cent. of a school's intake were selected for aptitude or ability, that would distort the whole balance of the school? Does she not appreciate that the trend in education is towards more specialist schools? That will be the way of the future. If the Minister restricts selection to just 10 per cent. of an intake, she is setting herself and the Government against a trend which most parents and children want.
Baroness Blackstone: No, my Lords. I do not accept what the noble Lord has just said. We believe that selection by aptitude for specialist schools should be restricted to a relatively small proportion of children. We want to maintain the comprehensive principle by which we can ensure that children are given the maximum possible opportunities and not labelled too early as failures.
The amendments are a blatant attempt to reintroduce the previous government's "grammar-school-in-every-town" policy which failed miserably. No one wanted that system. When the previous government produced their White Paper proposing it, it was universally condemned. The House will appreciate that there is no way in which the Government can accept these amendments which, as I said, would bring back the divisiveness and the neglect of majority interests associated with the Conservatives' pro-selection stance. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down and before the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, tells your Lordships how he intends to proceed, was not my noble friend puzzled by the noble Lord's failure to address the question of parental choice in the context of selection by ability? Is it not a logical point that selection by ability is selection by the schools and that that is completely contradictory to the possibility of parental choice which—I must point this out since the noble Lord was disparaging about the 1960s—has been a commonplace among those of us who have taken an interest in education since at least the 1960s? As the noble Lord also made disparaging remarks about the earlier comprehensives, was not my noble friend puzzled that the noble Lord did not reflect on what schools would be like in areas where a selective school was introduced? Would not those other schools be area non-selective schools or what used to be known as area

1131
secondary moderns? It seems to me that the noble Lord did not address any of the logical consequences of his remarks. Was not my noble friend surprised by that?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords, and I am grateful to my noble friend. I was surprised on both counts.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, perhaps I may begin with some details. The noble Baroness has still failed to address two points. I raised the complex issue of banding and of how the tests would work. The Government have forbidden parental interviews, but if a school is to admit so many pupils of high ability and so many pupils of low ability tests will have to be carried out before children enter the school. I suggest that the Government are facing a certain contradiction in that they seem to be against interviews or testing before entry to a school, which would limit parental choice. Banding limits parental choice. What tests would they use? I am sorry that the noble Baroness did not face this problem although I can understand why because it is very complex. However, I hope that at some point we shall know how the Government intend to do this.
I am not worried about a conflict between aptitude and ability. That is a problem more for the Government than for me. There will have to be pre-entry tests in schools specialising in academic subjects, such as science or languages. Aptitude and ability are inextricably linked in that case. I did not think that the comments made about technology covered my point although I accept that that is a different case because technology is a vocational type of subject. The problem facing the Government is that they are against testing before entry. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, wants total freedom of choice, but banding will prohibit that. There is an appeals procedure—
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way so that I can point out that I do not want total freedom of choice; I want comprehensive schools. I am completely consistent on that point. Freedom of choice leads to complications which we need to think through. What matters is the fundamental commitment to comprehensive schools.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, we know where we stand. My noble friend will refer later to certain of the points mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. My noble friend has some examples that will interest him.
The Minister referred to a skilled workforce. I must underline the comments made by my noble friend Lord Dartmouth who is no longer in his place. We cannot be complacent about a skilled workforce. I remind the Minister that when the West German state was faced with the problems that also faced our state in the early 1960s—namely, that the Gymnasium enjoyed greater prestige than the other schools—money was spent on those other schools. The British state could have done that instead of going comprehensive, except in limited areas. In Germany, people are now happy for their child to attend either a Gymnasium or a Realschule or whatever. We must accept that as a fact. It is insular of the noble
1132
Baroness to assume that a country which is generally acknowledged to have a more skilled workforce than ourselves has a selective system of education. I am sorry that the noble Baroness is so dogmatic that she can dismiss the point so easily.
I am very interested in the 18 "misspent" Tory years—
Lord Annan: My Lords, I do not pretend to be an expert on Germany, but is it not true that there is no national system in Germany? Education is run by the Länder and some Länder such as Land Rhein-Hesse have always based their whole education systems on the Gesamtschule, the comprehensive schools. I should have thought that that was also true of Brandenburg and of the Länder in what used to be the Deutsche Demokratische Republik.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I cannot speak with authority on the former East Germany, but I believe that only one state in West Germany, with perhaps a little bit of another, had a comprehensive system. Of the states of the former West Germany, all but Hamburg and, I think, one other used selective education. Indeed, when a comprehensive system was suggested, it was voted down in one or two states. However, as I said, I cannot speak with authority on eastern Germany.
The Minister referred to the "misspent" Tory years. I shall be interested to see this year's GCSE and A-level results because all of those children were educated under Tory control. I hope that the noble Baroness will not show total hypocrisy and say that this Government are doing well in office if the results are good. I would say that given the Minister's view of those "misspent" 18 Tory years, the results should be terrible. I hope that the noble Baroness will pay attention to that point in the middle of August when the results are published. However, the Government are in power and I am not. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. I76C not moved.]
5.30 p.m.
Clause 100 [Permitted selection: pupil banding]:
[Amendments Nos. 176D and 176E not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 76, line 31, leave out ("approved or otherwise determined") and insert ("have fallen to be implemented").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 101 [Permitted selection: aptitude for particular subjects]:
[Amendments Nos. 177A to 177D not moved.]
Clause 103 [Designation of grammar schools]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 178:
Page 78, line 2, leave out (", 106 and") and insert ("to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 178 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 179 and 182 to 185. Perhaps what I say is a hostage to fortune but I hope not to take up

1133
too much of your Lordships' time with this group of amendments. The amendments are entirely technical and are designed to clarify one or two issues and correct two cross-references. My noble friend Lady Blackstone has written to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, to explain their purpose.
Amendment No. 178 amends the reference in Clause 103(4)(a) to the procedures for altering the selective admission arrangements of grammar schools so that it includes a reference to the new Clause 105 which the Government introduced at Committee stage in response to recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. Amendments Nos. 179, 182 and 183 make it clear that some parents who are eligible to sign a petition, and would be eligible to vote in a ballot if it were held at that same time, may riot be eligible by the time the ballot is actually held. This is particularly likely in the first year of operation when petitions could be raised during the school year 1998–99. We propose that no ballots should be held before September 1999. It follows that some children will have changed schools in that time or reached the end of their last year of compulsory schooling and their parents will no longer be eligible to vote in the ballot. These three amendments remove any misunderstandings about eligibility. Amendment No. 184 simply clarifies that a parent must appear on the school's list as a registered parent of a registered pupil.
Finally, Amendment No. 185 corrects a cross-reference in the Bill. Clause 105(5) concerns sections of the regulations which will determine whether a parent is resident for the purposes of subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b). However, subsection (1)(a) does not mention residency but subsection (1)(c) does. The cross-reference therefore needs to be adjusted to remove the reference to subsection (1)(a) and include a reference to subsection (1)(c). I commend the amendments to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 104 [Procedure for deciding whether grammar schools should retain selective admission arrangements]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 178A:
Page 78, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) Before any ballot under this section takes place, the local education authority or authorities within whose areas the relevant grammar schools referred to in subsection (2)(a), (b) or (c) are situated shall—

(a) prepare and publish outline proposals for the reorganisation of schools consequent upon a successful ballot including an estimate of capital expenditure, setting up costs and predicted annual revenue costs, and

(b) send a summary of such proposals to all eligible parents.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 178A I speak also to Amendments Nos. 178B, 179A to 179H and 186A.
"Put simply, excellent schools should not be treated in the same way as others. One of our priorities over the next few months is to identify ways in which excellent schools can simply be allowed to get on with what they do well without undue distraction. So why not give them greater freedom to continue to achieve high levels of attainment and active encouragement to share the secrets of their success with other schools?"
1134
Those are not my words but the words of the Minister for School Standards, Mr. Byers, in a speech made only in the past week.
What is the reality? We go back to the politics of envy. Out goes the assisted places scheme. We are now considering a Bill that ends existing grant-maintained schools, engineers the demise of grammar schools, ends selection and increases bureaucracy and central control. Government actions do not match government rhetoric, but that is not a new phenomenon, as we have discovered over the past year.
Despite the warm words of Mr. Blair and Mr. Byers, Mr. Blunkett and unreconstructed Old Labour are in the driving seat on education and this Bill is their vehicle. This is very mean-spirited politics. Even Mr. Andrew Adonis, special adviser to Tony Blair on education at No. 10, comments on page 40 of his book A Class Act: The Myth of Britain's Classless Society that,
"The direct grant scheme succeeded, without any fanfare, in opening up many of the best independent schools to ability rather than wealth. It is a sad irony that in destroying the direct grant schools on the altar of equal opportunities the 1974–79 Labour Government succeeded only in denying opportunities to many poor children and increasing the number of fee-paying parents".
History is about to repeat itself. One has only to listen to the Ministers' responses to hear the egalitarian message, in particular the unequivocal message from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, last Thursday evening. But Mr. Adonis went on to say at page 55 of his book:
"The comprehensive revolution, tragically, destroyed much of the excellent without improving the rest. Comprehensive schools have largely replaced selection by ability with selection by class and house price. Middle class children now go to middle class comprehensive schools, whose catchment areas comprise middle class neighbourhoods, while working class children are mostly left to fester in the inner city comprehensives their parents cannot afford to move away from";
that is, unless one's name happens to be Blair, Harman or Boateng, to name but a few of the members of the Government.
What hypocrisy! First, they enjoy the privilege and then close the door of opportunity to all others.
Only today the Government announced awards to 75 schools of excellence, designating them beacon schools. Torquay Boys' Grammar School was among the list. I am not surprised. What a good school it is. What must the parents of the children of that school think to be given such a boost one day by the Government who on the same day mount a war of attrition to end the life of that great school?
It is also a supreme irony that one argument used by the Government is that where selective education takes place children not selected are deemed to be failures. We heard the argument trotted out a moment ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. But also featured in the list of 75 excellent schools are two secondary modern schools, the grant-maintained Aylesbury High School and Ashton on Mersey grant-maintained school; deservedly so because they are outstanding schools. I understand that they are not the only secondary modern schools in the list. Those schools have earned such a reputation in an area where selective education

1135
takes place, quashing yet another myth that is perpetuated by those who are prejudiced against selection.
There are many bright young pupils for whom a fast-track academic education is educationally appropriate. Bright young children from low income homes whose parents cannot afford independent education have been helped by two important rungs on the ladder of opportunity: the assisted places scheme and grammar schools. We know that the assisted places scheme has been abolished and that the demise of the grammar schools is more or less assured by the rigged balloting system proposed in the Bill.
At Committee stage noble Lords on the Liberal Benches accused the Government of duplicitous behaviour in that the Government lacked the courage to do what the Liberal Party would have done; that is, to seek to insert clauses into the Bill to abolish grammar schools. Instead, they resort to a balloting system in the guise of "Let the people decide" which will prove equally threatening to the existence of these fine schools. As for letting the people decide, the franchise for schools in what will be a whole LEA ballot area will allow all parents of children aged nought to 16 to petition and vote, whereas with any smaller group of schools the franchise is restricted to parents of children attending schools where five or more children have been selected for a grammar school place over the past three years.
It is scandalous that the parents of children who attend the very grammar schools under threat are denied a vote in the ballot. How, for example, can the Government defend a situation where the parents of children attending the outstanding King Edward schools in Birmingham or the excellent schools on the Wirral are disfranchised from voting when the very existence of their schools is at stake?
Amendment No. 178A is fundamental to those arrangements. It requires LEAs to prepare and publish outline proposals and costings for the reorganisation that will have to follow any successful ballot before a ballot takes place. In some parts of the country, reorganisation resulting from the closure of all grammar schools in an area will be substantial. We know already from preliminary work done in Kent that the costs will be considerable.
The issues already identified include the size and location of grammar school buildings and their unsuitability for translation from selective to completely non-selective schools in a short timescale. Who owns the buildings? Will the Government give the money to purchase them or lease them back, or will they forgo that cost? There is the spectre of substantial split-site arrangements; the costs and turbulence caused to LEAs in relation to the grammar and many other schools in the area; the pre-emption of capital and revenue spending; home/school transport arrangements; single-sex grammar schools; and the resistance of parents to mixed arrangements.
There is a knock-on effect for non-selective church schools which have not been consulted. I understand that in Kent 12 such schools have been completely cut
1136
out of the consultation procedures. There is the effect on parental preference; the retraining of teachers. There are many other issues of concern about these proposals. My amendment describes the information which must be made available to parents who are being asked a simple question. The consequences of signing such a petition should be made known.
Amendment No. 178B requires that 40 per cent. of eligible parents should sign a petition to trigger a balance. The consequences of a single ballot are serious. Therefore the hurdle to be overcome should be such as to rule out a purely vexatious attempt to trigger a ballot.
Amendment No. 179A provides for parents being asked to sign a petition to know that when they sign they are agreeing to close a specific number of named schools. Amendment No. 179B requires a register of eligible parents to be published.
Amendment No. 179C is important. It requires that a ballot to close all grammar schools in an area should be deemed successful only if there is a majority for the proposition, and when at least 40 per cent. of eligible parents vote for such a proposition. If that formula is acceptable for trade union recognition in the workplace, it is surely good enough for a ballot which signals the end of a whole category of outstandingly successful schools.
Amendment No. 179D requires that the terms of the question on the ballot paper should make it clear that a number of named schools will close if the ballot is successful.
Amendment No. 179E calls for a moratorium of five years between the failure to secure the requisite number of signatures on a petition in any year and the next opportunity to collect signatures. That would go some way towards minimising what can only be described as a relentless war of attrition on grammar schools which would serve only to destabilise parents, teachers and non-teaching staff, and, most significantly, would disrupt the lives and the education of the children at those schools.
Amendments Nos. 179F and 179G extend the franchise to feeder schools where any parent has applied for a place at a grammar school in the area in any of the three previous years. It should enfranchise at least those people who aspire to their children attending a grammar school.
Amendment No. 179H suggests a 15-year interregnum between ballots, which would allow for only two generations of a school's intake, and, again, would minimise the relentless war of attrition.
Amendment No. 186A extends the period following a ballot within which an LEA must have fully comprehensive, non-selection in place. Practical difficulties and disruption will be caused to the education of children going through the school. To refuse the amendment will display, on the part of the Government, a real contempt and disregard for thousands of pupils, their teachers, and their parents.
Before the election, Mr. Blair and other members of his now government claimed that grammar schools were secure and that there were no plans to affect their future.

1137
We now know differently. The thrust of the Government's education policy, manifested in the previous debate on selection, is a levelling down.
This group of amendments seeks to address the unsatisfactory procedures which the Government are planning to put in place which will give rise to a relentless war of attrition until all our grammar schools are no longer part of the education scene. They are schools which have served our country so well over the centuries. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, the whole purpose of the Bill, as stated by the Government, is to raise standards of education in schools, as confirmed by my noble friend's quotation from Mr. Byers. The standard of education in grammar schools in Essex is first class, as proved by any league table published. In those circumstances, why single them out among all schools for the questioning of their very existence, as in the clauses we are considering? All that can achieve is to divert the attention of staff, parents and pupils from the overriding aim of providing a good education for the pupils. It is a return to old Labour with a vengeance. I should prefer the wholesale removal of the clauses questioning the existence of the grammar schools, but, in lieu, I wholeheartedly support my noble friend's amendment.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I shall touch briefly on something said by my noble friend Lady Blatch about cost—something I do not believe the Government have borne sufficiently in mind should they proceed with abolishing some of the grammar schools. The Government may not know that the King Edward Foundation schools in Birmingham—there are five of them—own not merely the land upon which their schools stand but all the playing fields. They are expensive tracts of land in valuable parts of our city. In addition, they own a large number of private dwellings. In the previous debate we heard about cost being a deterrent to doing even what was right. I wonder whether the Government recognise that the cost of this move will be far greater than they thought.
Having read the Bill and listened to the Minister, I cannot avoid the suspicion that the Government do not know what they want or are anxious to hide at what they are aiming. The situation reminds me of the old game of "shame" and "hooray". About a month before people were deciding how to vote in the general election, many of the fears of parents interested in a grammar school education for their children were lulled by the statement of none other than Mr. David Blunkett who said,
"Existing grammar schools will face no threat to their continuance, or to their ethos or to their quality".
So new Labour now supports grammar schools—hooray; but the Bill clearly threatens the existence of grammar schools—shame; there will be a vote on the continuance of grammar schools—hooray; but the ballot will be rigged—shame; selection will still be allowed—hooray; but not by ability—shame; grammar schools may exist—hooray; but grant-maintained schools will go—shame.
1138
Let us be clear about the importance of grammar schools to our country. Britain needs its bright children, from whatever homes they come. That factor seems to have escaped the Government altogether. Since at least the 16th century, and in the case of the Birmingham foundation since the time of Richard II, grammar schools have been the bridge over which clever children from poor homes have received an academic education.
One would have thought that that would be a worthy aim. Do not let us bother about the kind of homes from which children come; if they are clever and have ability, let us take them to the limit of that ability by giving them an academic education. But, dear me, no: the old dogma of socialism is alive and well and must be adhered to. Equality must be imposed on everything from wealth to intelligence quotient.
Yet we should aim at equality of opportunity, not simply equality. A far higher authority than Blair, Blunkett or Blackstone decreed centuries ago that human beings are different and are unequal. Some are brainy; others are not. Some work hard; others slack. Some are good with their hands and absolute duffers at everything else. Of course they all have value to society, but not all are equal. It is ludicrous to suppose that the bright and brainy will not be held back if we lump everyone together. It may lead to equality but it will be equality of mediocrity.
The Bill proves that Labour has not changed its spots, read Blunkett pre-election as one will—although there is a glaring illogicality about the belief that if all children go to the same kind of school a happy state of equality will prevail. Unless all children with high and low intelligence ratings are taught in the same class, there will be a new elite because there will be streaming. Some would be taught in A classes; others in B classes. Goodness me, how awful and unequal that would be! It would be wrong. We cannot have that. So then what?
I must say a few words about the ballot system imposed by the Bill. Unless it is radically changed, it will be the most unfair and unjust system ever devised. As my noble friend reminded the House, in Birmingham it is proposed that only the parents of primary school children will be allowed to vote. No parents of grammar school children—they surely know far more about the benefits, the pluses or minuses, of grammar school education first-hand—will be allowed a say. What about those of us who have benefited from a grammar school education? My parents could never have afforded to send me to a private school; they could not have afforded to pay for my education. But I went to a grammar school; and I should be failing that grammar school if I did not use this opportunity to say how much I benefited from that, and how much I wish to see similar benefits given to other children in the future.
I am not allowed to vote on this issue. That seems to me wrong. We should be able to vote from our knowledge and experience of grammar school education. Why cannot commerce, business or the universities have a vote? They are extremely interested in bright children receiving the education they need. But those bodies are not allowed to vote.

1139
The question of whether or not grammar schools should continue will vitally affect our whole country. It should certainly not be decided on rigged ballots. Experience, not dogma, should guide voters. Since the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, when an education Minister in another place, destroyed her first grammar school in the 1960s or early 1970s, I have watched with interest and some dismay those schools as they ceased being grammar schools and became comprehensive schools. I have looked in vain for one single grammar school transmogrified into a comprehensive which is better than the old grammar school, producing better results and giving children a better chance. Why get rid of excellence because of dogma?
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness to give an example. In my own town of Dorking, Ashcombe School, part of which was a grammar school and part a secondary modern, now gives a grammar school type of education to anyone who wishes to come to the school. It has excellent results, in the top tier of the ratings.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, the noble Baroness destroys her own argument. She said that the school now gives a grammar school education. That is what I seek to defend. My belief springs from my knowledge of grammar schools not only as a former pupil but as a member of a local educational authority. I have had much to do with grammar schools. I repeat: I have yet to see one which has been improved by its change to a comprehensive school. I give strong support to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Blatch.
Lord Monson: My Lords, there are many amendments in this grouping which I saw for the first time only just over three-quarters of an hour ago. Although not an expert in the field, I agree with everything that has been said. I am particularly attracted to Amendments Nos. 179A and 179D which require the names of schools facing abolition to be published. If accepted, the amendments would at minimal cost allow parents thinking of voting for the abolition of grammar schools in their area to contemplate the consequences of casting their vote in this way. Faced with the idea of closing down named schools with a great reputation and possibly a proud and ancient tradition, some may be inclined to think again.
If the Government resist these two modest amendments, it will tend to indicate that they are anxious to discourage parents from reflecting upon the admirable aspects of our grammar schools and their proud and possibly long traditions.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, my brief point is addressed to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. In moving the amendment, she placed great emphasis on the disruption and chaos—I am not sure that she used the word "disruption", but it is what she meant—which will be caused by a democratic and rational system for change. I think that we would all admit that there are
1140
two views on selection. Those views have been argued eloquently. We may not have agreement on that. However, what would the noble Baroness say about the hundreds of grammar schools which were abolished by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher? There seems to be somewhat of a contradiction. The noble Baroness puts it both ways. When the noble Baroness replies, perhaps she will deal with that important point.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, earlier today the Government were clearly defeated on a point of principle. As the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Ripon said, the vote was on a principle, and the Government were behaving in an unprincipled way. The House decided that by a clear majority.
I believe that in these clauses the Government are behaving in an unprincipled, and I think rather shameful, way. Unlike some of my colleagues, I shall not particularly argue the case for or against grammar schools. Some people are for them; some people are against them. I am very strongly for them. But that is not the issue. The issue is that before the election, the Government certainly gave the impression that grammar schools would be safe in their hands.
A few years ago, they were much more absolute. When I was Education Secretary, the party opposite was going to abolish grammar schools. That was the view of old Labour. It was the view of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and his colleagues. It was not so much old Labour as antediluvian Labour. They were against selection and against grammar schools. I do not agree with that view but I do respect it. I know where they are coming from. Previous Labour Education Secretaries were explicit about the matter. They brought in legislation to do away with grammar schools. They were quite principled about it. I did not agree with it but at least one knew what they were saying and in what they believed.
This Government are devising a system which will allow other people to decide whether or not grammar schools survive, under the pretence of democracy. That is shameful. It would have been better to have had a provision on the face of the Bill which abolished all grammar schools. We could have had a vote on that and the Government have such a large majority in the other place that it would have been carried. Why did they not do that, because that will be the effect of the legislation they are proposing?
It will be extremely difficult for grammar schools to survive because the electoral system which is to be devised will be rigged against grammar schools. First, there will be two electorates. In an area as large as Kent, people who live as far as 40 miles away may be asked to vote about the fate of a school of which they have never heard and which they do not even know exists. Is that reasonable and fair? I do not believe that anyone would think so.
Of course, by its very nature, the children who go to grammar schools and the parents who want their children to go to such schools are likely to be in a minority in almost any area because of the system of selection. As I said in a previous debate, the Liberal

1141
Democrats still believe in the teaching of John Stuart Mill. At least I think they do. I see some of them nodding. Not all the Liberal Democrats believe in his teaching and I do not expect members of the party opposite to believe in his teaching. But in his great essay on liberty, the one thing he argued against was the tyranny of the majority. That is exactly what is being invoked by the Government in order to abolish grammar schools. They are rigging fancy franchises to achieve a majority in order to destroy a school instead of doing it themselves. They want grammar schools to be found dead in the library with no fingerprints on the dagger, no trace of footsteps leading and no hint of any possible guilt. It is all being done by mother democracy.
That is shameful. Some of the amendments moved by my noble friend Lady Blatch seek to install safeguards. Surely in our democracy we are used to electoral lists, are we not? Even trade unions have electoral lists of members so that they know who is going to vote. Who is going to prepare the electoral lists of all the eligible people? Who will check that the people who have signed the petition are residents and that that is their proper signature? Who will do all the things which we are well practised in doing in running our democratic process? The answer is that very little will be done as regards any of those matters.
Therefore, I believe that this is a shameful process. The position of the Liberal Democrats is much more frank and honest. They have always been against grammar schools. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, is no doubt no longer a Member of the House of Commons because he resisted the four very successful grammar schools in his area and they have survived him.
6 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Baker, is aware that I am leader of the LEA with a majority of 36 over all the other parties. His party, the staunch defender of grammar schools, which fights every election on the issue of grammar schools, now has only five of the 56 councils in the London boroughs.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I am extremely glad that the noble Lord has managed to reconcile the conflict within his own breast of the Liberal Democrat Party being against grammar schools and having an LEA which still runs four excellent grammar schools. I am delighted to know that. He must have struggled with his conscience and won.
I conclude my remarks by saying that this is a shameful process. If the Government want to abolish grammar schools—and that is the purpose of these clauses at the end of the day—they should come out of their corner and say so. They should be honest about it. They are abusing democracy by these processes.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him to deal with the point which is similar to that which I raised with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. We would all agree that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was very much opposed to grammar schools. There is no doubt
1142
about that at all. The noble Lord has used the word "shameful" several times on the basis that this Government are doing things which are against their principles. Would he comment on what the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, did, because she literally abolished hundreds of grammar schools? Grammar schools were very much against her beliefs and principles.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I dealt with that on the last debate but perhaps I may remind the noble Lord of what I said on that occasion. That was not the most glorious episode in the life of my former colleague and Prime Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. As I said on the last occasion, when I was Education Secretary, I mentioned to her on two occasions that she had abolished more grammar schools than anyone else. When I did that I ducked, because she did not like to be reminded of it. However, that does not justify the process which the noble Lord is being asked to support this evening. If the noble Lord is against grammar schools, he should table amendments to the face of the Bill which will abolish them. It should not be done in an underhand, devious, tricky little way in the name of democracy.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the point which the noble Lord, Lord Baker, makes about the validity of the ballot is interesting. He casts doubts upon it because he says that the parents of children at grammar schools will be in a minority in the electoral school.
However, it seems to me that the real point is that the impact which grammar schools make on the whole system makes it important that there should be a wide electoral school from parents of children throughout the school system. That is very much my own experience as a parent in Birmingham or children in the Birmingham school system.
The noble Baroness, Lady Knight, has referred to the five King Edward grant-maintained schools in the city. There we see children selected at 11. Many have already been to primary schools which are well known for coaching children towards the 11-plus exam. It is hardly surprising that the children who do best in those exams at 11 also do well in their examinations at 16. Those who do not do well in those schools are weeded out and are certainly not encouraged to take A-levels. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that the A-level grades of those schools are better than those of the comprehensive schools in the city.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is particularly close to the King Edward schools. Does he rejoice in the possible demise of some of the finest schools in the country which are in Birmingham?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the King Edward schools in Birmingham has had a negative effect on the school system as a whole in the city. I have no doubt about that whatever. In effect, children have been creamed off from the comprehensive system in the city. That has meant a denial of choice for thousands

1143
of children who are not attending true comprehensive schools. That is a tragedy at a time when the city, through its chief education officer and the resources made available by the city council, as was confirmed by the recent Ofsted report, is really beginning to see improvements.
I welcome the opportunity for parents in the city to be balloted on this matter. The amendments proposed would put many hurdles in the way of a clear, straightforward and easily recognisable ballot by parents in the city. I very much hope that your Lordships will reject them.
Lord Peston: My Lords, although the amendments are specific, we have got up to our usual antics of having a broad general debate on the subject of comprehensives, selection and related matters. Therefore, I could not resist the temptation to join in. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, slightly misunderstands her own amendment, Amendment No. 179H, on the 15-year point. It is not that only two cohorts would be protected; if there cannot be a ballot for 15 years then as a matter of elementary arithmetic, 15 cohorts will be affected. It is a mistake to divide 15 by eight. The point is that 15 entry classes will be affected. That is my only contribution to the technical point.
The noble Lord, Lord Baker, is correct in thinking that some noble Lords, myself included, would have liked to see on the face of the Bill a straight end to selection. He is wrong to use the word "Neanderthal". The expression that I have had to point out to noble Lords before is "Labour Gold". I am the main representative for Labour Gold in this House, but I do not resile from the views I hold. I believe that the comprehensive principle is right. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. I thought that the riposte made to her was a complete misinterpretation. The noble Baroness said that within comprehensive schools we have academic education across the whole group of people, and that is what we want. My eldest child, who has not, to say the least, been entirely unsuccessful in his life, went to a school that was an amalgamation of two secondary modern schools. All the children in that school, who would have been told under the earlier regime that they were failures because they were at a secondary modern school, were told that they could be a success. Other schools in Haringey were a combination of secondary modern and grammar schools. The grammar schools were not destroyed, but the other schools were enhanced.
Noble Lords opposite, and the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, in particular, demonstrated in their speeches the tremendous advantage of having a grammar school education. We want good education for all and we do not see any schools being destroyed. I know nothing about the situation in Birmingham, but I believe that those schools in Birmingham will change and will not be destroyed. What will be destroyed is the selective system. This is not a matter of destruction, it is a matter of change.
1144
The Government cannot win. I would like to see a straight end to selection, but the Government decided, and said to people such as me, that we have to be more modern. Old Neanderthals such as us have to look specifically to the people and take ballots. The moment the Government decide to have ballots they are accused of being underhand, devious, tricky, hypocritical, shameful, and so on, by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, et al. The Government cannot win.
As I have said before, I am doubtful about this because I am not convinced that the ballots will abolish any schools, and I do not like that. The notion that the ballots are rigged is quite ridiculous. It will be incredibly difficult to win a ballot for those who wish to see the end of selection, which is why I have doubts. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, gets involved in the detail, she may be able to explain how the rigging would work, but I cannot see it at all. I see a democratic process. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, is right, I do not like it; but my noble friends do and they are the up-to-date people. Therefore I live with what they have to say.
The relative decline of the British economy occurred long before the first comprehensive school was introduced; it occurred during the heyday of the view that if you could pay you could get an academic education. But the rest got what was coming and what was available. The notion that the decline of our country is connected with the rise in comprehensive education has no connection with reality, but it does highlight the problem which noble Lords opposite have. The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, said that we are about to see some very good GCSE and A-level results. I hope that we are, but where will those results come from? They will come from an overwhelming majority of comprehensive schools. I cannot understand the antipathy to the 1960s, but these schools were started in the 1960s, operated in the 1970s and were continued by noble Lords opposite in the 1980s and 1990s. In so far as there is achievement, it is due to all of our people.
I went to a grammar school. I view them rather like the so-called problem of the fastest gun in the West. The golden rule is never to say that you are the fastest gun in the West because someone faster than you will appear. I went to a selective grammar school. On the first day, all the boys who went there thought that they were very clever. By the second day, three-quarters of them were in forms B, C and D. As an A form boy myself, I knew they were inferior because that was the name of the game. No one told me that those boys might be as good as I was at least as human beings.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, when the noble Lord was extolling the virtues of all schools contributing to the A-level and GCSE results which we will be soon seeing, and also the published school test results which are likely to be the best in our recorded history, I hope that he will pay tribute to the 18 years of Conservative

1145
government and all the reforms that we introduced to achieve those results. I look forward to the noble Lord's speech on that occasion.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Lord is unfair; he has never heard me say a word against the government to which he refers. I am not saying that all that they did contributed to those achievements; I think the achievements were overwhelmingly those of the teachers and pupils.
Lord Joseph and I thought that the National Curriculum introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, was too complicated and we rejected it at the time. The noble Lord will recall a vote in this House. Then his own government changed in our direction. I am not a uniform critic of his government—not everything they did was wrong; they did one or two things right.
I accept that some of the GCSE and A-level results will be from girls and boys at grammar schools, so I will not make that kind of stupid distinction either. I am simply saying that our education system, although not good enough, is largely a comprehensive system and it succeeds. If the system were 100 per cent. comprehensive we would achieve even more.
To finish my story about the fastest gun in the West, I then went to Princeton and, having thought how clever I was, I met people who were really clever; and that was when I started to learn the lesson that no matter how good you think you are and how keen you are to separate yourself from everybody else, there are cleverer people than you around. The sooner you learn that lesson, by going to the same kind of school as everybody else, and learning that there are lots of decent people around even if they are judged by some criteria to be inferior to you, the better. I hope that one day some noble Lords opposite will learn that lesson.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I am always happy to take part in debates about grammar schools and comprehensive schools. I agree totally with the last comment of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I have previously talked at some length about the fact that I went to a grammar school and that my children went to a secondary modern school which became a comprehensive school. Education is not just about academic attainment. Educating somebody for life is about educating them to understand the environment and the society in which they grow up. I know that I did not gain that at grammar school and I know that my children did. That is a very important point.
I was just reflecting that I achieved much worse A-level results than my children did and I received appalling advice about careers. They have gone to university and I did not. My post-graduate education came when I was very much older.
We have heard very emotive arguments this afternoon. I should like to mention some points that people are forgetting. The Minister talked about education in Sweden. I lived there for three years and that is where I became absolutely convinced that everybody can have a high standard of education if the resources are made available and if it is done through a
1146
comprehensive system. They have a highly skilled workforce from the man who comes to your flat or house to repair something to a young lady who can talk to anybody in a variety of languages in the equivalent of a Woolworth's store. That made a tremendous impression on me, as did the experience that I had in schools.
This is all about resources. Equality of opportunity was another argument advanced this afternoon. It is not equality of opportunity if you put all the resources into grammar schools so that the children who attend other schools do not get the benefit of the same amount of resources. If everyone got the benefit of all the resources that go to individual children in grammar schools, I am sure that all children would be doing very much better. That is what I want to see in education in this country. Indeed, I have been castigated by both sides of the House for wanting more money to be put into education. Adequate resources are the answer.
One argument that I found it very difficult to be comfortable with was that concerning rigged ballots. I am not absolutely certain that the Government have got it right. I believe that they are a bit muddled about where they propose to go on grammar schools. As someone who was a member of a local authority when the previous government said that if people did not take part in a ballot for the houses that they were living in to be transferred to another landlord they were voting "yes", I find the argument about ballots a little difficult to take.
I resisted the temptation to stand up and speak earlier because I knew that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, would quote John Stuart Mill at me. Indeed, he managed to do so even before I stood up to speak. I hope for everyone's sake that no one provokes him to stand up and do so again. However, I wanted to make those important points, which I believe may have got lost in the arguments. Comprehensive schools do work if they have the same resources that we have seen put into some of the best schools—namely, grammar schools, grant-maintained schools and a variety of others.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as on the previous occasion when we discussed this issue, we have had a fair degree of rhetoric about what are rather mundane amendments. I do not object to that. I am as willing as anyone else to join in the arguments about comprehensive schools against grammar schools. I am as willing as anyone else to talk about selection by ability and to go back over the history of education in this country since the 1944 Act; or, indeed, earlier if anyone wishes to do so. However, I have an obligation to respond to the amendments, despite the tone of the debate, which I shall not be able to neglect.
However, I hope that I shall be forgiven for responding to the debate first. The gap between rhetoric and reality has seldom been so blatantly exposed as it has been during the course of the past 49 minutes. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, started by talking as if what we were doing here was somehow to undermine what Stephen Byers calls, "encouraging excellent schools". Nothing could be further from the truth.

1147
The truth of the matter is that we have done exactly what we said we would do before the election and have said, unceasingly, we will do since the election. I know that my noble friend, Lord Peston is unhappy about this, but we have not said that we would abolish all grammar schools; what we have said is that we will let local parents decide whether grammar schools should be abolished. If we are criticised for that and told by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, that that is shameful, then I would ask him to contrast his stance and that of the noble Baronesses Lady Knight, Lady Platt and others—namely, that they want to keep grammar schools at all costs—
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister for giving way. Will the Minister consider that he has perhaps misread what we have been trying to say? We do not for one moment object to parents deciding such matters; we object to the very limited and rather unfair choice of a narrow group which will be allowed to vote.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should not have allowed the noble Baroness to interrupt me in the middle of my sentence. I shall try not to do so again. However, when I read the Hansard report of her speech, I think I shall find that I am right to say that she was fundamentally delivering a most moving and clearly sincere defence of keeping grammar schools at all costs.
If the Government are told by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, that it is shameful to consult local parents on the subject—indeed, he said so in so many words more than twice—and that it would have been honourable just to say that we are going to abolish grammar schools, I must put it to him that the argument on the other side would only be honourable in the same sense if the Opposition were to move to take out these clauses altogether rather than tinker with the franchise. I find tinkering with the franchise, with the obvious and quite clear object of ensuring that ballots will fail—I do not like to use the word "shameful" as freely as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, does—less than open and not up to the standards which I would have expected of the noble Lord and his colleagues.
There are so many mis-statements and illusions about what is being done here. Indeed, the words: "closed, abolished or demise" were used by so many noble Lords. None of these schools is going to be closed and none of them will be abolished. None of them will have its property taken away. Perhaps I may use the example of the King Edward schools in Birmingham, which was used by a number of speakers. We are talking as if the foundations of those schools will somehow be valued, taken away, expropriated, paid for, or something of that nature. It is no such thing. If the parents in Birmingham vote in a ballot—I get trapped into the jargon myself by the continuous mis-statements—for the change in the status of the King Edward schools so that selection is no longer possible, those schools will not close and their foundations will not change. All that will happen is that, in the first year, there will no longer be selection for entry to those schools. That is not abolition.
1148
I am not just talking about the future. It happened to me. I was a member of Haringey council during the years 1966 to 1968 when it went 100 per cent. comprehensive in a period of 18 months. We had a foundation school exactly like the King Edward schools—the Stationers Company School. It was a voluntary aided school; we did not control it. However, it agreed to come in with our abolition of selection and our creation of comprehensive schools. It had one reservation; namely, that it wanted to stay a boys only school, which we agreed to. So that can be done without any disruption. Indeed, there was no disruption at that time, as my noble friend Lord Peston well remembers because both he and I sent our children to the same comprehensive school.
However, all this rhetoric about closing, abolishing and killing excellent schools is far from the reality of what we propose, although I hesitate to call it that. I should perhaps say that it is far from the subtleties of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Perhaps I may deal with them as quickly as I can.
I should begin with Amendment No. 178A. A comparable amendment, with very little difference, was moved in Committee. We do not consider it sensible to require any party to a ballot to publish assessments of the likely organisation which might be put in its place. It does not matter whether they are called, as they were in Committee, "fully-costed proposals" or "outline proposals" as is the case with the current amendment. There is a perfectly good case to be made against this sort of information being provided by one participant in the process.
If there is a vote for change, there will have to be consultation on any changes to admission arrangements or any consequential proposals. Although the LEA—which is named in the amendment as having to publish these proposals—takes the lead, the governing bodies of individual schools have a crucial role. They are the admission authorities for foundation and voluntary schools. They will be able to publish proposals to alter such schools.
The noble Baroness asked whether the LEA would determine the plans in the event of a ballot for change to a whole LEA area's schools. The LEA is not the determiner of matters like this. The LEA is responsible for drafting the school organisation plan but it is for the school organisation committee to agree both the plan and any specific statutory proposals.
If local education authorities want to publish some kind of preliminary assessment of what might happen, they can do so in publications to their electors. Amendment No. 186, which we shall discuss in the next group of amendments, makes it quite clear that they can prepare and publish fair and reasonable assessments of the consequences of a ballot. But I suggest that it would be wrong to require them to do so.
We have had the revival of the cost of implementation argument. As I have made it clear that schools will not be closed or abolished, but that the change will affect their admission arrangements in the first year, I think your Lordships can put that into context and realise that

1149
compared with the changes which took place in the 1960s and 1970s, these changes to up to 166 schools in this country will hardly merit the alarmist fears that have been expressed.
Amendment No. 178B is another attempt by the noble Baroness to make the task of raising a petition and moving to a ballot ever more difficult. We have already proposed that the threshold for a petition should be 20 per cent. of eligible parents, or in the case of a selective LEA, 20 per cent. of the number of parents of children at schools in the authority. It is proposed that the figure should now be 40 per cent. I said in Committee that this can only be intended to prevent any change whatsoever. The noble Baroness is now proposing a figure of 40 per cent. rather than 50 per cent. as she proposed in Committee. In Kent, that would mean 200,000 validated signatures. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, said that little will be done as regards checking eligible signatories. However, the Bill provides for a ballot administration company to do that. That is more than was provided for under the noble Lord's grant-maintained school ballots.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that that is not fair. He chided me on this in Committee. He got the position wrong. He was kind enough to say he had it wrong. He said that he would apologise to me shortly. I waited for the apology. In the case of the grant-maintained schools everyone knew exactly who was on the electoral list—the local authority, which often opposed the measure, and all the parents. Is there to be a full electoral list of all those people? Will the ballot company do that? We would like an answer to that. Will everyone be known who is eligible to vote for the petition and then is eligible to vote in the ballot? That is how we conduct elections in this country. Will we have all that information?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. I was responding to the noble Lord's specific claim—which I repudiate—that little will be done as regards checking eligible signatories. Of course there will be a list. I shall discuss later the separate issue of publication of the list when I deal with the relevant amendment.
Amendments Nos 179A and 179D are rather different, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, recognised. They seem to me perfectly reasonable amendments. Indeed, the draft regulations which were issued for consultation on 3rd June include the measures which the amendments would provide. Our only difference with the principal Opposition, the Conservative Party, is that we do not consider it is appropriate for this detail to be on the face of the Bill. The form of words to be used in the regulations is subject to responses to the consultation and will take into account any suggestions received—including the comments of the Opposition Front Bench—on this matter.
Amendment No. 179B is similar to one we discussed during Committee stage. This is where I shall discuss the list of all parents eligible to sign a petition. There are practical difficulties with the amendment and difficulties of principle. First, I shall discuss the practical difficulties. If a list of all eligible parents was
1150
published during the autumn term, that list might well be out of date by the next term, given that parents may in the interim have moved out of the area, or indeed moved into the area. After all, primary schools have reception classes where pupils are admitted at the beginning of each term.
At Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said it would be possible to bring lists up to date. Of course it would but that could result in enormous expense or, rather, a burden on the schools involved. Under our proposals, schools would have to provide updated electoral lists to the ballot company only when a petition has been received and the ballot company does not have the list for that term. As far as I understand the amendment it would result in schools having to tell the ballot company every time there was a change in the details.
The amendment also raises difficulties of principle. First, there is the principle of confidentiality. The amendment raises issues about parents' right to confidentiality. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, recognised in Committee that parents must have the right to remove their names from a list before it is made public. However, she has not provided for that in the amendment which is before the House.
Secondly, there is the issue of fairness. If the list were made available, it would give an advantage to campaigners with sufficient money to circulate material to parents. It could result in parents receiving very one-sided information. In relation to whole LEA ballots where there will be a register for local parents whose children do not attend schools in the area, the register will not be completed until four weeks after the petition has been validated. Therefore there are great difficulties both of principle and of practice with the amendment, although we shall seek by regulation to achieve what is possible in this regard. I draw the attention of the House to draft regulation 21, paragraphs (1) and (2). I draw the attention of noble Lords opposite to the fact that the provisions for the electoral list parallel what happened under grant-maintained school ballots.
Amendment No. 179C attempts to introduce a minimum requirement that any vote in favour of ending selective admission arrangements would require the backing of 40 per cent. of eligible parents. This is where I owe the noble Lord, Lord Baker, an apology because I said that in the grant-maintained ballots all abstentions counted as votes in favour of change. That was not the case. I apologise to the noble Lord for that mis-statement. However, under the amendment, 40 per cent. of eligible parents, as well as a majority of those voting, would be required to end selective admission arrangements. It will be noted that the amendment seeks to introduce no such turnout requirement for ballots in favour of the status quo.
As regards rigged ballots, that is certainly what is proposed in Amendment No. 179C. The ballot arrangements that we propose will be a two-stage process. There will be a petition where a threshold will apply, and following that—in other words, when the threshold has been crossed—a simple majority of those voting will be required.

1151
Amendment No. 179E is the amendment on a moratorium which I thought we had killed last time. I am astonished that it has been raised again. Under the amendment, which introduces a moratorium on petitions, it would be possible for a group of parents to raise, at the end of the school year, a phoney petition with only half a dozen signatures, or a petition that would have to be declared invalid because it had not been properly prepared. That in itself would prevent a further petition for the next five years. I am not good at sporting metaphors, but that seems to be kicking the whole matter into touch.
Amendments. Nos. 179F and 179G are relatively minor. They relate to the definition of a feeder school which in our proposed definition is one that has sent five or more pupils in total to one or more of the grammar schools over the previous three years. The amendment proposes that qualification even if just one person had applied to a relevant grammar school. Grammar schools do not keep records for that time in relation to who has applied. The amendments are entirely impracticable.
Amendment No. 179H provides for no further ballot for 15 years. The noble Baroness mentioned several times the idea of a war of attrition. The 15-year gap for which the amendment provides would mean that significant numbers of parents never have an opportunity to vote on whether the grammar schools in their area should change their admission arrangements.
I apologise for the length of my reply; however, these amendments all relate to different matters and have to be dealt with individually. Amendment No. 186A attempts to delay the implementation of any change by specifying in the Bill that the implementation of non-selective admissions policies may not be required by a date less than 30 months after the ballot. That is a very long time. The amendment is simply a delaying tactic. There is no necessity for it, and no necessity was argued by the noble Baroness.
If I have bored the House by responding to individual amendments, I apologise. However, I wanted to make it clear that the amendments do not do what noble Lords opposite want them to do—that is, maintain grammar schools at all cost. I hope I have not tempted them to try to do that at Third Reading. In the meantime, I hope that they will not insist on pressing these amendments.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am totally vindicated in my view that old Labour is in the driving seat, and the train is travelling very fast indeed. All the prejudices against selection, against grammar schools, have emerged today in fulsome tribute from the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, who has left the Chamber, referred to reorganisation and the possibility of disruption for children, and to the number of grammar schools that were closed under the administration of my noble friend Lady Thatcher. I, like my noble friend, do not believe that it was the most glorious period of Conservative history. However, it pales into insignificance given the number of previous
1152
policies that have been denounced by the Labour Party during this year. The Labour Party has produced U-turns almost in art form. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, regrets some of those.
The difference between then and now in regard to the reorganisation proposals is that, previously, each proposal brought forward to the department was presented on the basis of having already consulted, the plans having already been produced and fully costed. The proposals had been fully planned in terms of time as well as money, and in terms of where the children would go to school. Those were all aspects of the application to the Department of Education and Science. That is rather different from what is on the table today. The Labour Government's policy was wholly and soundly denounced by Andrew Adonis, the present adviser on education to the Prime Minister. He obviously belongs to the new wing of Labour. He denounced the introduction of compulsory comprehensive education. It was a Conservative government who ended the compulsory nature of comprehensive education, which enabled today's grammar schools to exist.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred to the interregnum. He said that he could not understand the points I was making nor what the fuss was about. It is possible, given the timescale on which the Government are insisting, having not agreed to my amendment, that when the first cohort of children go into a school next year, which is the earliest a ballot could take place—I have tabled a Written Question on this matter, but one waits interminably for answers—many grammar schools could close, depending on where the ballot takes place. Children among the first year secondary intake—I am using old terminology now, not seven, eight and nine year-olds—would be followed by a new first-year when they became the second-years of a comprehensive intake, and then a further comprehensive intake. That would provide for a partly selective, partly comprehensive school. Teachers would not be trained in dealing with the full range of abilities. All would be attending the school at the same time. That would happen only if a school remained in its own buildings.
Taking Kent as an example, 108 schools would be involved in a reorganisation to close 33 grammar schools. Those 108 would include three middle schools, 17 comprehensive schools and 33 grammar schools. The 17 comprehensive schools would include about 12 schools with a religious character. That would be a very dramatic upheaval. Children would be involved in split sites, mergers or full closures. We got into arguments on semantics with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in regard to schools not closing. Those schools will cease to exist as grammar schools. Almost all of them are too small in themselves to be all-through comprehensive schools. So they would have to change dramatically. There would be a difficult interregnum.
Under the Government's proposals, an unsuccessful ballot could be held when a pupil was in the first year. A second ballot could be held when that same pupil was still in the school, possibly in the first-year sixth, and that could go on ad infinitum. One child should at least be able to see his or her period of schooling through in

1153
a grammar school having had his or her life disrupted only once. Under the present arrangements it would happen more than once.
If the Government really believed in pursuing excellence, as Mr. Byers reminds us almost on a daily basis, they would not be proposing to engineer the demise of these schools. The Government say that they will allow changes to the Bill in line with the wishes of the best grant-maintained schools in the land. But they have resisted all recommendations and all amendments that we have proposed to that end. They have also spoken warmly of the future of grammar schools—only to set up class warfare in areas where grammar schools exist.
I have discovered another example of an excellent grant-maintained secondary modern school, Waddesdon Church of England School. Together with Aylesbury High School and Ashton-on-Mersey grant-maintained secondary modern school, it is recognised as an outstanding centre of excellence. Only today those schools received their status as beacon schools. They are in areas where selective education is taking place. What we know, and can prove statistically, is that where there is selective education, the level of education in all schools rises. Northern Ireland offers one of the best examples. The Government are making a fallacious argument. As for the school cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, all I can say is that there are excellent comprehensive schools all over the country, just as there are excellent grammar schools, grant-maintained schools, church schools and bilateral schools. We are the party of diversity and choice. As noble Lords opposite have said, it is not choice that they support. It is choice that we support.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that we merely wish to see the ballots fail. That is not the import of these amendments. The ballots will have serious consequences. Just one ballot in Kent will cause the closure—it will cause the end—of 33 grammar schools. That is very serious. Because it is serious, we believe that there should be hurdles to bringing it about. Why is the formula good enough for recognition of trade unions in the workplace and yet it is not good enough for these ballots? The seriousness of the issues is very similar. The idea that these schools will not close is pure semantics on the part of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
I was not sure what the noble Lord said about my amendment. He sounded warm about it, as indeed Labour Ministers sound warm about all kinds of things, but the practice will be important. If the noble Lord is saying that the names of the schools will appear on the petition and on the ballot paper, then we shall at least have gone some way. When parents sign the petition, they will know that the consequence is that they are signing away the existence of the grammar schools in their area.
As for confidentiality, I believe that it should be secured. It was secured with the grant-maintained school ballots, and there is no reason why the same system should not be used again. The Government are saying that parents will not have the information about reorganisation, about the costings and about the level of
1154
disruption; and, before the petition is signed, they will not see the list of eligible parents. The final touch, and even rougher justice, is that the decisions will be made by a school organisation committee and the adjudicator—unelected placemen—side-stepping the democratic process. I find that wholly unacceptable.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred to his own glorious past in closing down an excellent school. But he did say something very interesting: there was the agreement of the school in that case. We are not arguing about that. Where schools agree to go along with these proposals, wonderful, we accept that. We believe in freedom of choice. But this is not agreeing; it is imposition. My noble friend Lady Knight referred to the unbelievable, undemocratic proposition that parents of children in the very schools that will be subject to going out of existence will not be allowed to vote in the ballot. How can the Government, who profess to be democratic and open, defend that?
I have to say, on a note of real cynicism, that I cannot admit to being moved by those who themselves enjoyed a grammar school education spending most of their adult political life condemning and criticising grammar schools. Why is it that Harriet Harman went to such lengths to get her child into a grammar school? I hazard a guess that she did it because she believed that the school provided an education that suited the educational needs of her own child. Good for her. But what hypocrisy when people take advantage of the system and then close the door to that opportunity for all other children.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that my amendments undermined Mr. Byers's pursuit of excellence. Let us examine what this great man is doing and what his methods are. He first destroys excellence; he then levels down; he produces a few gimmicky schemes; and he talks up standards. Yet he introduces a Bill obsessed with structures and not with standards. It is open knowledge that there is a tension between New and Old Labour on education. In this Bill, Old Labour is winning. I commend the amendment to the House.
6.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 178A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 121.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Annaly, L.

Cox, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Cranborne, V.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Cross, V.

Blaker, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Blatch, B.

Fookes, B.

Brentford, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Byford, B. [Teller.]

Harrowby, E.

Caithness, E.

Haslam, L.

Carnock, L.

Hooper, B.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Inglewood, L.

Chorley, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

1155

Kinnoull, E.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Rowallan, L.

McConnell, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Sandwich, E.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Seccombe, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Sempill, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Sharples, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Monson, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mountevans, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Norrie, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Northesk, E.

Swinfen, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Teynham, L.

Onslow, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Thurlow, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Walpole, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wilcox, B.

Rees, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Rennell, L.

Wynford, L.

Renton, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Addington, L.

Hooson, L.

Amos, B.

Hoyle, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hughes, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Blackstone, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Blease, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Islwyn, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Burlison, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Calverley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Judd, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Kennet, L.

Chandos, V.

Kilbracken, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lockwood, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

David, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Coity, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Desai, L.

McNally, L.

Dholakia, L.

Maddock, B.

Dixon, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Donoughue, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dubs, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Mishcon, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Molloy, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Monkswell, L.

Gallacher, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Geraint, L.

Orme, L.

Gilbert, L.

Peston, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Goodhart, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gregson, L.

Rea, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hacking, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Hampton, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Hardie, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Haskel, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hayman, B.

Serota, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Sewel, L.

1156

Shepherd, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Simon, V.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Thurso, V.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Tope, L.

Tordoff, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Whitty, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.3 p.m.
[Amendment No. 178B not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 179:
Page 78, line 40, leave out ("and vote in").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 179A to 179H not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 180:
Page 80, line 1, leave out subsections (9) and (10).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I said at Committee stage that I would be bringing forward amendments to address the concerns that had been expressed about the provisions of Clause 104(9) and (10). Despite the fact that I tabled Amendments Nos. 181, 182 and 186, I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, nevertheless decided to replay the amendment to those clauses that she tabled for Committee. Perhaps I can start by explaining what our new clause seeks to do.
The relevant subsections placed a complete ban on activities by maintained school governing bodies or local authorities designed to influence ballots. We received representations from many concerned governors and head teachers who were unclear as to the scope of the ban which appeared to them perhaps to cover normal school marketing activities, let alone any responses they might want to give to other people's campaigns. Some correspondents suggested that we might be conflicting with the right to receive and impart information which is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.
I said in Committee that our core concern was to prevent public money being spent on campaigning, so we have decided to reduce the restriction. The new clause reduces the restriction to prevent public money being spent on activities designed to influence the outcome of a ballot or to influence people to sign a petition. In addition, it spells out for the avoidance of doubt that we do not include in that ban the provision of three categories of material, and it allows for guidance to be available to interpret those categories. The last subsection of the clause simply defines school expenditure in terms of its budget share or, for a grant maintained school, its maintenance grants.
The first of the three categories of material is factual information presented fairly—for example, the school prospectus. Guidance will be given as to what constitutes fair presentation of factual information and the amendment provides that regard must be had to that guidance. The second category is a fair and reasonable assessment by the authority or body of the likely consequences of the result of a ballot being in favour of change. Again, guidance will spell out the principles to be adopted in deciding whether an assessment is fair and reasonable—for example, that it is based on factual evidence and information and limited to what may be likely rather than speculating about unlikely or impossible outcomes. The third category is an accurate statement by the authority or governing body of their intentions or proposals in the event of a ballot for change.
We are thus recognising the arguments of noble Lords that it should be permissible for governing bodies and local authorities to make statements about their assessment of the position and their intentions should there be a ballot for change. We will not require such assessments to be published. It is unreasonable to require LEAs or governors to publish proposals for completely hypothetical scenarios. They need to know the ballot result first. It is also misleading to assume that ending selection will always result in significant reorganisation of schools. The implications will be different in different areas. LEAs, governing bodies and—where church schools are involved—diocesan authorities will need to consider them very carefully in consultation with one another. There will be time enough for that after the ballot result is known. No grammar school will become comprehensive overnight. It will take many years for all-ability intakes to work their way through the school.
The noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, said in Committee that it was a duty of the governing body to put the case for the school to the electorate, provided that a list of the electorate is available, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, sought to exclude school governing bodies completely from the original restrictions—an amendment which she repeated again for tonight's debate. We are now making it possible for a governing body to put out balanced and fair material using school budgets. If they wish to go further they will need to use private funds. They are no longer to be banned from trying to influence a ballot.
The effect of this amendment on schools and their staff is explicitly to allow expenditure out of school budgets on the three categories of permitted activities, and to allow influencing activity beyond those permitted types so long as school budgets are not being used. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, mentioned parent association funds at Committee stage. I can assure your Lordships that if a parent teacher
1158
association or other body chose to use its privately raised funds to back a campaign, they could now do so. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux): My Lords, I remind the House that if Amendment No. 180 is agreed to, I cannot call on Amendment No. 180A.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not agree with the Government on this proposal. As always, they look as though they are giving something away when in fact they are not.
First, they are not going to allow the parents in grant-maintained schools either to sign a petition or to have a vote about the future of their own school. I cannot understand how the Government can defend that. Secondly, they are going to tie their hands behind their back and not allow them to fight their corner.
How can the Minister stand there and advocate this policy? She is part of a Government who shout from the rooftops about open government, democracy and letting the people speak and then produce a policy like this. This amendment goes just slightly beyond factual information so that the schools can say something, so-called objectively, about what they believe the consequences are, but with the might of the local education authorities ranged, philosophically and politically, against the existence of grammar schools. They will be able to use their budgets and their might. And if they cannot use it officially, their councillors can use it unofficially outside the schools, with all the resources that can be raised through organisations such as TEN and CASE and many others, which are already beavering away in many of these areas to initiate the system that will collect signatures for a petition.
The Government talk the language of generosity. They are not generous. This again is a mean-spirited and pernicious attack on the ability of grammar schools to defend their corner.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 186. Far from being a pernicious attack on grammar schools, it seems to me to be a sensible measure to ensure that LEAs and the governing bodies of LEA-maintained schools can publish factual material relating to information and the assessment of the consequences of a ballot in a statement about the proposals and intention in the event of such a result being achieved. Without such facts, parents will be voting in a vacuum.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He said that they can talk about the proposals that would follow if the ballot were successful. They cannot do that. We have just debated a series of amendments which were all fended off by the Government, who will not even allow this information to be published by the local authority which would let the schools themselves know what their fate would be

1159
in reorganisational terms should a ballot be successful. The schools themselves will not even be in receipt of that information.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Nevertheless, my Lords, it would still be open to the school or the LEA in the event of such a ballot to make statements relating to information given to the parents. It would be wrong if either the LEA or the governing body were able to propagandise or to try to influence the result. I welcome the new clause preventing any LEA or school governing body doing that. However, I think that two points need to be made.
There is a grey area between providing facts and publishing information designed to influence. One person's fact is another person's undue influence. The amendment requires that regard be had to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. I suggest that the guidance needs to be very clear-cut so that it is not capable of being misunderstood by the LEA or the governing body.
Secondly—and this is really the reason I rise to speak—I wish to respond to the noble Baroness's point about the so-called unfairness of this provision to grammar schools. If we take the Birmingham situation as an example, we have the foundation of the King Edward schools in total—the governing body—and the proprietors of the two fee-paying schools, which are also closely associated with the five King Edward grant-maintained grammar schools. The governing bodies of those individual schools will be covered by the legislation but the foundation itself, which is separate from that, has considerable resources, is an apologist for all the King Edward grammar schools within the city, engages in frequent public debate and no doubt will be using its considerable resource to propagandise and influence the outcome of the ballot. Those who argue the opposite case will have no such resources. Indeed, it could be a very one-sided process. Far from this being a pernicious act against the grammar schools, it shows the hurdles that are facing those who wish to argue against selection.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am grateful for that last contribution. When listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I became more and more convinced that paranoia had got a grip on her. I listened to this language of destruction with these wicked LEAs being out again to destroy grammar schools. I then heard her accusing councillors in general of using public money—presumably LEA money—to support other campaigning and giving it CASE and so on. If councillors act in that way, all kinds of sanctions will come down heavily on them. That really was the language of paranoia.
I share the concerns of the previous speaker about this. What is a fact to some is, at best, an inconvenient fact to others; and an inconvenient fact comes very close to being propaganda or a fact sought to influence opinion. I look forward with considerable interest to reading the guidance. I am extremely glad that I do not have to draft it, because I believe we are entering a
1160
minefield here. It worries me. Perhaps because I am on the other side of the argument, I worry considerably about the inhibitions that are placed on governing bodies and LEAs in attempting to explain what this is about and attempting to answer factually questions which will come from parents and others in this position. That will be extremely difficult.
Having said that, I welcome this amendment. Needless to say, it does not go as far as I would wish it to but it is a considerable improvement on what we had before. I am pleased that the Government have recognised the clear difficulties that were identified at the Committee stage and have been prepared to take a step forward. The Minister clarified a point which my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood made in a more heated debate than we are having now about parent associations being able to use their own money. I am grateful on her behalf for that clarification. My noble friend Lady Thomas is speaking during the Dinner Hour, which is why she is not present at the moment. But I will ensure that she gets the happy news as soon as possible.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I was amazed by the vehemence with which what the Government are doing was dismissed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I thought that this would be welcomed. I thought that we were trying to be helpful here. We had listened. We had indeed, and she is quite wrong to suggest that what we are doing is tying behind their backs the hands of those schools that might be affected and not allowing them to fight their corner. We have said that they can publish factual information with public funds, as can local education authorities. We have similarly said that if they wish to use private funds to go further, that is a matter for them.
Perhaps I may pick up the point made by my noble friend Lord Hunt and by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. It is important that guidance should be clear-cut and we shall use our best endeavours to make sure that it is, so that people know where they stand. It is open to LEAs to publish what they think is appropriate, particularly in the case of all-authority ballots. We think it is right for LEAs to decide what they ought to be publishing in the circumstances rather than enforcing something which at the moment can only be entirely hypothetical.
I repeat that I am very surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, replayed her Amendment No. 180A. I hope that the House will agree that the government amendments not only reduce some of the uncertainties about what LEAs and school governing bodies can do but also significantly reduce the restrictions on governing bodies' attempts to influence petitions and ballots. I trust that the amendments will be accepted. I am sure that no one will be surprised if I urge the noble Baroness not to move her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, and with the leave of the House, would she consider it reasonable and fair if the schools in Kent, for example, which has the largest concentration of grammar schools—all 33 of them—published a leaflet saying that the likely consequences—

1161
those are the words I use—of the result of the ballot would be massive disruption, very costly reorganisational proposals and serious disruption of the education of the children? Would that be a reasonable assessment for those schools to make? It might, in the event, be an accurate one.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it would be a very unreasonable assessment to make, for the reasons that I spelt out in Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 180A not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 80, line 34, leave out ("section 105") and insert ("sections 105 and (Restriction on publication of material etc. relating to ballots)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 105 [Ballot regulations: eligibility of parents to request and vote in ballot]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 182 to 185:
Page 80, line 38, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
Page 81, line 18, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
Page 81, line 18, after ("are") insert ("registered").
Page 81, line 44, leave out ("(1)(a) or (b)") and insert ("(1)(b) or (c)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 178. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 186:
After Clause 105, insert the following new clause—
(".—(1) An authority or body to whom this section applies shall not incur any expenditure for the purpose of—

(a) publishing any material which, in whole or in part, appears designed to influence—

(i) eligible parents in deciding whether or not to request a ballot under section 104, or

(ii) the outcome of such a ballot; or

(b) assisting any person to publish any such material; or

(c) influencing, or assisting any person to influence, by any other means—

(i) eligible parents in deciding whether or not to request such a ballot, or

(ii) the outcome of such a ballot.

(2) This section applies to—

(a) any local education authority, and

(b) the governing body of any school maintained by a local education authority.

(3) Nothing in subsection (1) shall be taken to prevent an authority or body to whom this section applies from incurring expenditure on publishing or otherwise providing to any person (whether or not in pursuance of any duty to do so)—

(a) any factual information so far as it is presented fairly; or

(b) a fair and reasonable assessment by the authority or body of the likely consequences of the result of a ballot under section 104 being in favour of the schools or school in
1162
question ceasing to have selective admission arrangements; or

(c) an accurate statement by the authority or body of their intentions or proposals in the event of such a result.

(4) In determining for the purposes of subsection (3) whether—

(a) any information is presented fairly, or

(b) an assessment is fair and reasonable,

regard shall be had to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.
(5) In this section any reference to expenditure—

(a) in relation to the governing body of a school which has a delegated budget within the meaning of Part II of this Act (or, in relation to any time before the appointed day, Part II of the Education Act 1996), is a reference to expenditure out of the school's budget share; or

(b) in relation to the governing body of a grant-maintained or grant-maintained special school within the meaning of that Act (where this section applies to such a school by virtue of section 104(12)), is a reference to expenditure out of maintenance grants paid under Chapter VI of Part III of that Act.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 106 [Implementation of decision that school should cease to have selective admission arrangements]:
[Amendment No. 186A not moved.]
Clause 107 [Proposals by governing body of grammar school to end selective admission arrangements]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 186B:
Page 82, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) Any revision of the admission arrangements of a school under this section shall be subject to a ballot of parents.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Government have inserted into the Bill—it was not in the Bill when it was first published—a measure which allows governing bodies of grammar schools, if they so wish, to propose that selective education should cease in those schools. The Government may argue that it is inconceivable that that would happen without parents knowing about it or approving it, but because it is such a formal activity, I think it only fair to make it beyond doubt that where the governing body of a grammar school proposes to cease selection and make a proposal, that proposal should be accompanied by a ballot of parents. In other words, a majority of parents of children in that particular school should endorse the school's proposals so that where such a proposal is put forward—to the Secretary of State or to the organisation committee—the parents have had their say. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we return to this amendment on which the House divided during Committee stage. I am rather surprised that, since the Division was lost, an identical amendment has been tabled again. It will certainly be no surprise to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to learn that in the intervening period the Government have not changed their mind that the amendment should be rejected.
The amendment is born out of concern that a grammar school might publish proposals to go comprehensive which do not have the backing of parents at the grammar school. The noble Baroness would require grammar school parents to be balloted before the

1163
school could go ahead and publish proposals. She might reflect on the fact that the majority of grammar schools already have the power to publish such proposals without having to ballot parents.
The procedures for statutory proposals—the consultation arrangements, the facility for submitting objections—are widely understood. These provisions will carry forward under the new arrangements provided elsewhere in the Bill for deciding statutory proposals. Given these safeguards and the ability of parents to submit objections, I cannot see why grammar schools which want to become comprehensive schools should be faced with the added hurdle of undergoing a ballot before they can publish proposals. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, not only will parents with children at grammar schools be disenfranchised from voting on the future of their schools, but the parents of such children will not even be allowed to endorse formally the proposals of the governing body to cease selection at the school. I cannot think of a more mean-spirited proposition. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 109 [Supplementary provisions about home-school agreements]:
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 84, line 20, after ("guidance") insert ("subject to section (Making and approval of general guidance on home-school agreements)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this group of amendments is concerned with the scrutiny of statutory guidance. It is some time since we went through the first set of amendments. Perhaps I may give noble Lords a little of the flavour, indicate why we are trying to do that and see whether we can tease out one or two more answers from the Government as to how they see statutory guidance.
We have moved the amendments in relation to statutory guidance because there has been such an increase in such guidance in the Bill. Some of it is subject to parliamentary scrutiny and some is not. We are a little concerned as to what precisely the Government wish to achieve by making much of the guidance statutory.
The School Standards and Framework Bill introduces at least 10—there may be more—new powers for the Secretary of State to make guidance to which most education authorities, schools and other bodies must have regard. Of the amendments we are considering tonight, Amendments Nos. 187 and 188 deal with home-school agreements, Amendments Nos. 192, 193 and 194 are concerned with early years development plans and Amendments Nos. 220 and 221 refer to behaviour support plans. All the amendments relate to the status of guidance.
We on these Benches accept that the importance of these 10 areas of guidance varies. For example, there is some guidance on the sale of non-school premises, which is fairly minor. The importance of guidance in
1164
other areas is enormous, particularly as regards educational development plans and the exclusion of pupils.
Ministers have twice tried to explain how they see statutory guidance and what requires scrutiny and what does not. There are implications in making the guidance statutory. Until now Department for Education and Employment circulars have always contained the statement that the guidance does not contain authoritative legal interpretations of the provision of education Acts or other enactments or regulations. That is exclusively a matter for the courts.
Guidance is given by statute and that raises its status. Presumably, it can be used by the Secretary of State to direct an authority to take a particular course of action on grounds of unreasonableness when an authority or a school governing body has not taken the course of action that the Secretary of State might want in view of the guidance he is required to give by Parliament.
It seems to us on these Benches that there is some confusion as to how the Government see the status of statutory guidance. It changes some of the practices of the past although we have had explanations that the Government do not see it in quite the same way as we do. There is some concern, particularly in local education authorities. Each piece of new statutory guidance takes away from local government and the schools their ability to act independently in the joint task of raising standards. The local authority has to deal with any gaps. Because of the way these measures are being enacted, the local education authorities have to look at a large number of separate documents provided by central government. In many cases they are to enable them to understand what is the role of the local education authorities.
It is the view of some local education authorities that that contrasts strongly with the positive approach being developed by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on best value, which tends to take a more holistic view of local government. One of the problems is that once new arrangements are in force there may not be much local discretion left because so much will be controlled by secondary legislation or guidance. That is what very much concerns local education authorities. The implication for free-standing local education authorities and schools which have to work around this increasingly large number of codes of practice and guidance, all having statutory force, and to which regard has to be had, seems to us on these Benches and, I believe, to local education authorities, to be to reduce those bodies to mere cyphers. In many ways that will work against what the Government propose, which is creativity and innovation as part of the process of raising standards. In many areas, the Government seem keen to make guidance statutory, but we believe that there might be a better balance of power between the Government and the local education authorities if there were some parliamentary scrutiny.
I finish by repeating what my noble friend Lord Tope said when this was first discussed: we are seeking to find out from the Government what they are hoping to achieve by making so much guidance statutory. After

1165
the first answer from the Government, my noble friend felt that he was even less clear than when we started. We have had a second go and I hope that the Government can clarify the position a little further. We want an answer on the principle.
I am conscious that the Minister who is to reply is not really listening. I am trying to save noble Lords some time here, but the Minister is still not listening to me. I was hoping that whoever is to reply would listen to me because, although we do not need a detailed answer on this amendment, we are interested in the principle behind the provisions and in whether the Government appreciate that some people are concerned that too much statutory guidance will limit innovation in local authorities and schools. It would be helpful if the Government—the Minister—could expand on that point rather than give me a long, detailed answer, especially as we are now approaching the dinner hour. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am disappointed. Here is my long, detailed answer but the noble Baroness does not want it. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for grouping these amendments. It seems that I have two tasks in responding to them. The first is to respond to the noble Baroness on the whole issue of statutory guidance although we have covered this subject on several earlier occasions on Report. My second task is to say something about home-school agreements, early years development plans and behaviour support plans.
The three critical amendments on statutory guidance are Amendments Nos. 188, 194 and 221. I should like to draw attention to three aspects of the amendments. The first is the requirement in all of them for consultation. I assure the noble Baroness that we shall consult as a matter of course—indeed, as a matter of principle—on all statutory guidance, including on the three statutory guidance procedures which are set out in this part of the Bill. Therefore, there is no need for a provision on consultation.
I refer secondly to the interpretation of the law. I am afraid that I disagree with the noble Baroness here. The amendments provide that the guidance can include interpretation of the law. It is, of course, important to establish a clear understanding of the intention behind legislation, particularly in new areas, to ensure that it is implemented in a way which achieves the Government's objectives. Setting out our intentions in a code of practice will help us to ensure that we achieve the right balance between effective support, challenge for schools, and protecting them from unnecessary interference. Naturally, the Secretary of State (often in circulars or by correspondence) gives his view of how the law should be interpreted, but it is only his view. A definitive view of the interpretation of the law can come only from the courts. The amendments would give the Secretary of State a power to include interpretation of the law. That would break new ground. We must resist the suggestion that there should be confusion between the role of the Secretary of State and the ultimate role of the courts.
1166
The third and most important element of the proposals put forward by the noble Baroness is the provision for parliamentary scrutiny by the negative procedure. The noble Baroness referred to having less statutory guidance and less interference from central government in schools and local education authorities. I sympathise with that, but the amendments would make the statutory guidance more rigid and more difficult to change. They would introduce a level of parliamentary scrutiny which the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation did not suggest would be appropriate.
In response to the general question about the appropriateness of statutory guidance, I must advise the noble Baroness that the Government think that statutory guidance is more flexible, more appropriate and more in accordance with precedent than the method which she proposes. Indeed, if the amendments were carried, it could hardly seriously be said that those provisions were guidance. They would have to be given the authority of regulations.
I turn now briefly, as the noble Baroness wishes, to the three subjects of these amendments. On home-school agreements, I have assured the noble Baroness that we would not issue guidance without consulting on it first. We propose to cover in guidance such topics as the requirements of the law; how schools can set about drawing up home-school agreements, including good practice tips on involving parents and pupils; what agreements should cover and what they should not contain; and the factors which will help to ensure that home-school agreements promote partnerships between home and school. We are consulting on that at the moment and we propose to issue final guidance to schools in October.
Amendment No. 188 is fundamentally defective in that it refers to a duty on local education authorities. The guidance is for schools, not for LEAs.
On early years development plans, the guidance was issued last October. It is not prescriptive. There is no suggestion that governments will tell partnerships what should be in their plans. The duty to secure early education places in Clause 116(1), combined with our Requirements of Grant document, set out the framework for the operation of early years development plans. That is all entirely flexible. Again, the amendments are hopelessly defective, in that they refer to the governing bodies carrying out functions under Clause 118; governing bodies do not have any functions under that clause.
The amendments on local authority support plans are, again, perfectly well meaning, but hopelessly defective. The noble Baroness must now see why I could not resist this bit! Amendment No. 221 refers to Clause 109(1), which is about home-school agreements, not about behaviour support plans. The amendment would therefore fail to achieve its objectives. Of course, we accept that the intention behind all the amendments is thoroughly admirable. It is just that we do not want to accept them.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full reply. I now understand why, when my noble

1167
friend Lord Tope and I were deciding who was to speak to each amendment, I landed up with this group of amendments! However, I remember that in moving our first amendment my noble friend said that we knew that some of our amendments were defective. I do not think that we would describe them as "hopelessly defective"; they are slightly wrong.
However, I thank the noble Lord for his answers. Time will tell on some of these points. It is a fact that an extraordinary amount of guidance and consultation is taking place as the Bill is passing through Parliament. Time will tell whether things turn out as the Government hope. That was the intention behind the amendment. Many people outside this House are a little concerned about how they will manage. Some of them, including myself, are not very happy to discover that a number of these matters will not be decided until quite late in the year. That is not terribly helpful to schools.
I am grateful to the Minister for his response, which I believe has teased out the intentions of the Bill and perhaps those areas on which we differ. In view of the comments of the Minister about the hopelessly defective nature of this amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In doing so, I suggest that the Report stage be resumed not before 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Welfare of Livestock (Amendment) Regulations 1998
7.41 p.m.
Lord Hoyle Lord Hoyle rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st May be approved [35th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House is aware that this country led the way in Europe when in 1990 it banned the close confinement veal calf crate and its associated unsatisfactory dietary regime. We were disappointed that the European Community did not follow our lead when it made its own rules on calf welfare in 1991. The decision to advance the review of these rules at the request of the previous UK administration was therefore welcome. No less so was the outcome. Many of us might have wanted an earlier implementation date for the Europe-wide ban of the veal crate than 31st December 2006, but we can applaud the endorsement of our view that it is a totally unsatisfactory system in which to rear calves.
In many respects the new European legislation resulting from this review confirms the high standards already laid down in the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 or voluntarily adopted by our industry. Our philosophy in drawing up these
1168
implementing regulations has been to follow the directive but also to retain where appropriate those standards that go beyond the new EU requirements.
I turn now to the draft regulations. They apply to all calves and not just those intended for veal production. Accommodation requirements are clearly set out for both single penned and group housed calves. In addition to retaining the minimum space allowances which in this country have prevented the use of the veal crate we have improved on the new EU minimum space allowances for group housed calves, reflecting what actually happens on the British farm.
Next, I move to paragraph 15 of the draft regulations. As I indicated, the dietary arrangements associated with the use of the veal crate and permitted by the original EU directive were unsatisfactory. We believe it is important to the welfare of calves that they have a diet with sufficient iron to maintain satisfactory haemoglobin and fibre to stimulate development of the rumen. The standards included in the draft regulations not only implement the provisions which we are pleased to see in the EU directive but also reflect the higher standards which British producers, to their great credit, have already chosen to adopt. The revised directive and therefore these regulations deal with a number of other aspects of calf husbandry such as the provision of bovine colostrum in the first six hours of life, inspection, feeding and the provision of bedding and drinking water. As to the last two, we have again chosen to reflect current industry practice and have included standards higher than the EU minima.
I have left until last the ban on the tethering of calves because I know that it has been of concern to the industry. It is a requirement of the directive that only group housed calves may be tethered and then for no more than one hour when being fed milk or milk substitute. Industry representations have focused on the implications of this requirement for the use of long tethers with outdoor hutches. We have therefore examined it very carefully and checked our interpretation with the EU Commission. This has confirmed beyond doubt that the ban applies to all tethers. Whatever the merits therefore of long tethers, the arguments in their favour are not universally accepted. There are other means of containment. For example, fencing will continue to be permitted. It does not mean that when tethers go, outdoor hutches must go. We recognise that this provision will not be without cost to the industry and a regulatory appraisal has been prepared and placed in the Library of the House.
We have carried out consultation exercises in developing these proposals and have adjusted our proposals where required in the light of these.
Noble Lords have no doubt noted that some parts of the regulations do not come fully into effect before 2004. However, we believe that they are a great step forward.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st May be approved [35th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Hoyle).
7.45 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, perhaps I may detain the House for a moment to welcome these regulations. They will not please everyone. Many people may prefer to see a more speedy implementation, but they represent a significant step forward. I hope that other member states will emulate the standards that will be applicable in the United Kingdom. The regulations represent a step forward because they confirm that the tethering of calves will end. Many people suspected that that practice would not come to an end in the whole of Europe. Certainly, the regulations make for greater humanity in the containment of calves. Far too many calves are kept in very small spaces. There will be those who say that the regulations do not go far enough. I have some sympathy with that view, but while milk is consumed calves will be produced.
I very much welcome the recognition that the cow is a gregarious creature and calves should not have to spend their lives in solitary confinement. That is an important step forward. My noble friend refers to diet. These regulations represent a very significant step forward in that regard. There are those who want to see the palest meat on their plates, but I do not believe that the deliberate malnutrition of livestock can be justified.
I believe that a word of appreciation should go to those who have been making efforts in Brussels to ensure that this step forward is taken in the EU. I believe that the responsible Ministers deserve a word of appreciation. I trust that the House, in approving these regulations, will bear in mind that commendation.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, from these Benches we very much welcome the regulations. They represent a massive step forward. It is a great pity that the EU-wide ban on the veal crate will come into operation only in the year 2007, which is quite a long way in the future, although this practice has been illegal in the United Kingdom since 1990. Once UK exports of beef animals are permitted, we will be sending to EU countries calves that will be able to be placed in veal crates up to 2007. That is a great shame, but this ban is a step forward.
With regard to the other matters dealt with in the regulations, there are grounds for considerable congratulations as well as regrets. The congratulations arise because as usual we in this country have gone further in the welfare of animals than the directive demands. I congratulate Ministers on that. We have done reasonably well in achieving that.
The matter for regret is that the dietary recommendations are weaker in several respects than those of the European Commission's own scientific veterinary committee in its 1995 report. It recommended considerably more roughage than the regulations require. It recommended more dietary iron than our regulations require. It produced evidence to show that the level of dietary iron required by our regulations can cause problems during exercise. It is a pity that we have not gone that much further. I hope that we will not have to wait until 2004 or 2007 before we improve on the
1170
regulations. But in so far as the Government have progressed, and have done better than they are forced to do by the EU, we congratulate them.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I support the measure. Anyone who has seen the methods used in veal rearing will believe that it is long overdue. I believe that it is. I congratulate the Minister on the lucid way in which he introduced the order. It gives us the opportunity to raise one other issue on animal welfare. It concerns the welfare of the horse. I have given notice to the Minister, who I hope will graciously reply briefly to certain points I wish to make.
In the UK, the horse is not treated as livestock in law or by people. It is not used for human consumption. It holds a special place in people's hearts. It is a friend. It is an animal of great beauty. It has given countless pleasure and exciting leisure from the racing world, through the horse shows and trekking to even the little Shetland pony. I suspect that we lavish more money on our horses than on our people.
On the Continent the horse's lot is not so happy. In certain countries, especially the Netherlands and France, it is fashionable and popular to eat horse meat. Importing horse meat from America and the Argentine constitutes a large trade. For the sake of horse meat for human consumption, Brussels is shortly to apply regulations which will ban the use of certain painkilling drugs, commonly used by our vets to treat ailments such as colic and lameness. Such a move will be anathema to the UK, horse lovers and animal welfare in general, especially as we do not eat horse meat and there is no medical evidence to show that such meat has done any harm to humans.
I know that one aspect of this problem will be raised tomorrow, so I shall confine myself to the following short questions. Do the Government have reserve powers to reject a ban on non-MRL drugs in the UK should the EC regulation come into effect? Secondly, can manufacturers of those painkilling drugs rely on a future reduction being legal or will supplies just be cut off? Thirdly, is the EU including in its regulations a ban on foreign imports of horse meat for human consumption from countries which have no control on drugs?
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I have just one question for my noble friend the Minister. When these regulations are brought into force, what oversight will there be to ensure their implementation?
Baroness Byford: My Lords, from these Benches, I welcome the regulations introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle. I shall reinforce the point he made; that over the years British farmers have led the way in how we look after livestock. Being a former farmer, that comes right from the heart. It is in no one's interests to fail to look after one's animals. I am sure that the regulations will be welcomed by the farming community.
The noble Lord referred to the fact that the previous government initiated the moves in 1990. Like him, we were disappointed that the EU took another year before

1171
it agreed to follow our example. We are even more disappointed that the regulations will not be implemented until 2006. As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, calves will continue to suffer in the meantime.
The regulations cover accommodation, diet, tethering, group living, space allowance and cleanliness and good management. I have one or two questions for the Minister. I accept that we have laid down different standards from our European colleagues. For example, on room, the directive requires that beasts from 150 kg to 200 kg need 1.7 square metres, whereas the regulations suggest 2 square meters; and for heavier calves the directive requires 1.8 square meters compared to 3 square meters in the regulations. Is not the Minister concerned that we should all be working to the same standard? I accept that our farmers set high standards, but in the long-term welfare interest of animals, do not the Government consider that we should all be working to the higher standards that we have set?
The Minister referred also to diet. The noble Lord, Lord Hardy, referred to the sufficiency set down by the EU. The committee considered that the quantity set might not be sufficient.
The Minister spoke about tethering. The regulations have accepted that calves need to be tethered for a period of not more than one hour in order to feed them milk or milk substitute. It is important that tethering be allowed, because even calves bully one another. We do not want calves not to have the chance to feed so we are pleased that tethering will be allowed, but will be for feeding during a limited period only.
On longer-term tethering, there will be a cost implication for farmers. The Minister referred to that. Perhaps he will enlarge on the point when he responds, because he did not specify how those costs would be laid down. The Minister spoke also of trying to encourage the more rapid implementation of some of the regulations. We would obviously welcome that. We appreciate that in this country the regulations will come into force in 2004.
Finally, whatever we do, we want to ensure that our farmers are playing on a level playing field. We do not want them to have greater restrictions so that from a competitive point of view they will find their hands tied behind their backs in comparison to their European colleagues. I do not know whether that is something upon which the Minister would like to comment. In general, we welcome the regulations, as I am sure will our colleagues in the farming industry. Perhaps I may reiterate that British farmers have led the way, and we hope that others will follow more rapidly than they have shown an inclination to do so far.
8 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I am pleased with the welcome that has been given to the measure. Everyone who has spoken looks forward to the phasing out of crates. The only question raised is the length of time. We, too, would like to have seen them phased out earlier, but at least a start has been made and it is coming about.
1172
I welcome the words of appreciation to Ministers from my noble friend Lord Hardy. The regulation applies to all the states of the European Community. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, welcomed certain factors that had occurred. He also asked why we appeared to be lagging behind with regard to recommendations by the European Union Scientific Veterinary Committee. It recommended a minimum level of 100 grammes of roughage per day from two to 15 weeks of age, increasing to 250 grammes from 15 to 26 weeks. Our regulations are compatible with that recommendation. Our regulations additionally require the daily ration to increase in line with the growth of the calf. The Scientific Veterinary Committee commented that it would be better for double the minimum amount of roughage to be fed to calves. We wholeheartedly agree with that view. In practice, our industry provides at least twice that minimum figure.
The noble Lord also asked whether the Scientific Veterinary Committee recommended a higher minimum haemoglobin level. I have to say no. Many studies into provision of adequate iron and the avoidance of anaemia were considered by the Scientific Veterinary Committee. Many of those studies indicated impaired performance and an increased disease susceptibility in calves whose blood haemoglobin concentration was below 4.5 millimols per litre. The Scientific Veterinary Committee therefore recommended that calves be fed sufficient dietary iron to maintain the haemoglobin concentration at a minimum level of 4.5 millimols per litre until slaughter. We believe that we meet that level.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, was kind enough to inform me that he would depart from the regulations in speaking about horses. There is to be a Question on the issue tomorrow. In the meantime perhaps I may say this. The answer that we have received in relation to ourselves is that veterinary medicines for which no MRLs are set are not banned under the regulation. As he rightly said, they may not be used on any animal intended for human consumption. However, the Commission has also issued a statement confirming that they may be used on an animal not intended for human consumption. Perhaps I may quote from the statement:
"It is not the intent of regulatory authorities to deprive veterinarians of the possibility of treating animals. When guarantees can be given that horses will not be consumed, there is no obligation for any form of maximum residue levels".
I hope that that sets at rest the fears that noble Earl expressed tonight, and will give him some comfort. I know of his interest in horses.
I have also been asked how the regulations are to be implemented. In this country, the enforcement role will be carried out by the State Veterinary Service. Veterinary inspectors will enforce the regulations by making ad hoc inspections. They will also make additional inspections in response to complaints or allegations of poor welfare or breaches of the regulations. The basis of the SVS policy enforcement will be the same as for other welfare legislation. Advice will be given to rectify minor contraventions, but prosecutions will always be recommended where there is evidence of cruelty, pain or distress. I hope that that reassures the noble Earl.

1173
The noble Baroness on the Opposition Front Bench raised the subject of higher standards. We have always been ahead in relation to Europe, as she acknowledged. Consultations took place. With regard to consultations on the increased space allowance, we received no adverse comments.
The only question in relation to tethering was the cost to the industry. We estimate a cost of about £78,000. There was another increased cost for the maintenance and provision of fences. We do not believe that the cost will be too damaging to the industry. Perhaps I may say this to the noble Baroness: it is one ban that will come into effect immediately. As I am sure she is aware, it should have been implemented by 1st January 1998. Because of our consultations, we have been late in bringing the measures forward.
We are concerned about a level playing field. We do not believe that these regulations pose an undue burden. That was not indicated in the consultations.
I am pleased with the welcome the regulations have received. Perhaps I may say, finally, that, like all noble Lords in the House, I hope that eventually there will be an end to veal crates. In response to those who asked what will happen when exports are renewed, we cannot ban the export of calves but we hope that increasingly it will not be livestock that is exported but meat and meat processing products. I commend the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Air Carrier Liability Order 1998
8.9 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd June be approved [38th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the proposed order in council has been drafted to fulfil our Community obligations in response to Council Regulation 2027/97, which enters into force later this year. The order was considered by the Committee for Delegated Legislation in another place on 24th June and approved by a majority.
Council Regulation 2027/97, on air carrier liability in the event of accidents, was adopted last year and enters into force on 17th October 1998. It was introduced as a reaction to the unrealistically low liability limits presently set by the Warsaw Convention and to harmonise the national regimes which various member states have installed as a consequence. It provides greater consumer protection by setting out a new liability regime applicable to Community air carriers.
The three main elements of the regulation are: the abolition of an upper limit for claims arising from the death, wounding or other bodily injury of a passenger—the carrier has absolute liability for the first 100,000 SDRs (approximately £82,000) of any claim and the burden of proof for higher amounts; secondly, a requirement for all Community air carriers to make prompt advance payments in the event of an accident,
1174
to make available to passengers adequate information on the new liability regime and to summarise these requirements on the ticket document or an equivalent; and, thirdly, in the case of non-Community carriers, which do not (voluntarily) apply the regulation, to inform passengers expressly and clearly thereof at the time of ticket purchase and to provide passengers with a form setting out their conditions. It does not replace the Warsaw Convention, which continues to apply in respect of matters not covered by the regulation and as between each member state and non-Community countries.
The regulation will be directly applicable to all carriers concerned when it comes into force and does not require implementing legislation as would be the case for a directive. However, member states are obliged to remove conflicts with national law and to impose appropriate, effective and dissuasive sanctions for non-compliance. Where possible, the sanctions should be analogous to similar provisions in national law. Failure to impose such sanctions would leave the United Kingdom open to infraction proceedings by the Commission and also possibly liable in damages if anyone suffers financial loss as a result of our failure to implement the regulation correctly.
An order in council has therefore been drafted to meet these obligations by amending the Carriage by Air Act 1961, the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 1967 and the Licensing of Air Carriers Regulations 1992 to remove conflict with legislation giving effect to the Warsaw Convention in the UK; and by imposing criminal sanctions for non-compliance in the form of a fine in a magistrates court, which currently cannot be more than £5,000, or an unlimited fine in a Crown Court.
I recognise that there has been both concern and controversy over those issues. However, I stress that the Council regulation will provide Community air travellers with more realistic protection in the event of an accident. The information requirements set out in the regulation will ensure that passengers are clearly informed of their rights. The order removes conflict with existing United Kingdom legislation and provides the necessary powers of enforcement. I therefore commend it to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd June be approved [38th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hayman.)
8.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, first, I should declare an interest as a director of a company which owns a small airline in the Channel Islands, which I have no doubt will be affected in one way or another by the order.
This order was laid before the House on 21st June but that was not the first order that was laid. The original order was laid before that. It was then taken away and relaid on 23rd June. And yet two weeks later, today, we have the order which is full of manuscript amendments. How can it be that in the two weeks intervening between

1175
the laying of the second order—the one we are debating today—and today, we do not even have a proper printed copy of this order?
We are considering an example of bureaucracy at its worst. This is not a matter of policy but of red tape and worse still, gold plating. We all know about gold plating.
We have an EC regulation which enshrines in the national law of all Community states the principle of unlimited liability for airline passengers in the case of death or injury. That is a principle established by the airlines themselves in the 1997 inter-carrier agreement which the EC regulation serves to endorse. Therefore, there is absolutely no argument about the case for unlimited liability. That is not an issue of the order today. That is already in place and happening now.
We also have a draft order to require under United Kingdom law, and only under United Kingdom law, that a specific wording drawing that to passengers' attention must be included on the tickets of all EC airlines operating into this country or, in the case of non-EC airlines, drawing attention to the fact that they may not have waived their limited liability. I repeat that this EC regulation is not an issue of principle, which, by its very being, is in any event a part of UK national law, as the noble Baroness said in her opening remarks, but is concerned with the form of words drawing it to people's attention. Under this draft order, failure to comply means that an airline is held criminally responsible.
It may be useful to noble Lords to appreciate what we are talking about here. Already there are two notices on airline tickets relating to passengers' rights in case of death or injury. One is the standard IATA notice required by the Warsaw Convention; the other is the specific notice required for all flights to an from the United States. The EC regulation will require a third notice. Funnily enough, the industry recognises that that is not exactly consumer friendly.
Even as we debate this order, a meeting of the Passenger Services Conference, a forum within IATA, is under way in Geneva. It is trying to agree a wording for airline tickets which will meet the requirements both of IATA and the new EC regulation which, as the noble Baroness said, comes into force in October. It may also meet US requirements. That would mean one ticket notice, no confusion and simplicity for consumers. I do not know how those discussions are going, but it is not a straightforward matter. Once the IATA airlines have agreed a wording, that is then subject to approval by their governments. That means virtually the whole world. There are certain key authorities which must approve it and, ironically, one of those is the EC whose regulation the UK Government are now rushing headlong to gold-plate.
There is no guarantee that all the world's governments will approve it at first sight. They may ask for it to be changed in certain ways. They may disapprove it altogether. Such is the nature of international negotiations. But it is the best way to achieve a solution which will be both simple for consumers and practical for airlines.
1176
Surely our Government should put their effort and resources into supporting that process and encouraging key players on the world scene, particularly the United States and the EU, whose specific requirements for ticket notices are at the heart of the debate to find a common solution. Instead, the Government's blinkered paranoia appears to be directed towards ensuring that they cannot be accused of failing to interpret the EC regulation to the letter. The provision requires airlines operating in and out of the UK to have an appropriate ticket notice by October. No matter what the rest of the world may be doing, the UK must be 101 per cent. compliant by October. There is no stopping to consider what the international community is already doing to address that new situation; no consultation with the industry to consider the practical implications. UK airlines, for which it will be most burdensome, will inevitably find a solution to appease the UK authorities. However, foreign airlines will be unlikely to accept the UK wording or to formulate their own in time to secure UK government approval. What a mess it seems to be.
In justifying that in Standing Committee in another place, the Minister admitted that an EC regulation does not require implementation. It was argued that because of Article 5 of the EC treaty and a case which the Government called the Greek maize case, the UK is not only under a duty to implement the EC regulation but must also impose sanctions which are "effective, proportionate and dissuasive". It was alleged first that, if that were not done, the UK might be liable to damages if anyone suffers financial loss as a result of failure to implement the regulations correctly; and consumers' rights may be impaired. Neither of those allegations is realistic for the simple reason that the consumer benefits which take effect in October will be part of UK law automatically without any implementation measures.
As I said before, it is significant that so far no other member state is known to be considering either implementing the measures or, in particular, criminal sanctions. The possibility of the United Kingdom being liable to make good financial loss is usually only relevant in the context of a state which fails to implement an EC directive, which always requires implementation, and not an EC regulation, which does not.
It is also surprising that the Government rely on the so-called Greek maize case, which was a very extreme undefended case involving Greek officials fraudulently concealing the true origins of maize from Yugoslavia, failing to levy the correct duties, failing to pay what was due to the Community and Greece failing to prosecute the fraudulent officials. That is rather different from failing to print on the back of a ticket the new requirements; in fact it is a lot worse.
The United Kingdom apparently turns a blind eye to the more relevant decisions of the European Court of Justice, which expressly disapprove of efforts to implement regulations by reproducing the text word for word. Even the slightest difference in operative date is forbidden.
I am also well aware that the Government are under no obligation to consult on this matter, but sheer common sense suggests that it would have been prudent

1177
to do so in a matter of such practical complexity and international impact. The industry was consulted on the regulation but not on the Government's decision to introduce this draft order. I have seen many representations made by many sectors of the travel trade and I have read the report in Hansard of the Committee debate on this matter in another place. I find it staggering that so many genuine concerns and thoughtful objections were dealt with so dismissively by a Government which have staked their reputation on openness, transparency and participation.
Notwithstanding the fact that it would appear to make eminently good sense to await the outcome of the international negotiations—as all other EC member states appear to be doing—this order will create enormous practical problems for airlines and for the travel agents who issue 85 per cent. of airline tickets in this country. Can the Minister say whether any other member state is introducing such legislation, let alone making a criminal offence of it? Can the Minister say whether it will be possible to adjust ticketing systems worldwide, bearing in mind the complexity of that procedure in the time available, and can the Minister confirm that no compliance cost assessment was done on the impact of the order?
Above all the order is simply unnecessary. The United Kingdom does not need to introduce such legislation in order to comply with its obligations under EC law. I have a copy of an independent assessment, prepared for British Airways by a prominent firm of aviation lawyers, which states this quite clearly.
This order will only be relevant temporarily, from the implementation of the EC regulation in October until such time as an international ticket notice is agreed. At that point, because the agreed ticket notice will be included on the IATA common ticket stock used by all the world's airlines, it will be impossible to be non-compliant.
Even when airlines in Europe began to raise limits from 1966 onwards, no European government required airlines to give notice to passengers of increased limits. The United Kingdom went even further when applying simplified Warsaw rules to domestic carriage from 1952 onwards: all ticket and notice requirements were deleted. Thus it is a completely retrograde step for the EC regulation to require airlines to inform passengers that by law limits are no longer applicable. This will introduce a completely new requirement in domestic carriage—for example, London to Manchester or London to Edinburgh—and it will frustrate present experiments in ticketless travel. Forty-six years of legal freedom from documentary requirements and domestic carriage will come to an end. Can the Minister comment on that situation? Will it no longer be possible to have ticketless travel within the United Kingdom under these new regulations?
Let us not forget that many airlines have been voluntarily applying the spirit of this regulation since the signature of the Inter Carrier Agreement 1997. Indeed a number of airlines already declare in their contracting documents that their liability is unlimited, so
1178
it is hardly likely that for the sake of a few months until that international agreement is reached, they need to be kept in line by such draconian measures.
Even if the Government feel that they still need this big stick with which to threaten the airlines, they only have to look at Article 7 of the regulation, which states that in two years the whole regulation must be reviewed and may be revised in the light of the economic climate which will prevail at that time.
In the meantime, given all the difficulties, both local and international, that I have outlined, I would welcome the Minister's assurance that this order will be applied with circumspection and any enforcement undertaken in a reasonable and practical way; but, better still, I urge the Minister even at this late hour to withdraw the order, which is unnecessary because the regulation will come into force without the need for any order such as this. We should wait until the outcome of the international negotiations.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, I do not have a financial interest to declare: I have a non-financial interest to declare on behalf of consumers. I am very closely attached to ABTA, although I do not have a financial interest. I could not possibly match the mastery of the intricacies of the order that we have just witnessed nor could I challenge the basis upon which they were made. However, I am told by ABTA that there had been no consultation with the industry on the order. The Minister can no doubt explain why there should have been no consultation but I am puzzled about that because, whatever the Government decide to put into the order, after the consultation the matter would be wholly in the hands of the Government. Was it a matter of practice or was it a mistake that the industry per se was not consulted on this matter?
ABTA has pointed out to me that because of the time scale involved it will be very difficult to comply with the order. When the order becomes operative and liability then flows, people may be in jeopardy. They may be committing an offence, not because they do not wish to comply with the order but because of the bureaucracy that is involved.
A point that I should like to reinforce is the failure to provide a departmental compliance cost assessment. I speak in the presence of those who have close connections with much larger businesses than a small airline in the Channel Islands and who know all about the effects and the costs. Cost analysis and environmental assessment are modern methods that are used in making such decisions. Can the Minister confirm that such an assessment was not made in this case, bearing in mind that we are talking about small and medium-sized enterprises?
I have a note here from British Airways. They very helpfully outline the puzzle. The EC is currently in discussion with the US Department of Transportation and IATA to agree a co-ordinated global approach to the wording of a single ticket notice. This is due for further discussion next month.

1179
I have not sensed any resistance to the idea that those who suffer hurt as a result of accident where there is very limited liability should benefit from greater liability. Nor do I argue against the need for companies to make sure that the customer has any protection put in writing. However, I learnt a great deal from what the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said about the need to consult, and I am puzzled as to why in this country, when we are acting in advance of other countries and the liability will fall upon us, the Government have decided to move in this way. I should be most grateful if my noble friend the Minister could reply to my questions.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, in speaking towards the end of such a debate, much of the material has usually been gone over pretty thoroughly by those who have spoken before. However, I should like to ask the Minister a few questions. As I understand it—and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, made this very point—this waiving of carriers' rights of limited liability is not in dispute. Indeed, it has been determined by IATA, which is the most suitable mode of determination, that the process should be gone through. I believe that our airlines are probably all signatories to that procedure. So the question of unlimited liability is not in doubt.
Can the Minister confirm—I am sure that she can—that these EU regulations are in fact the implementation of that IATA agreement at a European Union level, and that it was the stimulus of the IATA agreement that brought these regulations to a conclusion? Again, previous speakers referred to the ongoing discussions as regards the European Union, the US Government and members of IATA as to the possibility of having not several but one form of words to explain to passengers their rights.
Perhaps I may say straight away that I have no objection—indeed, it is desirable—to passengers knowing their rights. But the question is how that should be implemented. If these negotiations are ongoing, would it be possible for Her Majesty's Government to delay enforcement of the regulations which, according to the Government, have to be completed by 17th October? Could we delay their enforcement until the negotiations are complete? I shall try to explain what I mean by that as I continue.
Alternatively, I believe that the industry would very much prefer it if the whole procedure were postponed until the IATA negotiations are completed. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, explained very clearly—and the Minister nodded her head in assent at the time—that, whatever is done with the order, the introduction of unlimited liability is already part of our national obligations. Therefore, there is no question of that part of it not going ahead. If work is continuing on the implementation of the order, especially on the wording of a single form of words to be introduced into the ticket, would it not be wiser on the part of the Government to delay the whole process and the introduction of the order?
1180
Perhaps we should look at the problems that providing this information on the ticket would bring, especially to the travel agency industry. I repeat that I have no objection in principle to the introduction into the ticket of information setting out passengers' rights, or for that information to be made available to passengers in some other way. However, in the interim, before an agreed form of words is achieved at an international level, would it not be sufficient to have a printed form of paper to accompany a ticket rather than interfere with the whole drafting process of the ticket itself?
At present—again, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, explained this very clearly—the information is set out in an IATA form and goes into every ticket. That is why it is so important to get a new IATA form of words which would go into every ticket. It is particularly important because, often, travel agencies, which issue about 85 per cent. of all tickets, issue tickets which have different carriers for different parts of the journey. As I understand it, the information going to passengers will have to be different according to whether the airline is or is not an EU airline, and/or whether it does or does not comply with the IATA agreement. Can the Minister confirm that that is the case? If it is, it will greatly increase the problems of the issuing travel agents.
I turn now to my final point, which was also raised by other speakers; namely, the matter of compliance cost assessment. In the 9th Standing Committee when the matter was discussed, I believe that the Minister for Transport in London, who appeared for the Government, gave a very cavalier answer to those worries. She said:
"It has never been without the wit of any commercial organisation … to list in meticulous detail those areas in which it is not liable. It is therefore odd that the industry is finding particular difficulty in evincing the area in which it is liable".
I would say that that statement certainly casts something of a slur on the various industries involved in this particular matter, all of which are quite important. There will be a cost to travel agencies in particular as regards complying with the regulations. Travel agents are not all big organisations; indeed, many of them, like those who supply the useful market competition for the large organisations, are in fact very small high street businesses. Those of us who use those travel agencies value the services that they provide.
Therefore, why was there no compliance cost assessment at the time that the 9th Standing Committee dealt with the matter? Has a compliance cost assessment now been made? Further, are the Government at all worried by the suggestion that local travel companies may face costs for replacing their ticket machines and their ticketing processes?
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I must, first, declare an interest as a board member of British Airways. However, having said that, I am also aware of the considerable implications of this measure for other parts of the travel industry, which were so well explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. That also applies for the very many foreign airlines operating into this country.

1181
This is not a partisan issue; it is an issue of absolute bureaucratic nonsense prevailing in the face of sheer common sense. It is also an issue that I raised in the debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Mountevans on civil aviation on 20th May, which took place only a few hours before this order was laid before Parliament. Indeed, I believe that it took us all by surprise, including the Minister.
My noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara pointed out that the legislation is unnecessary, as has every other speaker. He highlighted the likely pattern of events over the next few months which make its introduction, at best, premature and, at worst, entirely superfluous. It makes no sense to me to rush into legislation to enforce compliance that will be automatic once an internationally agreed ticket notice is added to the world's ticket stocks. That point was also made by other speakers, so I need not dwell upon it.
However, rather than rushing to gold plate—and I use the same terminology as my noble friend Lord Brabazon—EC legislation in this unnecessary manner, would not the Government be better advised to use their considerable talents and influence to support those international efforts now taking place in Geneva, as we have been told, to secure a single ticket notice and to urge the speedy approval of that single ticket notice by the world's governments; indeed, I emphasise the word "speedy"? I should very much welcome an assurance from the Minister that her Government are committed to this.
What concerns me, and indeed other noble Lords, is the practicality of implementing this legislation between October, when it comes into force alongside the EC regulation, and whenever we secure this international agreement. What is involved is the possibility of airlines being held criminally responsible if a sticker, or an insert, outlining passengers' rights under this new regulation is not added to each individual ticket. I am reliably informed that this is an area where it is really not appropriate for the criminal law to apply, as it is a civil matter. This is despite the fact that the issue of tickets is undertaken largely by travel agents who are not necessarily themselves deemed liable under the legislation but over whom airlines have no control.
The Minister in another place, during the extensive debate in the 9th Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation on 24th June, indicated that airlines would discharge their obligations by writing to travel agents reminding them of the requirement. If it could be proven they had done so, they would not be liable. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case, although, if so, it only heightens the silliness of the legislation in the first place. I give the House a hypothetical situation. An airline may send a fax to a travel agent which arrives at 7 o'clock in the evening. Most of us have fax machines and they spew out rolls of paper. A cleaner comes in at 9 o'clock at night, sees the rolls of paper on the floor and dumps them in the bin. It probably could be proven that the airline sent the fax, as it would have a record, but it could not necessarily be proven that the travel agent had received it. It is important to take into account that kind of practical objection to the order.
1182
This renders the legislation almost unenforceable, except that it raises the spectre of the ludicrous situation whereby an under-employed police constable—if there is such a person—could stand outside a travel agency, or in an airport lounge, inspecting people's air tickets at whim to see if they bear the necessary sticker or insert. If not, the hapless airline on whose behalf the ticket has been issued could find itself in the dock. Do we really need or want our police to become travel industry traffic wardens? Noble Lords will appreciate that whereas British airlines may well have taken steps to cover themselves, foreign airlines, unaware of our peculiar British ways, may well find themselves exposed. Do we really want to prosecute foreign airlines—I was about to say "persecute" and that would be appropriate too—with all the potential diplomatic misunderstanding that that may create?
Let us be clear. We are not talking about anything to do with the principle of waiving limited liability as set out under the Warsaw Convention. That was initiated by some airlines long before the cause was taken up by the EC and is now enshrined in the regulation and, as such, is part of UK law. What we are talking about is a requirement for a specific wording in the small print on a ticket which would probably take all of the air journey to Majorca to read.
According to Article 189 of the EC Treaty:
"A regulation shall have general application. It shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States".
Thus no ratification or implementation is required. It may, of course, be entirely reasonable to suggest that there should be sanctions to enforce the "notice" provisions of Article 6; namely, the criminal sanctions to which this order relates. However, the Council, of which the UK is a full member, unanimously decided otherwise. It was not mere inadvertence. There never has been any proposal published to impose sanctions, and this feature has frequently been noted in the growing literature.
I raise only one other point, on which I would welcome the Minister's comments. Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No. 2027/97, reads:
"No later than two years after the entry into force of this Regulation, the Commission shall draw up a report on the application of the Regulation which, inter alia, takes into account economic developments and developments in international fora. Such report may be accompanied by proposals for a revision of this Regulation".
If the Minister will confirm that her understanding is the same as mine; namely, that the EC itself recognises that in two years' time its regulation may be unnecessary in its present form, perhaps she will also be able to explain why secondary legislation is so necessary, why the Government are pushing it through with such indecent haste, and why they have not taken the time to discuss the complex issues of implementation with the industry that will have to live with it. Above all, I support the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that it should be abandoned until the wording is agreed.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, while major concern is concentrated on countries within the

1183
EU, there is also provision in the UK draft order relating to the obligation of non-EU airlines. Article 6(3) of the draft order covers those non-EU airlines which fly into, out of, or within the UK and which do not conform with Articles 3 and 5 of the order—that is, those airlines covered by the Warsaw Convention, as amended, which still have limited liability.
Not only will these airlines have to ensure that the information should be available to all passengers but they will also have to issue a form setting out their conditions. Failure to do so will render them liable for a fine. I notice the clock registers eight minutes but I have only just started to speak. Perhaps the clock can be reset.
To avoid the commission of a criminal offence under the order, an airline would have to show that its failure to conform was without its consent and that to avoid this failure all due diligence was taken. I understand that the Association of Asia-Pacific Airlines has submitted strong objections to the British Government—so far without any positive result. The AAPA points out that the UK Government do not have the right to impose criminal sanctions in this regard.
The International Civil Aviation Organisation is reviewing the Warsaw Convention which remains the only international obligation on the non-EU air services. Article 6(3) of the order before this House tonight will force travel agents to keep in stock quantities of different airline tickets covering terms and conditions.
As far as I am aware—other speakers have mentioned this—no other EU member state has implemented this regulation to include criminal sanctions and I cannot understand why the UK seeks to do so since the EU regulation itself does not seek to impose such sanctions.
No additional legislation would be required as in October, EU Regulation 2027 takes effect throughout all EU member states. Why are we proposing to criminalise the breach of these regulations? So often in the past when in this House I have even suggested criminalising any action I have been told that would be unduly oppressive and quite unnecessary. Again, I ask: why are we proposing this new criminal offence? Can the Minister assure the House that if IATA, the EU and the US can find a common solution to produce satisfactory wording for a worldwide ticket, the Government will withdraw this legislation?
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I listened with great interest to all noble Lords who have spoken. I have read the debate in another place on 24th June. I believe that there has been a sad lack of consultation on the order. However, having said that, I certainly believe that the House should welcome the unlimited liability that will now be enforced. In my view that is long overdue.
The noble Baroness Lady O'Cathain, said that some airlines have taken steps to cover themselves. I do not know which ones; I should be pleased to know. In my opinion all we are talking about is how the passenger is told this good news if it is good news. The order does not appear to give the relevant wording. That is wise. It
1184
seems to me that it is a matter of coming up with a form of wording to put on a sticky label on the back of a ticket.
Several noble Lords have said that IATA is presently discussing the wording which will reduce three separate documents into one. International organisations have a habit of taking many years to do these things. It has taken many years to bring about unlimited liabilities and a Warsaw convention. I do not see that it is beyond the wit of man to put a sticky label on the back of a ticket as an interim measure until either the wording is sorted out or new tickets are printed with one extra page. There are already two in some cases, and it would need a third.
I am sorry to say that the industry is complaining rather too much. It has taken a long time to get this far. I believe that passengers really would like to know, in big red letters, that if they fly by a certain airline they have unlimited liability protection if something goes wrong. Everybody should welcome a requirement to be told which carriers have that and which ones do not.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, gold plating has already been discussed, which the House will be pleased to hear takes out 20 per cent. of my remarks; and consultation likewise. I wish to echo a sentiment expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who put the ABTA view. He could have extended it by saying that there are much wider-ranging travel agency bodies, ones that go further in global terms. It could be argued that Europe is doing so. But we are not discussing what Europe is doing; we are discussing the measure before the House.
Such consultation, be it with IATA, or any other bodies that were mentioned, is essential if the whole concept of inter-line air travel is to continue to work. The provision of information to the industry, and indeed to the passengers, the consumers, must be in a straightforward manner and, equally importantly, in a universally acceptable one. It seems clear from what we have heard tonight that universal acceptability is a long way away.
Surely those two criteria should be subject to much wider consultation—not merely for a once-off, loose cannon action, which seems to be the policy on which Her Majesty's Government are determined to embark. That is an approach which, as several speakers have remarked, can lead only to confusion. Confusion among travel agents has been discussed by many speakers. After all, they issue most of the tickets. There could be confusion among the carriers, particularly those who will be beyond the jurisdiction on the order. Are they to be desperately concerned about British law? Do they even understand English law? The same applies to the travel agents.
Finally, and most seriously, taking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, the consumer wants easily accessible information. Sadly, I do not believe that this once-off attempt is the way to go about it. Rather, we must look for a globally acceptable form of small print. It is not easy—but then desirable things never are. I urge the Government to work in that

1185
direction. So far as this draft instrument is concerned, the Government should think again. There is time to do so before commencement.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we have had an extremely interesting and useful debate. As I anticipated in my opening remarks, the controversies and concerns which I knew existed have been eloquently expressed around the Chamber. I hope that I shall be able to address the many points that were raised. They fall mainly into broad sections with which we can deal. If there are specific questions that I do not manage to answer, I will write to noble Lords.
First, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, if he has been working from a manuscript-amended copy of the order. It was reprinted on 26th June. I offer my apologies to the House if that copy was not available in the Printed Paper Office. It certainly should have been.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have in front of me the copy that I obtained from the Printed Paper Office after lunch today. It is the manuscript edition.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, all I can do is apologise to the House. It is a matter for my department to see what went wrong in communications. I will ensure that that happens.
Most, if not all of the matters raised this evening concern the effect of the regulation on airlines and, in particular, the effect of the information requirement as set out in Article 6. However, some of the concerns raised relate not so much to the implementing order but to the substance of the regulations themselves. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, raised the question of the effect on non-UK airlines. All carriers selling tickets in the UK will be obliged to comply with the regulations. If they do not, they are liable to be prosecuted. That comes from the regulations; as indeed do the other issues that the noble Lord raised about ticketless travel, which will become difficult under the regulations. But that relates back to the regulation rather than the implementing order that we are discussing.
It is, however, the implementation upon which most Lords have focused their contributions, and the basic contention put by several contributors is that legislative action is not needed to give effect to the regulation in the United Kingdom. That is common ground between all of us. There is a recognition that the regulation becomes a legal requirement without the need for additional secondary legislation in this country.
Where the difference lies is in our understanding that it is necessary for us to remove any conflicts between existing national legislation and since the regulation contains no penalties, to impose appropriate sanctions to deal with non-compliance.
The European Court of Justice has consistently held that member states are under an obligation to impose penalties in their jurisdictions even if the regulation has no such provision. Any failure to do so would put them in breach of treaty obligations. If we fail to put in place
1186
appropriate sanctions, leaving aside the possibility of infraction proceedings by the European Commission, the intention of the regulation, which is to ensure that airlines provide air passengers with clear information, would be unenforceable.
Under European law, it is open to member states to impose whatever penalties they choose so long as such penalties are "effective, proportionate and dissuasive". Therefore, the department considered whether it would be more appropriate to impose administrative sanctions rather than criminal sanctions. That was the point suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. But those administrative sanctions would be in the form of suspension or revocation of an operating licence or permit. They were thought to be out of proportion to the offence as they would effectively stop the carrier operating at all. There are similar measures in the Package Travel Regulations 1992 relating to the provision of certain information in holiday brochures. The imposition of criminal sanctions was therefore considered entirely appropriate. Indeed, the criminal sentences created and the scale of penalties proposed are fully in line with UK practice in other areas. The way in which the penalties are drafted gives the court a wide discretion to impose a fine which it considers commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.
I understand the concern expressed that it might appear that the creation of a criminal offence for not providing an air passenger with certain information is excessive. We appreciate that generally the passenger purchases his ticket from the travel agent—that was the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood—rather than the airline itself. It was on that basis that we provided a defence for the airline if it can show that it has exercised all due diligence to ensure that its agents complied with the regulations requirements. The interpretation of any particular case, like the example that was given, would depend on the interpretation of whether all due diligence had been complied with. Airlines that comply with the regulation will have nothing to fear. However, where it is clear that passengers are not being given the necessary information powers will be used to enforce the law.
The issue of gold plating, or whether we have acted out of line with other countries, was raised by several contributors to the debate. The regulation does not come into force until October. Other member states have different procedures for implementing Community law, which means that they may not be required to go through the same affirmative resolution process which we, on account of the parliamentary summer Recess, are obliged to follow if the order is to be in place in time. In any event, whether or not other member states are implementing the regulation does not affect our obligations under the Treaty of Rome to remove any conflicts with national legislation and impose appropriate sanctions, without which the intention of the regulation would be frustrated.
On the specific point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, about Article 7 and the power given to the Commission to suggest amendments to the

1187
regulation, the Commission may propose amendments and the Council may adopt them but until that time the regulation stands.
I turn now to the issue raised by several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, about the consultation that did or did not take place on this issue. It has obviously been a matter of concern, as I know from the correspondence that I have seen, as well as from contributions tonight. Since the draft order merely facilitates a Community regulation, no formal consultation is necessary, or indeed appropriate. But I should make clear to the House that, as far as the regulation itself was concerned, there was indeed formal consultation. A cost compliance assessment was carried out and was scrutinised by the scrutiny committees of both Houses and approved by them. There is no question that the procedures were not followed properly as far as the regulation is concerned.
I think that the reason that the House is getting into difficulty here is that we are dealing with the implementation of the regulation, for which the same consultation does not exist. That was why, as a matter of courtesy, officials in the department spoke with aviation legal experts and airline representatives on a number of occasions before drafting the order to outline our obligations as Community members and to indicate the proposed approach. I should point out that the department consulted the airlines on the substance of the regulation before it was finally adopted by the Council.
As I am on the issue of consultation and sharing information, I should like to repeat the apology that I made in a letter to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. It would have been much better if I had been in a position to mention the timing of the laying of the directive when we debated these issues in your Lordships' House a few weeks ago. I regret that I was not able to do so.
Perhaps the most substantive issue, and the one raised most often, is the context in which we are operating and whether it would not be sensible to postpone the order until new ticket wording is agreed globally. I entirely agree with noble Lords who made the point that the best solution in the medium and longer term is for a worldwide agreement on the form of words to appear on tickets. We welcome the efforts being made by IATA to this end. However, I must stress that, whether or not the UK implements the regulation, the requirement for certain information to appear on tickets will apply from October this year. As I understand it, IATA's passenger services conference will not be in a position to agree a new form of words until at least October, and, assuming agreement is reached, new tickets will not be issued until the approval of certain governments has been obtained, stocks of current ticket blanks have been largely used up and new tickets have been printed.
Since it will be upwards of a year, and possibly longer, before the new tickets appear, I believe that the point made by my noble friend Lord Berkeley is a real one and that airlines should consider what measures might be put in place from October in order to comply with the regulation. Even if a new form of words were universally agreed and adopted, we should still need to
1188
put in place the powers to enforce the other information requirements of the regulation. It does not obviate the need for enforcement.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, asked me two questions about whether we could delay and what the attitude to that would be. We believe that it is not within our power to postpone the coming into force of the regulation; but, in relation to enforcement, we would obviously consider the merits of each case to determine whether prosecution would be in the public interest.
I am conscious of pressures in opposite directions. One is time and the other is the number of questions that were asked. I hope that I have dealt with the substantive issues that were raised in the debate and that the House will now agree that it is important for the United Kingdom to adopt appropriate measures to implement the Council regulation, which will provide much greater financial protection for air travellers. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles) Order 1998
9.5 p.m.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th June be approved [23rd Report from the Deregulation Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the second of the Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper and, in doing so, trust that this will be less contentious a measure than the one we have just dealt with. The purpose of this order is to allow people holding driving licences issued under the Northern Ireland legislation to become taxi or private hire vehicle drivers in England and Wales without having a one-year wait, provided they meet all the other criteria of the licensing authorities.
Taxis have a long history of being licensed in this country, and private hire vehicle licensing outside London was introduced in 1976. When the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of that year received Royal Assent, it contained provisions relating to the requirements for licensing both taxi drivers and private hire drivers. These were, first, that the licensing authority—the local district council—had to be satisfied that the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold such a licence and, secondly, that the applicant had held a full driving licence for at least twelve months.
This latter requirement about holding a full driving licence was expressed in terms of a
"licence granted under Part III of the Act of 1972 (not being a provisional licence) authorising him to drive a motor car".
This wording meant that the applicant had to have held a full driving licence issued under the Road Traffic Act 1972, which related only to Great Britain. A driving licence issued in Northern Ireland did not count, therefore. The Road Traffic Act 1972 has since been replaced, but the principle remains.
Whether this exclusion of Northern Ireland was the deliberate intention of the original drafters I am unable to say—I somehow doubt it—but the result is that, if people with Northern Ireland driving licences want to become taxi or private hire drivers in England or Wales, they have first to exchange their Northern Ireland driving licence for one issued in Great Britain and then wait for twelve months before their application may be considered.
In 1996, regulations were made under the European Communities Act 1972 recognising from 1st January 1997 driving licences issued by other member states of the EC as being equivalent to those issued in Great Britain. So anyone holding a driving licence issued elsewhere in the EC can apply for a taxi driver's or private hire driver's licence in England or Wales. Unfortunately, it was not possible to deal with the Northern Ireland licence problem in those regulations because to do so would be outside the scope of the European Communities Act.
So, we are now in the situation where people holding valid, full Northern Ireland car driving licences are the only ones within the whole of the EC who are unable to apply to become taxi or private hire drivers in England and Wales. This is a situation which we consider should be put right, and we believe that this order is an appropriate way of doing so.
The House's Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation has reported that the draft order is now in a satisfactory form to be submitted to the House for affirmative resolution, and there is nothing in the draft order which the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments would have needed to draw to the attention of either House. I therefore commend the draft order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th June be approved [23rd Report from the Deregulation Committee].—(Baroness Hayman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

School Standards and Framework Bill
9.9 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 109.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford moved Amendment No. 187A:
Leave out Clause 109.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is a drastic thing to leave out a clause from such a long Bill. I am neither saving paper, nor trees.
This clause deals with home-school agreements. I agree with the Government that one of the most potent forces for improving a child's education is the close co-operation between school and parent. There may be problems between the school and the parents but, if they can achieve accord, much can be overcome. It is essential that the parents share the aims of the school. If
1190
the noble Lord is not interested in my comments, I can deal with this matter as a formality and I am happy to do that.
The point I was making which the noble Lord did not hear—I realise that when there are only around eight of us sitting here one can get involved in personal discussions; I understand that—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it was business, not personal.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that. My point is that we all agree with home-school agreements. Their basis is that parents share the aims of the school and the school shares the concerns of the parents and tries to relate to the parents' wishes. Actually, in the past few years, home-school agreements have proved effective and have given force and substance to this important element, which is possibly the most important element in education; that is, that the parents and the school work together.
We on this side of the House therefore were delighted with Clause 108, which has, in effect, all schools adopting home-school agreements. But the reason I am standing here at this late stage and disturbing personal and political discussions is that these agreements have real value only if they are taken seriously; that is, if people do not talk to each other but listen when others are speaking. A mark of the seriousness of the home-school agreement is that it is not just a bit of hopeful aspiration but is seen as something that has to be kept to.
The previous history of these agreements—I have talked to a number of head teachers about them—has been that they have been treated seriously; treated as something that had to be kept and which was entered into seriously as an agreement; in fact, treated as a concord between the parent and the child. We on this side of the House are therefore surprised that, after all the encouragement that is given to the home-school agreement in Clause 108, it is then devalued in Clause 109. It is not allowed to be a condition of entry; it does not impose any obligation; there will be no consequences from failure to comply.
This is a down-grading of the seriousness of an agreement. I used the analogy once before; it is like going to the altar, making one's vows and then saying that there is no obligation, no consequences for the future, but on the whole we are hoping to do our best. I have to say even to some of my secular colleagues that this is a sinful world. All parents are not angels. In some areas of our community the placing of real obligations on parents has proved to be very difficult. But it has also proved to be the most effective way of giving a good education to their children.
We want to remove Clause 109 because it devalues Clause 108. Perhaps I may express an element of surprise. We are dealing with a Government who have stressed the need for parental responsibility. I remember what is most likely an apocryphal story that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said to some people in his house, "We are calling in Jack Straw to tell the Prime

1191
Minister's children that they have to do their homework." As the House will know, the Home Secretary has stressed on various occasions that parents should take responsibility for their children's homework. The Minister's right honourable friend the Prime Minister has stressed the value of laying real responsibility on parents with regard to truancy and has even talked about legal sanctions. I am therefore surprised that, in view of his Government's stress on moral responsibility with sanctions attached, the noble Lord should introduce a clause which reduces all the very good ideas in Clause 108 to mere moral hopes in Clause 109. There is merely a list of hopes rather than of obligations. Even the most inadequate people can quite understand that when you sign an agreement you have to keep it. I just wonder why the Government do not want people to keep it. I shall be interested in their comments. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should start by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, for my momentary inattention. It is, of course, only an old head teacher who would have picked it up that sharply. Perhaps I should say "a former head teacher" rather than "an old head teacher". He is younger than me.
The noble Lord has misinterpreted Clause 109. Clause 109 is not a weakening of the provisions in Clause 108. It simply secures in a number of specific and important respects that a home-school agreement provides safeguards not just in the form of sanctions on parents but safeguards for the school, for parents and for pupils as well. The two clauses should be read together as ways of strengthening the partnership to raise standards in our schools. Noble Lords opposite have said on so many occasions that the School Standards and Framework Bill is too much about framework and not enough about standards that I am sorry they should seek to take out a significant and important part of the Bill which is clearly about standards.
Clause 109 requires governing bodies to have regard to any guidance on home-school agreements from the Secretary of State. Of course we shall consult widely on the draft guidance. The guidance will make clear, as I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, when speaking to Amendments Nos. 187 and 188, that we expect all agreements to include expectations.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Clause 109(4) states:
"Neither the governing body … shall … make it a condition of a child being admitted to the school that the parental declaration is signed in respect of the child; or … make any decision as to whether or not to admit a child to the school by reference to whether any such declaration is or is not likely to be signed in respect of the child".
Clause 109(5) states:
"No person shall be excluded from such a school or suffer any other adverse consequences on account of any failure to comply".
1192
Clause 109(6) states:
"A home-school agreement shall not be capable of creating any obligation in respect of whose breach any liability arises in contract or in tort".
That is quite a reduction. I can see what the noble Lord means, but I should be grateful if he could say why the Government have reduced home-school agreements so decisively when at the moment schools can enforce them in a stronger way.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was proposing to go through Clause 109 subsection by subsection and respond to each of the elements. I can well see—I have sidelined it in my brief—the elements of subsection (4) which most exercise the noble Lord, although he was delicate enough not to emphasise it too strongly in his opening speech.
Perhaps I may finish the sentence that I had started when I was so politely interrupted. We expect agreements to include expectations about the standard of education, the ethos of the school, regular and punctual attendance, discipline, homework and the information schools and parents will give to one another. The guidance will also make clear that agreements must be fair and balanced if they are to foster a spirit of partnership. We want schools and parents to use home-school agreements to demonstrate to children the importance of education by declaring their commitment to work in partnership.
The clause empowers the Secretary of State to forbid the use of certain forms of words, or words which have a particular effect, from inclusion in home-school agreements or parental declarations. For example, it might be necessary to make clear that a school could not request or put pressure on parents to contribute regularly to the school PTA fund. Although it is a restriction, it is not a diminution of the effectiveness of the agreement; it simply ensures that the agreement does not include unreasonable elements.
As the noble Lord rightly said, the clause prevents the use of home-school agreements in the admission process. We do not believe that it is right to allow admission authorities to base their decisions on whether a parent has signed, or is willing to sign. We uphold the principle that an admission authority should not be able to attach conditions when making the offer of a place. It cannot be right to deny a child a place because his or her parents are unwilling to sign the home-school agreement. That refers to what I said at the beginning that in this agreement we are looking to protect the interests not only of the school and the parents, but of the pupils themselves. We strongly take the view that the attitude of parents to a home-school agreement should not be an element in the choice of pupils for a school—in other words, in the admission process.
However, once a child has been admitted to a school it is right to expect parents to sign a declaration that they acknowledge and accept both their responsibilities and the school's expectation of their child. I have to go on. The noble Lord is otherwise engaged at the moment. Perhaps I may reciprocate his criticism. I have to describe the whole clause. I know perfectly well that the

1193
noble Lord is really interested only in the London Oratory School. His amendment covers the whole of Clause 109. It also forbids a pupil's exclusion from school and the pupil or his parents suffering any adverse consequences if they do not sign the parental declaration. It cannot be right that a pupil should be punished if his parents did not sign the declaration. Failure to comply with the terms of a home-school agreement will not be treated as giving rise to any liability for which damages or other remedies could be obtained through the courts in action for breach of contract or in tort. The noble Lord cited that as being a diminution of the effectiveness of home-school agreements. I suggest to him that they would be very much more diminished if they were to be seen as legal documents for which legal remedies were appropriate.
In the light of this description of Clause 109 and the defence that I have given of its contents, I hope that the noble Lord will not seek to press this wide-ranging and damaging amendment.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I was not talking about the London Oratory School, I was thinking about another school. The issue as to whether the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Prime Minister prefers that school or not is nothing to do with me. I am concerned about people like my daughter, who teaches in Bethnal Green, and who face a very difficult community where parents are reluctant to enter into agreements with schools; teachers find it difficult to impose sanctions and where co-operation with parents is very difficult to achieve.
I accept that the noble Lord has been presented with briefing by his civil servants, but the fact is that it is difficult enough to require parents to sign on the dotted line and yet the Government have given them many escape clauses. This will not be a problem at the London Oratory, which deals with the more sophisticated children from Islington and other such areas. I am sorry to dwell on the Oratory, but the noble Lord raised it. I did not; I was thinking about schools in different areas of this city to which the noble Lord's right honourable and honourable friends do not send their children.
Teachers in such schools face considerable difficulties and they would be helped by tighter requirements. Once the Government include on the face of the Bill provisions that the home-school agreements may be broken or ignored, the teachers' job is made harder. However elegant may be the noble Lord's defence, the teacher at the front line in the difficult area will depend on such requirements.
Often in this House, noble Lords speak more about the civil rights of pupils than they do about the needs of the teachers who have to enforce discipline and standards in difficult areas. That is why I should like Clause 109 to be removed from the Bill. I have heard so often in this House emphasis being laid on the civil rights of pupils. I understand that and I value it, but I must think of the teachers in the difficult areas who need home-school agreements that will have a bit of bottle behind them so that the teachers can enforce them.
1194
On the advice of his civil servants, the noble Lord is removing much value from those home-school agreements and I am not convinced by his arguments.
Let us consider the purpose of home-school agreements. In the most difficult areas of our cities we need parents to commit themselves, on the dotted line, to ensuring that their children will not truant. After years of serving on the Parole Board, I know how often such children truant. By reducing the power of home-school agreements, the Government are reducing the power of the teacher.
I can understand the legal gyrations, but the fact is that Clause 109 defies the Government's rhetoric. Both Mr. Straw and the Prime Minister constantly stress the need for parental responsibility, but Clause 109 removes it. Irresponsible parents are not foolish; they are just as capable as anyone else of reading these provisions and they will know that Clause 109 does not mean anything. They will argue with the teachers.
I am not satisfied with the Government's attitude. I am putting this on the record: I shall come back to the Government again and again on this matter, especially when I see the rhetoric of the noble Lord's right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary defying what is stated on the face of the Bill. An analysis of debates in this House would show that many noble Lords have stressed again and again the importance of pupils' civil rights rather than the enormous difficulties faced by the school teachers in the deprived areas of our cities who find it difficult to get children to go to school and to enforce discipline when they are there. Some head teachers have found ways of doing that through home-school agreements, but the Government are reducing the power of such agreements under Clause 109.
I am not happy. I shall withdraw my amendment, but I want these words to be on the record. I assure the noble Lord that I shall return to him on this point but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 188 not moved.]
Clause 112 [Nutritional standards for school lunches]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 189:
Page 86, leave out line 12 and insert ("schools maintained by local education authorities.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 189, I should like to speak also to the subsequent amendments, Amendments Nos. 190 and 191, which deal with school lunches and nutritional standards in nursery schools. As it stands, Clause 112 gives the Secretary of State the power to introduce compulsory nutritional standards for school lunches, but that does not extend to lunches provided either in pupil referral units or in maintained nursery schools, except for maintained special nursery schools. The first two amendments will remove that anomaly. This is a straightforward technical correction.
As it stands, Clause 113 places a duty on local education authorities to offer lunches for sale to pupils who want them in all the schools that LEAs maintain unless it is unreasonable for them to do so. The effect

1195
of Amendment No. 191 is to place a duty on LEAs to provide paid lunches for those pupils under compulsory school age only where those pupils are full time. LEAs would continue to have the power to provide paid lunches to part-time pupils under compulsory school age and to provide paid lunches to all pupils of compulsory school age.
I believe that these are sensible arrangements. Most nursery schools or units offer only part-time provision—children attend in the morning or afternoon—and in practice many parents provide lunch. If there were a duty on LEAs to offer a paid meals service to these pupils, it would in effect extend the school day and require extra staff and additional supervision with attendant extra cost. However, LEAs will still be able to provide this service if they so wish. I can assure noble Lords that this does not affect the position of pupils under compulsory school age who are entitled to free school meals. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 86, line 14, leave out ("a maintained") and insert ("such a").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 113 [Extension of LEA functions concerning school lunches, etc.]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 191:
Page 86, line 37, at end insert (", or
(b) where the pupil in question has not attained compulsory school age and is being provided with part-time education.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 116 [Duty of local education authority as respects availability of nursery education]:
[Amendment No. 192 not moved.]
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 192A:
After Clause 116, insert the following new clause—
MAINTAINED AND VOLUNTARY AIDED SCHOOLS: ADMISSIONS POLICY
(" . A local education authority shall—

(a) ensure that no maintained school or voluntary aided school within its area requires children to enter school under compulsory school age as a condition, or implied condition, of admission to the said school at the age of five; and

(b) ensure that, with respect to the admissions policy of any maintained school or voluntary aided school in its area, entry into the said school's reception class or classes in the term following a child's fourth birthday shall not confer any preference or advantage over other children in the same or neighbouring local authority area who may seek entry into that school at the age of five.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 192A, which is concerned with the admission to school of children aged four and five. This matter was debated in Committee. Perhaps the Minister hoped that I would not return to it. However, great concern has been expressed about the provision for
1196
under school age children of three to five years of age and the necessity to provide a varied tapestry of such provision. I refer to the reply given by the Minister:
"The guidance and evaluation criteria for this year's early years development plans made it clear that information provided to parents must be without bias to any one sector and should also make it clear that children are not legally required to attend primary school until they are of compulsory school age".—[Official Report; 10/6/98; col. 1135.]
Later on, in response to my noble friend Lady Blatch, who moved the amendments in Committee, the Minister said (at col. 1136):
"The right approach is to have guidance on good practice. That is much more likely to be effective and we shall consider providing guidance on good practice in the admissions code of practice".
I shall return to that in a moment.
One of the matters of great concern to those on these Benches was the implication that to get a child into the school of choice at five meant that there was greater pressure on children going to reception classes at the age of four because they would then have preference over other children. Out in the community, we still enjoy, and I hope will continue to enjoy, a tremendous range of private nursery school and playschool provision. That gives parents the right to choose the kinds of schools that they believe suit their children. Those of us who have children or grandchildren of that age know very well that the ability of three or four year-olds varies very much. We on these Benches believe that there must be a means of protecting such schools; otherwise, they will be continually squeezed and will cease to be providers of such facilities.
We would all agree that the Bill is all about raising standards. It includes diversity and choice. It goes from playgroups for small numbers of children, involving families, to the more formal reception classes which cater for larger numbers and are styled more along the lines of school classes. The ethos is surely to provide choice so that parents can find a school to suit their needs. Parents might choose a playgroup for their three year-old child and then discover—as the Bill suggests—that they need to move the child into a reception class at the age of four. The child is then being moved twice before reaching the age of five. In some cases it may be when the child is aged just four and is vulnerable.
We are concerned to retain wide choice so that parents can choose a smaller school—it may be a playgroup—rather than feel that they are forced to put their child into a reception class. We shall try to ensure that that is a possibility for them.
Private schools and the more informal playgroups have an important role to play. If their expertise is to be ensured and encouraged, we must make sure that parents do not feel that they are under any obligation to forgo a place at such a school in order to secure a place at their chosen primary school. It has a knock-on effect on other schools providing nursery care. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that we want a flexible approach to provision.
The amendment is designed to ensure that no maintained school or voluntary-aided school within an LEA's area shall require a child to enter the school

1197
under compulsory age as a condition. Paragraph (b) of the new clause provides that,
"a child's fourth birthday shall not confer any preference or advantage over other children in the same or neighbouring local authority area who may keep entry into that school at the age of five".
We debated this issue in Committee but there is still great concern in the community, which is why I have brought the matter back. I hope the Minister will reassure me about the guidance on good practice that will be put into effect.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, we have a certain amount of sympathy with the mover of the amendment because there is concern that parents might be "blackmailed" into putting their child early into school when a more appropriate placement for that child would be a nursery class. On the other hand, we have no particular wish to defend private nursery schools, or any wish to attack them for that matter. We are concerned that there should be appropriate placements for children under school age, in whose education we have a great interest. At no point should parents be obliged to put their children at an early age into a crowded class for under school age children to secure their position at that primary school.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not know whether I shall be able to be sufficiently reassuring, but I shall try, because I have some sympathy with what I think underlies the concerns behind the amendment. As I explained when we discussed this issue in Committee, no admission authority for a maintained school can require a parent to send his or her child to a school before the child has become of compulsory school age. Even where a school admits before compulsory school age, parents may apply for a place starting from when their child reaches compulsory school age. But it is true that where a school is popular and oversubscribed a place may no longer be available.
I can assure the noble Baroness that we take this issue most seriously. The fundamental aim of our policy on early years education is to ensure that parents have a diverse range of good quality early years provision from which to choose. Like the noble Baroness, we do not want to see parents pressurised into making a choice which they do not believe is right for their child. Nor do we want to see private and voluntary providers become unviable because parents feel compelled to move children out of those settings.
Early years development partnerships include representatives of both parents and private providers. We have made it clear that we shall expect future changes to admissions arrangements to be discussed with early years development partnerships. We shall also expect LEAs to listen to advice from early years development partnerships about how well existing policies are working and whether individual schools are following policy set by the LEA where it is the admission authority. A number of partnerships said in this year's plan that they would be reviewing current admissions arrangements. We expect partnerships to consult widely when preparing early years development plans, and in particular to consult parents.
1198
The noble Baroness quoted from Hansard what I said in Committee on the guidance and evaluation criteria for this year's early years development plans. I can only say again that the criteria make it clear that information provided to parents must be without bias to any one sector and should also make it clear that children are not legally required to attend primary school until they are of compulsory school age. I wish to provide the reassurance that we are making that clear.
Admissions arrangements should not be used to stifle parental choice. The message will be strengthened in next year's guidance which will have statutory force. We shall look particularly closely at admissions issues such as these when evaluating next year's plans.
It is open to authorities to adopt a practice of agreeing parental requests to defer entry to a primary reception class until a child reaches compulsory school age later in the school year. A number of authorities already follow that practice. The Secretary of State has referred to it in the draft interim guidance on school admissions which he issued for consultation last month. Where this policy is adopted, parents apply for a place at the normal time of admission but in effect the place would be held for the child until he or she is older, up to compulsory school age.
We shall look carefully at how advice on this policy and the general issue of parental choice prior to compulsory school age can be addressed in the admissions code of practice.
When we debated the issue in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, expressed concern that parents felt they were being "blackmailed" into transferring their child earlier to a maintained school. It was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. She felt that they were being pushed to transfer their child earlier than they wished. She believed that they should be able to make a complaint and should have something to back them up when making that complaint. I can assure noble Lords that the early years development partnership arrangements and the strong messages we shall be giving in this year's guidance will achieve that.
I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness that we take these concerns seriously. We shall be working proactively to resolve them. But I do not believe that this amendment is the best way forward.
The admissions issues we have been discussing today are part of the whole package of partnership working and should not be addressed in isolation. We have already made crucial steps towards moving from the competitive ethos of the voucher scheme to a more partnership-based approach. We deferred approval of one authority's plan partly because of concerns about admissions. The partnership worked together extremely effectively to resolve those concerns and is now consulting on introducing a deferred entry policy along the lines that I have outlined. The plan has been approved. Therefore, those arrangements are already having some effect.
We must allow such decisions on admissions to be made at local level and with appropriate guidance at national level. I have said already that we shall encourage admissions authorities to consider deferred

1199
entry but we do not propose to require them to adopt such a practice. In some cases, if more than a certain number of children want to defer entry, the financial implications might lead to the loss of an additional member of staff to the detriment of all the children who remain in that class. It is right that the decision to adopt that policy should be made at local level where an assessment can be made of the financial implications.
It is clear that there may be benefits in severing the link between pre-compulsory education and compulsory education if parents want their children to attend different institutions, although if I were a parent with a young child, I should prefer continuity. Therefore, those different sets of needs need to be balanced. I do not believe that that is best achieved at national level and through a rather inflexible amendment of this kind. However, as I have said, I sympathise with the noble Baroness's aim, if not with the amendment as an attempt to achieve it. In the light of what I just said, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for her response, which I shall read with great care tomorrow. There is one point on which I seek clarification from the noble Baroness. I understand that as from next year, some statutory force will be brought into being as opposed to guidance which we have this year. The noble Baroness nods her head. Under those circumstances, I am more relieved although we do not know the form of that statutory force.
However, I am grateful to the Minister for her comments. As I said, there has been great concern among the other providers out there in the community. I shall read again what the Minister said and at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 118 [Early years development plans]:
[Amendment No. 193 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 194 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 195 not moved.]
Clause 125 [Code of practice for securing effective relationships between LEAs and maintained schools]:
[Amendment No. 196 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 196A:
Page 95, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) The code shall require that local education authorities, in performing their functions under subsection (1)(a) and section 5, shall not have access to a school without the permission of its governing body if the school is performing within the top third of schools or is consistently improving its performance in national performance tables for National Curriculum tests or GCSE examination results.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 197B.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Baroness proceeds, and since she has said that she
1200
is going to speak to Amendment No. 197B, she will know that this amendment, as well as Amendment No. 186B, were debated in exactly the same terms in Committee and were rejected on a Division.
I very well understand that the noble Baroness is acting properly on advice from the Public Bill Office that it is proper for these amendments to be tabled and debated. I acknowledge also that in my very junior capacity representing the hierarchy of this House, I should have said what I am saying on Amendment No. 186B rather than now.
However, I, too, have taken advice from the Clerk of the Parliaments and he has drawn my attention to the paragraph in the Companion on page 89 under the heading of "Motions" which states:
"It is contrary to the practice of the House for a Question once decided to be put again in the same Session".
The Clerk of the Parliaments has advised me that if he had been consulted on this matter he would have advised that this amendment should not have been tabled and should not be debated.
I have no power to instruct the noble Baroness as to what she should do. However, I ask her to exercise restraint in her actions on the amendment and I should advise the House that in view of the conflict of advice which has been received, it would be appropriate for this matter to be referred to the Procedure Committee.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I always act on advice, but I am speaking to Amendment No. 196A. The code of practice will require that local education authorities, in performing their functions under subsection 1(a) and Clause 5, shall not have access to a school without the permission of its governing body if the school is performing within the top third of schools or is consistently improving its performance in national performance tables for national curriculum tests or GCSE examination results.
Mr. Byers said this week that he is looking for ways to leave excellent schools to get on with the job they do well without undue intervention. He also said that excellent schools should be treated differently from other schools and that they should have more flexibility and freedom. My amendment will give the honourable gentleman in another place precisely that which he seeks and it is for that reason that I ask noble Lords to support it.
If a school is operating in the top third of schools, and if it is consistently improving its performance year on year, what can be the reason for anybody wishing to intervene in that school against the wishes of the governors? It is absurd and not conducive to good relationships with that community.
The Government will almost certainly argue that it is better to have partnership and agreement. That is not the point of my amendment. The amendment concerns an over-zealous inspectorate at local authority level or local authority officials themselves wishing to intervene where it is not necessary. If the governing body does not agree that there are good grounds for intervention then the amendment would allow intervention only in the best schools, those that are performing well and

1201
consistently improving their performance, when the school and governors agree that there should be intervention and co-operation on any matter concerning the operational running of the school. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, we on these Benches find this a very peculiar amendment because the code of practice governing the relationship between LEAs and schools covers a wide range of different topics, and when we speak about standards in schools we are not just talking about levels of achievement at O-level or A-level or at the key stages. Moreover, it is unnecessary. I have been a member of an education authority, and it is customary now for everybody who wants to go into a school to have to ask permission or at least to notify the head teacher that this is about to happen. In my experience schools and head teachers are extremely jealous of their space, for very good reason indeed, namely the security of pupils. If a teacher should observe LEA employees measuring up classrooms so that they can be improved, without having first informed the head teacher that they were about to do that, they would be given short shrift and asked who they were.
The amendment is illogical and unnecessary. It interferes in the relationship between governors and head teachers, since it is normally the head teacher who is in control of the day-to-day operation of the schooll, and this is very much a matter of day-to-day operation.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we also find this to be a very peculiar amendment. It appears to restrict the access of LEAs when they are performing their duty to ensure high standards, which seems a peculiar thing to have to explain to the parents, teachers, or anybody else. It probably reflects a very important difference of philosophy between the Conservative Party and ourselves on this matter.
Although we absolutely endorse the principle of school self-management, we also believe that schools should not pull up a drawbridge between themselves and the outside world, and especially not between themselves and LEAs. The local education authority has a responsibility for all schools; indeed, the new framework represents that. The amendment, at least in part, seems to be trying to pull out the best one-third of schools from the new structure. Under the Bill, we are giving LEAs new duties to promote high standards and to prepare education development plans in consultation with schools. However, those activities cannot be carried out if a school remains outside the process. The LEAs provide leadership and the dissemination of best practice.
It seems to me that the amendment assumes that a school's performance in national curriculum tests or in GCSEs tells us absolutely everything that we need to know about how successful it is. However, that is not always the sole criterion. The LEA should have the right to intervene in a school in a number of other areas. Because schools and their pupils appear to be doing well, we should not assume that they are not capable of doing even better.
1202
I understand that the noble Baroness is anxious to protect schools from undue interference from LEAs; so are we. That is precisely why we have a code of practice to ensure that all those with responsibilities for the education and safekeeping of pupils carry out those responsibilities reasonably. The code is designed to prevent disagreements from arising and to ensure that LEAs do intervene, broadly speaking, in inverse proportion to success and do not use their powers unreasonably; in other words, we are looking for a light touch of management from LEAs and, in most cases, a lighter touch for the more successful schools.
As noble Lords will know, that draft code of practice has been out for consultation for over three months. We have received a large number of replies. We are looking for partnership between LEAs and schools in an endeavour to improve standards. The amendment gives the impression of conflict, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, is in most instances simply not there. If there is conflict, or if there is a legal basis for a school to close its doors to an LEA, then certainly there is a problem which needs to be addressed by the local education authority in concert with the school and not by building up barriers between them. We believe that this amendment is particularly misplaced. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, one really must be suspicious of the Government's motives on this issue. As I understand it from the Minister's reply, in the best schools in our land the Government are now condoning intervention by a local education authority against the wishes of the governing body. Perhaps I may take the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. Where a head teacher believes that an LEA is being over-interventionist and over-zealous in its anxiety to come into a school, he would inevitably, if he wished to take the matter further, go to the governing body and seek some authority and endorsement from it that that intervention should be challenged. The governing body would then make representations to the LEA. In the interests of good relations, I cannot believe that there should not be at least some protection for such a situation.
The Minister referred to LEAs being there and to the fact that they offer leadership and support. Of course that is true; indeed, no one is arguing about that. My amendment would do nothing in that respect. However, from the actual language that the schools Minister has used in presenting the LEA draft code of practice, we know that the Government are very concerned. In fact, they become very threatening at times in that document in saying what they would do should an LEA intervene disproportionately rather than proportionately.
The Minister also said that the code of practice was designed to prevent disagreements. My amendment would deal with a situation where a disagreement has arisen. Rather than wait for the Government to find another legislative slot to do something about the matter, my amendment would allow fairly instant opportunity for a school to say that the intervention is just a touch too much. I cannot believe that there is no such protection to cover the relationship between an LEA and

1203
a school where the head teacher and/or the staff, together with the governing body, believe that the intervention is disproportionate.
My amendment addresses those occasions when there are disagreements. I am sorry that the Government do not agree with that. That shows a little more of their thinking. I am seriously suspicious of what is behind not only this part of the Bill but the Bill itself. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 96, line 28, at end insert ("and
(m) Part IV of the Education Act 1996.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a simple amendment which stands in my name and that of a number of other noble Lords, of whom I think the only one present is the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth. I apologise because I had not noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, had entered the Chamber. The amendment simply states that the provisions of Part IV of the Education Act 1996—namely, the policies on SEN—should be included in the Bill. I have a note here from the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who is unable to attend today.
Noble Lords: It is because of the semi-finals!
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, it is not because of the semi-finals. I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord has to attend a Mencap event. That suggestion about the semi-finals was quite malicious. The noble Lord is—as we all are—encouraged by the support of Members of your Lordships' House in seeking to raise the concerns of children with special educational needs. We received considerable encouragement from the Minister in her responses on the previous occasion we discussed this matter. The noble Lord and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this amendment, or at any rate the spirit of it. As regards the code of practice for securing effective relationships between LEAs and maintained schools, the amendment would include the functions of an LEA with respect to children with special needs. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords—
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, wants to speak. I thought she might wish to speak before I did. This amendment is extremely important. As we have heard during discussion on this Bill, 20 per cent. of pupils have special educational needs. That represents six pupils out of a class of 30. It is just as important that their needs are properly catered for as it is for those who do not have special educational needs. I refer even to those without statutory assessment.
1204
On the previous occasion we discussed this matter, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, suggested that this matter was covered by the SEN code of practice. As I understand it, that is a different matter altogether. It does not cover co-operation between schools and local education authorities, but the working of the special educational needs assessment. I could speak for a long time on this matter but I shall not do so because of the lateness of the hour. As I said, this amendment, which has been moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, is extremely important. If the Government will not accept it, I hope that they will bring forward their own amendment in exactly the same vein at a later stage.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I am sorry for the hiccup as regards the order of speaking, but I know that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, knows a great deal more about the measure than I do as he spoke to it on the previous occasion. I give my warm and extremely brief support to the amendment. It is important that schools should be clear from the start about how they will work with LEAs on SEN matters, rather than for that to be incorporated at a later stage.
On 16th June in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh acknowledged (col. 1456) the important part that SEN played in the role of LEAs and said he recognised the need to get the arrangements absolutely right. Furthermore, he said that the list in subsection (6) is not intended to be exhaustive. It is therefore already open to us to include SEN issues in the code of practice in whatever ways are considered most appropriate. I hope that on reflection the Minister may be persuaded, like the Special Education Consortium, that the most appropriate way is to list the special educational needs code of practice in subsection (6).
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the House will recall that when the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, tabled this amendment at Committee stage we made clear our intention that the code of practice should take account of the relationship between LEAs and special schools and the provision that mainstream schools make for children with special needs. That is still the case. However, we are still not convinced that the amendment is necessary or helpful.
The duty we are giving local education authorities to promote high standards applies to all children. We have made a number of changes, in response to concerns raised in this House, to make that explicit on the face of the Bill. In particular, we have amended Clause 6 to ensure that the requirements for educational development plans include an express reference to special educational needs. That means, in practice, that all LEAs will be required to have regard to SEN issues when planning action with a view to supporting the raising of standards in their schools.
I am advised that all the other provisions referred to in the list of relevant functions in Clause 125 implicitly cover special schools and pupils with special needs being educated in mainstream schools. Amendment No. 197 would not therefore add anything to the existing requirement for the Secretary of State to include appropriate guidance in the code on these issues.

1205
There are also a number of difficulties with the proposed amendment, which could possibly result in the opposite of what the noble Lords are hoping to achieve. Much of Part IV of the 1996 Education Act relates to the responsibilities of LEAs in relation to pupils with special needs. These are either irrelevant—for example, some deal with the establishment of the SEN tribunal—or they deal with processes relating to individual pupils that are already covered by the SEN code of practice. We think that it is important to avoid confusion between the two codes. But there is a real risk of that happening if they cover the same ground.
I know that the noble Lords are seeking an assurance that special educational needs issues will not be overlooked. I repeat that assurance now. The code of practice will include appropriate references to SEN issues. Our present intention is to include some practical examples of SEN issues in the revised version of the code. But I should also emphasise that the main purpose of the code is to provide guidance on the relationship between LEAs and schools generally. Given the largely warm reception for the first draft of the code, we would want to avoid making any revisions which would change the overall balance or tone of the document.
We shall, however, be having further consultation with the relevant parties—including special educational needs organisations—on the detail to ensure that we get this important element of the code right. I should welcome any further input that noble Lords would like to make when we are revising the text of the code.
In the circumstances, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. We discussed this matter at some length at an earlier stage of the Bill. I should have been more reassured if the Minister had said that the code would do more than merely take account of the special educational needs policies of local education authorities and if it had gone further to include those policies. There is a special relationship which needs to be developed between LEAs and schools on this subject owing to the new balance of responsibilities that the Bill brings into the relationship between LEAs and schools and the difference that makes with the downloading of budgets in their entirety to local schools. However, I know that the noble Baroness and her fellow Ministers have to a large extent taken on board the things which I and many other people have said with regard to special educational needs. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 197A:
After Clause 125, insert the following new clause—
CONSIDERATION TO BE GIVEN TO VIEWS OF PUPILS
(" . The governing bodies of schools and local education authorities shall use their best endeavours to secure that—

(a) due consideration is given to the views of pupils on any matter relating to the school or their education which
1206
affects them, having regard to the pupils' age and understanding, and

(b) where reasonable, steps are taken to ascertain these views.").

The noble Baroness said: I come back to a theme I have tried to push on various occasions in the course of the Bill; it is that the views of pupils should be considered. The amendment places schools and LEAs under a duty to consider the views of pupils. The new clause seeks to bring the education system in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, with other European countries' education legislation, and with the other professional sectors dealing with children—social services, health and judicial.
The new clause does not require schools or LEAs to act on the child's wishes, even when a child has a fully mature understanding of the issue in hand. It does not require teachers to ask every pupil what his or her views are on every matter. It is not a dirigiste provision; quite the reverse. It is extremely mild and discretionary in its formulation. It is therefore extremely unlikely to be the subject of litigation, despite the Angst of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. The noble Lord is not in his place, but he had criticisms earlier. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, admitted in Committee, it represents current good practice. It already happens in good schools, but not, unfortunately, in poor schools.
When the Committee on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child considered the UK's progress in 1995, it regretted that the child's rights under Article 12 were not recognised within the education system. Article 12(1) provides:
"States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child".
During the passage of the 1993 Education Act, Allan Levy, QC, gave an Opinion which advised that UK education law was in breach of Article 12. The Committee's recommendation to the UK was that,
"procedures be introduced to ensure that children are provided with the opportunity to express their views on the running of the schools in matters of concern to them".
The Government are due to provide the Committee with their second report at the end of this year. The Bill therefore represents the last chance for the Government to remedy the failure of the previous government to implement Article 12 in the education system. I hope that, in replying, the Minister—I believe it will be my noble friend Lord McIntosh—will give me some thoughts about what the Government intend to do with regard to the UN convention.
Those who work in social services have since 1975 been obliged by law to ascertain, and give due consideration to, the views of children in their care. The 1989 Children Act places the civil courts under equivalent duties. Health practice and health law, such as the landmark Gillick case in 1984, ensure that health professionals take account of children's views. The education system is the only professional service for children which does not recognise that children, as well as parents, are the consumers.
Many European countries have mandatory pupil councils in schools. Some—for example, Spain—have legislation requiring teachers to take pupils' views into account. Some—for example, France—have pupil participation built into every stage of education administration, including the Ministry of Education in Paris. Some—for example, Poland—have education ombudsmen to protect pupils. The UK is lagging a long way behind but, on the other hand, has the reassurance that the sky does not fall if pupils are recognised as partners, not subjects, in the education system.
Those are powerful arguments. I hope that the Minister is impressed by them and will give a sympathetic response. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, perhaps I may say how much I support the words of the noble Baroness, Lady David. As she pointed out, we must recognise the importance of taking children's views into account.
We often complain when children and young people are obstructive in society. This is one of the ways of enabling them to understand what it is to take part in a community, the discipline of that community and the way in which the community lives and runs. It is ridiculous for people to be frightened of this, as the noble Baroness stated. My experience of involving young people is that it always brings out the best in them. That is true not only of young people, but of all people in society. As a nation, we are far too frightened of involving the public and young people in our decisions.
I give the amendment my wholehearted support and, if the Government will not accept it, I hope that they will at least come forward with a recognition of the valid case the noble Baroness made to us tonight.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly support the noble Baroness, Lady David, who gave a powerful and clear explanation of her amendment, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. I hope that this Bill will be brought into line with other legislation; after all, it is very much to do with children and their future.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, let me say at once that I agree with the sentiments expressed by all those who have spoken on this amendment. The Government strongly agree that children ought to be involved and their views taken into account in planning for their education.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, is right that if all people, not just children, are consulted, they feel a sense of worth and ownership and that encourages participation. The Government therefore agree that we should be taking as many reasonable steps as possible to encourage young children to feel a sense of ownership of their education and to reach their full potential.
1208
We have no difficulty about the objectives of the amendment; but we need to discuss how to achieve them. We have a responsibility not to overburden our schools and the Government are looking particularly to reduce the level of bureaucracy in schools. My noble friend Lady David said at the beginning that this is a—she did not use the words "watered down"—neatly worded amendment. Indeed, that is true. But if it were a provision on the face of the Bill, it would still be legally prescriptive and intervene with the need of schools, in their own time, to set in place the structures that are necessary to foster a spirit of consultation.
I am not able to say therefore that we can accept the amendment on the face of the Bill. However, it may be helpful for me to say something about the good practice that has been brought to the attention of the department and how the views of pupils are being taken on board in the planning processes of schools.
Many schools have set up schools' councils, which work remarkably well. I do not know why I should present that as new; my own children took part in schools' councils 20 years ago. Nevertheless, it is a fact that schools' councils are increasing in number and in effectiveness. Where they are set up, they often act as a focus for pupils to improve the ethos of their school and act as a conduit for pupils to be heard. But that does not mean that we should place schools' councils or many other good things into the framework of a school Bill. However, we will certainly continue to encourage schools to set them up.
Education is as much about the personal and social development of pupils as academic achievement. That is often taken forward in a schools' programme of personal, social and health education. That is an area where we recently took positive action and set up a PSHE advisory group to examine the whole issue so that we can be better informed and better prepared to take forward the personal and social development of pupils. We can then feed its conclusions into the forthcoming debate on the review of the national curriculum. The group, which will be chaired by Estelle Moms and Tessa Jowell, will look to the aims and objectives of a PSHE and what can be done to help schools in this important area of education. I see no reason why I should not ask them to take into account how the views of pupils can be best taken forward in the group's deliberations on the personal and social development of pupils.
My noble friend quoted the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and she referred to the opinion of Mr. Allan Levy QC, who referred to procedures to be introduced. We are in favour of procedures being introduced; we are in favour of all encouragement for pupil involvement; what we are not in favour of is placing an amendment of this kind on the face of the Bill.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Maddock and Lady Darcy de Knayth, for their support, which was very welcome, and I thank the Minister for a quite sympathetic and understanding

1209
response, although he would not go the whole way of accepting the amendment. I am disappointed about that, though not altogether surprised.
I do not think that this would overburden the schools. Schools should consult the pupils. I do not think it would overburden them. In fact they might be rather more successful in having a good disciplinary code and good procedures if they did consult the pupils than if they do not. I do not see that it would be legally prescriptive. In some ways, if we are to be in line with the UN convention, it ought to be provided in legislation that pupils' views should be considered. We shall be interested to see what the committee says at the end of the year when it will have to report on what the UK has done in relation to this.
I cannot do other than withdraw the amendment. However, I am disappointed, particularly as the Labour Party in Opposition—perhaps not the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who was not speaking from the Opposition Front Bench on education but certainly the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone—would have supported the amendment.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness David: Was I interrupted? I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, would not be in sympathy, because he does not seem to have any understanding about this. As I say, I am disappointed in my own Front Bench because they were in sympathy with this proposal when in Opposition. It is rather sad that when in Government they change their mind. However, I am glad of what I have heard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 197B not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 197C:
After Clause 127, insert the following new clause—
TRANSFER OF ASSISTED PLACES
(".—(1) In section 3(2) of the Education (Schools) Act 1997 (regulations for purposes of transitional arrangements), after paragraph (f) there shall be added—
"(g) provide for the Secretary of State, in a case where he is satisfied that it is reasonable to do so in view of any particular circumstances relating to a pupil who holds (or has at any time held) an assisted place provided by a school under section 2(1), to authorise another school which is either—

(i) a former participating school, or

(ii) a new school authorised to provide assisted places by virtue of paragraph (f) above,

to provide for the pupil under section 2(1) the assisted Place which the first-mentioned school was authorised to provide."
(2) In section 75A(9A) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (regulations in connection with assisted places)—

(a) the word "and" immediately preceding paragraph (b) shall be omitted; and

(b) after that paragraph there shall be inserted "; and

(c) provide for the Secretary of State, in a case where he is satisfied that it is reasonable to do so in view of
1210
any particular circumstances relating to a pupil who holds (or has, at any time since the beginning of the first term of the 1997–98 school year, held) an assisted place at a school under a scheme operated by virtue of subsection (1) above, to authorise another school which is, or is treated as, a participating school to provide for the pupil under such a scheme the assisted place which the first-mentioned school was authorised to provide."").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to government Amendments Nos. 207A, 208A, 209A to 209E, 228A and 228B, and to refer to Amendment No. 197D, which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Although this is about the assisted places scheme, it is not intended at this time of night to raise the whole issue of the assisted places scheme but to speak about how we can more sensitively deal with children who are still in the system.
We have received representations, including from the noble Baroness herself at the Committee stage, about children who currently hold assisted places scheme places who, due to particular family or educational circumstances, need to move schools. It appears that last year's legislation is drawn too tightly to allow a pupil with an assisted place to transfer to another independent school participating in the scheme otherwise than in the most exceptional circumstances. We share some of those concerns.
We are aware of 10 or so cases where parents need to move their children between schools and want to retain the assisted places scheme place. Noble Lords may have seen press reports of one case where a child at a boarding school wished to move to a school closer to home to spend more time with his disabled father. Through this amendment, the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment, and for Wales and Scotland, will have the power to help in such cases.
Amendment No. 197C is the substantive provision which will provide for a new discretionary power under regulations to allow assisted pupils to move between participating schools and retain support under the scheme. Amendments Nos. 207A, 208D, 209C, 209D and 209E are technical amendments relating to commencement, extent and repeals. Amendments Nos. 209A and 209B, and 228B relate to the slightly different Scottish provisions but they will have the same effect. Amendment No. 228A is a consequential amendment.
As regards the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, I shall obviously respond to what she says at a later stage. At this stage I must mention that there appears to us to be a difficult technical issue concerning her proposal. The framework for the phasing out of the assisted places scheme is set out in Section 2(2) of the Education (Schools) Act 1997. The proposal of the noble Baroness involves providing, through regulations, a right for children of primary school age to continue to have support under the scheme throughout their secondary schooling. That is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act itself. I shall deal with any other points at a later stage, but I thought that I should deal with that technical problem.
The purpose of these amendments is to allow us to help families with genuine difficulties. We would use the discretionary power sensitively. It is our intention that that kind of sensitive response should allow a transfer to take place where there is a genuine need. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 197C, Amendment No. 197D:
Line 16, at end insert—
("(1A) After section 3(2) of that Act there shall be inserted—
"(2A) Regulations under this section shall in particular secure that a pupil receiving primary education and provided with an assisted place shall continue to hold that place to the end of the period during which he receives secondary education at the same school."."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the rather thin reason given for my amendment being technically flawed in fact applies to the government amendments. They were inconsistent with the Act as it was. That is why the amendment is tabled: in order to open the Act and to amend it. That is precisely what my amendment seeks to do.
The issue that precipitated this U-turn was a case where the DfEE, in its wisdom—it was wise to do so—dropped its opposition to a court case because it knew it was heading for defeat. The claim is that fresh evidence came to light. My understanding of the case is that all that was known about the young man was known by the department. It would be helpful to know precisely what the fresh evidence was and the criteria that the Secretary for State will now apply in respect of the amendments as set out in the Marshalled List, and which will eventually find their place into the assisted places Bill.
The boy was told that he could keep his assisted place and stay in the system. Depending on the Secretary of State's largesse, that would allow children to move from one school to another. My amendment is more modest than that; namely, that young people are given an understanding that they could receive an assisted place in one school and go right the way through that school. The meanness of the Government in applying their policy knows no depth. I also believe that they will find themselves in court again because there are some very interesting cases. It is interesting to go back through all the correspondence.
There is one letter on file which has to be placed on the record of this House because it encapsulates the bones of my case. The letter is from Mrs. Karen Cutler to Ms. Flashman. It contained within it a letter which Ms. Flashman was asked to convey to Mr. Blunkett. It reads as follows:
"I was extremely annoyed by a statement you made in the House of Commons during Education and Employment Questions (26th February) as it was untrue.
Graham Brady MP raised the issue of an article in 'The Times' that day concerning Junior level Assisted Places, bringing attention to a promise made to a Harriet Tillson from Mr. Blair. The letter of 1 Nov. 1996 was in response to a query concerning her daughters' assisted places. They were at the time aged 7 and 11. In the letter Mr Blair states 'We do not wish to disrupt the education of individual children and any children already on the scheme will continue to receive support until the end of their education.'
Your reply was as follows and I quote, 'Not only will I ensure that people understand the importance of being able to follow promises but that they can read as well so that they can actually get the promises right. The promise we made we are fulfilling and I should remind the Hon Gentleman that, of course, at the point he is referring to the previous Government's scheme to extend assisted places to primary education had not actually taken place.'
I found this statement almost unbelievable. Either you knew that this was not true and were avoiding giving a proper reply or you were genuinely unaware of the two different types of junior level places and that integral junior departments of senior schools were allocated places early in 1996 to be taken up in September 1996. This would show a level of incompetence which I personally would not expect from such a Senior Minister. I was also rather surprised that you were not corrected immediately on this point by any other Member of the House.
As I have already said, junior assisted places were allocated early in 1996 to integral junior departments of senior schools which offered assisted places at 11+ also. They were taken up in September 1996 and therefore not only were the places available but Mrs Tillson's daughters were already at the Maynard school at the point of Mr Blair replying to her.
Ben Bradshaw was quoted in The Times as saying that it would not have been known that the Maynard school ran through to 18. This is clearly nonsense since at that point (Nov. 1996) only schools which 'ran through' had junior places.
Free standing Preparatory Schools were only allocated places in 1997 to be taken up in September by virtue of an Amendment to the Education Act. This is extremely important as the Labour Party Office prior to the election were promising those in integral junior departments that their places would be honoured through to the age of 18, the basis on which they were offered in the first place, whilst those in the free standing preparatory schools would have their place honoured to the end of that school, either 11 or 13. They would not have been able to transfer the place to a separate senior school.
I telephoned Labour Party HQ on 27th February as I was due to take my 8 year old daughter for an examination the following day for entry to a 3–18 girls school. I was told that where a child held or had an offer of a place for September 1997 in an integral junior department of a senior school then that place would be honoured through to the age of 18 if a Labour Government was elected. I was told that this was a clear policy commitment. Laura was successful in gaining the assisted place at the school and I accepted it on the basis of the assurances received.
You will see that the promises made concerning the two types of places i.e. free standing prep schools and schools which essentially 'run through' were in some ways different although in both cases no child would have been forced cruelly to leave the school concerned until that school's natural ending.
Not only do I hope that you will be able to follow these promises but that you will fulfil them. I fully understand and appreciate your party's policy of raising standards in state schools and I hope that you will indeed in time provide each and every child in this country with a level of education now only achieved by the very best. However, I do not see that it is necessary to finance this and the much needed reduction in class sizes for infants at the expense of these, what must be few children who are now devastated at having to be forced out of schools which they, their parents and their schools believed they would be allowed to remain in until the end of their education, 18.
Stephen Byers said earlier in the House to a Conservative MP that he hoped that he would not allow prejudice to get in the way of fact. I hope, Mr Blunkett, that I can ask the same of you particularly as you have said previously that you would put children before political dogma.
I do hope that if the statement you made was a genuine mistake and that you were unaware of the promises made to these children and of the basis on which these places were offered then you will meet with Mr Blair and your junior Ministers and reconsider this matter and allow all children to remain in their current school until the age of 18.
That is a poignant letter. It sets out the understanding of these parents and also quotes Mr. Blair personally. Mr. Kilfoyle made a similar promise. Mr. Blair personally wrote in The Times on 12th February 1998 that no child currently at private school under the scheme, or who had already got a place, had lost out. They would be able to continue their education. It is not surprising that these parents feel let down and misled. I believe that based on those cases there will be further appeals in the courts. There are also letters from Mr. Blunkett, who refers to the provision of all-through schools and raises the expectation that young children who were promised in good faith that they could have a place at an integral prep department at an all-through school would receive education through to the age of 18.
In introducing his amendment, the noble Lord made an interesting U-turn as a result of one court case. How can we deal more sensitively with children already in the system? There is a good deal of insensitivity being shown to these children. The technicality of my amendment to which the noble Lord has referred applies equally to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord. They are both inconsistent with the Act as it is now. The reason why there is an amendment to revisit the assisted school places Act is precisely to allow the Secretary of State to be responsive to the needs of these children. It is necessary to amend the Act. All I seek to do is to honour the real expectation on the part of young people who were offered places in good faith that they would see their education through to the end of secondary education in an all-through school with an integral prep department. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have heard a lot from the noble Baroness about a particular case. I deal first with the case on the basis of which she alleges that we have made a U-turn. This is not a U-turn. We have always had a discretionary power in this respect. The initial application in the case of Alistair Sanderson, in respect of which the noble Baroness seeks further information—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if the noble Lord says that the Government already had discretion why did they not use it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was about to explain that the initial application for the use of that discretion had not been determined at the point when Alistair's parents or solicitor informed us that they would apply for leave for judicial review. They informed us in February that they intended to submit further evidence in support of that application. That information was provided on the day before the hearing of the application for judicial review, so not only had the Government not made a decision on that case prior to imminent judicial review but the full information had not been provided to the Government. Having considered that further information, it was clear that there were four specific factors which taken together made out a case for extended support. That was a case where existing discretion under the Act operated and it was premature for people to bring an action on that basis. By these
1214
amendments we intend to extend that discretion to a case where apparently it does not work in relation to children and to make it clear that there is a possibility of transfer through the exercise of discretionary powers.
The amendment of the noble Baroness does not seek to extend or clarify the discretionary powers but to change the provisions of the Bill which at the moment do not guarantee—it is not the intention of the Government that they should—that there is a place for every pupil who is granted a place at junior level throughout the whole of secondary education. Almost every child in the land changes school at age 11. We do not believe that there should be a general rule to make provision for those children who benefited from the assisted places scheme for a short time when it was well known that we were about to introduce legislation to phase out the scheme. However, we have discretionary powers in that area as well, which we are prepared to exercise. The noble Baroness's amendment goes deliberately further to guarantee it to every such child. That was never the intention of the legislation. We have exercised discretion sensibly on all of those fronts. Out of the 170odd applications we have so far received, in 100 cases we have used our discretion positively in favour of providing what the parents and the school require. That indicates that we are prepared to use discretion. However, we are not prepared to change one of the bases of the Act.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister has responded to the amendment. I must come back to him. He said that is why the amendment is needed. I still do not understand why the amendment is needed. If the amendment is needed for Alistair, then what situation different from Alistair's requires these amendments? The Minister has not given a proper explanation of that.
The Minister went on to say that not every child who is at a school could have the guarantee. My amendment does not seek that. Where a primary school child receives an assisted place, where the assisted place ends at 11 or 13, depending upon the age range of the school, that is outwith my amendment. I do not include that. I include only those young people who received an assisted place to a school where education terminates at the age of 16, 18 or whatever age it may be, so that it goes all the way through.
The Minister said that the Government were prepared to exercise their discretion. Will he tell me the number of children who have been offered assisted places who are now allowed to go through to the end of secondary education?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness is making another speech. I would remind her that the Companion to the Standing Orders states:
"On Report no Lord may speak more than once to an amendment, except the mover of the amendment in reply or the Lord who has obtained leave of the House, which may only be granted to a Lord to explain himself in some material point of his speech".
I do not think that the noble Baroness can claim that she is doing that.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I think my guilt extends to the fact that I did not say, "with the leave of the

1215
House". I was asking for an explanation of what the Minister said. I asked him why the amendment was needed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness's guilt, since she used the word, does not extend to not obtaining the leave of the House. The leave of the House may be granted only:
"to a Lord to explain himself in some material point of his speech".
The noble Baroness was not doing that.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is precisely what I was doing. I was relating every point I made to the explanation the Minister gave to the amendment. I was seeking clarification from him.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, does the noble Baroness seek leave to withdraw her amendment to the amendment?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, yes.
Amendment No. 197D, as an amendment to Amendment No. 197C, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 197C agreed to.
Clause 129 [Dissolution of Funding Agency for Schools]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 198:
Page 99, line 32, after ("Agency") insert ("to which subsection (5) applies").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 131 [Publication of inspection reports]:
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 100, leave out lines 23 to 28.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment leaves out two subsections in Clause 131 which we believe it is important to remove. The two subsections give protection under privilege to any report published by the chief inspector. The amendment would remove such protection. There is some evidence that a number of Ofsted reports have been attacked by those who have received them as factually inaccurate or in some cases they may have been defamatory of those whom they described.
It is thought by some, especially head teachers, that it is unreasonable that professionals can, in a sense, be libelled in that way by Ofsted without a right to redress through the legal system. It is for that reason that we put forward the amendment. If the possibility of a legal challenge were open to the complainant perhaps people would take more care at least to ensure that the factual statements were accurate. There is evidence that people have been concerned about reports. I hope that the Government will look favourably on the amendment.
It can be difficult if people who have been through this experience have no redress when they think that they have been unreasonably represented, or some fact in the report is not correct.
I shall not labour the point at this hour of the night. Nor do I intend to press the amendment. I hope that the Government recognise that it is a problem. Even if they
1216
do not accept the amendment, I hope that they will give some indication as to how they can make the system a little fairer. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining what underlies the amendment. I hope that I can give her the reassurance that she seeks by explaining why the provision is necessary.
As the noble Baroness will know, the defence of qualified privilege exists to protect those who make statements in the discharge of duties imposed on them. Such a defence has existed at common law for at least 150 years without the need for statutory provisions, as the courts have recognised that those who owe a duty to the public to speak out should be able to do so frankly and fully, without fear of actions for defamation.
The rule applies only to such statements when they are made honestly and without malice. In this context, a person making a statement acts with malice when he is not using the occasion on which he made the statement honestly and for the purpose for which the law gives protection, but is actuated by some other motive. So a person who uses the opportunity afforded by a statutory duty to make a report for the purposes of launching a personal attack on another may well be held by the courts to have acted with malice and to have forfeited the defence of qualified privilege.
As Ofsted will be acting in pursuance of a statutory power when it publishes its reports, the defence of qualified privilege will attach to the great majority of those reports. However, there is one exception. The new Section 42A inserted into the School Inspections Act 1996 by Clause 131 expressly allows the publication of these reports "by electronic means"—in other words, on the Internet. It is right that such publication should be allowed in the interests of the widest availability of the reports. But, for technical legal reasons which I hope I need not go into now, such publication may not be covered at common law by the defence of qualified privilege. All that subsection (3) does is to ensure that this does not happen, and that Ofsted is in exactly the same position if it publishes on the Internet as it would be if it published in print: no more and no less than that.
I hope that, with that reassurance, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am not certain that some of the people concerned about these issues will feel totally reassured. Inaccurate information in reports has created difficult situations. It has been reported to us that some people believe that there has been financial loss in schools. I do not have specific examples.
Perhaps the Minister will look more closely at the issue. I understand why the matter is dealt with in this way. However, there have been problems. Although the Minister has described one way in which we can overcome them, there is a problem if there are factual inaccuracies in reports and people do not have the right of redress.

1217
However, in the spirit of the answer, and considering the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 135 [Orders and regulations]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 200 and 201:
Page 102, line 7, after (" 11 (5),") insert (" 20(4A),").
Page 102, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) section 1(3A),").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 139 [General interpretation]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 202:
Page 105, line 30, after ("16(6)") insert ("or (8)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 140 [Index]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 203 to 206:
Page 106, line 28, column 1, leave out ("aggregated") and insert ("individual").
Page 106, line 32, column 1, at end insert ("(except in Part I of Schedule 32)").
Page 107, line 19, column 1, leave out ("general") and insert ("local").
Page 107, line 27, at end insert—

("land or other property held on trust, or by trustees, for the purposes of a school

section 21(3)(c)")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 142 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 207 to 209E:
Page 110, line 43, leave out ("(other than subsections (9) and (10))").
Page 111, line 2, at end insert—
("section (Transfer of assisted places);").
Page 111, line 3, leave out ("139") and insert (" 138").
Page 111, line 5, after ("11;") insert—
("paragraph 201A of Schedule 30 (and section 137(1) so far as relating thereto);").
Page 111, line 7, leave out subsection (5).
Page 111, line 19, leave out ("subsection (8)") and insert ("subsections (7A) and (8)").
Page 111, line 19, at end insert—
("(7A) Section (Transfer of assisted places)(2) extends to Scotland only; and this section extends also to Scotland.").
Page 111, line 20, after ("or") insert ("(subject to subsection (9))").
Page 111, line 22, at end insert (", and section 137 extends accordingly.").
Page 111, line 22, at end insert—
("(9) The entry in Schedule 31 relating to the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 extends to Scotland only.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 30 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 210 to 219:
Page 240, line 22, at end insert—
("Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (c.13)
. The Further and Higher Education Act 1992 shall be amended as follows.
. In section 5(4) (administration of funds by councils), for "grant-maintained school" substitute "maintained school".
. In section 21 (initial instruments and articles)—

(a) in subsection (1), omit—

(i) paragraph (a), and

(ii) "(b) in any other case,";

(b) in subsection (2), omit—

(i) "orders and",

(ii) in paragraph (a), "grant-maintained school or other", and

(iii) in paragraph (b), "grant-maintained schools or other"; and

(c) in subsection (3), for the words from "a grant-maintained" to "earlier enactment)" substitute "a maintained school, the governing body incorporated under Chapter III of Part II of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998".

. For section 25 substitute—
"Transfer of property, etc from foundation bodies.
25.—(1) This section applies where a further education corporation is established to conduct an institution which, on the date the corporation is established, is a foundation or voluntary school belonging to the group of schools for which a foundation body acts under section 21 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.
(2) Regulations may make such provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient in connection with the transfer, in any such case, of property, rights and liabilities from the foundation body to the further education corporation.
(3) Regulations under subsection (2) may, in relation to any such transfer of property, rights or liabilities—

(a) modify any provision made by or under any of sections 23, 24, 36 and 38 of this Act and Schedule 5 to this Act;

(b) apply any such provision with or without modifications;

(c) make provision corresponding or similar to any such provision.

(4) In this section "foundation body" and "group of schools" have the same meaning as in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998."
. In section 26 (transfer of staff to further education corporation)—

(a) in subsection (1), omit "or was a grant-maintained school"; and

(b) in subsection (6)—

(i) for "that authority" substitute "references to that authority, and", and

(ii) for paragraphs (b) and substitute—

"(b) in relation to a corporation established to conduct an institution which, on that date, was a foundation or voluntary aided school, references to the governing body of that school."
. In section 28(2)(a) (designation of institutions as eligible for funds) after "school" insert "(other than one belonging to a group of schools for which a foundation body acts under section 21 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998)".
. In section 32 (transfer of property, etc., to designated institutions), after subsection (2) insert—
"(2A) In the case of an institution which when designated was a voluntary aided school, on the designation date—

(a) all land and other property which, immediately before that date, was property of the governing body of the school incorporated under Chapter III of Part II of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, and

(b) all rights and liabilities of that body subsisting immediately before that date,

shall be transferred to and, by virtue of this Act, vest in the governing body of the designated institution; and the governing body of the school shall be dissolved on that date."
. In section 37 (attribution of surpluses and deficits)—

(a) in subsection (1), for "section 103 of the Education Act 1996 (schemes for financing schools)" substitute "section 48 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (LEAs' financial schemes)"; and

(b) in subsection (7), in the definition of "budget share", for "Part II of the Education Act 1996" substitute "Part II of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998".

. In section 44(1) (collective worship)—
(a) for the words from "was a" to the end substitute "was—

(a) (within the meaning of the Education Act 1996) a voluntary school, or

(b) (within the meaning of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998) a foundation or voluntary school having a foundation established otherwise than under that Act."

. In section 45(1) (religious education) for the words from "means" to the end substitute "has the same meaning as in section 44."
. In section 47(2) (transfer of higher education institutions to further education sector) for the words from "any provision" to the end substitute "provision as to the initial name of the corporation as a further education corporation."
. In section 48 (statutory conditions of employment)—

(a) in subsection (1)(a) for "voluntary or grant-maintained" substitute "foundation or voluntary aided", and

(b) in subsection (2)(a) for "voluntary or grant-maintained" substitute "foundation or voluntary aided".

. In section 58(3) (reorganisations of schools involving establishment of further education corporation), for paragraph (b) substitute—
"(b) a prescribed alteration within the meaning of section 27 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 has been made to the school,".
. In section 90 (interpretation)—
(a) after subsection (3) insert—
"(3A) In this Act references to a voluntary aided school are—

(a) in relation to any time before the appointed day within the meaning of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, references to a voluntary aided school within the meaning of the Education Act 1996; or

(b) in relation to any time on or after that day, references to a voluntary aided school within the meaning of the 1998 Act."; and.

(b) in subsection (5), at end insert "and section 137(2) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 has effect for defining the expressions there mentioned." ").

Page 240, line 36, leave out from ("subsection") to ("subsection") in line 37 and insert ("(5A) (inserted by Schedule 3 to the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998) insert—
"(5B) In addition, in").
Page 240, line 39, leave out ("any school to which section 21(9)(a) or (b)") and insert ("any body to which section (Charitable status of maintained schools, etc.)(1)(a) or (b)").
Page 240, line 44, leave out (" 21(11)") and insert ("(Charitable status of maintained schools, etc.)(3)").
Page 240, line 46, leave out (" 21(11)") and insert ("(Charitable status of maintained schools, etc.)(3)").
Page 243, line 5, after ("for") insert (""maintained or").
Page 243, line 6, leave out (""community or foundation special") and insert (""maintained").
Page 251, line 21, at end insert—
(" . Omit sections 500 to 505 (rationalisation of school places)."). Page 251, line 33, at end insert—
(" . In section 510 (provision of clothing)—

(a) in subsection (1)(a) and (c), omit "or at a grant-maintained school" wherever occurring;

(b) in subsection (3)(a), omit "or a grant-maintained school";

(c) in subsection (4)(a), omit ", at a grant-maintained school"; and

(d) in subsection (5)(a), omit "grant-maintained school or".").

Page 252, line 16, at end insert—
(" . In section 525 (offence of neglecting the cleanliness of a pupil), in subsection (3), omit "or a grant-maintained school".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 220 and 221 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 222 to 228A:
Page 252, line 27, leave out ("and submitted").
Page 252, line 49, at end insert—
(" . Omit section 536 (medical inspection and treatment of pupils at grant-maintained schools).").
Page 257, line 21, leave out from ("(2),") to end of line 22 and insert ("omit the words from "and "alterations" onwards,").
Page 258, line 39, at end insert—
(" . Schedule 28 (government and conduct of grant-maintained special schools) shall be omitted.").
Page 262, line 19, at end insert—
(" In Schedule 6 (consequential amendments), omit paragraph 7.").
Page 263, line 20, at end insert—
(" . Omit section 50 (recoupment by local education authority of costs of teachers' premature retirement).").
Page 263, line 22, at end insert—
(" . In section 57 (minor and consequential amendments, repeals etc), omit subsections (2) and (3).").
Page 263, line 28, at end insert—
("Education (Schools) Act 1997 (c.59)
201A. In section 2 of the Education (Schools) Act 1997 (transitional arrangements for existing assisted pupils), after subsection (6) add—
"(7) Nothing in subsection (1) shall be taken as prejudicing the operation of any regulations under section 3 by virtue of which assisted places authorised to be provided under that subsection by a former participating school may instead be so provided by another such school or a new school created on the merger of such a school with another school.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 31 [Repeals]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 228B to 231:
Page 264, line 51, at end insert—

("1980 c. 44. Education (Scotland)

In section 75A(9A), the

Act 1980.

word "and" immediately preceding paragraph (b).")

Page 267, column 3, leave out lines 13 and 14.
Page 269, column 3, leave out line 48 and insert ("In section 573, in subsection (2) the words from "and "alterations'"' onwards, and subsections (4) to (6).").
Page 269, column 3, leave Out lines 50 to 53 and insert ("Section 576(2).").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 32 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 232 to 234:
Page 272, line 23, after ("effect") insert ("on and").
Page 274, line 27, leave out ("appointed day (as defined by") and insert ("day appointed under").
Page 274, line 43, at end insert—
("Limits on class sizes
.—(1) The transitional provision which may be made for the purposes of section 1 by regulations under section 141(1) includes provision with respect to any relevant time—

(a) for disapplying to any extent in relation to existing maintained schools (whether or not subject to compliance with any prescribed requirements) section 411(6), 416(1) or 426(1) of the Education Act 1996 (provisions about admission numbers);

(b) for otherwise modifying any of the provisions (whether statutory provisions or articles of government) which are relevant to the determination or publication of the arrangements—

(i) for the admission of pupils to such schools, or

(ii) for appeals by parents against decisions taken in relation to the admission of pupils to such schools,

or to the procedure relating to such appeals;

(c) for requiring or authorising bodies responsible for determining such arrangements to determine and publish fresh arrangements, subject to such consultation as may be prescribed, where arrangements previously determined (or previously determined and published) by them are to any extent inconsistent with the provisions mentioned in paragraph (b) as they have effect in accordance with the regulations.

(2) Regulations made in pursuance of paragraph (b) of sub-paragraph (1) may, in particular, modify the provisions mentioned in that paragraph so that they apply in relation to existing maintained schools with the addition of provisions whose purposes correspond to those of any of paragraphs 6(5), 10(5) and 11 of Schedule 23 to this Act.
(3) In this paragraph—
"existing maintained school" means—

(a) any county or voluntary school, or

(b) any grant-maintained school,

within the meaning of the Education Act 1996;
"relevant time'", in relation to an existing maintained school, means any time after the coming into force of regulations under section 1 by virtue of which any limit on class size is to apply, or be varied, in relation to the school.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 234A:
Page 275, leave out line 4.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I seek to remove a line in the Bill which was, at one stage, the very last line in the Bill and something of an afterthought. There are now other passages in the Bill. It is on page 275 and refers to line 4.
This amendment seeks to remove the Secretary of State's powers to revoke or vary a grant-maintained school's right to disapply pay and conditions. This is an Oratory School amendment. That school fought quite hard for this facility to allow paragraphs 6(a) and (b) to be put into the Bill. At the very last minute appeared the words:
"and any such order may be varied or revoked accordingly".
Either those grant-maintained schools are to be allowed to continue with that facility or they are not. We are very worried that the Government may have some future intention to remove it. I believe that there has been a genuine oversight here. I hope it is an oversight. I hope that the Government will agree to my amendment. I suspect, from the way that they have resisted almost everything that we have suggested, they will not. However, I ask them to look that school in the eye and say why the Secretary of State is to retain a power to revoke or to vary a grant-maintained school's right to disapply pay and conditions. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am tempted to respond to the somewhat excessive paranoia on behalf of the London Oratory. However, in this case and many of the others that have been referred to, the concern is misplaced. There is no ulterior motive behind those words. They simply serve to make paragraph 6 of the schedule work. But it is rather a complicated matter to explain.
Clause 13 of the Bill amends Section 3 of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act. It does so by substituting a completely new section. Only two orders, including the one to which the noble Baroness referred, have been made under the existing Section 3 and those orders will still be in force when the entirely new Section 3 comes into force.
It is true that we have no wish to extend any such exemption to other schools but we have made it quite clear that we accept that the position relating to those schools should stand. Paragraph 6 of Schedule 32 is a saving provision. It serves to protect the existing orders from the effect of the repeal of the old Section 3. It provides that any such order which relates to a grant-maintained school which becomes a foundation or voluntary-aided school under the new framework shall continue to have effect.
The words in line 4 of page 275 provide that:
"any such order",
that is, these orders,
"may be varied or revoked accordingly".
That means that any such order can be varied or revoked under the powers previously contained in old Section 3 as though that section were still in force and notwithstanding its repeal. It therefore simply suggests the restoration of the pre-existing position.

1223
Moreover, the orders are subject to Section 570(3) of the Education Act 1996 which provides that no order varying or revoking an order under old Section 3 could be made unless two preconditions apply. Those conditions are that the governing body initiates the process and that it must consult the school teachers concerned beforehand. Paragraph 6 operates to preserve that position. It does not grant to the Secretary of State any greater powers in respect of those two outstanding orders than he currently has. It certainly does not allow him of his own volition, as the noble Baroness suggested, to initiate a variation or revocation, nor does it alter the present position of the schools concerned. I therefore think the amendment is unnecessary and could be a restrictive provision should the schools themselves wish to vary the form of their exemption at a future date. I am sure that is not the intention of the noble Baroness, and I therefore ask her to reconsider and withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I find the answers more gobbledy-gookish as we go along. The provision states that,
"any such order may be varied or revoked accordingly".
That gives a power to vary and a power to revoke. As these are schools that exist, as it states in paragraph 6:
"The amendment made by section 13 of this Act shall not affect the operation of section 3 of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991, as in force immediately before that amendment comes into force, in relation to any order made under section 3 of that Act which—

(a) is then in force; and

(b) relates to a grant-maintained school which becomes a foundation or voluntary aided school on the appointed day in accordance with Schedule 2 to this Act",

if the Government have no intention of varying or revoking such an order, then we would not wish him to have this power. If he has the power, then we remain suspicious as to why he should need it. Therefore I do not understand it.
1224
I am pleased that it was the noble Lord who put on the record the paranoia of the Oratory. It happens to be a particularly good school.
Lord Whitty: Would the—
Baroness Blatch: I will not give way at this moment. Maybe the noble Lord will come back if the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will allow it under the rules.
The school has been singled out by very senior members of his own party as being a school of outstanding excellence. I agree with that.
If all schools were like the Oratory, we would not have any problems in this country. Some of the important freedoms the Oratory has today will be lost under the Bill, some of which we have mentioned tonight and one or two that the Government have already voted against. It is not paranoia; it is a passion for allowing schools like that to remain good, to remain in the system and to enjoy the flexibility and the autonomy that they have had under the Conservative government, which we understand Mr. Byers and Mr. Blair agreed with. We are simply asking the Government to amend the Bill in a way that would allow that to happen. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 235 and 236:
Page 275, line 4, at end insert—
("Orders for purposes of section 20(4A)
. The Secretary of State may only make an order under section 20(4A) where he considers it appropriate to do so on an application made for the purpose by—

(a) the former maintaining authority (within the meaning of that provision), or

(b) the local education authority in whose area the school in question will be situated immediately before the appointed day,

and received by him not later than 30th November 1998.").
Page 275, line 26, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 27.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at three minutes before eleven o'clock

  Agriculture Council, 22–26 June
  Agriculture Council, 22–26 June
  TB in Cattle: Research Proposals
  TB in Cattle: Research Proposals
  Organophosphates: Questions to COT
  Organophosphates: Questions to COT
  Organophosphates: Research
  Organophosphates: Research
  Indonesia: Payment for Armaments
  Indonesia: Payment for Armaments
  Campsfield House Detainees: Removal from UK
  Campsfield House Detainees: Removal from UK
  Independent Commission on the Voting System
  Independent Commission on the Voting System
  Mr. E. J. Esemuze
  Mr. E. J. Esemuze
  Prisoners on Cellular Punishment: Reading Matter
  Prisoners on Cellular Punishment: Reading Matter
  Prisoners: Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme
  Prisoners: Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme
  Rough Sleepers: Social Exclusion Unit Proposals
  Rough Sleepers: Social Exclusion Unit Proposals
  British Library: Adjacent Land
  British Library: Adjacent Land
  Arts Council Chairmanship
  Arts Council Chairmanship
  Building Regulations Amendments
  Building Regulations Amendments
  Housing Applicants: Immigration Status Checks
  Housing Applicants: Immigration Status Checks
  Rail Subsidy Payments
  Rail Subsidy Payments